The Pecos River in New Mexico

New Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionPresented to the Pecos River Water Quality Coalition

October 21, 2011

The 1948 Pecos Compact

• Signed by TX and NM after years of contentious negotiations

• Principal tenet of Compact is that NM “shall not deplete by man’s activities the flow of the Pecos River at the NM-TX state line” below the “1947 condition”

The Compact &

Decree Require • Deliveries to

Texas calculated on a calendar-year basis

• Use of the Supreme Court River Master’s Manual & decisions

• Rapid “repayment” of any net shortfalls

Pecos Compact Compliance

• NM unable to meet Compact delivery requirements– Large factor is declining base flow

gains to river – Caused by increased groundwater

pumping in Roswell Basin• NM under-delivers to TX roughly

10,000 AF/yr mid-1950s to mid-1980s

19051906190719081909191019111912191319141915191619171918191919201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920100

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Year

Ba

se

In

flo

w (

KA

F/Y

)Base Inflow to the Pecos River

Acme to Artesia

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

Pecos River Cumulative Delivery Departures from Obligation 1952 - 2010

Cumulative Departure Curve

Year

Dep

artu

re in

Th

ou

san

d o

f A

F

Paid $14 Million for failure to comply

Purchased $88 Million in water rights & leases

(1992 - 2008)

Consensus Agreement

adopted

99.6 TAF

Pecos Compact Compliance

• TX sues NM in Supreme Court in 1974

• NM loses, pays $14 million fine and• Must now abide by Court’s 1988

Amended Decree– Federal River Master oversees all

deliveries to TX– No net delivery shortfall allowed– Rapid repayment required if shortfall

occurs– Non-compliance likely result: loss of

state control over its water resources

Pecos Compact CompliancePost-Decree

• NM purchases and leases over $30 million in water rights during 1990s to meet Compact/Decree terms

• NM stays in compliance, but barely• Drought of early 2000s looked to

push NM into shortfall• Dire conditions brought water

interests together to start developing what would become the Pecos Settlement

Settlement Chronology

• July 2001 – Anticipating a net delivery shortfall to Texas, ISC sets up an ad-hoc committee to develop:– a short-term plan to avoid a net

shortfall in 2001– a long-term plan to avoid future priority

calls

Settlement Chronology – Cont’d

• March 25, 2003: Pecos Settlement Signed by all Parties– State Engineer– Interstate Stream Commission– The United States (DOI –BOR)– Carlsbad Irrigation District– Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy

District

Settlement Objectives

• Permanent compliance with the Pecos River Compact and Decree

• Increased and stable water supply for Carlsbad Irrigation District

• Reduced likelihood of a priority call on the Pecos River

• Bring basin back into hydrologic balance

Key Hydrologic Elements

• Retire up to 6,000 acres of irrigation rights within CID and up to 11,000 acres within PVACD

• Augmentation pumping up to 35,000 AFY, but not more than 100,000 AF during each 5-year accounting period

• Use CID water allocated to ISC lands for reallocation to CID farmers and for state line delivery

7,488

4,498

11,986

12

2

14

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

PVACD CID Total

Ac

res

Acreage Yet To Be Negotiated

Acreage Purchased

Target = 7,500

Target = 4,500

ISC Pecos Settlement Land/Water Acquisitions: December 2009

Target = 12,000

Augmentation Pumping Capacity

10,000

4,0001,750

15,750

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Seven Rivers Well Field

Lake Arthur Pipeline

Hagerman Canal

Total Capacity (AF/Y)

Cap

acit

y (a

cre-

feet

/yea

r)

Target = 10,000

Target = 4,000

Target = 15,750

Target = 1,750

Pecos Settlement Implemented

On June 11, 2009 Pecos Settlement Parties Jointly Declared “that the Conditions Precedent required for implementation of the Settlement Agreement have been sufficiently satisfied such that the Settlement Parties agree that the settlement terms should now be implemented”

Augmentation Well Fields

Lake Arthur Well Field

• 5 wells• Original capacity 7,900 gpm• Design capacity 10,000 gpm

Well Name

Well Depth (ft bgl)

Depth to Water (ft bgl)

HP Transmissivity (ft2/day)

Design Capacity

(gpm)

Total Dissolved

Solids (mg/L)

B 808 56.1 300 6,520 2,500 1,772

C 763 23.4 250 6,800 2,500 2,418

E 1,004 25.1 150 1,200 1,000 2,203

G 637 32.8 250 16,100 to 16,500 3,000 2,300

H 803 59.1 200 20,500 2,500 1,948

I 692 65.7 200 19,000 2,500 1,898

J 743 87.3 200 28,000 1,500 1,900

K 803 118.1 200 22,600 1,300 1,287

L 693 76.9 200 16,100 2,200 2,000

Q 992 8.3 250 590 1,000 2,960

7-Rivers Well Summary

Settlement Benefits to the ISC

• On average, an additional 9,400 AFY is delivered to the state line

• A mechanism is in place to deliver additional water to the state line within a short period of time if there is ever a net shortfall

• Potential to build a delivery credit of 115,000 AF

Practical Aspects of Settlement

Implementation• Augmentation pumping is required

according to Settlement schedule• Seven Rivers pumping cost ≈ $60/acre-

foot• Estimated “average” annual

augmentation pumping about 12,000 acre-feet/year

• “Average” annual ISC pumping cost roughly $700,000/year– Electricity + O&M

Where Are We This Year?

• Current Augmentation Pumping Rates:– Seven Rivers – 17,400 gpm or 39 cfs

• ISC has pumped over 11,500 acre-feet of water since March 1st to augment CID’s supply

• Due to large net credit no pumping for Texas this year

Where Are We This Year?

• 2011 is the driest year on record in the Pecos Basin

• Augmentation pumping cannot replace lack of natural river flow

• Likely to end year with annual Pecos Compact deficit

• NM will maintain net credit – current net credit is 99,600 acre-feet

Endangered Species Act Issues

Endangered Species Act Issues

• Many ESA and other environmental issues on Pecos River

• Primary water management threat is the Federally threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner

• Principal challenge is meeting mandated minimum flows, especially in consecutive drought years

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Management Challenges

• Avoiding river intermittency in critical habitat reaches–Ensure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Biological Opinion flow requirements are met (35 cfs Below Taiban gage, wet at Acme gage)

• Violating BO could have significant negative ramifications

ISC’s Role in PBNS Management

• Vaughan Conservation Pipeline near Fort Sumner– Supply the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

roughly 1,500 AF/Y as needed (up to ≈ 13 cfs)

– Provides water to river at top of critical habitat reach

– Important tool for compliance

PBNS Status in 2011• Due to extraordinary drought

– River intermittency has occurred over portion of critical habitat

– Despite enormous effort by Reclamation to acquire additional water• options extremely limited

– Agencies working collaboratively to protect as much habitat as possible• prepare for second consecutive dry

year

Vaughan Pipeline Outfall

Vaughan Pipeline Discharge

Pecos Salinity Efforts

• New Mexico has long supported efforts to reduce Pecos salinity:– Malaga Bend well pumping in River Master Manual

(currently Southwest Salt)– Ongoing support for WRDA

• annual letters to delegation asking for support• Memorials passed by State Legislature

– Ongoing water quality monitoring from augmentation well fields

• WRDA support on Rio Grande– Provided initial seed money ($250K) to initiate the § 729

activities by the ACOE

Triggers for Well Field Operation

(in terms of Project supply available to CID)

• March 1 50,000 AF (Determined Nov 1)• May 1 60,000 AF (Determined Mar 1)• June 1 65,000 AF (Determined May 1)• July 15 75,000 AF (Determined Jun 1)• September 1 90,000 AF (Determined Jul 15)

Where Are We This Year?

Projection Date Target Date

Target Supply (AF)

Supply on Target Date

(AF)

Required Pumping

(AF)

Supply on Target

Date (AF)Required

Pumping (AF)November 1 March 1 50,000 55,516 0 53,659 0

March 1 May 1 60,000 74,918 0 52,475 7,525May 1 June 1 65,000 90,163 0 51,180 13,820June 1 July 15 75,000 98,228 0 53,977* 21,023July 15 September 1 90,000 113,415 0 49,371 40,629**

Pecos Settlement Augmentation Triggers 2010 2011

Information for this table was taken from pages 11 and 12 of the Settlement Agreement*Value used for projection and supply from July 5 instead of July 15 due to ongoing block release** Value is larger than maximum pumping allowed by Settlement of 35,000 AF in one year