Cottonwoods support the banks of New
Mexico’s Gila River, and sycamores shade endangered
Southwestern willow flycatchers and threatened loach minnows. For
those who live near it, the Gila – the state’s last
free-flowing river – is both a source of water and a font of
contention.
In 2004, the Arizona Water Settlements Act
re-distributed some water rights to the Colorado River, including
an award for the Gila, a tributary that flows into Arizona. The
growing New Mexico counties of the upper Gila got a minimum of $66
million for water-supply projects and 14,000 acre-feet annually of
the river’s water. Area residents have been squabbling about
what to do with the millions, and the water, ever since. The state
says more study is needed to decide how to use the water. But
environmentalists fear that it’s taking a single-minded
approach – to dam or divert the river.
In
mid-March, Gov. Bill Richardson, D, made more waves on the Gila,
vetoing a $945,000 appropriation that would have funded planning
for the water-supply projects. The governor nixed the funds for the
state engineer’s office and the Interstate Stream Commission,
said spokesman Jon Goldstein, because the appropriation’s
language (specifically the word “development”) alarmed
many environmental groups.
Organizations such as Amigos
Bravos and Environment New Mexico celebrated the veto, and believe
it sent a strong message to the state: Go back to the table.
“Our main complaint with the Interstate Stream Commission is
that we feel they should give equal weight to other alternatives.
They’ve focused all their attention, and studies, on a
diversion project,” says Dutch Salmon, a member of the Gila
Conservation Coalition. The coalition has proposed using the $66
million for water-conservation projects, including drip irrigation,
repairs to leaky infrastructure, and watershed restoration.
Coalition members also believe the area’s growing water needs
can be met by drilling wells rather than by damming the river.
Craig Roepke, deputy director of the Interstate Stream
Commission, says that the state has not yet decided on a specific
water-supply project. “The appropriation would have funded an
integrated plan of ecological studies,” he says, to collect
baseline data on the river to find out how much, if any, water can
be diverted.
The veto has changed the future course of
the Gila River once again. Planning efforts are on hold; both the
state and environmental groups are looking to the governor for
their next steps. And Richardson, says Goldstein, will be seeking
consensus — on both the best way to supply water, and on how much
water is needed for future growth.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
