DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! The New Mexico Independent is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

The New Mexico Independent

Jump to original thread »
Author

The big H2O transfer

Started by nmindependent · 9 months ago

ALBUQUERQUE — If you want to know how Rio Rancho, Santa Fe and other water-poor New Mexico communities keep growing, check the legal ads. Deep in the fine print you’ll see the steady trickle of water rights away from land once covered in alfalfa or chile and into housing de ... Continue reading »

5 comments

  • hemingway

    11 months ago

    This question of water rights is so important. We have one candidate for Congress, Ed Tinsley III pressuring the Village of Capitan and Lincoln County for water rights for his Ranchos de Caballos development. After being turned down by the Village of Capitan, he has gone forward with the LLC, the development and plans to make the subdivision a shared-well offering. Lincoln County is a model of irresponsible development and growth, and Mr. Tinsley has contributed to this. We need a story on this matter!
    reply
  • greenman

    11 months ago

    While the OSE continues to play the shell game (where's the water now...) with our limited resource, we need to add our voices to those that share a common view of what is best for our children. Is what we are doing truly sustainable? I don't think so.
    reply
  • davidzet

    11 months ago

    This article is missing a HUGE element, namely a discussion of the difference between diversion rights and consumption rights. If a farmer diverts 10AF of water, 2-3AF may evaporate, but the rest returns to the river. If that same farmer sells 10AF to a city, the groundwater is NOT recharged, reducing flow in the river and available water for all. I *sure hope* that OSE is taking these differences into account. If not, the river will be dry long before "all" the rights are sold.
    reply
  • jgay

    11 months ago

    To answer Davidzet's question, the OSE bases its transfers on consumptive use of water, not how much is diverted, and the rate is 2.1 acre/feet (consumptive use) per acre of land. I chose not to delve into that issue in my article in hopes of not making it any longer, but the issue that Davidzet raises is a real concern to many farmers. They call it carriage loss. When water rights are sold far upstream, less water is diverted into the irrigation ditch, which reduces the water pressure at each field along the ditch. With less water pressure, it takes longer to irrigate a field, waters the field unevenly and can increase evaporative loss. The remaining water in the ditch that doesn't flow into fields does, in fact, return to the river and recharge the aquifer.
    Joel Gay
    reply
  • unclesteve

    11 months ago

    This is one of the best stories I've seen on a very complex issue: the survival of the Rio Grande, its environmental and agricultural dependents. A good follow up might be the way the state of New Mexico is beginning to grapple with the need to balance protection with development. In 2004, the Legislature passed "Strategic Water Reserve" legislation, a program to secure water rights for endangered species and Compact compliance.

    Another newsworthy development on this front is Taos County's effort to define "Public Welfare" to include cultural, agricultural and ecological water needs. I hope that public awareness of the limits on what we can expect from the Rio Grande and the need to do some very deliberate things to respect these limits, to live within our means. Mr. Gay: please stay on this beat.
    reply
Please login to comment.
Returning? Login