&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research EPA-600/2-78-174C
Laboratory August 1978
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors
in Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control
Volume
Middle Rio Grande
Valley Case Study
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology tequired for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-6oo/2-78-i7*»c
August 1978
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume III: Middle Rio Grande Valley Case Study
by
Warren L. Trock
Paul C. Huszar
George E. Radosevich
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Evan C. Vlachos
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80J523
Grant R-803572
Project Officer
James P. Law, Jr.
Sources Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 7^820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 7^820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 'and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
i i
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the Nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: a) investigate
the nature, transport, fate, and management of pollutants in groundwater;
b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with soil and
other natural systems; c) develop and demonstrate pollution control tech-
nologies for irrigation return flows; d) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for animal production wastes; 3) develop and demonstrate
technologies to prevent, control, or abate pollution from the petroleum
refining and petrochemical industries; and f) develop and demonstrate tech-
nologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations of industrial
wastewaters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA is to
meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and enforce
pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and pro-
vide adequate protection for the American people.
William C. Galegar
Di rector
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
i i i
-------
PREFACE
This report concentrates on the presentation of a process for Imple-
menting technical and institutional solutions to the problem of return flow
pollution. This process, under the general title of "Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors in Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control," was
centered around a methodological and pragmatic definition of the problem
and identification and assessment of a wide range of potential solutions
for diverse situations. Four separate but interrelated volumes summarize
the study:
Volume I — Methodology (Main Report)
Volume II — Yakima Case Study
Volume III — Middle Rio Grande Case Study
Volume IV — Grand Valley Case Study.
Volume I (the main report) summarizes the overall research approach of
the study; the methodological premises; the nature of the problem; the
process for identifying and assessing appropriate solutions; and, some
general remarks and conclusions concerning the process of implementation.
Volumes II to IV allow for an in-depth presentation of the approach uti-
lized as well as specific findings and recommendations relating to the
problems of each case.
The interdisciplinary team has also prepared a separate "executive
summary" which is quite a shortened version and with the help of accom-
panying illustrations attempts to provide in a succinct form the major
findings of the study as well as the proposition involved in the identi-
fication, assessment and evaluation of potential solutions concerning
irrigation return flow.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
Degradation of water quality, as a consequence of use in irrigation in
the Lower Rio Grande of New Mexico, is a largely unavoidable phenomenon. In
this region annual allocations of water to irrigated farms, about 2.5 acre-
feet per acre, are little more than enough to produce crops of cotton, wheat,
barley, sorghum, alfalfa, nuts, and vegetables of several kinds. Evaporation
and transpiration, occurring because of irrigation, cause concentrations of
salts in return flows to be greatly increased, and the addition of these
highly saline return flows to a quite limited flow of water in the Rio Grande
causes the quality of the river water to be significantly reduced.
It is possible to affect the quantity and quality of return flows by
improvement of water transport facilities (canals, laterals and ditches) and
by improved management of water on some farms. These two technical improve-
ments can be accomplished by extension of technical assistance through exist-
ing federal and state agencies and by cost-sharing programs such as the
Agricultural Conservation Program. But it is also possible to achieve im-
proved management of water on farms by facilitating exchanges or sales of
allotments among farmers who are members of irrigation districts. Such
transfers ordinarily result in improved use of water, i.e;, a more conserva-
tive use of water and employment of this scarce input in higher-valued uses.
The consequence is some reduction in return flows and thus improvement in the
quality of water in the Rio Grande River.
Future efforts to improve the quality of return flows in this region
should recognize the inevitable consequence of irrigation, i.e., concentra-
tion of salts in reduced volumes of water, and they should include institution
al mechanisms, e.g., cost-sharing, water markets, and conservation programs,
which are useful to improved allocation and use of water in the region.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-803572 by
Colorado State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period between February 1*4, 1975,
to November 14, 1977, and work was completed as of May k, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Preface iv
Abstract . v
Figures vi i
Tables vi i i
Acknowledgment Fx
1. Introduction 1
Description of the Area 1
Development of Irrigation 2
The Water Quality Problem 3
Objective of this Report 3
2. Conclusions k
3. Recommendations 8
k. Characteristics of the Study Area 9
Physical Characteristics 9
Economic Characteristics ^
Social Characteristics 18
Legal Characteristics 27
5. Nature of the Problem W
Water O.uality Standards M
Existing Water Quality ^5
Sources of Water Quality Degradation 48
Problems Due to Existing Water Quality ... 62
Future Water Quality Considerations 63
6. Causes of the Problem 65
Introduction °5
Physical Causes °5
Economic Causes 66
Legal Causes °9
Social Causes 71
7. Identification of Potential Solutions 75
Physical Solutions 75
Economic Solutions ... 7o
Legal Solutions 80
Social Solutions "0
Combinations of Solutions 82
8. Assessment of Potential Solutions 84
Evaluation by the Research Team 85
Field Assessment of Potential Solutions 106
Summary of Results 1^
References ..... 116
Bibliography - 117
Appendix A 128
Appendix B . . . . 13^
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 The Middle Rio Grande Valley 10
2 Institutional structure, Rio Grande Project, New Mexico 23
3 Variations in water quality at El Paso 50
k Salt loading in Rio Grande between Elephant Butte
Reservoir and Rincon Valley 52
5 Salt loading in Rio Grande from Mesilla Valley 53
6 Salt loading in the Rio Grande from El Paso Valley 55
7 Salt loading in the Upper Rio Grande 56
8 Contribution of inflowing streams to increased salt
load from Otowi Bridge to San Marcial 58
9 Effect of water allocation on ground water use 60
10 Relationship of ground water pumped to load of
salt in drains 61
11 Costs of production of agricultural crops, with and
without internal ization of pollution costs 69
12 Demand for and supply of water with and without
water transfers 78
13 Demand for and supply of water with and without a
pollution tax 79
1A Irrigation scheduling components 102
VI I I
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Average Temperature and Precipitation at Caballo
Dam and El Paso, 1941-1970 13
2 Crop Production, Yields and Values, Rio Grande
Project and Hudspeth Irrigation District, 1972 16
3 Irrigable and Irrigated Areas, Rio Grande Project
and Hudspeth District, 1974 19
4 Water Users, Irrigable Areas and Population, Rio
Grande Project and Hudspeth Irrigation District, 1974 20
5 Discharge of Conejos River and Rio Grande,
Exclusive of Conejos River, Colorado 40
6 Discharge of Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge and
Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico 41
7 Delivery Schedule of Water From the United States
to Mexico 41
8 Water Quality Standards, Rio Grande, Texas and
New Mexico 46
9 Total Dissolved Solids at Selected Stations 47
10 Discharge and Salt Concentrations of Drainage
Waters of the Rio Grande Project 49
11 Irrigation Allotments and Reservoir Storage 68
12 Summary of Technological and Institutional Alternatives
Appropriate to Improvement of Irrigation Return Flows,
Kio Grande Project 86
13 Average Diversions to American Canal at El Paso,
Texas, 1939-1970 99
14 Rationale for Discussions of Water Quality Problems
with Water Use Administrators, Distribution System
Managers and Water Users 1°7
15 Summary of Responses of Agency Personnel,
District Managers and Water Users to
Technological and Institutional Alternatives 110
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the preparation of this report, the authors have received the
cooperation and assistance of a great number of people. The guidance of
Dr. James P. Law, Jr., Project Officer, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, is gratefully acknowledged. Particular
thanks are extended to Hugh Barrett, Jim Layton, Mel Sabey, Steve Smith,
and Dennis Stickley for the laborious hours spent in interviews, library
research and preparation of drafts of the report.
The authors are deeply indebted to the many fanners, state water
resource agency personnel, and many in their capacity as managers and
directors of irrigation districts and companies in the various states,
who provided invaluable information to the team members during inter-
views and in supplying reports and data.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The general goal of this research project has been the development of an
effective process for implementing technical and institutional solutions to
the problem of irrigation return flow pollution. The present report, based
on a case study of the Rio Grande Project in New Mexico/Texas, contains
specific findings per the proposed process, namely: a) definition of the
problem in its physical, technological, legal, economic, and social para-
meters; b) identification of potential solutions in relation to key elements
of the problem; c) assessment of the potential solutions for significance and
acceptability; and d) specification of those solutions which hold greatest prom-
ise of efficiency and implementabi1ity.
In the main report, the theoretical basis for and the components of an
implementation process have been elaborated. In this case study report the
experiences of the research team in the practical employment of the process
are recounted. Observations, analyses and conclusions are reported and the
process is evaluated in terms of its applicability to the study area.
Thus, it should be evident that each case study, although autonomous,
should be related to the main report so that specific findings can be inter-
preted in the context of the more general principles and concepts which are
involved in the process of implementation.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
The Rio Grande rises at an elevation of over 14,000 feet (4,267.2 m) on
the eastern slope of the'San Juan Mountains in southern Colorado. After flow-
ing briefly eastwards in Colorado, the River turns southwards and flows 400
miles (644 km) through New Mexico. In lower New Mexico, the River turns to
the southeast and forms the boundary between Texas and the Republic of Mexico
to the point of discharge into the Gulf of Mexico. The total length of the
River is about 1,900 miles (3,057 km.) and the outer rim of the basin embraces
a total area of 335,500 square miles (868,945 km2).
The River is generally considered to have two regimes, being divided into
an upper and lower basin at Fort Quitman, 80 miles (129 km) downriver from El
Paso, Texas. Above Fort Quitman, nearly all of the River's waters are con-
sumed by irrigation in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. In the lower
basin, the River develops its flow mainly from tributaries in Mexico and is
virtually restarted by inflow from the Rio Conchos above Presidio.
-------
Approximately 99 percent of the water supply of the Upper Rio Grande
Basin comes in equal amounts from Colorado and New Mexico. The Upper Basin is
divided naturally into three divisions: The San Luis section in Colorado, the
Middle section in New Mexico, and the Elephant Butte-Fort Quitman section In
New Mexico, Texas and Mexico. This section is the subject area of this
report.
The two million acre-feet Elephant Butte Reservoir of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Rio Grande Project is located at the head of the study area and
regulates river inflow for use as far as Fort Quitman. The Rio Grande drain-
age basin above Elephant Butte Dam contains 25,923 square miles (67,1^1 km2)
and has an average annual runoff of about 899,000 acre-feet (110,8^7 ha.-m)
(1894-1972) at San Marcial, immediately above Elephant Butte Reservoir.
Immediately below Elephant Butte, Caballo Reservoir regulates discharges
released for power production at Elephant Butte Dam. It is used additionally
for storing intervening tributary inflows. Below Caballo, the section is a
succession of valleys separated by canyons and narrows. The river bottom
lands of the valleys are extensively irrigated, with this ribbon of agricul-
tural development having a maximum width of only 5 miles (8.05 km). The
Rincon and Mesilla Valley and the northern half of El Paso Valley, on the
Texas side of the River, comprise the 178,196 acre (72,169 ha) area of the Rio
Grande Project. In the southern half of the El Paso Valley on the Texas side
is the Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District, comprised of
18,3^2 (7,^29 ha) Irrigable acres. An area of several thousand hectares is
irrigated On the Mexican side of the River immediately below Juarez.
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION
Recorded history of the Rio Grande Valley begins with its discovery by
the Spanish explorers under Coronado in 15^0. At this time, Indians in the
Middle Valley were cultivating land and bringing water to it by irrigation
ditches as their ancestors had long done. The area of irrigated land prob-
ably exceeded 30,000 acres (12,150 ha). Below the Middle Valley, the original
Indian Inhabitants were not agricultural people and did not cultivate their
lands.
The first white settlement in the study area was founded in 1659 on the
southern side of the River where the Mexican city of Juarez now stands. The
Spanish colonists practiced irrigation from the time of their first occupation
of the country. A large increase in the Irrigated area took place following
1680 when refugees from the Indian rebellion in New Mexico arrived. In 1851,
American reconnaissance forces found an area of about 32,000 acres (12,960 ha)
being irrigated. Although early Spanish settlements were confined to the
immediate vicinity of El Paso because of hostile Indians, large areas of land
were under cultivation in the MesTlla Valley by the l860's.
Following the water shortages of the 1890's and the subsequent complaints
by Mexico, construction of Elephant Butte Dam was authorized by Congress in
1905. The dam, diversion dams and canal systems of the Rio Grande Project
were completed in 1916. By 1925, a complete system of open drains was
-------
constructed. Land owners on the Rio Grande Project were represented by the
Elephant Butte Irrigation District in New Mexico and the El Paso County Water
Improvement District No. 1 in Texas. In 1925, the Hudspeth County Conserva-
tion and Reclamation District No. 1 was organized. Under a Warren Act
Contract with the United States, the district makes direct diversion of drain-
age and waste waters of the Rio Grande Project.
Nearly all of the irrigation in the Elephant Butte-Fort Quitman section
is by surface methods. The lands are flat and easily served by gravity
diversions. A wide range of crops are grown, with the principal crops being
cotton, alfalfa, hay, peppers, pecans, onions, and lettuce.
THE WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
A concern for the quality of the irrigation water has been apparent since
the early days of the Rio Grande Project. As early as 1918, the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (USER) began collecting water samples from some of the drains
in the project area to determine the total dissolved solids (TDS). This
program of sampling was continued through 1936. To supplement the inquiry
of the National Resources Committee, additional samples were taken in 1929-30,
1933-34, and 1936, For each year, from 1934 to 1963, salt loads were com-
puted for each section of the Rio Grande Project by the U.S. Salinity Labor-
atory. These programs were in addition to the monitoring of the USBR and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Salt concentrations at a given point in the Rio Grande have remained
relatively constant during the period for which records are available.
However, as flow rates decline with distance from Elephant Butte, the con-
centration of salts in the river increases. This is due in part to the salt
concentrating effects of irrigation. The result is that irrigators in the
lower valley are receiving poorer quality water as a result of irrigation
above them. In addition, when less than usual amounts of irrigation water
are available, there is no leaching of salts from the soil profile. So, it
becomes difficult to maintain a favorable salt balance In the crop root zone.
The consequence is a salt buildup in the land.
OBJECTIVE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to identify the specific causes of the
water quality problems in the study area, to identify alternative solutions
to those problems, to analyze these alternatives, and finally, to evaluate
the alternatives in terms of implementabi1ity.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Irrigation return flow is generally considered to be a non-point source
of pollution. Control has not been accomplished because an inappropriate
control mechanism has been applied. In this case study, the parameters of
the return flow problem have been carefully explicated and appropriate solu-
tions have been identified by evaluation of several potential or alternative
solutions.
This case study has been found to be somewhat unique in comparison to
others studied and possibly in comparison to many other irrigated areas. In
this portion of the Rio Grande Valley, from Elephant Butte Reservoir to Fort
Qultman, Texas, water use in agriculture Js relatively efficient. The annual
allocation to irrigators is 2.5 to 3-0 acre-feet per acre (.76 to .91 ha-m/
ha), smaller than that of most irrigated areas, and water is conservatively
used. Though improvements are possible, transport and distribution facili-
ties function reasonably well, irrigation methods are generally appropriate
to circumstances, and water is logically allocated to higher value crops.
There is a problem of quality of water in the river, and it is largely
attributable to return flows from irrigation. But increasing concentrations
of salt in return flows and in the river are a largely unavoidable consequence
of irrigation. Opportunities to affect quality of return flows are limited,
and the possibility of significantly affecting quality of water in the river
is small.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
1. This project area encompasses two states (New Mexico and Texas) and
an interstate/international river regulated by compact among three states and
a treaty between two nations.
2. New Mexico applies the appropriation doctrine to surface and ground
waters. Texas applies both riparian and prior appropriation doctrines for
surface waters, except that since the 196? Water Rights Adjudication Act,
riparian right claimants are required to file their claim with the Texas .
Water Rights Commission. Ground water is withdrawn according to the absolute
ownership doctrine.
3. Both New Mexico and Texas have separate agencies for water quantity
and quality control with the top water quantity administration a member of
the pollution control commission (New Mexico) or Board (Texas).
-------
k. In neither state do the state water personnel perceive the Rio Grande
project area as a .sign if leant water quality problem from irrigation return
flows to surface waters. Ground water contamination may be more significant.
Consequently, neither state has adopted the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, nor regulations governing irrigation
return flow quality control. New Mexico, in fact, statutorially recognizes
reasonable degradation for agricultural water use.
5. Water is distributed to irrigators by public irrigation districts
in each state under water rights held either by the districts or by the
Bureau of Reclamation.
6. Water transfers, i.e., selling of annual allotments, are common in
the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, but not widely practiced in the El
Paso District.
7. The irrigation return flow quality aspects of the river are not
perceived by state officials as significant to the international nature of
the river in the project area.
8. The deterioration in water quality of the Rio Grande in passing
through the Elephant Butte Project is due principally to the concentrating
effect of irrigation. The overall salt balance of the project is unfavorable,
resulting in the quality of the water leaving the project being better than
that which would result from a project having a favorable salt balance. This
does not mean, however, that the only method of improving existing water qual-
ity would be to retire land from irrigated agriculture (although this would
be one way of improving quality).
9. Some areas within the upper portion of the project area maintain a
favorable salt balance, which is to their own benefit but to the detriment of
the downstream waters. (However, more recent data is needed to evaluate this
trend.) Water quality in the El Paso Valley would improve if the consumptive
use of the upper valleys was decreased.
10. Some local practices exacerbate the water quality problem. The
abundance of deep percolation is evidenced by the high volume of drain flows.
Further research, such as that currently being carried out by New Mexico
State University, is necessary to determine reasonable leaching fractions and
the most suitable timing of leaching applications. If leaching fractions
could be reduced, the downstream areas could be provided with higher quality
water released from Caballo Reservoir, rather than relying on low quality
return flows.
11. There is a perception by many farmers that those who continue to
survive are those who utilize their water as efficiently as can be expected
given the existing circumstances.
12. There is evidence that farmers fail to understand their common
problems, and so they are slow to act together on issues like rehabilitation
of water distribution facilities.
-------
13- There is a sensitivity to regional problems and interests which is
manifested in the Rio Grande Environmental Project organization and in coop-
erative efforts of irrigation districts.
14. There is resistance at state and local levels to programs of water
quality control which are imposed on water users without consultation or
explanation.
15- There is no internalization of pollution costs by farmers using
water in irrigation so there is little incentive to reduce return flows.
16. There is resistance to policies and programs designed to improve
water quality which will raise the price of water to users. Water is one
input over which farmers have some control. In their districts, they con-
trol delivery costs.
OVERALL FINDINGS
Looking for more general findings, the following brief remarks summarize
the overall conclusions of the study:
1. Mesilla Valley is characterized predominantly by salt concentration
rather than salt pickup effects due mainly to the use of water. This water
use contributes to salinity levels greater than acceptable in drinking stan-
dards for both cities of El Paso and Juarez.
2. The study area is characterized by increasing competing and conflict-
ing water demands, which result from an expanding urban demand in El Paso and
Juarez, as well as from potential further agriculture.
3. The State of New Mexico has taken the stand that irrigation return
flow quality is not sufficiently significant to require the employment of the
NPDES permit system.
k. There does exist in the area a market system for use of water which
does result in water use for higher-valued crops.
5. In the general study area, most farmers perceive that they are doing
the best they can and, thus, there are no particular new incentives for fur-
ther improvements. There are "others" who are blamed for specific instances
of water quality degradation, but corrective actions are not feasible.
6. Given the two states involved, questions of return flow are "local-
ized" in the sense that problems are seen as part of Texas and not of New
Hex ? co.
7. There is free-floating anxiety that the State Department will give
ground water to Mexico. In such a case, water shortages would increase and,
thus, contribute to further pollution. While presently El Paso takes little
water from the river, given the overall limited water supply and present or
future significant water withdrawal creates problems.
-------
8. The people in El Paso and further downstream question the nature or
significance of irrigation return flow since virtually no water is left in
the rfver.
9. Finally, while localization of problems perception may be true, it is
also equally true that strong regional orientation is evidenced by the viabil-
ity of REGREP.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations derive from the investigation of the study
area and are herein suggested to EPA, the state water agencies, the irrigation
district managers, and water users:
1. Because of the interstate nature of the river, uniformity between
state laws for ground water and beneficial use should be sought.
2. The water trading practice of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District
should be promoted in other districts as an incentive for more efficient water
use through the market mechanism.
3. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation should be developed in appropriate
circumstances as a means for reducing a consumptive use of water, thereby
leaving more water in the river for dilution.
k. Studies by New Mexico State University and by USGS regarding ground
water should be continued in order to provide more meaningful answers and
insights into appropriate technologies for alleviating the salt load in the
Rio Grande.
5. A water management improvement program should be implemented to
include the following components:
a. system rehabilitation to allow timely and accurate delivery of water
so that existing constraints to better on-farm water management may
be removed;
b. an irrigation scheduling service to farmers to allow optimal quanti-
ties of water for crop production to be applied with a minimum of
waste;
c. measurement of irrigation water to the farm to allow the application
of the desired quantity of irrigation water;
d. a change in irrigation methods in some cases (e.g., trickle irriga-
tion for pecans, sprinkler irrigation for field crops) to reduce
consumptive use and waste due to nonuniformity of water application.
6. A detailed study should be made of the feasibility of building an
aquaduct from Caballo Dam to El Paso or beyond, in conjunction with the
irrigation system rehabilitation in the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.
This would allow water of equal, high quality to be delivered to all parts
of the Elephant Butte Project, to the city of El Paso, and to Mexico.
8
-------
SECTION 4
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Hydro logic Basin
The Rio Grande Basin from Elephant Butte to-Fort Quitman contains an area
of about 8,000 square miles (20,720 km2) stretching over a distance of 210
miles (338 km) (Figure 1). Inflow to this section of the Valley is meas-
ured at San Marcial at the head of Elephant Butte Reservoir. From Elephant
Butte Dam the river flows into Caballo Reservoir, which is immediately below
the town of Truth or Consequences. Caballo Dam, 22 miles (35 km) below
Elephant Butte, was completed in 1938 and is used to store water for winter
generation of electricity at Elephant Butte, and for irrigation during the
summer. Elephant Butte Reservoir has a capacity of 2,194,000 acre-feet
(270,520 ha-m) (based upon 1957 Silt Survey corrections, while original
capacity was 2,638,000 acre-feet (325,265 ha-m)), and Caballo Reservoir has
a capacity of 343,990 acre-feet (42,414 ha-m) (based upon 1958 Silt Survey
corrections, while original capacity was 345,870 acre-feet (42,646 ha-m)).
From San Marcial to Caballo Dam, the flanking hills are close to the
river and there is little flood plain. Below Caballo Dam, the Basin is a
narrow strip of green along the flood plain with arid and semi-arid moun-
tainous regions on both sides. The Basin is broken by natural barriers into
three distinct valleys. These are, respectively, the Rincon, Mesilla and El
Paso Valleys. The Rio Grande is confined between levees as it passes through
each of the valleys.
The Rincon Valley is about 30 miles (48 km) long and the flood plain has
a maximum width of about two miles. Water for the 16,340 irrigated acres
(6,618 ha) is diverted from the Rio Grande at Percha Diversion Dam approxi-
mately 2 miles downstream from Caballo Dam. The Valley terminates at Selden
Canyon, a narrow defile about 7 miles (11 km) long, from which the River
emerges into the Mesilla Valley. The Mesilla Valley is about 55 miles (89 km)
long, with a maximum flood plain width of about 5 miles (8 km) opposite Las
Cruces. Irrigation water is diverted at Leasburg Dam at the upper end of the
Valley and at Mesilla Diversion Dam near Mesilla. The total irrigated area
is 85,490 acres (34,634 ha). The Valley ends at "The Pass," four miles above
El Paso.
Below El Paso, the River is the boundary between Texas and Mexico. The
El Paso Valley extends about 90 miles (145 km) from "The Pass" to the gorge
-------
Elephant Butte
-" Reserve!r
Truth
Consequences
Caba1lo
Reserve!r
Leasburg —
Diversion Dam
-Las Cruces
UNITED STATES
MEXICO
Mesi lla
Diversion Dam
New Mexico
Texas
El Paso
Ri vers i de
Di vers ion~
Dam
Fort Qui tman „
Gag i ng Stat i on
Figure 1. The Middle Rio Grande Valley,
10
-------
about 10 miles (16 km) below Fort Quitman. The flood plain is generally 4 to
6 miles wide (6-10 km). The area on the Mexican side is commonly referred to
as Juarez Valley. Two diversions supply irrigation water to the El Paso
Valley. The American Dam diverts water into Franklin Canal on the northern
side of El Paso. Riverside Heading is located approximately 20 miles (32 km)
below American Dam and diverts water into the Riverside Canal. The total
irrigated area is 57,820 acres (23,417 ha). Two miles below American Dam the
International Dam diverts water into the Acequia Madre for use on the Mexican
side of the River.
The Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 receives
operating and drainage return flow water reaching the lower end of the Rio
Grande Project and has an area of about 18,000 acres (7,290 ha), capable of
being irrigated through a series of small reservoirs and canals extending
along the Rio Grande Valley for a distance of 40 miles (6k km) below the
project.
In the northern part of the study area, the western boundary is formed
by the Mimbres Mountains, about 25 miles (40 km) from the River. The boundary
cuts eastward to the Sierra de Las Uvas where the Mimbres Range ends, and
then southwards to the Mexican border. The eastern boundary of the Basin
runs roughly parallel to the Rio Grande, about 5 to 10 miles (8-16 km) away,
running southwards to join the Franklin Mountains which terminate the Mesilla
Valley above El Paso. Below El Paso, the boundary turns southeastwards and
parallels the River at a distance of about 20 miles (32 km).
Elevations along the River range from 4,450 feet (1,348m) at the point
of inflow at San Marcial to 3,450 feet (1,052 m) at the point or outflow at
Fort Quitman. The highest elevations in the Basin are along the Continental
Divide and the San Mateo Mountains to the west of Elephant Butte Reservoir,
being generally over 8,000 feet (2,438 m), with Blue Mountain having an
elevation of 10,336 feet (3,150 m). Below El Paso, the Basin boundary has
an elevation of about 5,000 feet (1,524 m).
Tributaries to the Elephant Butte-Fort Quitman section of the River
consist only of arroyos which are dry most of the time but subject to flash
floods resulting from thunderstorms. The principal arroyos enter from the
west between San Marcial and Rincon Valley and are, in downstream order,
Milligan Gulch, San Juan Creek, Nogal Canyon, San Jose Arroyo and Alamosa,
Chuchillo Negro, Palomas, Seco, Las Animas, Percha, Tierra Blanca, and
Berrenda Creeks. The first five are tributaries to Elephant Butte Reservoir
and the next four are tributaries above Caballo Dam. Percha Creek has also
been diverted to Caballo Reservoir. Many of the smaller ephemeral arroyos
have been dammed for flood control.
Topog raphy and So i1s
The irrigated soils of the study area are contained in the alluvial flood
plain of the Rio Grande. In New Mexico, these soils have been classified by
the New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station as belonging
to the Gila-Glendale-Vintpn association. These soils, which are dominantly
deep and highly stratified, are formed in alluvium of mixed origin. The
11
-------
textures of the surface layers cover the gamut from sand to clay; but medium,
moderately fine and fine are the more common textures.
G!la soils, the most extensive in this association, usually have a sur-
face layer of calcarous light brownish-gray or pale brown loam. This is
underlain to a depth of five feet or more by stratified loams and sandy loams,
Also, in close association with the Gila soils, and commonly included in the
same mapping unit, are soils with medium-textured subsoils. These soils differ
from the Gila soils in that they contain more strata of heavy loam, sandy clay
loam, light clay loam, and very fine sandy loam.
Glendale soils have a surface layer of calcareous light brownish-gray
to pale brown loam or clay loam over a stratified subsoil of silt loam,
silty clay loam and clay loam. Thin strata of silt and clay that are very
slowly permeable commonly occur in the subsoil. The substratum is typically
stratified and moderately course-textured to moderately fine-textured.
Vinton soils usually have a pale brown, fine sandy loam or loamy fine
sand surface layer. The subsoil consists of stratified loamy sand, loamy
fine sand, and sandy loam with occasional thin strata of loam, silt loam,.
or very fine sandy loam. The substratum is similar except that' it is slightly
coarser-textured, with loamy fine sands and sands being dominant.
Armijo, Brazito, Belen, Agua, and Anapra soils are also common in this
association. The Armijo soils are deep, fine-textured and slowly permeable.
The Anapra soils consist of light-colored, calcareous, medium-textured and
moderately fine-textured soils underlain by clean sand at depths of 18 to 36
inches (46-91 cm). The Brazito soils are underlain by clean sand at depths
of 6 to 18 inches (15-46 Cm). Aqua soils are similar to those of the Gila
series but differ in that they are underlain by clean sand at depths of 20
to 36 inches (51~91 cm). The Belen soils (like those of the Armijo series)
are clayey, but differ in that they are underlain at depths of 20 to 30
inches (51-76 cm) by permeable sandy loams and loams. Miscellaneous land
types, including riverwash, arroyo bottoms and the Rio Grande, comprise about
five percent of this association.
In Texas,-the Rio Grande flood plain has deep nearly level soils that
have loamy very fine sand to silty clay loam underlying material. These soils
have been classified by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) as belonging to the Harkey-Glendale association.
The Glendale soils, which have been described above, account for prob-
ably less than 20 percent of the area. The Harkey soils account for nearly
40 percent, with minor soils accounting for the remainder. Harkey soils
typically have a surface layer of pink, calcereous silty clay loam about 12
inches (30 cm) thick. The surface layer is underlain by stratified layers
of silt loam, loamy very fine sand, very fine sandy loam and silty clay
loam. The underlying material has an average texture of loam. Also in this
association are small areas of Saneli, Tigua, Gila, Anapra, Vinton and
Brazito soils.
12
-------
Climate
The climate of the study area is characterized by an abundance of sun-
shine throughout the year, by.high but not extremely high daytime temperatures
in summer and by low humidity, scanty rainfall and relatively cool winters
typical of arid areas. Temperature and precipitation data for Caballo Dam
and El Paso are shown in Table 1. Extensive data for the lower end of the
study area are not available, but available data from Fabens indicates that
it does not differ markedly from El Paso.
Rainfall in the area is too light for the growth of any vegetation
except desert plants. Dry periods that last for several months without
appreciable rainfall are not unusual. More than half the yearly precipitation
occurs in summer during brief, but at times heavy, thunderstorms. Small
amounts of snow fall nearly every winter, though snow cover rarely amounts
to more than an inch and seldom remains for more than a few hours.
During summer, the daytime temperature frequently rises above 90 F (32°c)
and occasionally above 100°F(37-8°c), then usually falls to the 60's (l6-21°c)
at night. The highest recorded temperature at both Caballo Dam and El Paso
is 109°F (43°c).
TABLE 1. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION AT
CABALLO DAM AND EL PASO, 1941-1970
Month
Caballo Dam
El Paso
Temperature
Precipitation
(mm)
Temperature
Precipitation
(mm)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Novembe r
Decmeber
ANNUAL
5.1
7-7
10.7
15.7
20.1
25.2
27.2
26.1
22.6
16.6
9.8
5-5
16.0
9
8
6
6
5
14
4o
47
37
18
6
12
109
6.4
9.1
12.6
17.7
22.3
26.8
27.9
26.9
23.4
17.8
10.7
6.9
17.4
10
11
10
6
8
15
39
28
29
20
8
13
197
Temperatures on the average winter day rise to 55 to 60°F (13°~l6°c) and
drop below freezing on about half the nights in December and January. Temp-
eratures below 10°F (-12°c) are rare, having occurred at El Paso on only 28
days in more than 80 years of record, although an extreme of -8°F (-22°c)
has been recorded.
13
-------
At El Paso, the relative humidity averages about 51 percent at 6 am,
35 percent at noon, 26 percent at 6 pm, and 40 percent at midnight. If the
temperature is high, the relative humidity is generally quite low. If the
temperature is above 90° F (32°c) in April, May or June, the average humidity
is between 10 and 14 percent. When the temperature is above 90°F (32°c) in
July, August and September, the average humidity is between 22 and 24 percent.
The average length of the frost-free season is 220 days at Elephant
Butte Dam and 248 days at El Paso. Sunshine is abundant year round, although
slightly lower in the winter months, and occurs an average of nearly 80 per-
cent of the possible hours at Elephant Butte and 82 percent at El Paso.
Evaporation from a Class A pan at Elephant Butte Dam averages 118 inches
(2,997 ml) annually, or 92 inches (2,336 ml) during the frost-free period.
Average annual Class A pan evaporation at El Paso is 105 inches (2,667 ml).
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
General Composition
While nonagricultural industries are increasingly important to the eco-
nomy of the study area, agriculture remains a fundamental element. The
150,000 acres (60,750 ha) of irrigated land produce a large variety of high-
value crops. Cotton and pecans are crops of national significance. In the
Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, there is produced 25-30 percent of all cultivated
crops in New Mexico. If production from the El Paso Valley is added, the
total is about 35 percent of all crops in that state.
Irrigated agriculture is also the basis for important agri-businesses.
These include the firms who supply the seeds, fertilizers and equipment as
well as the processors and shippers of produce. Most of these are located
in Las Cruces and El Paso. Their business activities are significant to the
regional economy.
The largest employers of persons in the project area are the variety of
governmental agencies. The White Sands Apollo testing facility employes
some 12,000 people, and an even larger number are employed at the missile
range. Numerous Federal agencies engaged in resource management, defense
and public services employ several hundred people, and New Mexico State
University at Las Cruces has a large payroll.
The development of the space industry in the area prompted the growth of
several manufacturing and tool-making firms. They supply many of the needs
of the firms and government agencies engaged in space research.
Relatively cheap labor has caused other industrial growth In El Paso.
This city is now a center for the manufacture of clothing. Also located
there is a steel mill and some other "heavy" industries.
With industrial development there have been also expansions in trade
and services, the real estate, finance and insurance sectors, and the
wholesale and retail sectors. Similarly, the public utilities and
14
-------
transportation sectors have grown. Employment has Increased significantly in
these allied or supportive industries, though the unemployment rate has
changed but little.
Recently, efforts have been made to develop the recreational potential
of Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs. With the assistance of realtors
and developers from the Albuquerque area, significant growth has been
realized.
Hudspeth County in Texas is a relatively depressed area. A few small
towns continue to exist within the irrigated area along the river, but the
economic activity of El Paso does not spill over significantly into the
countryside.
Ag r i cultu ra1 Product ? on
There are more than 3 million acres (l,215.000 ha) of land within the
study area (the Lower Rio Grande region of New Mexico plus that portion of
the Basin from the Texas line to Fort Quitman). But most of this land is
semi-arid to arid range land. Only 5 percent is irrigated; about 6.5 percent
is irrigable and suited for crop production. This land is in the river bot-
tom and is included within the boundaries of irrigation districts.
High value crops occupy most of the irrigated land. The more important
ones are included in the list below:
Barley Peppers Lettuce
Sorghums Tomatoes . Onions
Wheat Corn silage Pecans
Alfalfa Cotton
Improved pasture Cabbage
All these crops are produced in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, where
there are both good water and suitable soils. But a smaller number are pro-
duced in the El Paso Valley, because of the lower quality of water available
there. And, in the Hudspeth Irrigation District, only hay and a few other
crops of relatively low value are produced. The irrigation water available
there is return flows from districts above and "wild water," or runoff from
rainstorms.
Crops, crop yields and crop values for the irrigated lands of the Rio
Grande Project, New Mexico-Texas and Hudspeth County Conservation and Recla-
mation District No. 1 are shown in Table 2. The large number and variety
of crops are evident in this table, and the significant values of the crops
are well established.
Ro 1e of Ir r i ga t ? on
The waters of the Rio Grande are used principally for the irrigation of
agricultural crops. There is some use of river water by the city of El Paso,
and recent studies suggest increased demands for river water for
15
-------
TABLE 2. CROP PRODUCTION, YIELDS AND VALUES, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT AND HUDSPETH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 1972*
Crops Harvested in Irrigation
Rotation
CEREALS
Barley, 48#
Corn, 56#
Oats, 32#
Rice
Rye
Sorghums (sorgo, kaff i r, etc. ), 50#
Wheat, 60#
Other Cereals
Total Cereals
FORAGE
Alfalfa hay
Other hay
Irrigated pasture, 0.4 ton
Corn fodder
Si lage or Ens! lage
Crop residue: Beet tops
Stubble, stalks, etc.
Straw (all kinds)
Root crops (carrots, etc.)
Other forage
Total Forage
MISC. FIELD CROPS
Beans, castor
Beans, dry and edible
Broomcorn
Cotton, lint (Upland)500# gross
Cotton, seed (Upland)
Cotton, lint (Am.-Pima) 500# gross
Cotton, seed (Am.-Pima)
Hops
Peppermint
Spearmint
Sugar Beets
Soybeans
Other Miscellaneous field crops
Total Miscellaneous Field Crops
VEGETABLES
Asparagus
Beans (processing)
Beans (fresh market)
Broccol i
Cabbage
Cauliflower
Celery
Corn, sweet (processing)
Corn, sweet (fresh market)
Cucumbers
Greens (kale, etc.)
Lettuce
Melons: Cantaloupes, etc.
Honey Ball, honeydew, etc.
Watermelons
Onions, dry
Onions, green
Peas, green (processing)
Peas, green (fresh market)
Peppers (all kinds)
Potatoes, early
Potatoes, late
Squash
Sweet Potatoes
Tomatoes (canning)
Tomatoes (fresh market)
Other vegetables
Total Vegetables
TOTAL NURSERY
Acres
7,771
2
529
3,168
m
11,584
26,094
469
3,399
147
2,243
32,352
37,867
37,708
Ton
75,575
187
22
163
3,403
83
1
10
2,900
2 .
4,230
7
4
1
628
6
11
11,659
126
Unit
Bu.
Bu.
Bu.
Cwt.
Bu.
Bu.
Bu.
Cwt.
Ton
Ton
AUM
Ton
Ton
Ton
AUM
Ton
Ton
Ton
Cwt.
Cwt.
Ton
Bale
Ton
Bale
Ton
Ton
Lb.
Lb.
Ton
Bu.
Ton
Cwt.
Ton
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Ton
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Ton
Cwt.
Cwt.
Yield
Per
Acre
81.0
15.0
66.0
57.0
97-0
5-3
4.1
13.5
12.6
14.9
1.5
0.6
0.88
0-3
296.8
20.0
106.6
193.1
100.7
269.0
110.2
370.2
9-0
80.6
150.0
166.0
50.0
9.6
32.3
6.0
Total
628,481
30
34,650
180,340
11,063
138,597
1,946
45,852
1,859
33,433
56,928
23,019
33,210
13,000
55,505
440
17,372
657,126
8,355
538
2,202
1,073,622
18
341,111
1,050
664
50
6,044
194
66
Value of Crops
Per Unit
$ 1-36
1.60
1.33
1.35
1.67
32.65
26.56
8.74
4.90
6.71
104.00
53,00
182.00
53-00
2.39
5.45
3-19
4.94
5.65
6.00
3.17
5.64
3.00
6.50
6.00
8.00
8.00
38.21
9.01
136.36
Per Acre
$ 109-73
24.00
86.97
76.66
162.18
100.15
173,41
110.20
117,84
61.97
100.03
161.06
156.35
32.22
160.29
18.27
183.58
708.40
109.00
339-98
953.19
568.47
1,614.00
697.00
2,086.87
27.00
523-78
900.00
1,328.00
400.00
367-74
291-33
818.13
1,030.33
4,525.79
Total
$ 852,719
48
46,008
242,856
18,489
1 ,160,120
4,525,025
51,684
400,547
9,110
224,370
5,210,736
5,920,512
1,220,007
6,044,220
689,000
13,873,739
132,470
2,398
55,417
3,243,699
47,183
3,228
6,970
6,051,925
54
2,215,591
6,300
5,312
400
230,941
1,748
9,000
12,012,636
570,250
(continued)
16
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Crops Harvested in
Irrigation Rotation
SEEDS
Alfalfa
Clover (all kinds)
Corn
Flaxseed
Grass (all kinds)
Lettuce
Onion
Pea
Potato (all kinds)
Sugar beet
Other seed
Total Seeds
FRUITS
Apples
Apricots
Berries (all kinds)
Cherries
Citrus: Grapefruit
Lemons and limes
Oranges and tangerines
Dates
Grapes, table
Grapes, other
01 i ves
Peaches
Pears
Prunes and plums
Other fruits
Total Fruits
NUTS
Almonds
Pecans
Walnuts
Other nuts
Total Nuts
FAMILY GARDENS AND ORCHARDS
TOTAL ALL CROPS
Less Multiple Cropped
TOTAL HARVESTED CROPLAND & PASTURE
Acres
7
100
107
2
2
6,617
6,617
676
138,698
3,66*4
135, 034
Unit
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Ton
Ton
Cwt.
Ton
Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Cwt.
Ton
Ton
Value
Ton
Yield
Per
Acre
1.0
12.7
1.5
12.1
Total
7
1,267
3
80,100
Value of Crops
Per Uni t
$ 50.00
1 40 . 00
300.00
55.00
Per Acre
$ 50.00
1,773.80
1,661,03
450.00
450.00
665-79
665-79
62.77
$277-37
Total
$ 350
177,380
177,730
900
900
4, 405, 500
4,405,500
42,435
$37,454,046
$37,454,046
* Production data for 1972 used for illustrative purposes because of significant increase in prices of some
croos in 197V74.
17
-------
nonagricultural uses. But in the near future allocation will closely
approximate that of the past. Irrigation will claim most of the water of the
Rio Grande.
Table 3 shows the acreages of irrigable and irrigated land in the study
area. When the 12,000 acres (4,860 ha) of the Hudspeth County district
are counted, the total area irrigated is 150,000 acres (60,750 ha). The
Elephant Butte District is much the largest in the project area. Hudspeth
District is small, with only 12,000 (4,860 ha) irrigated acres and there is
some question that this is a firm figure. There may be fewer acres irrigated.
The boundaries of the El Paso District Change a bit as new lands are added to
compensate for encroachment of the urban area. But the acreage irrigated in
the district is fairly constant.
Fable 4 shows the number of full- and part-time farms which are served
by irrigation districts in the study area and the suburban area that is irri-
gated. The data reflect the urban encroachment and suggest the diversion of
water from traditional agricultural uses to gardens and horticultural projects.
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Human Ecology
The Rio Grande Valley incorporates part of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties
in New Mexico, and El Paso and Hudspeth in Texas. The general population
characteristics show that the median year of education is approximately 11.0
years; the unemployment rate is approximately 3.8 percent for men and 6.5
percent for women; the percentage of farmers or farm managers in the Valley
runs from 0.3 percent in El Paso to 14.9 percent in Hudspeth, with Sierra and
Dona Ana averaging 3.6 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. The median
income runs from $4,833 in Sierra to $7,792 in El Paso, and the per capita
income generally falls in the range of $1,652 in Hudspeth to $2,359 in
El Paso (for the series of background tables, see Appendix A). There is a
rapid rate of urban growth in the El Paso area; there is a large rural non-
farm population in the Valley; and the majority of the land is owned by
independent farmers.
These are some of the critical parameters that must be considered when
one is attempting to introduce change into a social system. They affect the
way people think and act relative to alternative ways of doing things. In-
troduction of measures to affect water quality will involve significant changes
in economic activities. Response of affected persons will depend on socio-
economic circumstances.
A significant phenomenon in the Las Cruces and El Paso areas (Appendix
A) is urbanization. An urban area is described as an area having a population
of 2,500 or more. The Bureau of the Census depicts an urbanized area as a
centralized city of 50,000 population surrounded by an urban territory. The
urban area of El Paso in 1970 contained 337,471 people, while that of
Las Cruces was 43,735. The change in population from I960 was +28.9 percent
in Las Cruces and +16.5 percent in El Paso. Projections for the 1970 to
18
-------
TABLE 3. IRRIGABLE AND IRRIGATED AREAS, RIO GRANDE PROJECT AND HUDSPETH DISTRICT, 1974.'
Type of Irrigation Service
and
Division, District, Unit,
Etc.
IRRIGABLE AREA FOR SERVICE
Class
1-4
acres
(ha)
Class
5
acres
(ha)
Total
acres
(ha)
Total
1 rrigable
Area
acres
(ha)
Total
Area
1 rr igated
acres
(ha)
GROSS CROP VALUE
Ti-ii-a 1
1 Ota 1
(Dollars)
Per Acre
1 rrigated
(Dollars)
(per ha
i rrigated)
Full Irrigation Service
Elephant Butte Irrigation
District (New Mexico)
El Paso County Water
Improvement District
No. 1 (Texas)
SUBTOTAL-Full
90,640 11,442 102,032 102,082
(36,709) (4,634) (41,343) (41,343)
69,010 7,104
(27,949) (2,877)
76,114 76,114
(30,826) (30,826)
159,650 18,546 178,196 178,196
(64,658) (7,511) (72,169) (72,169)
85,380 40,850,901 $ 478.46
(34,579) (16,544,615) ($1176.44)
52,897 18,405,331 $ 347-95
(21,423) (7,454,159) ($ 659.14)
138,277 59,256,232 $ 428.53
(56,002) (23,998,774) ($1058.10)
Supplemental Irrigation Service
Hudspeth County Conservation
and Reclamation District
No. 1 (Texas)
SUBTOTAL-Supplemental
TOTAL
Total Previous Year
18
(7
18
(7
177
(72
177
(72
,342
,429)
,342
,429)
,992
,087)
,992
,087)
18
(7
18
(7
0
(0)
0
(0)
,546
,511)
,546
,511)
18,342
(7,429)
18,342
(7,429)
196,538
(79,598)
196,538
(79,598)
18,342
(7,429)
18,342
(7,429)
196,538
(76,598)
196,538
(76,598)
12,446
(5,041)
12,446
(5,041)
150,723
(61,043)
148,270
(60,049)
3,153
(1,277
3,153
(1,277
62,409
(25,275
59,410
(24,061
,392
,124)
,392
,124)
,624
,898)
,412
,216)
$ 253-
($ 625.
$ 253-
($ 625.
$ 414.
($1022.
$ 369.
($ 913.
37
60)
37
60)
07
40)
78
04)
- Annual Report, Rio Grande Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
N)
O
TABLE 4, WATER USERS, IRRIGABLE AREAS AND POPULATION, RIO GRANDE
PROJECT AND HUDSPETH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 197^.*
1 rrigation Users
Full -Time Farms
Full Irrigation Service
Supplemental Irrigation Service
Temporary Irrigation Service
Part-Time Farms
Full Irrigation Service
Supplemental Irrigation Service
Temporary Irrigation Service
Urban, Suburban & Industrial Lands
Full Irrigation Service
Supplemental Irrigation Service
Temporary Irrigation Service
Municipal and Industrial Users
M&l Prime Contracting
City of El Paso, Texas
Data Nu*er
^ F.°l
6-24 2,02k
25-^3 75
44-62
6-24 2,588
25-43
44-62
11-24
30-43
49-62
6-21 16
1 rrigafale Acres
(ha)
159,635 (64,652)
18,342 (7,429)
13,076 (5,296)
5,485 (2,221)
Acre-Feet ^np
(ha-m) of p0pU|ation Code
Water CC8o
Del 1 vered
9,612
2
7,84?
3
31,995
4
13,291 350,000 5
.0,639)
* Annual Report, Rio Grande Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
1985 time period are that El Paso will grow at a rate of about 78 percent, to
a population of 611,820, while the population of Las Cruces will be greater
than 65,000 in 1990. This does not include Juarez which may have a popula-
tion of one million by 1985. The total regional population of El Paso County,
Dona Ana County and Juarez could be around two million by 1985, compared to
the approximately 865,000 in 1970. Urbanization is not an important consid-
eration north of Las Cruces but it is affecting land and water use in areas
along the river below Las Cruces and around El Paso.
The counties in the study area are growing fairly rapidly with Hudspeth
County proving the exception (Appendix A). The rural areas are losing popu-
lation. For the most part, people either live in urban areas or towns with
less than 2,500 people. Towns that have populations of 1,000-2,500 are not
prevalent.
Of significance to land use in the Valley are the characteristics of the
rural nonfarm and the rural farm populations, plus the qualities of the farms
they operate. The rural farm population is defined by the U.S. Census as
residents living on a place of ten acres or more from which sales of farm
products of the preceding year amount to $50 or more, or a place less than
ten acres from which sales of farm products of the preceding year amount to
$250 or more. in short, this definition distinguishes a population that
utilizes the land for farming from one that simply lives on several acres of
land.
This rural nonfarm population has a level of formal education similar to
the rural farm population, with the exception of El Paso County where it is
significantly lower. The median income and the per capita income of the rural
nonfarm population is significantly lower than the rural farm population, with
El Paso County having the highest rural farm median and per capita income.
Sierra County has the lowest rural farm median income, while Dona Dna has the
lowest rural farm per capita income. Given the above situation and the dif-
ferent levels of a rural farm and rural nonfarm population in the four
counties, there should be different responses to any particular innovation.
A second influential characteristic is farm ownership (Appendix A).^ The
most prevalent form of ownership of a farm unit is the individual or family
type. These are more numerous and they occupy more land in the Valley.
Partnerships and corporations are important in terms of acreage occupies. In
the four-county area they occupy as much land as family owned farms, though
they are much less numerous.
Another aspect of farm ownership is the tenure of the operator. Tenure
of the operator has been defined by the Census as: 1) full owners—who oper-
ate only the land they own; 2) part owners—who operate land they own and
also land they rent from others; 3) tenants—who operate land they rent from
others, or work on shares for others. Full owners outnumber the other classes,
but part owners operate more acres than other classes (Appendix A). These
people can be part-time farmers, farmers renting land from other retired or
elderly farmers, or they can be managers of other farms. The diversity^of
farmers and farm operations in the Valley will make response to innovation
21
-------
variable. Capacities to absorb changes in land and water use will vary and
make water quality improvement problematic.
Physical qualities of farms affect ownership and operation and the
response to recommended or required changes in land and water use. A small
percentage of the total farm land area in the counties is irrigated, but a
large number of the farms do have portions of their land irrigated, from
59 percent In Sierra County to 82 percent in Dona Ana County (Appendix A).
A majority of the irrigated farm units are small — less than 100 acres in
size. Yet the significant acreage of irrigated land Is in units that range
in size from 260-1,000 acres (105-^05 ha) (Appendix A). Thus, there are at
least two distinct types of farm operators who are to examine any specific
type of innovation, i.e., the large, commercial farm operator who may be a
partner or corporate member, and the operator of a smaller, family unit.
Their circumstances are probably quite different and their response to
change variable.
Corresponding to size and providing measures of productivity are the
categories of economic class. Class is determined by amounts of product
sales. Generally, the larger the farm, the larger the annual sales. But,
in the Valley the amount of irrigated land is significant to sales. In Dona
Ana and El Paso Counties, there are large numbers of part-time operations.
Otherwise, there are significant numbers in all classes—$2,500 to $80,000
and up. The wide distribution of farms by economic class will also tend to
make response to change variable.
In summary, there is a rapid urbanization process that will be playing
in the future a more central role in any water quality program. The rural
areas have a large percentage of rural, nonfarm residents, while the rural
farm areas have a large number of Independent family-farm units. The irri-
gated acreage is somewhat concentrated on farms that range in size from
260-1,000 acres (lQ5-*tOS ha). All of these factors detail the type of
population that will be introduced to any new water quality program and the
type of population that must be taken into consideration in implementing any
program.
Institutional Setting
There exists in the project area an institutional structure that has
evolved to provide and protect rights to water supplies, to provide for dis-
tribution of irrigation water, and to manage the use of water in agriculture.
This structure Is illustrated In Figure 2, Organizations involved are the
following:
Federal: International Boundary and Water Commission
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
22
-------
rrigation
Districts
Compact
Commission
NEW MEXICO
State
Eng i neer
Development
Board
Institute
Interstate
Commission
Water Rights
Commission
i
Texas
Water
Qua!ity
Control
Board
.J
New Mexico
Water
Qua 1i ty
Commission
Secondary Relationship
Primary Relationship
Figure 2. Institutional structure, Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.
-------
State: State Engineer
Water Quality Control Commission
Environmental Improvement Agency
New Mexico and Texas Water Resources Institutes
Regional: Rio Grande Compact Commission
Rio Grande Regional Environmental Project (RIGREP)
Loca1: Elephant Butte Irrigation District
El Paso Water Improvement District No. 1
Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1
It is through this institutional structure that proposals for change in
water allocation, distribution and use must be processed. The interests^and
concerns of water managers and users will be expressed through the organiza-
tions. Implementation of change will depend on organizational approval to
a large extent.
Irrigation Districts--
Irrigation districts are organizational entities that are formed by
farmers in order to meet their respective water needs, and therefore, are the
organizations that most directly reflect farmers' interests. The districts,
through the guidance of a board of directors, have the power to construct,
purchase, or otherwise secure canals, ditches, reservoir sites, water rights,
and rights-of-way necessary for the purpose of the district, and to maintain
and operate them. In times when the quantity of water is low, the district
can establish an allotment system of water delivery as long as no diversion
occurs that is to the detriment of those having prior rights to the use of
the water in question. The portion of the Rio Grande River that is under
study has three such districts: Elephant Butte Irrigation District, E3 Paso
Water Improvement District No. 1, and Hudspeth County Conservation and
Reclamation District No. 1.
The Elephant Butte District (EBID) is a modern, dynamic organization
which has the resource potential for initiating many types of changes in
distributional facilities and water management practices. It has initiated
some actions to control discharges of effluent into its system and into the
river, because there is concern about the purity of water used to irrigate
crops. The manager and board of directors have proposed a one-hundred
million dollar modernization plan involving canal lining and installation
of underground pipe. The project will reduce seepage losses from conveyance
facilities and thus increase water available for irrigation of crops. The
district includes some of the best land in the Valley, its water rights are
secure, and its water supply comes directly from Elephant Butte Reservoir.
It Is, therefore, a significant factor in water supply management in the
Valley—one to be reckoned with when changes are proposed.
The Hudspeth District is a district that has no water rights, is under-
developed in terms of storage and conveyance facilities, and Is underfinanced
in its on-going operations. Located at the lower end of the project area, it
has access only to return flows from lands above it, plus runoff from infre-
quent storms. The quality of water is sufficiently poor that crop alternatives
24
-------
are limited. Since the 1950's, the acreage (hectares) irrigated has dropped
from 18,000 (7,290 ha) to about 10,000 (4,050 ha). The degree of involvement
in water management policy of the Valley is quite different from the other
two districts. As an "independent" district, the emphasis by the members is
on solving its own problems, and the district has not to this point sought
much outside support in the alleviation of its problems of water quality and
water management in agriculture.
Between these two districts lies the El Paso Water Improvement District.
It actually extends into New Mexico, but most of the irrigated lands are in
the Valley, below El Paso. Water is diverted from the river at El Paso and
conveyed to farms within the district. A problem of management is created
by "creeping urbanization" of lands near the city. While some water is
diverted away from subdivided areas to eligible lands, other water stays in
the subdivided areas to be used on hobby farms, gardens, etc. Quality of
the river water Is poorer than that available to the farmers In the Elephant
Butte district and there are some limits on crop alternatives. The district
is well organized and managed, is usually involved in an improvement project,
and cooperates as an "equal partner" in policy decisions affecting water in
the Valley.
Regional Organizations--
The study area is in many ways an isolated region set apart from the
surrounding environment. It is a separate physiographic, economic and social
entity that in many respects is well integrated and independent of political
and economic forces in New Mexico and Texas. Two organizations that
directly.reflect a regional orientation are the Rio Grande Compact Commission
and the Rio Grande Regional Environmental Project (RIGREP).
The Rio Grande Compact Commission is made up of representatives from the
participating compact states of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. The Compact
defines a water management system which secures the negotiated interstate use
of the Rio Grande River. The Commission is authorized to enforce the provi-
sions of the Compact. Administration of the Compact encompasses the follow-
ing issues: quantity of water, flood control structures, the effect of
urbanization and the subsequent definition of water rights and agricultural
land, and the Indian and Mexican water rights. With regard to the quality
of water, the Compact is almost totally silent.
Out of the efforts of some private individuals who were concerned about
the future of the region, the Rio Grande Regional Environmental Project
(RIGREP) emerged. The purpose of the project ts to prepare a plan and pro-
gram for the management of the water and related land and natural environ-
mental resources that will:
a. enable the Rio Grande Valley region to contribute more substantially
to the national wealth and well-being through expanded development
of all its resources within proper environmental constraints;
b. foster improvement in the economic well-being of the citizens of the
region through expanded regional development within proper environ-
mental constraints;
25
-------
c. protect and enhance the natural environmental resources for the
benefit of the citizens of the region, the state and the Nation; and
d. improve the quality of life, environmentally and socially, of the
citizens of the region.
The project leadership involves an executive committee which exercises
overall project direction and a policy committee that provides the means in
which the full degree of input can be exploited for research and study. The
executive committee involves representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation,
the city of Las Cruces, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, El Paso County
Water Improvement District, Greater Agricultural Income Now (GAIN),
Governor's Planning Office-Texas, Governor's Energy Projects Office-New
Mexico, Hudspeth County Conservation District, New Mexico State Engineer, New
Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, Public Service Board of El Paso,
Rio Grande Compact Commission-Texas, Texas Water Development Board, and the
Texas Water Resources Institute. This committee is supplemented by a Policy
Committee of some sixty members representing all involved governmental
entities, economic sectors, universities and interested citizens. This pro-
ject has intensive linkages to the political organizations of both New Mexico
and Texas and has built up a very influential regional organization that deals
with activities covering the whole spectrum of regional life.
State Agencies—
There exists a plethora of state organizations that are involved in
some way in the administration of water resources. For New Mexico, the crucial
ones are the State Engineer, the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute,
the Interstate Stream Commission, and the Water Quality Control Commission/
Environmental Improvement Agency (EIA). The significant organizations for
Texas are the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Water Resources Re-
search Institute, the Texas Water Quality Board, and the Texas Water Rights
Commission.
Knowledge of the resource situation is accumulated by the respective
research institutions. This knowledge is used for planning and program pur-
poses by the State Engineer for New Mexico and the Texas Water Development
Board. In New Mexico, the State Engineer is also the secretary of the l/iter-
state Stream Commission. This Commission negotiates compacts with other
states to settle interstate controversies or to make equitable distribution
and diversion of waters in interstate stream systems. The Commission is
responsible for the negotiation of any amendment to these compacts and for
interpretation necessary to the administration of the compacts. Another major
function of the Commission is to review and comment on plans for federal water
projects in New Mexico and on interstate streams in other states to make sure
that New Mexico's interests are protected. This includes cooperation in and
coordination of the work of federal agencies in planning projects in New
Mexico.
The agencies that carry out the functions prescribed by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 are the New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission and the Texas Water Quality Board. In New Mexico, the major burden
of water pollution control falls on the Environmental Improvement Agency (EIA),
26
-------
one of the organizations making up the Control Commission. Standards have
been set on the Rio Grande River by both states. However, significant prob-
lems have been associated with stream quality: 1) the New Mexico and Texas
standards do not generally coincide; 2) an adequate monitoring system is not
being maintained; and 3) inadequate efforts are currently being made to deter-
mine the effects of present and proposed developments in the region on stream
quality. The states agencies' actions with regard to the Rio Grande must
fall within the prescribed parameters of use delineated by the Compact.
Federal Agencies—
Four federal entities play important roles in the development, management
and operation of the Rio Grande River system: The Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the International Bound-
ary and Water Commission (IBWC), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The USBR provides for the storage, diversion and development of water
for the reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands. Its responsibilities have
expanded to hydroelectric power production and recreation exploitation of its
facilities. The operation and maintenance of the irrigation facilities it
constructed is achieved on a cooperative business basis with the local water
users' districts.
Location, classification and monitoring of use of water resources are
responsibilities of the U.S. Geological Survey. It conducts studies with
regard to quantity, quality, distribution, movement, and availability of
surface and ground water. It also evaluates requirements for industrial,
domestic and agricultural purposes in river basin and ground water provinces
and determines the quality of such water.
The International Boundary and Water Commission oversees the Treaty of
1906 with Mexico, which provides for a diversion from the Rio Grande at
El Paso of 60,000 acre-feet (7,398 ha-m). It administers also a 19^ treaty
concerned with control of the river below Fort Quitman. The treaties have
not dealt with the quality of water, but the quality issue is obviously
important to both countries. Increasing urbanization in the El Paso/Juarez
area is a problem of the commission as it administers water resources of the
Rio Grande.
Two other agencies whose work could be of greater importance in the
future for the study are the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). The Corps is responsible for the construction, operation
and maintenance of improvements on rivers, including flood control, protec-
tion of navigability, water supply, and river flow regulations among others.
The BIA is involved with Indian land and waters which are necessary to the
agriculture on the reservations.
LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Rio Grande River Basin, and in particular the portion of the Basin
included in the project area, presents an excellent illustration of legal
complexities, evolved impediments and "self-interest" efforts to resolve
particular issues. There is a wide range of legal and organizational
27
-------
structures within the temporal, spatial and jurisdictional parameters of the
water supply, the developments associated with it and the technical attributes
of the resource. The evaluation of these laws and organizations is a fascinat-
ing study of the differences in practices and the creation of endogenous
solutions.
Historically, the present legal system has been influenced by the
Spanish water law system, the common law riparian system of England, the
political decision made in creating Indian reservations, and the doctrine
of prior appropriation.
The laws and administrative machinery also grew along political bound-
aries within the region. Each state (New Mexico and Texas) adopted its own
system of water law for surface and ground water, and they developed separ-
ate water quality administrations. The result is a significant degree of
conflict in administration in the same hydrologic unit due to the lack of
uniformity and consistency in the controlling legislation. The Federal
Government has adopted a body of law In both water quantity (reservation
doctrine and water rights held by federal agencies) and water quality. Due
to the interstate and international characteristics of the Rio Grande River,
compact and treaty law has developed,adding additional layers of jurisdiction.
In the next section is a discussion of the various aspects of the law
of water resources as they impact on water use in the study area.
Historical Development
Indian—
Indian water rights are based on the idea that Indians have reserved to
them, not only the land of their reservations, but also the right to use
enough water to irrigate any irrigable portions (Act of March 3, 1909, ch 263,
35 Stat. 812, Winters vs United States. 207 U.S. 564, 28 Sup. Ct. 107, 1908).
In Arizona vs California (373 U.S. 5^6. 82 S. Ct. U68, 1963), the Supreme
Court held that the quantity of water reserved for Indian Reservations is
measured by potential use of lands within the reservation for irrigation and
the water requirements of adapted crops. In Skeem vs United States (273 Fed.
93, C.A.-9 Idaho, 1921), the court held that the quantities of water reserved
for the use of the Indians on the reservations were the amounts necessary to
irrigate .a]\ of the reservations susceptible of irrigation, regardless of
whether the Indians had actually placed those lands under cultivation and
i rrigation.
The priority of an Indian water right dates from the time the reservation
was set aside for Indian use. Although no Indian reservations exist in the
project area, the impact from potential upstream allocations through the
exercise of the doctrine can be substantial.
Spanish—
New Mexico—"The right to appropriate and use water for irrigation has
been recognized longer than history...evidences of it are found all over
Arizona and New Mexico in the ancient canals of prehistoric people" (Clough
vs Wing. 2 Ariz. 371, 17 P. ^53, 1888). "The community irrigating ditch or
28
-------
acequla is an institution peculiar to the native people living in that portion
of the Southwest which was acquired by the United States from Mexico" (Snow
vs Aba IPS. 18 N.M. 681, 691, 1^0 P. Wkk, 1914).
Long before American occupation of New Mexico in 1846, large areas of
Spanish land grants existed in which the colonizers, or settlers, shared
"common lands and waters" (see Ch. 8, N.M. Stat. Ann., 1953). The Spaniards
brought with them the technology and institutional framework for irrigation
of land and the distribution of water. Their customs and techniques derived
from a prior diffusion of near eastern culture which had been introduced into
Spain by the Muslims in the early middle ages (The Old Wor1d_ Background of
the Irrigation System of San Antonio, Texas--Thomas F. GTick, 1972).Whether
irrigation companies were autonomously administered or controlled by a town
government, or the water was considered public or private, attached to the
land or alienable, actual practice was based upon the following: 1) the
irrigators of one canal received their water in proportion 'to the amount of
land irrigated; 2) administration was entrusted to officials, usually the
irrigators. Thus, irrigators had substantial power in regulating their own
systems (Ibid., p. 4).
The present water law of New Mexico protects these early water rigths
(75-8-1). Early legislation (N.M. Stat. Ann., 75-14-3, 4, 6, 9, 27 to 31,
1953) provided that ditches or acequias already established should not be
disturbed; that all rivers and streams thereto known as public ditches were
officially declared to be such; and that all inhabitants should have the
right to construct private or common acequias and take the water from them
with the understanding that they should pay the owner over whose lands the
acequias passed.
Texas--In Miller vs Letzerich (121 Tex. 248, 49 S.W. 2d 404, 1932), the
Texas Supreme Court held that a change of sovereignty did not affect the
property rights of the inhabitants of the territory involved. The laws of
Mexico in effect when Mexican grants were made were held to be controlling
in determining the rights of holders of title thereunder (Manny vs Robinson,
122 Tex. 213, 56 S.W. 2d 438, 1932; Luttes vs State. 324 S.W. 2d 167, Tex.,
1939).
Statutes in force in the Republic of Texas before the introduction of
the common law are to be construed in the light of Mexican law, and the
validity and legal effect of contracts and of grants of land made before the
common law was adopted must be determined according to the civil law in
effect at the time of the grants (Miller vs Letzerich, supra at 121). There-
fore, whatever title rights and privileges inhabitants of Texas received from
the Spanish or Mexican governments remain intact even with the change in sov-
ereignty and adoption of the common law.
In Turner vs Big^Lake Oil Co. (128 Tex. 155, 96 S.W. 2d 221, 1936), the
court held that the rights of grantees of lands granted by Spain or Mexico
extend to the use of diffused surface waters collecting on their lands and
such rights could not be divested by provisions within the state's water
appropriation statute which declares storm, flood or rainwaters to be the
property of the state sqbject to appropriation.
29
-------
Endogenous Systems—New Mexico and Texas, although neighboring states
with a common river, adopted water laws significantly different. New Mexico
adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation for its surface and ground waters.
Texas, on the other hand, created a dual system involving the riparian and
prior appropriation doctrines for surface water rights, and the absolute
ownership rule for ground waters. The development of these laws is hereafter
described.
State Water Laws—New Mexico
Water Quantity Law—
Early territorial legislation established the appropriation doctrine in
New Mexico (Hutchins, The New Mexico Law of Water Rights, 1955). The terri-
torial supreme court in 1898 ruled that the law of prior appropriation existed
under the Mexican Republic at the time of the acquisition of New Mexico and
was the settled law of the territory (United States vs Rio Grande Dam and
Irrigation Co.. 9 N.M. 292, 51 P. 674, 1898).
The constitution recognizes all existing rights to the use of water for
any beneficial purposes, declares that unappropriated water of every stream
belongs to the public subject to appropriation, and states that beneficial
use is the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to use water (New
Mexico Const., Art. XVI). The law not only includes surface water but also
ground waters which are defined as ground water in underground streams,
channels, artesian basins, reservoirs, or lakes having reasonably ascertain-
able boundaries (New Mexico Stat., Sec. 75"11-1).
In 1907, a comprehensive statute was enacted to govern the appropriation
of waters from a watercourse. This law, amended in part, still governs the
appropriation of water (Sec. 75-5-1 to 37) and is the exclusive procedure to
acquire such a right (Farmer's Development Co. vs RayaldoLand and Irr. Co.,
28 N.M. 357, 213 P. 202, 1923).A watercourse is defined as any river, creek,
arroya, canyon, draw, or wash, or any other channel having definite ranks and
bed with visible evidence of the occasional flow of water (Sec. 75-1-1). The
flow of water need not be continuous for a channel to constitute a water-
course (Jaquez Ditch Co. vs Garcia. 17 N.M. 160, \2k P. 891, 1912).
An application to appropriate must be filed with the State Engineer for
some recognized beneficial purpose (Sec. 75-5-1). The State Engineer must
find that there is unappropriated water available in the source before the
application is approved (Sec. 75-5~5)• He may refuse to grant an application
for surface water if it would be contrary to the public interest (I bid.). In
Young and Norton vs Mender1ider (15 N.M. 666, 110 P. 1045, 1910), the court
held that matters of public interest went beyond questions of whether the
project was dangerous to public health or safety, and encompass an evaluation
of all facts and circumstances surrounding competing proposals for water use
in order to determine which proposal better serves the public interest. An
application may be approved for a lesser quantity than applied for (Sec.
75-5-5).
If the application is approved, the applicant ?s provided a permit and
given a certain time within which to construct his works and place the water
30
-------
to a beneficial use. Once the project is completed, the State Engineer issues
a license for the right to use that amount of water which has been put to a
beneficial use (Sec. 75"5"12). Any user aggrieved by a decision of the State
Engineer can appeal to the district court (Sec. 75~5~1 to 3).
Water used for irrigation purposes is considered appurtenant to the land
upon which it is used, but this water right can be severed from the land and
transferred to other land and for other purposes (Sec. 75~5~21, 75~5~22). To
accomplish a change, a change application must be submitted with the State
Engineer and notice of the proposed change must be given by publication
(Sec. 75-5-22, 23). In order to approve a change application, the State
Engineer must find that such a change can be made without causing a detriment
to other valid existing rights on the stream (Sec. 75~5~23).
Water may be delivered into any ditch, stream, or watercourse to supply
appropriators therefrom. In an exchange, an equivalent quantity of water may
be taken either above or below the point of delivery, less a proper deduction
for evaporation and seepage so long as other rights are not injured by the
exchange (Sec. 75~5~24).
When the owner of a water right fails to beneficially use all or any
part of his right for a period of four years, and has had one year written
notice from the State Engineer, the unused water reverts to the public and
is considered unappropriated public water (Sec. 75~5~26 and 75-11-8). This
forfeiture provision attempts to promote maximum use of the state's water
resources.
In Pioneer Irrigation Ditch Co. vs Bashek (41 N.M. 99, 64 P. 2d 388,
1937)i the court held that no^ right could be acqui red by adverse possession.
Subsequent decisions seem to support this position (Martinez vs Mundy, 61
N.M. 87, 295 P2d 209, 1956).
In Walker vs New Mexico and S.P.R.R. (165 U.S. 593, 1897), the court
held that a landowner has the right to capture and use diffused surface
waters.
As to the disposal of diffused surface water, an upper owner may not
artificially collect diffused surface water and discharge it onto his lower
neighbor in a manner that would do injury (Martinez vs Cook, 56 N.M. 343,
244 P2d 134, 1952).
All underground waters belong to the public and are subject to appropri-
ation for beneficial use (Sec. 75-11-19). No permit or license to appropri-
ate is required unless the appropriation is within a basin declared by the
State Engineer (Sec. 75-11-2). Anyone intending to appropriate ground water
in a declared basin for irrigation or industrial use must make application
to the State Engineer for a permit. Beneficial use is the basis, the meas-
ure and the limit to the right to use ground water (Sec. 75-11-2, 3). The
same rules for change of use and forfeiture of surface water apply to ground
water rights (Sec. 75-11-7, 8).
31
-------
The water right is a real property right (New Mexico Products Co. vs
New Mexico Power Co.. 42 N.M. 311, 77 P2d 634, 1938), granting the holder
permission to use the public resources according to the terms of the license
(Snow vs Aba los. 18 N.M. 681, 140. P. 1044, 191*0- An appropriator ' s right
cannot be measured by the capacity of his ditch, but is measured by the
quantity of water which has been applied to a beneficial use (Harkey vs
Smith, 31 N.M. 521, 247 P. 550, 1926). When an increased supply is devel-
oped, the developer is entitled to the increased flow (Ibid.). An appropri-
ator cannot waste water, but is entitled to his beneficial use requirements
(Snow vs Aba los, 18 N.M. 681, 140 P. 1044,
The State Engineer can allow only that amount of water to be diverted
that is consistent with good agricultural practices and will result in the
most effective use of aval lable water (Sec. 75~5-17)- This is an important
distinction in New Mexico law as it provides a dynamic feature in the exer-
cise of administrative authority and a correspondingly higher duty require-
ment in the implementation of the state's public trust.
The right of a junior appropriator is subservient to prior rights and
can only be exercised after prior rights are fully satisfied. The senior
appropriator is not entitled to more water than he can beneficially use, and
junior appropriators are entitled to use any excess to fill their entitle-
ments (State ex rel . Community Ditches vs Tularosa Community Ditch, 19 N.M.
352, 143 P. 207, 191 4)- An upstream junior appropriator is not liable to a
downstream senior appropriator for shortages absent a demand on the State
Engineer by the senior appropriator for the enforcement of priorities
(Warley vs United States Borax and Chemical Corp., ?8 N.M. 112, 428 P.2d 651,
1967). An owner of an irrigation right need not use his water in such a way
that no irrigation runoff reaches lower lands, but he is liable for injuries
willfully or negligently inflicted by unnecessary uses of the water (Stroup
vs Frank A. Hubbel Co.. 27 N.M. 25, 192 P. 519, 1920).
Water Quality Law —
The Water Quality Control Commission is composed of the Director of the
Environmental Improvement Agency, the Director of the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish, the State Engineer, the Secretary of the Oil Conservation
Commission, the Director of the State Park and Recreation Commission, the
Director of the Department of Agriculture, the Executive Secretary of the
State Natural Resource Conservation Commission, the Director of the Bureau
of Mines, and a representative of the public (N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 75~39~3»
1953)-
The Commission must adopt a comprehensive water quality program (Ibid.,
Sec. 75-39-4 B) , water quality standards (Ibid. , Sec. 75~39-4 C) , and publish
regulations to prevent or abate water pollution (jjich , 75"39"4 D). It can
also require persons to obtain permits for the discharge of any water con-
taminant either directly or indirectly into the water ( Ibid. , Sec. 75~39~4.1).
New Mexico has not yet adopted a permit program called for in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and thus EPA must implement the NPDES
program.
32
-------
State Water Laws--Texas
Water Quantity Law—Texas
Texas Is classified as having a dual system of prior appropriation and
riparian rights. Presently, however, the appropriation rights have the
greater importance. After July 1, 1895, riparian rights in the owner of any
lands are not recognized by the state of Texas. "This code does not recog-
nize any riparian right in the owner of any land the title to which passed
out of the State of Texas after July 1, 1895" (Vernons Texas Code Annotated
Water, 1972, 5-001).
The evaluation of water law in Texas is complex. Many controversies
over land grants of the 18th and 19th centuries from Spain and Mexico along
the Lower Rio Grande arose over the existence of riparian rights. A case
decided in 1961 held that these grants did not include appurtenant irrigation
rights (Texas vs Valmont Plantations, 3^6 S.W. 2d 853, Tex. Civ. App., 1961).
This court concluded that no evidence existed concerning customary riparian
rights for irrigation in the civil law governing navigable streams in those
countries. Irrigation rights, therefore, must rest on specific grants from
the sovereign.
Specific irrigation grants were made by Mexico even after 1836 when
Texas acquired its independence. Civil law reigned in the Republic of Texas
between 1836 and 1840.
The common law of England was adopted by Texas in 18^0. This introduced
riparian law which continued from 1845 until 1889. At this time, the appro-
priation system was introduced but it was limited to the arid portions of
Texas (The Irrigation Act of 1889, Tex. Gen. Law, 1889, ch. 88, p. 100).
This latter doctrine provided that appropriators could obtain water rights
by diversion and application of that water to a beneficial use. Appropria-
tors were required to file affidavits and maps which illustrated and
described the diversion works and the proposed use with the county clerk.
Public waters were divided into two categories by amendments to the law
made in 1895 (Tex. Gen. Law, 1895, ch 21, p. 21). These were "ordinary flow
and underflow" and "storm or rain waters." Riparian rights could only attach
to ordinary flow and underflow waters. Forfeiture did not occur even if the
appropriators failed to file. Perfection of the right occurred when the works
were completed and the water diverted. The appropriator had to file an affi-
davit which showed the approximate number of acres to be irrigated, the name,
size, capacity and location of the ditch, the appropriator's name and the
stream from which the water was to be diverted.
The Burgess Classock Act of 1913 (Tex. Gen. Law, 1913, ch 171, p. 358)
was the first appropriation act to have a statewide application. Under this
Act, county clerks were given a specific time within which to file certified
copies of all instruments which related to appropriated waters with the Board
of Water Engineers. A permit system was then introduced which superseded the
county clerk filing procedure.
33
-------
In 1917, the Canales Act (Tex. Gen. Laws, 1917, ch. 88, p. 211) changed
and enlarged the Burgess-Classock Act. The permit system was retained and is
still in use today. A procedural aspect for adjudicating water rights was
declared unconstitutional on the grounds that judicial functions were unlaw-
fully delegated to an administrative agency (Board of Water Engineers vs
McKnight. 111 Texas 82, 229, S.W. 301, 1921).
Applications to appropriate normal flow water in Texas streams have been
regularly required since 19^8 due to the fact that most rivers have been
fully appropriated
In Texas, under the current law, as between appropriators, the first in
time is the first in right (Sec. 5-027). Section 5-021 provides that the
water of the ordinary flow, underflow and tides of every flowing river,
natural stream and lake, and of every bay or arm of the Gulf of Mexico and
the storm water, flood water and rain water of every river,natural stream,
canyon, ravine, depression, and watershed in the state is the property of the
state. This statute further states that, water which is imported from any
source outside the boundaries of the state for use in the state and which is
transported through the beds and banks of any navigable stream within the
state or by utilizing any facilities owned or operated by the state is the
property of the state (Sec. 5.021(a) and (b)).
Section 5.022 further provides that the right to the use of state water
may be acquired by appropriation in the manner and for the purposes provided
in this chapter. When the right to use state water is lawfully acquired, it
may be taken or diverted from its natural channel. It was stated in South
Texas Water Co. vs Bieri (Civ. App. 1952, 2*7 S.W. 2d 268) that the waters
of public streams be long to the sovereign and are held by the sovereign in
trust for the public.
In Texas, diffused surface waters may be impounded without regard to a
downstream user of the requirement of obtaining a permit.
The water of the ordinary flow, underflow and tides of every
flowing river, natural stream, and lake, and of every bay or
arm of the Gulf of Mexico, and the storm water, floodwater,
and rain water of every river, natural stream, canyon, ravine,
depression, and watershed in the state Is the property of the
state (5.021 (a)),
In Turner vs Big Lake Oil Co. (128 Texas 115, 96 S.W. 2d 221, 1936), the
Texas Supreme Court held that to the extent that the above statute purported
to convert diffused surface water into public waters on lands patented before
1913, it was unconstitutional. Texas takes the position that the landowner
has property rights in diffused surface water under the "civil law" rule
(Sec. 5.Q40).
The exclusive method for acquiring an appropriation right is under the
permit system. Section 5.123 requires that:
-------
(a) An application to appropriate unappropriated state water must:
(l) be in writing and sworn to;
(2) contain the name and post office address of the applicant;
(3) identify the source of water supply;
(*t) state the nature and purposes of the proposed use and the
amount of water to be used for each purpose;
(5) state the location and describe the proposed facilities;
(6) state the time within which the proposed construction is to
begin; and
(7) state the time required for the application of water to the
proposed use.
(b) If the proposed use is irrigation, the application must also
contain:
(1) a description of the land proposed to be irrigated; and
(2) an estimate of the total acreage to be irrigated.
(c) If the application is for a seasonal permit, under the provisions
of Section 5-136 of this code, the application must also state the
months or seasons of the year the water is to be used.
(d) If the application is for a temporary permit, under the provisions
of Section 5.137 of this code, the application must also state the
period of the proposed temporary use.
A permit to appropriate water gives the appropriator no title to the
water, but rather the right of one to divert and use that amount of water
which can be beneficially used (Sec. 5.002). Beneficial use is defined as
the amount of water which is economically necessary for a purpose authorized
by this chapter when reasonable intelligence and reasonable diligence are
used in applying the water to that purpose (Sec. 5-025). Section 5.023
lists the purposes for which water may be appropriated and states that water
may also be stored or diverted for any other beneficial use.
A right to use state water under a permit or a certified filing
is limited not only to the amount specifically appropriated, but
also to the amount which is being or can be beneficially used
for the purpose specified In the appropriation and all water not
so used is considered not appropriated (Sec. 5-027).
Thus, beneficial use is the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to
use water and priority in time confers a prior right (Sec. 5.024).
A system of preferences between types of uses exists when the uses con-
flict (Sup. 1971, 46A S.W. 2d 268). First priority goes to domestic and
municipal uses, followed by industrial uses, irrigation, mining, hydro-
electric power, navigation, recreation and pleasure, and other beneficial
uses. However, water is allocated according to priority unless a preferred
user brings the necessary action.
An appropriator is limited to the quantity of-water specified in his
permit to a beneficial use; the unused water is subject to the provision of
the forfeiture statute.
35
-------
In Texas Water Rights Commission vs Wright (Sup. 1971, 46** S.W. 2d 268),
the court held that water permits owners are not vested with the right of non-
use and at all relevant times the state has the rights as the owner of the
water. The right which one obtains by a permit for appropriated waters is
limited to beneficial and nonwasteful uses. The court stated further that a
workable system to regulate the appropriation of waters produced the rule
that the beneficial use of waters is the conservation of that resource. The
duty to use the water beneficially is inherently attached to a permit to
appropriate waters. Therefore, the nonuse of appropriated waters is the
equivalent of waste. Although a matured appropriation right to water is a
vested right, that right is limited to beneficial and nonwasteful uses
(Ibid.).
Water rights can be lost by abandonment or forfeiture. Revocation of a
permit occurs upon ten consecutive years of nonuse. This raises a presumption
of abandonment of use. Section 5.173 provides that: If no part of the water
authorized to be appropriated under a permit or certified filing has been put
to beneficial use at any time during the ten year period immediately preceding
the cancellation proceedings authorized by this subchapter, then the appropri-
ation is presumed to have been willfully abandoned, and the permit or certi-
fied filing is subject to cancellation in whole.
In Texas Water Rights Commission vs Wright (Sec. 5.030), the Texas
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the forfeiture statute on the
grounds that, while water rights can be considered as a "vested" property
interest, no one has a vested right to nonuse. The court construed this
statute as creating a conclusive presumption of abandonment after a period
of three years of nonuse.
If any lawful appropriation or use of state water is willfully
abandoned during any three successive years, the right to use
the water is forfeited and the water is again subject to
appropriation (Sec. 5-301 to .341).
The Water Rights Adjudication Act (Sec. 5-303) permits the adjudication
of all water rights outstanding on a stream or segment of the stream. The
Act also provides for a system of recording claims of water rights.
The statute covers riparian water rights, claims under the Irrigation
Acts of 1889 and 1895 which were not previously filed, special claims under
Section 5.151 to impound, divert or use water for other than livestock or
domestic purposes, and other claims of water rights other than claims under
certified filings or permits.
Under the statute, each claimant must file a statement with the
Commission before September 1, 1969, which shows the location and the nature
of the water right; the stream from which such right is claimed; the date of
the commencement of the works; dates of quantity of use; and other pertinent
information (Sec. 5-025).
Texas has no provision dealing with the acquisition of water rights
through prescriptive or adverse possission. All appropriation rights must
36
-------
be obtained through the acquisition of a permit from the Texas Water Rights
Commission.
Section 5.0^0 provides that a "permanent water right is an easement and
passes with the title of land." The Rules and Regulations of the Texas Water
Rights Commission provide for rules governing the transfer of water rights.
A right to use state water under a permit or a certified filing
is limited not only to the amount specifically appropriated but
also to the amount which is being or can be beneficially used
for the purpose specified in the appropriation, and al1 water
not so used is considered not appropriated (Sec. 21.257)•
Couple this provision with Section 5-026 which reads as follows:
No right to appropriate water is perfected unless the water
has been beneficially used for a purpose stated in the original
declaration of intention to appropriate water or stated in a
permit issued by the commission or one of its predecessors.
Water Quality Laws--
The policy of Texas as to water quality is set forth in Section 21.002,
which states that:
...it is the policy of the state to maintain the quality of
water in the state consistent with public health and enjoy-
ment, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and
aquatic life, the operation of existing industries and the
economic development of the state...and to require the use
of all reasonable methods to implement this policy.
The Texas Water Quality Board is the principal authority in the state on
matters relating to the quality of water (Sec. 21.022). tt is composed of
seven members (Sec. 21.061), and must establish the level of quality and
control the quality of water within the state (Sec. 21.062). Section 21.066
gives the Board the power to institute court proceedings to compel compliance
with their rules, orders, permits, or other decisions. The Board has the
power to set water quality standards (21.088), and to develop comprehensive
water quality management plans for various areas of the state (Sec. 21.251).
Unless authorized by the Board, no person can discharge agricultural
waste into or adjacent to any water in the state (Green vs B i dd 1 e, 8 Wheat 1,
92, 5L. Ed. 5*»7).
Compacts and Treaties—
A compact is an agreement, a contract (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th
Edition). This term is usually applied to conventions between nations or
sovereign states. A compact is a contract between parties, which creates
obligations and rights which are capable of being enforced ("$k Stat. 2953).
37
-------
Rio Grande Compact—
The Rio Grande Compact of 1938 has to do only with the portion
of the drainage basin of Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, located
about 80 miles southeast of El Paso, Texas. This diversion of
the total drainage area of the Rio Grande was adopted in the
Treaty of 1906 between the United States and Mexico and has
been used consistently since then.
Complaints of water shortages were reported to the Mexican Government in
the early 1890's near Juarez across the river from El Paso. Shortages also
began to occur along the Rio Grande in the Mesilla and El Paso Valleys. The
Mexican Government then filed a claim for damages against the United States
stating that the shortages were a result of increased diversions from the
river in Colorado and New Mexico. The United States Department of State then
began an investigation of the situation through the International Boundary
Commission. The result was the embargo of 1896 and the Mexican Treaty of
1906. The embargo was not lifted until May of 1925. In return for relin-
quishment of all claims for damages, the United States guaranteed to Mexico
under the Mexican Treaty "an annual delivery in perpetuality in the Rio
Grande at the head of the Mexican Canal near El Paso of 60,000 acre-feet
(7,398 ha-m) of water." In order to guarantee the fulfillment- of the
Mexican Treaty and to develop a reclamation project in the Elephant Butte-
Fort Quitman section, the United States authorized the Bureau of Reclamation
to build the Elephant Butte Reservoir which was completed in 1916. It occu-
pies the nearby river valley for a distance of approximately 40 miles (64 km)
from the San Marcial narrows to Elephant Butte. The section referred to as
Elephant Butte-Fort Quitman encompasses the reservoir area and the wide plains
and long strips of land next to the river from Elephant Butte to Fort Quitman.
Of this distance of 210 miles (338 km), 130 miles (209 km) are above El Paso.
This section is a series of valleys which are divided by canyons and narrows.
The Rio Grande Project is made up of the valleys of Rincon, Mesilla and the
northern half of the El Paso Valley on the Texas side of the river. The
Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District is the area which is
included in the southern half of the El Paso Valley on the Texas side of the
river (National Resources Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 164 to 167).
The Rio Grande Compact (41.001-41.009) between Texas, Colorado and New
Mexico was entered to apportion the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort
Quitman, Texas. Article XI states that:
New Mexico and Texas agree that upon the effective date of this
compact all controversies between said states relative to the
quantity or quality of the water of the Rio Grande are composed
and settled; however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to
prevent recourse by a signatory state to the Supreme Court of
the United States for redress should the character or quality of
the water, at the point of delivery, be changed hereafter by one
signatory state to the injury of another. Nothing herein shall
be construed as an admission by any signatory state that the use
of water for irrigation causes increase of salinity for which
the user is responsible in law (Ibid.).
38
-------
Article X states that it Is the policy of all three states to avoid
waste of waters and officials charged with duties under the compact to use
their "utmost efforts to prevent wastage of waters."
Colorado must deliver water in the Rio Grande at the Colorado-New Mexico
state line, measured at Lobatos, in each calendar year and must be 10,000
acre-feet less than the sum of the quantities set forth in Table 5.
Adjustments are made for any change in the location of gaging stations,
any new or increased depletion of runoff above inflow index gaging stations,
and any transmountain diversions into the drainage basin of the Rio Grande
above Lobatos.
New Mexico must deliver water to the Rio Grande at San Marcial, during
each calendar year, with exception of July, August and September. The quant-
ity is set forth in Table 6 in the tabulation of relationship, which cor-
responds to the quantity at the upper index station.
This schedule Is subject to later provisions, and adjustments are made
for any change in location of gaging stations, depletion after 1929 in New
Mexico at any time of the year of the natural runoff at Otowi Bridge,
depletion of the runoff during July, August and September of the tributaries
between Otowi Bridge and San Marcial, by works constructed after 1937, and
any transmountain diversions Into the Rio Grande between Lobatos and San
Marcial.
International Treaties—A treaty ?s defined as a compact which is made
between two or more Independent nations with a view to the public welfare
(United States vs Belmont, N.Y. 57 S. Ct. 758). It is an agreement or con-
tract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by properly
authorized commissioners, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or
the supreme power of each state (Edye vs Robertson, 5 S. Ct. 2A7).
There are three agreements between the United States and Mexico which
relate to the control and beneficial use of the waters of the Rio Grande.
1. Rio Grande Convention (U.S. Department of the Interior, "Documents
on the Use and Control of Waters of Interstate and International Streams--
Compacts, Treaties and Adjudication," 1956).
This treaty was entered into by the United States and Mexico to provide
for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation
purposes (34 Stat. 293). Upon completion of the dam near Engle, New Mexico,
the United States agreed to deliver 60,000 acre-feet (7,398 ha-m) to Mexico,
in the bed of the Rio Grande at a point where the head works of the Acequia
Madre exist above Juarez, Mexico. The United States assures that a given
amount of water will be distributed through the year and in the same propor-
tion as the water supply proposed to be furnished from the irrigation systems
in the United States in the area of El Paso, Texas, according to Table 7.
39
-------
TABLE 5. DISCHARGE OF CONEJOS RIVER AND RIO GRANDE,
EXCLUSIVE OF CONEJOS RIVER. COLORADO
ConeJos River
[Quantities in Thousands of Acre-Feet]
Conejos Index
Supply1
100 (12.33)*
150 (18.50)
200 (24.66)
250 (30.83)
300 (36.99)
350 (43.16)
400 (1*9.32)
Conejos River
at Mouths2
0 (0.00)*
20 (2.47)
45 (5.55)
75 (9.25)
109 (13. 44)
1*7 (18.13)
188 (23.18)
Conejos Index
Supply1
450 (55.49)
500 (61.65)
550 (67.82)
600 (73.98)
650 (80.15)
700 (86.31)
Conejos River
at Mouths2
232 (28.61)
278 (34.28)
326 (40.20)
376 (46.36)
426 (52.53)
476 (58.69)
* Values in parentheses are thousands of hectare-meters.
Rio Grande Exclusive of Conejos River
[Quantities in Thousands of Acre-Feet]
Rio Grande at
Del Norte3
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
(24.
(30.
(36.
(43.
(49.
(55.
(61.
(67.
(73.
(80.
(86.
66)*
83)
99)
16)
32)
49)
65)
82)
98)
15)
3D
Rio
Lobatos
at
60
65
75
86
98
112
127
144
162
182
204
Grande at
less Conejos
Mouths4
(7.
(8.
(9.
(10.
(12.
(13.
(15.
(17.
09.
(22.
(25.
40)*
01)
25)
60)
08)
81)
66)
76)
97)
44)
15)
Rio Grande at
Del Norte3
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
(92.
(98.
(104.
(110.
(117-
(123.
(135.
(147.
(160.
(172.
48)
64)
81)
97)
14)
30)
63)
96)
29)
62)
Rio
Lobatos
at
229
257
292
335
380
430
510
640
740
840
Grande at
less Conejos
Mouths4
(28.
(31.
(36.
(41.
(46.
(53.
(62.
(78.
(91.
(103-
24)
69)
00)
3D
85)
02)
88)
91)
24)
57)
* Values in parentheses in thousand hectare-meters
Intermediate quantities shall be computed by proportional parts.
1 Conejos Index Supply is the natural flow of Conejos River at the USGS gaging
station near Mogote during the calendar year, plus the natural flow of Los
Pinos River at the USGS gaging station near Ortiz and the natural flow of
San Antonio River at the USGS gaging station at Ortiz, both during the months
of April to October, inclusive.
2 Conejos River at Mouths is the combined discharge of branches of this river
at the USGS gaging stations near Los Sauces during the calendar year.
3 Rio Grande at Del Norte is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the USGS
gaging station near Del Norte during the calendar year (measured above all
principal points of diversion to San Luis Valley) corrected for the operatTon
of reservoirs constructed after 1937-
4 Rio Grande at Lobatos less Conejos at Mouths is the total flow of the Rio
Grande at the USGS gaging stations near Lobatos, less the discharge of
Conejos River at its Mouths, during the calendar year.
40
-------
TABLE 6. DISCHARGE OF RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE
AND ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR, NEW MEXICO
[Quanti
Otowi Index
Supolv
r
100
100
300
4oo
500
^** *f
600
700
/ » **
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
(12)
(25)
(37)
(49)
(62)
(7*0
(86)
(99)
\ ^ ^ *
(111)
(123)
(136)
(148)
(160)
(173)
(185)
Effective Supply
(ties In Thousands of Acre-Feet (hectare-meters)]
Elephant Butte Otowi Index Elephant Butte
Effective Index Supply Effective Index
Supply
57
114
171
228
286
345
406
471
452
621
707
800
897
996
1095
(7)
(14)
(21)
(28)
(35)
(43)
(50)
(58)
(67)
(77)
(87)
(99)
(111)
(123)
(135)
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
3200
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2000
3000
(197)
(210)
(222)
(234)
(247)
(395)
(271)
(284)
(296)
(308)
(321)
(333)
(345)
(247)
(370)
Supply
1195
1295
1395
1*495
1595
1695
1795
1895
2095
2095
2195
2295
2395
2495
2595
(147)
(160)
(172)
(184)
(197)
(209)
(221)
(234)
(258)
(258)
(271)
(283)
(295)
(308)
(320)
TABLE 7. DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF WATER FROM THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO
Month
January
February
Ma rch
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
Acre-Feet
Per
Month
0
1,090
5,460
12,000
12,000
12,000
8,180
4,370
3,270
1,090
540
0
60,000
Ha-m
Per Month
0
134
673
1,480
1,480
1,480
1,009
539
403
134
67
0
7,399
Corresponding
Cubic Feet of
Water
0
47,480,400
237,837,600
522,720,000
522,720,000
522,720,000
356,320,800
190,357,200
142,411,200
47,480,400
23,522,400
0
2,613,570,000
Cubic Meters
0
1,343,695
6,730,804
14,792,976
1*1,792,976
14,792,976
10,083,878
5,387,108
4,030,237
1,343,695
665,684
0
73,964,031
41
-------
In the event of an extraordinary drought, the amount delivered to the
Mexican Canal will be diminished in the same proportion as the water deliv-
ered to the lands under irrigation in the United States.
2. Rio Grande Rectification Convention, 1933 (3** Stat. 1295).
This treaty, again between the United States and Mexico, was entered
into to alleviate flood dangers and stabilize international boundary lines.
The United States agreed to pay 88 percent of the construction costs and the
Mexican government 12 percent.
3. Rio Grande, Colorado and Tijuana Treaty, 19M» (59 Stat. 1219).
This treaty between Mexico and the United States was entered into to
regulate the use of the waters of the Rio Grande River, Colorado River and
the Tijuana River. The International Boundary Commission was established to
carry out the principles contained in the Treaty of November 12, 1884.
Article III establishes preferences, with domestic and municipal uses
receiving top priority followed by agricultural and stock-raising, electric
power, other industrial uses, navigation, fishing and hunting, and any other
beneficial uses.
The waters of the Rio Grande between Fort Quitman, Texas, and the Gulf
of Mexico are allocated to the two countries as follows:
Mexico is to receive all of the waters reaching the main channel of the
Rio Grande from the San Juan and Alamo Rivers, including the return flow from
the lands irrigated from the latter two rivers; One-half of the flow in the
main channel of the Rio Grande below the lowest major international storage
dam; Two-thirds of the flow reaching the main channel of the Rio Grande
from the Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, Escondido, and Salada Rivers and
the Las Vacas Arroyo; One-half of all other flows not otherwise allotted by
this Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande including the
contributions from all the unmeasured tributaries not named in the Article,
between Fort Quitman and the lowest major international storage dam.
United States Is to receive all of the waters reaching the main channel
of the Rio Grande from the Pecos and Devils Rivers, Goodenough Spring and
Alamito, Terllnqua, San Felipe and Pinto Creeks; One-half of the flow in the
main channel of the Rio Grande below the lowest major international storage
dam; One-third of the flow reaching the main channel of the Rio Grande from
the Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las
Vecas Arroyo, provided that this third shall not be less than 350,000 acre-
feet (43,155 ha-m) annually; One-half of all other flows not otherwise
allotted by this Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande,
including contributions from all unmeasured tributaries between Fort Quitman
and the lowest major international storage dam.
-------
Federal Law
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) sets forth its
objectives in Section 101. Its objectives are to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters (Sec. 101
(a)). "It is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the
navigable waters be eliminated by 1885" (Sec. 101(a) 1).
The administrator of the EPA must, in cooperation with other federal
agencies, state water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies,
prepare comprehensive programs for the prevention, reduction, or elimination
of pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters, and improve the
sanitary condition of surface and underground waters.
With some specific exceptions (302, 306, 307, 318, *»01, A04), the dis-
charge of any pollutant by any person is unlawful (Sec. 301(a)). Section
301(b) 1A commands that "efficient limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which shall require the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available, be achieved not later
than July 1, 1977." 2A of Section 301(b) commands that effluent limitations
for categories and losses of point sources, other than publicly owned treat-
ment works which shall require application of the best available technology
for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, be
achieved by July 1, 1983.
Section 402(a) 1 states that the administrator may issue a permit for
the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants. The discharge
must meet the effluent standards established by the Act. Discharge of pollu-
tants means any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source. Therefore, all nonpoint sources are excluded from the effluent
limitations subject only to analysis and study under Section 30A(e). Point
source refers to any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance-, including
but not limited to any "pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete
fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or
vessel, or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be dis-
charged (Sec. 502(U)).
ln NRDC vs Train (7 ERC 1881), the court held the administrator could
not exempt point sources discharging pollutants from NPDES regulations. An
exempted source included discharge from irrigation return flows from point
sources where the flow is from less than 3,000 acres (1,215 ha). Thus, the
EPA must include all irrigation return flows or reclassify irrigation as a
nonpoint source of discharge.
-------
SECTION 5
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Although the river reach from Elephant Butte Dam to Fort Quitman is
classified as being part of Texas in regard to the quantity of water deliv-
ered under the terms of the Rio Grande Compact, water quality standards have
remained within the realm of the respective states of New Mexico and Texas.
However, as the river has a significant flow only when water is being
released from Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico, water quality criteria
have been established via agreement between the states. The criteria^are
related to discharge in the river and are in effect only when a certain
minimum flow is exceeded.
Water quality standards for New Mexico were published in August 1973 with
the purpose "to designate the uses for which the surface waters of the State
of New Mexico shall be protected and to describe the water quality standards
necessary to sustain the designated uses." The standards contain a specific
Antidegradation Policy which states:
Degradation of waters the quality of which is better than the
stream standards established by the Mew Mexico Water Quality
Commission is not reasonable degradation and is subject to
abatement under the authority granted the Commission by the
New Mexico Water Quality Act, as amended, unless it is justi-
fiable as a result of necessary economic and social develop-
ment. To protect the existing quality of water, the Commission
under that Act will require the highest and best degree of
effluent treatment practicable ("New Mexico Water Quality
Standards," New Mexico Water Quality Commissron, Aug. 1973).
General standards were formulated for all surface waters and specific
standards for the Rio Grande Basin. Those standards relevant to irrigation
return flows are contained in the specific standards.
Texas water quality criteria have been devised in accordance with the
statement of policy of the Texas Water Pollution Control Act:
It is declared to be the policy of the State of Texas to
maintain purity of the waters of the State consistent with
the public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propa-
gation and protection of fish and wildlife including birds,
mammals, and other terrestrial and aquatic life, the operation
kk
-------
of existing industries, and the industrial development of the
State, and to that end to require the use of all reasonable
methods to prevent and control the pollution of the waters
of this State (Section 21.002).
In addition to a General Statement of Texas Water Quality Criteria,
specific criteria have been established for reaches of the Rio Grande. The
specific standards applied to the Rio Grande by both New Mexico and Texas are
summarized in Table 8.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
As early as 1918, the Bureau of Reclamation began collecting water
samples from the river and some of the drains within the project area. These
samples were analyzed for total dissolved solids (TDS or salinity). The drain
sampling program has been expanded until at present it includes all of the
major drains. River water quality records are now kept on a regular basis
at San Marcial by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), below Caballo Dam by
the USGS and at El Paso and Fort Quitman by the International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC). The research report on "Discharge and Salt Burden
of the Rio Grande Above Fort Quitman, Texas, and Salt-Balance Conditions on
the Rio Grande Project" (Wilcox, 1968), by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory pro-
vided quality records for below Elephant Butte Dam, at Leasburg Dam and at
the El Paso-Hudspeth County Line, in addition to the other stations, for the
period 1934-1963. Intermittent records for some of these stations have been
continued by the USBR.
The annual average values for total dissolved solids, weighted on a
discharge basis, are shown for stations in the study area in Table 9- The
averages, for the periods for which records are available, show that the con-
centrations of total dissolved solids in the river increase from 500 mg/1
below Caballo Dam to 800 mg/1 at El.Paso and 1850 mg/1 at Fort Quitman. Peak
values of 1100, 3850 and 10,750 mg/1 have been recorded at these stations,
respectively. The established quality criteria are seldom exceeded.
Concentrations of total dissolved solids in the major drains of the Rio
Grande project are shown in Table 10. The water quality in the drains may
be compared to the water quality in the river at the point of diversion to the
respective valleys, as presented in Table 9, and discussed earlier in this
section.
Over the period for which common records are available, the concentration
of total dissolved solids in the Rincon Valley increased from 500 to 1,020
mg/1 on average, in the Mesilla Valley from 550 to 1,290 mg/1, in the El Paso
Valley from 800 to 2,700 mg/1, and in the Hudspeth District fron^1,500 to a
figure in excess of 1,850 mg/1 (this figure being the concentrat.on of salts
in the Rio Grande at Fort Quitman).
The sampling station at El Paso has the longest continuous record of TDS
concentrations typical of valley conditions. Records have been kept since
1918, when two samples were taken during the year. The discharge we.ghted
-------
TABLE 8, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO
Designated uses
Applicability of standards
Standards
Parameter:
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
pH
Turbldfty, FTU
Monthly !ogaHthmlc mean of
fecal collform bacteria,
colonies/100 ml
Total dissolved solids, mg/1
Sulphate, mg/1
Chlorides, mg/1
Texas Standards
Presidio to
New Mexico line
Desirable uses:
noncontact recrea-
tion; propagation of
fish £ wl Idlife;
domestic raw water
supply.
Flow ^3500 cfs
> 5.0
Z-o - 3.0
35 135 El
Average < 1800
Average <_ 700
Average <_ 500
New Mexico Standards
New Mexico line
to 1 ml le below
Percha Dam
Irrigation; limited
warm water fishery;
livestock £ wildlife
watering; secondary
contact recreation.
Flow >350 cfs
> 5.0
6.6 - 8.8
L < 3&
< 1000, with no more
< 2000
< 500
< Aoo
One ml le below
Percha Dam to
headwaters
Irrigation; livestock
£ wildlife watering;
marginal cold water
fishery; secondary
contact recreation;
warm water fishery.
Flow >350 cfs
Storage >. 25,000 AF
> 5.0 (>. A.O for
periods of 6 hrs.
or tessi .
6.0 - g.O
< 32 2
... 59
< 100, with no more
Headwaters
Cabal lo Reservoir
to Elephant 8. Dam
Fish culture; irri-
gation; 1 ivestock £
wi Idlife watering;
marginal cold water
fishery; secondary
contact recreation;
warm water fishery.
Flow > 100 cfs
> 5.0
6.6 - 8.8
< 25
< 1000, with no more
Elephant Butte
Reservoi r
Irrigation storage;
livestock £ wl Idl Ife
watering; primary
contact recreation;
warm water fishery.
Storage >_ 100,000 AF
> 5.0 (2k. 0 for periods
of 6 hrs. or less)
6.6 - 3.0
< 32iZ
...59.
< 100, with no more
than 10* > 200
01
-------
TABLE 9- TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS AT SELECTED STATIONS.
Date
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
19^0
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
San
Marclal
441
357
272
--
242
736
514
730
592
563
593
1,021
470
899
809
611
544
427
500
618
736
419
360
603
397
375
522
590
338
353
449
618
360
611
883
853
677
515
383
662
427
Caballo
Di
603
603
419
412
463
478
471
544
559
441
456
706
434
493
758
927
853
508
537
449
515
Leasburg
El Paso
scharge weighted average
552*
420
620
420*
566
522
698
500*
500*
492
714
621
608
557
669
713
633
574
537
560
640
640
441
463
522
508
515
588
596
485
500
662
522
522
824
949
875
537
559
515
581
609*
680
552
581
722*
—
655
750
890
1,287
765
721
1,022
897
883
846
926
912
868
831
801
846
919
890
581
750
787
801
816
824
838
750
772
904
735
743
956
1,010
1,050
596
721
831
860
County
Line
TDS, mg/1
e1,721
e1,662
el, 662
el, 662
1,486
1,817
1,868
1,751
831
1,486
1,589
1,692
1,949
1,993
1,905
1,758
1,795
2,368
2,251
2,199
1,964
919
—
427
772
1,751
2,207,
• r*r\r
Fort
Quitman
2,491
2,088
1,836
1,972
2,045
1,985
2,000
2,240
1,560
2,090
2,120
1,760
2,140
2,260
1,680
882
1,700
1,770
2,070
2,320
2,590
3,040
2,630
2,740
2,730
3,860
2,420
1,270
559
375
294
801
1,380
2,090
i 1 h^
47
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
San
Year Marcial
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Years of
Record
Discharge
Wt. Averages
441
368
478
567
380
418
652
447
415
412
427
576
52
482
Cabal lo
485
427
441
503
505
475
27
504
Leas burg El Paso
588 868
485 801
515 875
1,060
566
691
816
890
780
824
821
908
833
44 55
558 802
County
Line
2,530
1,971
2,515
12
1,498
Fort
0_ui tman
4,110
2,690
3,990
4,440
375
1,100
2,240
2,900
3,074
2,631
4,844
2,843
2,438
46
1,851
= 5 samples or less
e = partly estimated.
average concentration for each year over the period of record has been plotted
in Figure 3, showing the variations of water quality with time. Through to
the early 1920's, concentrations at El Paso were comparatively low, probably
corresponding to the lack of drainage facilities. As irrigation water was
applied, the deep percolation contributed to a rise in the water table rather
than rapidly returning to the river through drains. With the completion of
the drainage system in 1925, the water table would have been lowered and the
accumulated salts returned to the river. Later, the salt concentration in
the river declined to a lower level (averaging about 800 mg/1), which it has
maintained fairly consistently ever since.
SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
During the course of the cycle of diversion of water to farmlands, perc-
olation through the soil profile and return of unconsumed water to its river
source, a number of changes are likely to occur. Two of these changes,
related to the quality of water downstream of an irrigated area, are the
concentrating effect and salt pickup.
48
-------
TABLE 10. DISCHARGE AND SALT CONCENTRATIONS OF DRAINAGE
WATERS OF THE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
tear
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
Rincon Valley
Flow
AF
33,335
31,442
34,537
35,120
31,935
36,719
39,294
41,024
40,871
26,900
28,600
30,200
31,340
39,630
33,590
33,970
43,846
43,590
36,667
34,820
--
--
--
33,780
33,103
16,530
16,040
ha-tn
4,110
3,877
4,358
4,330
3,938
4,527
4,845
5,058
5,039
3,317
3,526
3,724
3,864
4,886
4,142
4,189
5,406
5,375
4,521
4,293
--
--
--
4,165
4,082
2,038
1,978
TDS
mg/1
800
920
790
940
900
1,000
870
1,010
1,010
1,000
980
1,010
1,130
1,010
1,040
1,1 40
1,040
1,000
1,010
900
—
—
—
980
960
1,030
Mesilla Valley
Flow
AF
185,174
192,446
195,389
191,157
183,774
196,546
194,358
105,364
217,785
167,100
185,200
180,400
185,870
217,390
225,460
215,560
235,922
256,910
262,369
225,100
—
— —
—
222,322
126,750
82,300
ha-rn
22,831
23,729
24,091
23,570
22,659
24,234
23,964
12,991
26,853
20,603
22,835
22,243
22,918
26,804
27,799
26,579
29,089
31,677
32,350
27,755
_.-
~* ••
— —
27,412
15,628
10,147
TDS
mg/1
1,560
1,530
1,230
1,350
1,660
1,590
1,370
r,3io
1,250
1,240
1,210
1,360
1,280
1,110
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,120
1,210
1,120
— "~
"
— *•
1,150
1,370
1,180
El Paso Valley
Flow
AF
95,330
97,406
111,437
118,586
132,471
131,200
138,069
137,181
132,816
109,500
112,900
125,100
130,210
129,680
122,550
127,310
148,746
139,590
148,653
154,650
""
"~
150,588
77,480
73,220
ha-m
11,754
12,010
13,740
14,622
16,334
16,177
17,024
16,194
16,376
13,501
13,921
15,425
16,055
15,990
15,110
15,697
18,340
17,211
18,329
19,068
18,568
9,553
9,028
TDS
mg/1
3,730
2,840
3,370
3,300
2,640
2,710
2,680
2,490
2,610
2,830
2,790
2,640
2,660
2,690
2,620
2,540
2,420
2,240
2,340
2,250
2,290
2,790
2,650
If only enough water is added in a given irrigation to bring the soil to
field capacity, there may be little or no movement of water below the root
zone. The salts and other impurities applied with the water remain in the
soil, to be concentrated in the constantly decreasing amount of soil water
as a result of evapotranspiratTon, or for some salts to be precipitated in
the soil. Continued irrigations of this type, coupled with the constant
removal of relatively pure water by plants in the evapotranspI ration process,
induces a salt buildup in the soil, increasing the concentration of the soil
water and ultimately presenting the possibility of inhibiting plant growth.
Therefore, some water must move through the soil profile, otherw.se a salt
balance in the soil profile cannot be maintained. This water may contain
essentially all of the salts applied in the irrigation water, but in a quant-
ity of drainage water less than the applied water by the amount^of water con-
sumed by the crop. This is the concentrating effect of irrigation.
49
-------
v_n
o
E
i
o
£L
^
to
O
u_
^-
•V
e
*—'
sn
T3
a>
"o
in
CO
10
8
0.3
? i
o °0.2
o
Q *0
M O.I
C
C
C
o
- 5
0.5 _
u
o
0.3
O.I
E
C
o
o
o
a>
1915 20
25
30
35
40 45
Year
50
55
60
65
70 1975
Figure 3- Variations in water quality at El Paso.
-------
In the process of percolating through the soil profile, irrigation water
may dissolve soluble mineral constituents inherent in the soil which are then
returned to the river in the drainage water. The increase in the quantity of
salts leaving a given area compared to the quantity introduced by the irriga-
tion source is referred to as the salt pickup. The total salts carried by a
stream per unit of time is referred to as the salt load, in contrast to the
salt concentration, which is the quantity per unit of volume.
The concentrating effect is an unavoidable consequence of consumptive
use of irrigation water by crops. It is independent of the amount of water
applied assuming crop needs are met. The salt pickup effect, however, is
avoidable, i.e., it may be reduced. The amount of constituents carried
from the soil, in addition to the amount applied in the irrigation water,
will depend on the quantity and quality of the applied water and on the
availability of soluble constituents in the soil profile. In this case, the
quantity of water applied may make a vast difference to overall water quality.
As the dissolved products are transported by leaching, further dissolution is
able to take place. Hence, the salt pickup effect may be greatly reduced by
reducing the amount of water passing through the soil profile, viz. deep
percolation from croplands and seepage from canals and laterals.
Numerous studies have shown that the concentration of salts in the Rio
Grande increases as it passes through the study area. This was shown in
Table 9, wherein total dissolved solids at selected stations were noted.
Therefore, a study has been made of the salt loads to see if the potential
exists to reduce the quantity of salts returning to the river from irrigated
areas.
The quantity of total dissolved solids (salinity) entering and leaving
each valley section of the study area has been computed for the time period
for which records are available. The difference, the salt loading for that
section, is plotted on Figures k and 5. The salt inflow and outflow that
does not pass the respective gauging stations (ground water flow) has been
assumed to be relatively small in comparison with surface flows. Meyer and
Gordon estimate ground water outflow for the Mesilla Valley to be 160 acre-
feet (20 ha-m) per year in 1970 and 1971 (compared to a surface water outflow
of 360,700 and 2^4,160 acre-feet (kkfkjk and 30,105 ha-m), respectively.
For the El Paso Valley (to the Hudspeth County line), they estimated ground
water outflow to be 2,100 acre-feet (259 ha-m) per year for each year of the
period 1969-1971, while surface water outflows for the same period ranged
from 53,980 (6,656 ha-m) to 144,550 (17,823 ha-m) acre-feet per year. Be-
cause of similarities in topography, the quantity of ground water outflow
from the Rincon Valley would be expected to be similar to the quantity from
the Mesilla Valley, while the quantity from the Hudspeth County Irrigation
District would be expected to be similar to the quantity from the El Paso.
Irrigation District.
Inspection of Figure 4 reveals that a favorable salt balance has gener-
ally been maintained in the Rincon Valley (i.e., more salt leaves the valley
than is introduced to it). For the period 1934-1963, an average of one ton of
salt per irrigated acre per year was added to the load in the river. In the
Mesilla Valley, however, Figure 5 shows that less salt has left the valley
51
-------
N5
W
O
2 + 100
CO
§
c C
a> o
I «
.Si:- '0°
?£
TJ TJ
O <=
O O
^ o
8
03
0
-100'
Elephant Butte to Caballo
~L
Caballo to Leasburg
'25 30 35 40 45 50
Year
55
60
65
70
Figure
Salt loading in Rio Grande between Elephant Butte Reservoir and Rincon Valley,
-------
+200h
II
TI . O
c o c
c c
0> 0)
*- o>
0>
8
— 0)
Q J3
0>
JD
o
ID
I
O
0>
o>
c
c
o
100-
100-
2.0
1.5
ETS X 1.0
^K
_ JD - 0.5
0
Leasburg to El Paso
o
o
v_
O
c
n co
n
LJ
200
100
c.
o
13
C
O
3
O
-C
H
_L
JL
_L
100
250
10
200 2
X
at
150 «
o>
£
100 £
o
o
o>
50
1925 30
Figure 5.
35
40
45
55
60
50
Year
Salt loading in Rio Grande from Mesilla Valley.
65
70 1975
-------
than has been introduced. In the El Paso Valley, the cumulative sum over the
period of record approximately balances (Figure 6). In the Hudspeth Dis-
trict, the salt balance has been unfavorable in nearly every year for which
records are available (Figure 7) • For the period 193^-1963, a total of
2,8o8,000 tons (3,088,800 metric tons) of salt remained in the district, which
would be an accumulation of 156 tons per irrigated acre over that period, if
the full 18,000 acres (7,290 ha) had been irrigated. However, as the irrigate
area averaged only about 13,000 acres (5,265 ha) over that period, some areas
must have accumulated even more salt per acre.
Over the period 1927 to 1972, 23 million tons (25.3 million metric tons)
of salt have entered the study area at San Marcial as surface inflow, and
15 million tons (16.5 million metric tons) have left at Fort Quitman. The
balance, 8 million tons (8.8 million metric tons) has been removed from the
river and retained in the soil of the project lands or in the ground water.
Therefore, although the concentration of salts in the river water increases
on passing through the study area as the inevitable consequence of irrigation
the loading has decreased. Overall, the downstream water quality has been
better than would be expected of an irrigated area in which a favorable salt
balance was maintained.
Consideration has therefore been given to the river section upstream of
San Marcial in an endeavor to identify possible sources of degradation. If
water of a higher quality could be delivered to the Rio Grande Project, the
project lands would have a lower leaching requirement and a lower quantity
of salts may be washed into the river. Extensive studies of salinity condi-
tions in the upper Rio Grande could not be found, although the records of the
USGS allowed a cursory examination to be made of some causes of the water
quality deterioration.
The waters of the upper reaches of the Rio Grande in Colorado (above
Del Norte) are of particularly high quality, generally having less than 100
mg/1 TDS, although nitrate levels are generally quite high. Near Lobatos,
just above the New Mexico state line, the TDS concentration increases to a
range of from less than 200 to more than 500 mg/1, with a corresponding in-
crease in the salt load being carried by the river.
Between Lobatos and Otowi Bridge (immediately northwest of Santa Fe),
the salt load being carried by the river increases by an average of approx-
imately 150,000 tons (165,000 metric tons) per year, as shown in Figure 7,
due to the increased discharge. The principal tributary is the Rio Ghama.
However, the average annual TDS concentration ranges from less than 200 to
less than 300 mg/1, with occasional values over 500 mg/1. The concentration
has thus remained approximately the same as at Lobatos.
At San Marcial, however, the concentration has increased to a discharge
weighted average annual value of 300 to 900 mg/1, as shown in Table 9, with
occasional values as high as 1800 mg/1 (which correspond to low flows in the
river). This indicates that the salt load being carried by the river has
increased more than the discharge. For the period 193*» to 1972, the salt
load at San Marcial was an average 168 thousand tons (185 thousand metric
tons) per year more than at Otowi Bridge. During only two years in that per-
iod was the load less.
-------
300
« 200
0>
£
o
in
in
c
O
100
<
c
o>
.Q
O>
C
-100
-200
100
a>
8
0>
-100
0 -
200
El Paso to County Line
Water
Allocation
County Line to Fort Quitman
I
o *"-
1.0 o •=
o •_
o a>
= CL
0.5
® O
0
1930 35
40 45 50
Year
55 60 65 1970
Figure 6. Salt loading in the Rio Grande from El Paso Valley,
55
-------
\J-\
V)
o
o
CO
*-
0)
o
0)
o>
«
500,000
400,000
300,000
c o
II
-J 200,000
o
CO
_c
0)
c 100,000
-------
An obvious source of this loading would be the Middle Rio Grande Project.
To estimate the load contributed by this project, contributions from all other
sources must first be deducted. Quality records are available for a number of
years for Galisteo Creek, Jemez River, Rio Puerco and Rio Salado, which are
the major tributaries to this section of the river. The annual salt contrib-
uation of these four streams has been plotted on Figure 8 for those years
for which records are available, and compared with the increased loading
between Otowi Bridge and San Marcial. The graph shows that in many of the
years of record the total increase in salt load between these two stations
can be attributed entirely to these four tributaries. The contribution from
ungauged tributaries has not been estimated. In those years where these trib-
utaries contribute a greater amount of salt than the increased salt load in
the river between the two stations (Otowi Bridge and San Marcial), the irri-
gated lands of the Middle Rio Grande Project must, in fact, be removing salt
from the river (storing salts in the soil profile or ground water).
The greatest contributor of salt is the Rio Puerco, which contributes
on average (1966 to 197*0 71,000 tons (78,100 metric tons) per year. The
concentration ranges up to 9,060 mg/1, with a discharge weighted average
annual concentration of between 1,280 and 1,860 mg/1. Although an ephemeral
stream, the Rio Puerco supports about 11,000 acres (12,100 metric tons) of
irrigated agriculture. Records are inadequate to calculate the contribution
of this irrigated area to the salt load carried by the stream. However, the
records do show that high flows are generally of high salt concentration,
whereas low flows are of relatively low salt concentration. The high flows
would be associated with natural runoff rather than irrigation return flows;
hence, it is reasonable to surmise that the salt pickup is largely from nat-
ural sources. This would also be true of Galisteo Creek and the Rio Salado,
both of which support very little irrigated agriculture. The quality of the
water contributed by the Jemez River is quite good.
We can safely conclude from the evidence in the records that the load of
salt added to the Rio Grande above San Maroial is due to natural causes and
not from irrigated agriculture.
A study of inflow-outflow relations during years of full water supply
allows an assessment of overall salt-balance conditions in a given river
sector and shows whether salt pickup is occurring. In years of short supply,
when large quantities of ground water are pumped, it becomes more difficult
to determine whether salt contributions come from pickup or result from the
higher salinity-concentration of ground water supplies.
Serious water shortages on the Rio Grande Project were first experienced
in 1951. Although, in previous years, the carryover storage in Elephant
Butte Reservoir had sometimes reached seriously low levels, a seasonal allo-
cation of at least two (0.61 ha-m/ha) and generally 3 acre-feet per acre (.9
ha-m/ha) had always been possible. In 1951, an allocation of only 1.75 acre-
feet per acre (0.53 ha-m/ha) was made and a full allocation was not available
again until 1958. In 1956, the allocation dropped to k.7 acre inches per
acre (0.12 ha-m/ha).
57
-------
300,000 -
200POO -
100,000 -
u
-------
Consequently, extensive well drilling was carried out in the early 1950's
with approximately 1,800 wells drilled in the Elephant Butte Project area.
These wells were mainly drilled into the river alluvium to depths ranging
from about 15 to 200 feet (5 to 61 m).
The TDS of water extracted from these wells ranged generally from around
1,100 mg/1 in the upper Rincon Valley to 1 ,AOO mg/1 in the mid-Mesilla Valley,
2,500 mg/1 in the middle of the El Paso District, and 5,000 mg/1 in the lower
part of the Hudspeth District. However, wide variations occur within a given
area as the quality is subject to a number of environmental factors such as
the distance from canals or drains (Easier and Alary, 1968).
The quantity of ground water pumped in a season is inversely proportional
to the amount of surface water allocation as shown in Figure 9. In those
years of low project water allocation, the amount of ground water pumped rose
rapidly. However, this was not sufficient to bring the total water supply up
to full allocation of 3 acre-feet per acre (.9 ha-m/ha) (based on data from
the El Paso Valley only, for which ground water pumping records are available).
Drain flows in those years were below normal, probably due to a combination of
a lower water table because of ground water pumping and less deep percolation
because of the lower water application per hectare. With ground water gener-
ally having salinity of two to three times that of adjacent surface waters,
and in some years making up the major portion of the total water supplies, a
rapid buildup in soil salinity would therefore be expected in water-short
years.
The quality of ground water in each valley was shown by Wilcox to have a
similar TDS concentration to the drainage water from that valley. Should an
extended water shortage occur in the valley and extensive ground water pumping
be necessary to provide an adequate water supply, the salts from the drainage
water would in effect be recycled back onto the land together with salts from
the ground water. Later, additional amounts of water would need to be applied
to crops to maintain a satisfactory salt balance in the root zone. Very
little of the additional deep percolation would find its way to the drains,
as the pumping would have lowered the water table to a level below the drains.
The restoration of a full surface water supply after a number of years
of heavy ground water pumping would be expected to be followed by a heavy
salt loading of the drains as accumulated salts would be leached from the
soil profile. Wilcox found this to be evident from the data for the Rincon
Valley, and it is also evident from the data plotted for the El Paso District
shown in Figure 10. (The El Paso District has been used, rather th'an Rincon
Valley or Mesilla Valley, because it has the most comprehensive data on ground
water wi thdrawal.)
In summary, in years of full water allocation, a favorable salt balance
is generally maintained in the Rio Grande Project (i.e., the river is being
loaded with salt). In water-short years, lower quality ground water is being
pumped to make up the shortfall. The salts brought up in the ground water
are accumulated in the soil until such time that sufficient surface water is
available for leaching with the leachate eventually returning to the river.
59
-------
I20
.? 105
Q- 3
tt) i
._ «)
t_ *_
»- O
o
I- 0) 7e
o .e f O
60
45
30
15
•
i
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.5
Water Allocation (hectare-meters)
3.0
SOURCE: 'Texas Water Development Board.
Figure 9- Effect of water allocation on ground water use.
60
-------
to
c
o
o
"fc_
"o
E
o
tn
o
500
400
2 300
0>
200
o
o
o
(O
100
0
Groundwater pumped
Drain quality
1945
n_
I
1950
I 1
i—
,71
1955
Year
I L_J
I . i
I960
1965
Figure 10. Relationship of ground water pumped to load
of salt in drains.
61
-------
PROBLEMS DUE TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Based on available reported information, there appear to be no serious
problems resulting from the use of existing irrigation water supplies in the
Rincon Valley. The only salt affected soils appear to be at the extreme
lower end of the valley where the water table is forced near the surface by
the constriction of Selden Canyon. However, as mentioned previously, Rincon
Valley does add to the salt load in the Rio Grande, thereby affecting down-
stream water users.
Mesilla Valley encounters only limited problems resulting from the water
quality of existing surface irrigation water supplies. There are some fields
which have become salinized, mostly as a result of high ground water levels;
however, the use of more saline ground water supplies for irrigation may have
contributed to this problem. The use of the more saline ground water supplies
for irrigation presents problems during extended periods of drought, as the
soil salinity undoubtedly increases in the root zone. The increased soil
salinity undoubtedly would result in decreased crop yields, although this
cannot be conclusively proved from published crop yield data.
Most of the problems of quality of existing water supplies are confronted
by users in the El Paso Valley. The effects of poor water quality are most
pronounced in the lower portions of El Paso Valley in Hudspeth County. There,
the water supply consists mostly of irrigation return flows from the upper El
Paso Valley. Agriculture is largely limited to salt tolerant crops, and the
value of output is considerably restricted by this limitation. The problem
is illustrated by the decline in the irrigated area devoted to cotton. In
1950, 84 percent of the irrigated area was planted to cotton; in 1974, only
38 percent was used for this important crop. Correspondingly, the area of
pasture has increased from virtually nothing in 1950 to 26 percent of the
irrigated area in 1974.
The agricultural productivity of Rio Grande Project lands in El Paso
Valley is also hindered by the quality of irrigation water supplies. The
combination of more saline surface water supplies during drought periods,
and having to use even more saline ground water supplies during these drought
periods, has contributed to soil salinization. The interactive effects of
surface and ground water supplies upon soil salinity cannot be established
at this time because there are no field data to support such an analysis.
However, the impact of salinity upon agricultural productivity is visually
evident at many places in this area. Again, it is difficult to utilize
reported crop yield data to document the effects of salinity, but a general
decline in cotton yields is evident.
A potential problem of use of the Rio Grande exists with the prospective
need for river water for urban uses. Presently, the city of El Paso obtains
its water from underground sources. Wells located north of the city and the
river are utilized to produce potable water. But the rapid growth of the
city may require use of water from the river. This might require a signifi-
cant diversion of water from agriculture and it would certainly involve
expensive treatment of the river water to remove salts and thus make it
usable.
62
-------
FUTURE WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
For 212 miles (341 km) below Fort Quitman, the Rio Grande practically
ceases to flow, being supplied only by a minor amount of low quality return
flow and intermittent discharge from tributary arroyos of higher quality.
With the exception of 1942, when Elephant Butte Reservoir spilled for the
only time in its history, no excess river discharge has passed Fort Quitman
since 1915 when the reservoir began storing water. Over the period 1884-
^^'\k, the mean discharge passing Fort Quitman was 750,000 acre-feet (92,475
ha-m) per year (Schroeder, 1958). Over the period 1938-1973 the mean dis-
charge was 76,000 acre-feet (9,371 ha-m) per year for those years not
including 1942.
Although the quality of water below Fort Quitman may not be of major
consequence, consideration must be given to the quality of water delivered
to the irrigated areas between Elephant Butte Reservoir and Fort Quitman.
Each year there is produced in the Rio Grande Project a volume of produce
that is significant to the regional supply. The grain, hay and vegetable
crops, plus the livestock supported by feed crops, have value which approaches
$80 million annually. The agricultural enterprises support a growing and
important supply industry, and the produce is a raw material source for many
processing plants. This contribution of irrigated agriculture to the regional
economy is placed in jeopardy by salt accumulation in soils. Water quality
is a significant consideration in the maintenance of a viable agriculture in
the region.
The primary cause of water quality deterioration as it moves through the
study area has been shown to be the concentrating effect of irrigation. The
most serious effects are related to the occurrence of water shortages. To
maintain the water quality at suitable levels, these shortages would need to
be prevented. Obviously, the further expansion of the irrigated area cannot
be contemplated within the limits of the existing water resources. Indeed,
it may be necessary to retire some presently irrigated lands from production
to achieve levels of water quality suitable to a continuing, productive
irrigated agriculture. This possibility must be recognized and considered
for the future.
Prior to the early 1950's, a full water allocation (3 acre-feet/acre;
.9 ha-m/ha) had always been possible on the Rio Grande Project. During the
disastrous drought of the middle 1950's, a total of only 29.7 inches (75^ ml)
was delivered over the four-year period 1954-57. This was followed by another
period of serious water shortages over the period 1963*68. Subsequent in-
vestigation (Jetton and Kirby, 1970) showed that the amount of water deliv-
ered to Texas by Colorado was less than the proportion of the catchment yield
due under the terms of the Compact. The ensuing injunction by Texas assured
that the full compact discharge will be maintained, which will go a long way
towards ensuring that future shortages will not be as severe as those which
occurred in the mid-1960's.
A major factor to be taken into consideration is the attitude of Mexico
to the quality of water being diverted into the Acequia Madre. At present,
this is an unknown element. Mexican farmers seem anxious to expand
63
-------
irrigation in the Juarez area, and they are not presently objecting to the
quality of water they receive. They recognize that American farmers in the
El Paso District use the same water, and they are aware that the quality of
water in the river at El Paso has not changed significantly over the last 50
years. Yet, one should consider here the significance of the population in-
crease In Juarez and the resulting increase in demand for water. This has
also been a shortfall in the period 1951-1968. In 1964, the allocation was
only 6,653 acre-feet (820 ha-m), compared to the Treaty quantity of 60,000
acre-feet (7,398 ha-m). The demand for additional water supplies Is indi-
cated by the extensive drilling for ground water for both urban and irri-
gation use in the Juarez Valley over the past few years. Therefore, although
Mexico may feel bound by the Treaty to accept the quantity limitation, it
could conceivably request additional water for leaching because of the poor
quality, or additional water to dilute the existing supply. If additional
water were delivered to Mexico, less would be available for agricultural uses
on the United States side, which would require either a curtailment in cropped
acreage or improved irrigation water management practices.
-------
SECTION 6
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
Though the water quality problem has thus far been presented in terms
which make ?t seem to be a physical phenomenon, it is in fact a more complex
problem of physical, biological, economic and legal relationships. Water is
employed in agriculture because farmers have rights of use. The extent of
water use is dictated by both physical and economic considerations. The
degree of pollution is affected by costs of water as well as by volumes
employed and methods of application. These relationships must be understood
if the problem is to be successfully treated.
PHYSICAL CAUSES
The concentration of dissolved solids in the water stored in Elephant
Butte Reservoir is higher than that in the headwaters of the Rio Grande due
to naturally saline Inflows from tributaries and to return flows from irriga-
tion in Colorado and northern New Mexico. However, as discussed in earlier
sections, the quality of the water released for use in the project is still
sufficient for most uses, i.e., .most crops which can be grown in the area.
By the time the water leaves the project, it has suffered serious degradation.
The primary cause of this degradation is the concentration of salts in
return flows, by the process described earlier in this report. As long as
irrigated agriculture is maintained in the area, the quality of water in the
river will deteriorate.
The water quality deterioration is exacerbated by the chronic water
shortages that occur in the project area. These cause virtually all of the
water released to the project to be diverted for irrigation, with little
available for dilution of return flows to the river. In addition, during
tiroes of water shortage, lower quality water is pumped, contributing addi-
tional salts to the system.
Farm management practices are generally consistent with optimizing the
returns at the individual level, to the detriment of downstream users. Heavy
leaching is usually carried out early in the season, and often later in the
season, being apparent from observation of water ponded on the fields and
from the quantity of drain flows. Although a water shortage exists, It is
highly likely that much water is wasted, particularly in the upper portions
65
-------
of the project area. The percolation of this water through the soil profile
causes the water to be of a lower quality than if it had been left in the
river.
ECONOMIC CAUSES
In e f ficiency in Water Use
In most irrigated areas, available supplies of water are allocated among
farmer-users on the basis of the rights they have established in the past.
The allocation is thus established on legal rather than economic grounds.
This being the case, the users tend to apply throughout the irrigation season
all the water to which they are entitled. There are frequent overapplicat ions
of water to crops, water percolates into the subsoil beyond the root zone, and
then moves laterally to receiving streams or downward into a shallow aquifer.
As it moves, this return flow picks up salts which occur naturally in the
soils and transports them to the stream or aquifer.
Application of excessive amounts of water are attributable to allocations
which exceed need plus local water prices (conveyance costs) which are too
low to encourage efficient use. This problem of price is one of ineffective
reflection of the "opportunity cost" of water, i.e., its value in alternative
uses. Most productive factors are allocated through markets. There is
opportunity for competing users to bid for, not only the factors, but also
the raw materials from which the factors are produced. So prices of the
factors reflect their alternative uses and the market allocates resources
and factors so that efficient use is realized.
In the study area there exists a market mechanism which permits trans-
fers of all or portions of allocations within the boundaries of the districts
and among agricultural users. It has as its basis the collective water right
of district members and it functions via an informational system in the
district through which needs and availability can be communicated. It does
not reflect alternative, nonagricul tural uses and so is imperfect. But it
does allow the expression of demand for agricultural uses and so it allocates
water to higher valued uses to the extent that it is used in the project
area.
Significance of this constrained market is evident if one recalls the
system for allocating and using the limited water supplies at the valley.
Construction of Elephant Butte Dam and creation of the Rio Grande Project
were accomplished in 1916. The Bureau of Reclamation appropriated the water
rights in the project area (by Act of Congress) and facilitated the develop-
ment of the irrigation districts in the Mesilla and El Paso Valleys. Each
member was given an equal allotment of water for every acre he proposed to
irrigate. Water rights were tied to the land, so that they could not be
transferred out of the district or directed to nonagricultural uses.
The water allotments were freely transferable on a temporary basis with-
in the irrigation district. A mechanism for debiting and crediting members'
water accounts in the district office was devised to facilitate exchanges.
66
-------
Negotiation of the price for any exchange was accomplished by the buyers and
sellers.
Importance of exchanges within districts is evident when one recognizes
that: 1) the planned, annual allotment, i.e., a "full" allotment, is only
three acre-feet per acre; 2) actual allotments have been quite variable and
as little as five inches per acre (0.13 ha-m/ha) (see Table 11); and 3) there
are significant differences in values of crops produced in the project area.
In water-short years, farmers with pecan orchards bid for and pay well for
allotments of water available to neighbors. They must keep their trees alive
and they wish to produce crops of valuable nuts. Similarly, producers of
vegetable crops and cotton bid for allotments to produce high value crops.
Transfers of allotments from low to high value crops result in a more effi-
cient use of water. Conservative use is ensured by the small "full" allot-
ments and by the relatively high costs of water as the allotments are moved
into high valued uses. The limited market functions to provide for compar-
atively efficient use of this limited resource when it is well used.
Two problems exist with respect to an evaluation of the water market in
the valley: 1) the exchange mechanism only functions to a significant extent
in the Elephant Butte Irrigation District; and 2) soil-water relationships
within the Project area are not so well established as to judge accurately
the real impact of water transfers on quality of return flows.
Records of transfers within the Elephant Butte Irrigation District in
the year 1975 show a total of 526 transfers taking place. The quantity of
water transferred ranged from i acre-foot to 500 acre-feet (.06 to 62 ha-m),
and averaged 13.3 acre-feet (1.64 ha-m) per transfer. During that same
period, only ten transfers occurred within the El Paso County Water Improve-
ment District No. 1. This confinement of the market to one district limits
its effectiveness in reallocating water.
Current investigations at New Mexico State University are designed to
determine soil-water relationships (irrigation efficiencies) and the associ-
ated qualities of return flows. The plots are irrigated at different levels
of efficiency (80 percent efficient, 90 percent efficient, and 100 percent
efficient). Return flow quality is measured and compared to the efficiencies
at which the plots were irrigated. Investigations to this point find greater
variations among plots than among efficiency treatments. This is explained
by the extreme variability in the soil profile in the Rio Grande Project.
So, the improved efficiency of water use which is logically attributable to
the market real location is hard to prove. The differences in soils cause
the efficiency improvements to be obscured.
External? ties
Further complicating the problem of agricultural pollution of river water
is the very practical ability of fanners to avoid paying the costs associated
with the increased salinity in the return flows. There is no mechanism to
force them to pay, to internalize, this production cost. In his attempt to
maximize profits, he therefore does not pay the costs of pollution. He
selects production methods and techniques which will maximize net returns.
67
-------
TABLE 11. IRRIGATION ALLOTMENTS AND RESERVOIR STORAGE
Year
Storage
AF
Ha-m
Initial
Allotment
AF/acre|Ha-m/ha
Total Allotment
for Year
AF/acre |Ha-m/ha
Pumping
1935
1947
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
488,000
488,900
397,200
108,600
483,300
185,200
176,200
233,900
83,900
834,400
1,172,600
699,700
497,800
468,200
499,600
200,400
176,400
613,240
440,800
327,500
449,200
637,760
415,000
262,000
433,440
941,890
646,400
746,960
60,170
60,281
48,975
13,390
59,591
22,835
21,725
28,840
10,345
102,882
144,582
86,273
61,379
57,729
61,601
24,709
21,750
75,612
54,351
40,381
55,386
78,636
51,170
32,305
53,443
116,135
79,701
92,100
1.50
1.75
1.75
0.21
1.00
0.42
0.21
0.33
0.10
1.75
3.00
2.25
1.25
1.75
1.85
0.25
0.17
1.75
1.25
1.00
1-33
2.00
1.50
0.50
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.46
0.53
0.53
0.06
0.30
0.13
0.06
0.10
0.03
0.53
0.91
0.69
0.38
0.53
0.56
0.08
0.05
0.53
0.38
0.30
0.41
0.61
0.46
0.15
0.91
0.91
0.30
0.76
3.00
1.75
1.75
0.21
1.90
0.50
0.4.2
0.39
1.17
4.00
3.50
3.25
2.45
3-25
2.00
0.33
1.85
2.50
1.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
0.67
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.91
0.53
0.53
0.06
0.58
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.36
1.22
1.07
0.99
0.75
0.99
0.61
0.10
0.56
0176
0.46
0.61
0.91
0.91
0.61
0.20
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Alternative production methods, though they may be less polluting, are
rejected if they are higher in cost.
The internalization of costs of pollution (economic damages resulting
from pollution) is depicted in Figure 11. The curve AC} reflects all costs
of production except for those associated with salinity in return flows, i.e.,
pollution, Curve AC£ includes the pollution costs and thus lies above ACi.
The curve AR represents the price of the produce produced. The intersection
of AC] and AR describes the quantity that will be produced, OQ, if pollution
costs are unpaid. If, however, the producer is forced to internalize pollu-
tion costs, he will reduce production to OQo, the intersection of AC2 and AR.
The level of production 00_i could be maintained only if the price of the
produce rose to Po.
68
-------
Costs of
Production
AC,
Quantity Produced
Figure 11. Costs of production of agricultural crops, with and without
internalization of pollution costs.
In the project area, where opportunities to affect quality of return
flows may be limited because of relatively efficient management of water,
treatment of effluent may become necessary. Costs of treatment, to the level
necessary for abatement of economic damages, could be allocated to agricul-
tural water users. They would thus be forced to an internalization of the
costs of pollution.
LEGAL CAUSES
Water quality problems in any form on the Rio Grande in the project area
are accentuated by the legal and institutional situation that prevails. It
has been stated many times previously that the explicit water quality problem
from irrigation return flow exists with increased intensity as one proceeds
from the Elephant Butte Irrigation District to the El Paso Irrigation District
and finally to the Hudspeth Irrigation District. The physical causes dis-
cussed above occur partly as a result of the existence of irrigated agricul-
ture in the project area and partly from nature.
69
-------
But, it Is very difficult to explicitly identify the legal causes to the
problem in terms of their chronological contribution. From a state's perspec-
tive, it can be concluded that water laws adopted and organizations created or
evolved to administer these laws have become institutionalized over time and
are resistent to change.
The major legal causes, not specifically for the degraded return flows
reaching the Rio Grande from Mesilla Valley, through the Hudspeth area, but
contributing to the situation that exists, can be described best by delinea-
tion into the three levels of water administration—international, federal/
interstate, and intrastate.
At the international level, the Treaty between the United States and
Mexico on the Rio Grande requires the United States to deliver 60,000 acre-
feet (7,398 ha-m) per year at El Paso-Juarez. Because the river is not only
international, but interstate as well, the Rio Grande Compact calls for a
division of the remaining waters between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas.
This Compact also has reference to minimum water quality conditions to be
met by Colorado in delivering water to Texas and New Mexico. These two
agreements do not in themselves cause an irrigation return flow problem,
but they do set the parameters for reallocation of water in the basin. Also,
these agreements may become the basis for future action modifying upstream
activities should water of unusable water quality be delivered to downstream
users.
The intrastate level of water law provides the breeding ground for
possibly creating water quality problems from return flows. It is at this
level, under normal circumstances, that water is allocated to various uses
and standards for use prescribed. Both New Mexico and Texas have adopted the
prior appropriation doctrine for surface water allocation with the requirement
that water be put to beneficial use and waste of water prevented. Ground
water allocation is by prior appropriation in New Mexico and absolute owner-
ship in Texas. The difference between these two ground water doctrines and
the lack of coordination between the twp states has been an inducement for
water users on each side of the state boundary to use as much ground water
as possible.
But the Rio Grande case study area is not the normal case for the west-
ern United States, and from a legal perspective, the difference is signifi-
cant. As opposed to the normal situation where individuals, companies or
districts in the downstream state appropriate water under this state law with
points of diversion in their state, the El Paso Irrigation District in Texas
and the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (IBID) in New Mexico have a
common point of diversion located at Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico.
Texas' share of water in the Rio Grande is measured at Elephant Butte. Also,
both districts were federal reclamation project areas with the Bureau of
Reclamation being record holder of the water rights for the districts. EBID
has repayed its construction costs and the Bureau has conveyed the title to
these water rights to the District. So, federal reclamation law is also
involved in governing how water is allocated to certified land.
70
-------
In New Mexico, the State Engineers Office feels it has no right to tell
farmers in Mesilla Valley what to do with their water because there has been
no legal adjudication of the river. This office sees as its duty, however, to
initiate or promote better water management and oversee the exercises of the
water rights.
With regard to quality of water, both New Mexico and Texas prefer that
.irrigation return flow be designated a nonpoint source. The Water Quality
Commission in New Mexico stated:
...it is (their policy) to consider as acceptable degradation
those minimal concentrations which result from the return weight
of the constituents diverted (Rio Grande Basin Report, Water
Quality Commission, p. 1-2, Sept. 1975).
This policy is based upon a provision in the 1973 Water Quality Act which
states:
The Water Quality Act does not grant to commission or to any
other entity the power to take away or modify property rights
in water, nor is it the intension of the Water Quality Act to
take away or modify such rights...if, in the adoption of regu-
lations and water quality standards, and in any such action
for enforcement of the Water Quality Act and regulations
adopted thereunder, reasonable degradation of water quality
resulting from beneficial use shall be allowed (N.M., Sec.
75-39-11).
The situation in Texas is similar. The NPDES program has not been
adopted, and under the Texas Water Quality Act, agricultural wastes except
tailwater and runoff water can be controlled.
Thus, the legal frameworks for water allocation and water quality con-
trol do contribute to the overall concerns for water use in the case study
area, but do not in themselves act as a legal cause of the water quality
problems examined in the lower portions of the Valley.
SOCIAL CAUSES
Throughout any discussion of social causes of the irrigation return flow
quality problem, one generally focuses on the cluster of social conditions
that facilitate or aggravate problems of water use and return. These condi-
tions must be seen at two different levels: at the micro-level — referring
to the individual farmer, his motivation for effective management, or capa-
bilities for conducting everyday operations; and, at the macro-level—or
the organizational network and system of institutions and procedures
surrounding water quality management.
Thus, the problem of water quality exists in a social setting either be-
cause individuals are not in agreement as to the nature or characteristics of
the problematic situation (or are unable or refuse to do anything about it);
71
-------
or, entities involved in and responsible for irrigation management cannot (or
do not want to) be mobilized or respond to irrigation management challenges.
The Individual Level
At the individual level, there are three general categories to which
water quality problems can be traced: a) the perception by the individual of
the problem; b) the actual irrigation activity pursued by the farmer; and
c) the perception of the farmer regarding his relationship with his neigh-
bors in terms of water quality. The basic point is that how individual users
behave within such categories will also determine how the problem is to be
defined and how responses for coping with it can be delineated.
As a whole, the farmers in the area are well aware of the salinity prob-
lem. They are also cognizant of the fact that they must leach these salts
from the soils (to the extent that they are doing it now) if their lands are
to remain viable. Thus, the overriding question has to do with the problem
of what is going to happen with the salts. In this regard, the critical con-
cern of the farmers has to do with the variety of alternatives proposed for
the removal and disposition of salts. Given the limited water supply, there
is a particular dilemma in defining a problem whose nature is dependent on
appropriate solutions, i.e., from further dilution which increases downstream
problems. But this perception is more true in the El Paso and Hudspeth Dis-
tricts, rather than in the Mesilla, where the problem is not considered
sign i ficant.
Concerning actual irrigation activities, the people in the area are gen-
erally concerned with the quantity of water allotted to them. There is a
general belief or feeling that farmers are managing their limited water supply
quite well. Instances of mismanagement are usually passed off with a refer-
ence to undependable hired labor. There is little concern expressed about
the quality of water they use.
Finally, it is evident that there is only limited recognition of the
problems of saline return flows and degraded river water. Many of the farm-
ers on the New Mexico side of the project view Texas' water quality problems
as just that—Texas' problems. The variations in perceiving quality problems
can be seen in the difference of opinion among users within the Elephant
Butte Irrigation District. For example, farmers in the northern part of the
district resist the use of underground water, while those in the south favor
such an activity. In addition, it has been indicated that the District's
proposed rehabilitation project costing approximately $100 million will meet
with widespread resistance among farmers in the area. A lot of individual
farmers are doing their own on-the-farm improvements when they have the
capital rather than waiting for outside assistance or any collective approach.
In this respect, then, there seems to be a strong sense of individualism
which, in the long run, affects various implementation strategies.
The Organizational Level
Regarding the organizational entities involved with irrigation manage-
ment in the area, two categories of concern are related to water quality
72
-------
problems in irrigation return flow; a) the extent of integration of all such
organizational units within each state; and b) their respective authority with
regard to irrigation water quality.
As stated before, it is within the general organizational structure that
broader normative standards of behavior regarding irrigation return flow can
be established, which in turn can help change various perceptions by individual
users regarding the nature of the problem as well as efforts for coping with
it.
As far as the first point is concerned, the integration of organizations
and coordinated action are based heavily on the degree and type of communica-
tion between the various units or entities. Generally, in the Rio Grande the
overall communication among area leaders is excellent. The two large dis-
tricts realize the degree of interrelationship among them and are constantly
informed about the other's actions. In addition, RIGREP provides the mechan-
ism for generating a regional concern with regard to various issues. Thus,
there does exist at least the institutional framework for a comprehensive
regional irrigation policy. Such a framework cannot only coordinate policies
and activities, but can also act as an important "gatekeeper" with respect to
mandates from sources outside the region.
The effectiveness of communication between the leadership and the indi-
vidual farmers is difficult to assess. Yet, this effectiveness is of critical
concern in the implementation of any given alternative because general accept-
ance of any alternative is necessary to implementation. It is interesting to
note that the governing boards of the irrigation districts have been occupied
by only a few district members. Similarly, Soil Conservation District Boards
and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees have attracted only
a few farmers—apparently recognized leaders. These people enjoy the confi-
dence of their community members and can communicate effectively with them.
Their relationships constitute a communications network that is the important
backdrop against which water quality control alternatives or measures will be
assessed and ultimately accepted.
As to the authority structure of the organizational set characterizing
the area, a mixture of federal, state, interstate, and international agree-
ments complicate the situation. For example, New Mexico has not adopted the
NPDES program while Texas has done so, but not implemented so far. On the
other hand, New Mexico has adopted a reasonable water degradation policy which
applies to agricultural uses and discharges of water, while other states have
not legislatively recognized the natural impact of water use in agriculture.
On the broader level, the complexities of the situation that give rise
to a series of social "causes" to irrigation return flow quality contain also
number of other interlocking factors. New Mexico and Texas are looking quite
carefully at Colorado's Closed Basin Project in order to make sure that water
is not degraded beyond compact requirements. One should also keep in mind
the existing rural-urban differentiations and trends. In this regard, EBID
has already repaid the construction cost and the Bureau of Reclamation has
assigned the water rights to the District. Thus, EBID has a flexibility in
policy since water is reallocated. But in El Paso, the District must have
73
-------
the Bureau's approval before any allocation or real location takes place.
This lack of flexibility in the latter case is also accentuated by the trends
of rapid urbanization which will change the return flow patterns (with as yet
unknown long-range consequences).
The international implications are not yet a major issue because the prob-
lem of water quality has not been specifically addressed in the study area.
It is indicative of forthcoming conditions, however, that in the lower Rio
Grande the discussion on water quality has consumated into an agreement on
salinity control between the two countries and, thus, precedents have been
established.
An important point is also the role of migrant labor as it relates to
problems of water quality. While seemingly remote to the problem at hand, we
are facing a situation of cheap labor and of relatively Inexperienced farm-
ers. Thus, it is more cost-effective to hire cheap labor and pay more for
water, rather than concentrate on costly water effective on-farm management.
Such a plethora of interacting factors—loca 1, state, interstate, and
international—as well as the basic belief that farmers should be allowed to
do as they please with their allotment of water, all add up to a complicated
network of causes contributing to return flow problems. It Is important,
therefore, to proceed here with a systematic identification of potential
solutions.
-------
SECTION 7
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
PHYSICAL SOLUTIONS
Because of the long-time interest of engineers in problems and opportun-
ities for water development, it is logical to think first of physical solutions
to water quality problems. But there are economic, social and legal solutions
which may be just as acceptable and as cost effective. These will be exam-
ined in turn.
Augmentajtjon of j/ater jijjppl ies
An obvious means of improving the quality of water in the study area is
to increase the total quantity of water of good quality. To this end, it will
be important that Colorado deliver annually the quantity of water which is
its Compact obligation. Additional quantities will be hard to locate but
might be created via weather modification in the headwaters of the Rio Grande,
or by importation from other areas, e.g., from Texas via the transport system
of the Texas Water Plan.
An additional source of water is the Santa Fe aquifer which underlies the
alluvium of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys and yields high quality water. Al-
ready the Elephant Butte Irrigation District has drilled five wells in the
aquifer and pumps the ground water into pnoject canals. More wells are
planned. The El Paso Valley would appear less fortunate in that known ground
water reserves are of a poorer quality than project water.
Infestations of phreatophytes in the Rio Grande Basin in New Mexico above
Caballo Reservoir are estimated to total 5^,900 acres (22,235 ha), with partic-
ularly extensive concentrations being located in the vicinity of San Marcial.
Plans by the USSR to eradicate extensive stands of phreatophytes would sal-
vage an estimated 3^,700 acre-feet (4,279 ha-m) of water per year (USBR,
1971). Evaporation losses from Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs are
estimated to be 25*»,800 acre-feet (31,^17 ha-m) per year (New Mexico State
Engineer, 1967). Future developments in evaporation suppression could pos-
sibly prevent a significant portion of this evaporation.
The highest measured TDS concentrations of inflowing water to the Rio
Grande are those of Galisteo Creek, Rio Puerco and Rio Salado. Higher
salinity levels may exist in other ungauged tributaries, but these have a
lower annual discharge and hence a smaller load. The loading from saline
tributaries could possibly be prevented by diverting or damming the
75
-------
tributaries and allowing the impounded water to evaporate so that the saline
water never reaches the river. Another alternative which will likely become
more feasible in future decades would be desalination.
Water Delivery Subsystem
The quality of water delivered to the El Paso Valley and to Mexico is
worse than that delivered to the Rincon or Mesilla Valleys. This is because
of return flows which increase the salinity of the river water. It would be
desirable to provide water of equal quality, and for this purpose a reservoir
could be constructed in an arroyo above El Paso and filled during the non-
irrigation season using the conveyance facilities of the upper two valleys for
the most part. Alternatively, if the main canals from Percha Dam to El Paso
were lined on the existing cross-section, they would have additional capacity
in which to carry the water supply for the El Paso Valley and Mexico in addi-
tion to that for the upper two valleys. The El Paso Valley and Mexico could
be provided with water of identical quality to that of the Rincon and Mesilla
Valleys, rather than by relying largely on return flows. This alternative
would avoid the cost of building a dam, and could be carried out as part of
rehabilitation of conveyance facilities of the upper valleys.
Rehabilitation of the facilities of the Elephant Butte Irrigation Dis-
trict has been planned, although the implementation of the plan is uncertain.
The so-called "Archer Plan" envisages the main canals being concrete lined
and the laterals being enclosed in concrete pipes. The main objective of
this plan is to allow better water control while reducing operation and maint-
enance costs. Seepage would also be reduced. By allowing water to be
delivered in the right amount at the right time to the farms, improved
irrigation methods and practices would be possible, thereby allowing more
effective use of a limited amount of water so that the necessity of addi-
tional water supplies from ground water can be minimized.
Rehabilitation of the facilities of the Hudspeth County Conservation and
Reclamation District No. 1 would go a long way towards allowing better use of
the resources which they have available. In the valleys about it, water lost
through seepage returns to the river for use downstream. Water lost through
seepage in the Hudspeth District is lost from the system. Lining of canals
and laterals would prevent much of this loss.
Regulating reservoirs within the Hudspeth District are very shallow and
serve more as evaporating ponds than as useful storages. Regulating reser-
voir No. 1 could be substantially deepened and still be drained of its sup-
ply. This would allow full use of arroyo inflow to the system which occurs
intermittently during the summer, which also provides the highest quality
water available to the district. The possibility exists of damming some of
these arroyos for conservation storage for the district.
Some effect on water quality within the study area could most likely be
achieved through a modification of irrigation practices. To implement an
effective irrigation scheduling program so that maximum yields can be
achieved with the available water supplies requires that flow measurement
structures be provided at all farms in order that farmers know exactly how
76
-------
much water is being applied. Timing of applications becomes critical. An
examination of water delivery records indicates that heavy water applications
are being made early in the season for germination and to promote leaching.
This is desirable to lower the salt concentration of the seed bed in readi-
ness for germination. Generally, as the plant grows it can tolerate more
saline conditions. However, an examination of drain flow records also indi-
cates that the amount of water being applied during early season leaching is
far in excess of that required to leach salts below the ultimate root zone.
The water lost from the soil is transported downstream for reuse, rather than
the downstream users obtaining better quality water from storage.
Research is currently underway to determine the viability of applying
sufficient water to leach salts only immediately beyond the root zone. Salts
could be stored in the soil below the root zone for an indefinite period
until high flows are available, when they could be leached and removed from
the system. This concept requires good water control and is probably best
suited to methods such as trickle irrigation. The large acreage of pecans
in the study area would be well suited to this method of irrigation. Trickle
irrigation would also result in lower consumptive use, thereby leaving more
water in the system.
As discussed previously, return flows have a higher salt concentration
than the applied water due to the concentrating effects of irrigation activi-
ties. River water quality could be improved by eliminating return flows
altogether, by preventing return flows from reaching the river, or by puri-
fying drain flows before returning them to the river.
The elimination of lower quality return flows would require complete
system rehabilitation so that very little, if any, water was lost by seepage
from the conveyance system, as well as modification of irrigation methods and
practices so that water was applied in quantities sufficient only for plant
needs plus a minimum leaching requirement. This alternative requires a very
high level of water management, higher in fact than is presently being
achieved on any irrigation project in the United States.
Return flows could be prevented from reaching the river by diversions
from the drains and evaporation in impervious reservoirs. Periodic salt
removal would be necessary. A large land area would be required under pre-
sent practices to provide sufficient storage for the high volume of drain
flow. A modification of irrigation practices would reduce this flow volume.
Purification of drainage water could be accomplished by desalination.
Desalted drainage water from the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys could be mingled
with water released from storage for delivery at the El Paso Valley and
Mexico. Some improvement in the quality of drainage water could also be
accomplished by the eradication of phreatophytes within the study area.
These phreatophytes presently concentrate the salts in the return flows as
a result of evapotranspirat ion.
77
-------
ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS
Expanded Water Transfers
Though water is used with comparative efficiency in the project area,
there are possibilities for improvement. Two economic measures in particular
offer some potential for increasing efficiency in water use. One is a great-
er use of the water market mechanism which now exists within the project
other is a tax-subsidy plan to force internalization of pollution costs.
The
If water transfers, via sales of all or portions of allotments, were to
become more prevalent in the entire project, efficiency in the use of this
scarce resource would be facilitated. Water would be employed in the higher-
valued uses, the cost of a unit of water would go up, and a more conservative
use of the higher priced input would be stimulated. The aggregate supply
curve, in Figure 12, would be changed from Si, where it reflects only the
conveyance cost, to S2, where it reflects (at least partially) opportunity
costs. Users would respond by reducing their use of water on low value
Price
of
Water
Quantity of Water (total units)
Figure 12. Demand for and supply of water with and without water transfers.
78
-------
crops, and they would probably change the mix of crops irrigated to make
optimum use of the higher priced water. The demand curve would change from
DI to D- to reflect the changed use of water so that the new equilibrium price
would be P2- Thus, a more efficient use of water would be realized. Its
value-in-use would be increased, and its employment in crop production would
be improved by the more careful application of the higher-priced input.
Quantities of water applied would be carefully matched to the needs of crops
being irrigated plus requirements for leaching salts from the soil.
Pollution Taxes/Treatment Subsidies
An improved allocation of water among agricultural uses would certainly
be helpful to water use and to improved quality of return flows, but it would
not be sufficient to correct the problem of increasing salinity of the river.
For the farmer is still able to dispose of the relatively saline return flows
without costs. There is no internalization of the costs associated with the
polluted water. A pollution tax could be employed to cause the internalization
of this cost. It would be levied so as to approximate the cost of reclamation
of water to required or desired levels. Proceeds from the tax would then be
used either to treat the effluent (the return flow) or to develop influent
controls, such as improved distribution systems, improved irrigation systems,
improved cultural practices, etc. The exact form and level of a tax can be
specified only for particular cases.
In Figure 13, the cost of water, with the pollution tax, is S2- It is
presumed that the tax increases with additional increments of water used per
acre of land because return flows would increase and treatment costs would
also increase. The quantity of water used would be reduced from Q to Q2
because of the higher cost of water. The demand curve might also shift, as
in Figure 12, but that is not suggested in this example.
Price
of
of
Water
Quantity of Water
Figure 13- Demand for and supply of water with and without a pollution tax.
79
-------
It may be desirable to improve the tax at a level somewhat less than the
pollution cost. The subsidized water management practices and capital improve-
ments could benefit not only from the proceeds of the specific pollution tax,
but also from other tax revenues. The judgment of the Congress or of state
legislatures would be necessary to such decisions. But the notion of penal-
ties and rewards, i.e., taxes and subsidies, to reduce pollution of water
used in agriculture is useful and should be included among the alternative
solutions to irrigation return flow quality problems.
LEGAL SOLUTIONS
To the extent that the law has contributed to and can induce or direct
changes in the water use patterns in the case study area, a number of solu-
tions are proposed. The first is directed to the water allocation laws.
Texas has a provision which allows the Water Rights Commission to curtail or
abate water diversions where there are discharges or returns of water which
are in violation of the water quality standards. This is a condition in the
granting of the water right. New Mexico could benefit by such a provision in
its water rights laws.
The recognition of reasonable degradation from beneficial use found in
New Mexico law would be very useful to Texas water users. The adoption of
criteria and standards for beneficial use would be reasonable additions to
the law in both states. Such criteria and standards would give the state
agencies a strong legal basis for curtailing overapplicat ions of water where
proof of unreasonable degradation to receiving waters exists.
To date, the IBWC has not explicitly examined the salinity situation of
the Rio Grande in the El Paso-Juarez area. However, precedent does exist on
the river for some improved management direction coming from the interna-
tional level if and when the problem reaches such significant proportions.
Under Minute 223, entered into between the United States and Mexico on
November 30, 1965, measures were agreed upon for resolving the salinity
problem in the Lower Rio Grande. The problem of salinity occurred from
irrigated lands. Among the solutions were dilution, by-pass channels and
regulations of discharges into the river.
The solution considered most viable under existing legal, economic and
social conditions is to improve the means of water delivery and application
through voluntary or induced influent control. Although the problem is one
of concentrating effects due to out of stream diversions rather than salt
loading, more judicious approach to water delivery and use should enable
greater coordination and cooperation between and within the three irrigation
districts involved.
SOCIAL SOLUTIONS
Solutions or answers to problems of irrigation quality control from the
social standpoint evolve from the varied social circumstances and interactive
conditions that allow such a state of affairs to exist in the first place.
80
-------
Therefore, and in relation to the points raised in the previous section,
possible solutions, affecting changes or producing responses to return flow
problems must have two points of reference: -the individual user and the
organizational network.
The Individual User
In order to initiate responses by the farmer with regard to various
irrigation return flow alternatives, such individual users must be made aware
that there is indeed a problem. Attempts should be made to inform users about
sources and characteristics of the water quality problems and about alterna-
tive solutions which are potentially "implementable."
Also, efforts should be made to involve the farmers more into the
affairs of their district and particularly with the work of RIGREP. Through
such efforts the individual water user can see what is happening on a re-
gional basis and at least become more sensitive as to the overall aspect
of water use.
The above point is particularly important in view of the fact that dis-
tricts should be concerned not only with distribution, but also with water
management. In this regard, then, the individual user should become aware
of what other functions can be served by the district other than simple
distribution of water. This implies extensive communication links between
water users and state or federal quantity and quality control agencies, other
than annual meetings (such as, e.g., announcements, newsletters, TV spots,
etc., which provide for more extensive and/or frequent means of communication)
The Organizational Setting
No matter how much emphasis one places on the individual, if the organ-
izational part of the social system does not support such an effort, then the
effectiveness of individual programs will be rather limited. RIGREP, with its
advantageous position, should encourage further activity dealing with water
quality problems and help coordinate all of the appropriate material regard-
ing water quality management.
It is important, at this point, to distinguish between state agencies
and local/regional districts. The first have the responsibility of carrying
out the mandates of the law on a statewide basis. Thus, in a specific situa-
tion they may not be particularly sensitive to local conditions, as they try
to encompass quite a variety of diverse circumstances. Finally, here,
regional organizations must also have a more accurate knowledge of their
purpose vis-a-vis irrigation return flow quality control.
Recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of linking various levels
of organizational units, the overall conclusion remains one of improving
active participation in decision-making. For instance, one could easily
envisage a faster change in Board personnel, so that alternatives and solu-
tions could be scrutinized by a larger segment of people and of entities
involved in irrigation.
81
-------
In summary, solutions emphasizing a sociological approach include:
a. preparation and distribution of comprehensive information packages
dealing with water management of the Rio Grande;
b. more active involvement of farmers and of water users in the affairs
of the irrigation districts and of RIGREP.
c. allowing and encouraging RIGREP to play a more active role in water
quality problems of the area;
d. strengthening of the communication linkages between officials and
users, even to the extent of individual users being active partici-
pants in the decision-making process.
COMBINATIONS OF SOLUTIONS
It is obvious that no one alternative solution will suffice in our
struggle to solve or at least materially alleviate the problem of degradation
of quality of water used in irrigated agriculture. It also seems obvious that
no solution or combination of solutions can be implemented which will en-
tirely solve the problem of polluted return flows from agricultural lands.
Some degradation of quality is inevitable if water is used in agriculture.
There will be some increase in salinity, some increase in sediment, some
increase in other foreign materials simply because water has been combined
with soils, fertilizers, seeds, and other inputs in agricultural enterprises.
We must recognize this inevitable impact on water quality and find the accept-
able "trade-offs" which will allow water to be used in agriculture.
Implementation of some of the technologies suggested for water transfer
and distribution systems, irrigation systems, and drainage systems will re-
quire cost-sharing programs, subsidies to induce investment in the technolo-
gies. This sort of subsidy has a long history in agriculture. Most of our
conservation programs have included an element of subsidy. A pollution tax
might be employed to raise some or all of the revenues necessary for the
subsidies. There are examples of "user taxes" in our society which are
employed for specific purposes, e.g., the gasoline tax is used to build
roads. A tax levied against polluters of water could be just a use tax,
which would represent a fraction of the pollution cost, or it could be a tax
imposed on the basis of the pollution. The latter would require a system of
monitoring of return flows which might be prohibitively expensive. The tech-
nology for such a system is not fully developed.
Changes in water law to reflect the new or changed conditions surround-
ing water use would have "spillover effects" which might require changes in
economic institutions. If the water right is redefined to include respons-
ibilities for maintenance of quality, it may be necessary for the public to
assist rights holders with capital investments to safeguard quality. Such
assistance could be a subsidy, e.g., a low interest loan, cost-sharing on
improvements, accelerated depreciation of equipment, etc.
82
-------
Expansion of a water market in the Rio Grande Project might take us a
quarter, or half way toward our goal of improved water quality. So it would
be necessary to add to this alternative solution some physical improvements
in distribution systems, some new irrigation techniques, and a cost-sharing
arrangement to finance this "hardware." We might add a new canal for trans-
porting water to a holding reservoir new El Paso. This would be a federal
project, involving loans, borrowed technology, etc.
The combinations of alternative solutions are finite, but very numerous.
Development of the combinations will require imagination, analyses, evaluation
and finally decision about what is "best." The final section of this report
is given to evaluation of solutions and combinations of solutions which are
appropriate to the Rio Grande Project.
83
-------
SECTION 8
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Following the identification of potential solutions for return flow
quality problems in the Rio Grande Valley, attention was directed to assess-
ment of these solutions. It was presumed that alternative-solutions would be
more or less acceptable tand thus implementable} depending on their impacts
on the affected persons. Testing procedures were devised to determine tech-
nical, economic, pol itical, and social acceptability of alternative solutions.
They involved: 1) the project team; 2) state and federal agency personnel;
3) irrigation water managers; and 4) water users.
The first evaluation was done by the project team. Composed as it was
of engineers, economists, sociologists, and an attorney, the team was able to
judge alternative solutions in terms of technical, economic, legal, and social
feasibility. Obviously inappropriate and ill-advised solutions were weeded
out, though the number was not great. Alternatives with potential for sig-
nificant impacts on the quality problem and those without prohibitive costs
remained for further evaluation by others. The team wished to present the
widest possible range of alternatives to succeeding evaluators.
A second evaluation was accomplished by federal and state agency person-
nel, chiefly those presently or prospectively involved in administration of
quality improvement programs. The alternative solutions were thus screened
by those with technical and legal expertise, a group with a special concern
for administration of laws and programs. This group tended to sort out
those solutions which did not fit within the framework of existing laws,
rules and regulations and which would therefore be difficult to implement.
The list of alternatives was reduced, but not so as to exclude some solutions
which would be possible with changes in laws, rules and regulations.
The third evaluation was completed by managers of water supply agencies
(e.g., irrigation companies and districts) and their boards of directors.
These were individuals having responsibility for distribution of water among
farms of members and patrons and for maintenance of system facilities. Be-
cause they are potentially responsible for administration of revised rules
governing diversions and use of water, they tended to resist measures of
control. But they were aware of water quality problems; they were generally
convinced of possibilities for improved use of water; and they tended to
favor quality control measures located and administered at their level rather
than at higher or lower levels.
-------
Finally, the fourth evaluation was done by users of water, i.e., farmers
who use water in irrigation crops. They were interviewed one at a time;
there was discussion of the return flow quality problem; and potentially use-
ful solutions were outlined and discussed. These individuals, though alarmed
by present efforts to control their use of water, showed both ability and
willingness to comprehend problems of water quality and deal with them. They
were very practical in their judgments of implementabi1ity of the various
alternative solutions, and they tended to favor those measures aimed at im-
proved use of water in agriculture. It was these measures over which they
had some control.
The alternative solutions proposed for evaluation ranged from those which
were wholly technical (e.g., rehabilitation of distribution systems) to those
which were institutional (e.g., creation of water markets). The technological
alternatives were classed as: 1) those which would increase the volume of
available water; 2) those which would control salinity; 3) those which would
improve distribution of irrigation water; and A) those which would improve
water management on farms. The institutional alternatives were classed as:
1) those affecting water rights; 2) those affecting water transfers; 3) those
limiting pollution discharges; k) those providing incentives for improved
water management; and 5) those providing for education and technical assist-
ance. A summary of the alternative solutions and the evaluation of them by
the project team is in Table 12.
EVALUATION BY THE RESEARCH TEAM
The research team, composed of several disciplines relevant to the return
flow problem, reviewed the alternative solutions in terms of effectiveness in
solving the problem and prospective implementabi1ity. The team was assisted
in its evaluation by knowledge of on-going research at New Mexico Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, by earlier contacts with RIGREP members, district
managers and others in the area, and by their own experience in water supply
management and use.
Water Source Improvements
Additional sources of high quality water would improve existing water
quality by dilution. The remaining lower leaching requirement would allow a
potential reduction in the salt pickup from the irrigated lands.
The provision of additional water could come through a number of meas-
ures. The implementation of some of them may depend on a number of factors
apart from water quality considerations. Three such measures include
Colorado's fulfillment of her Rio Grande Compact obligations, the Texas Water
Plan and weather modification in the upper Rio Grande. All of these measures
would tend to improve water quality in the study area. However, this is only
one of the factors to be considered amongst the several issues surrounding
them.
The Rio Grande, Compact has been a water-sharing agreement about which
there has been controversy for several years. Colorado has been charged with
85
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE TO IMPROVEMENT
OF IRRIGATION RETURN FLOWS, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
1. Increase flow of the
river, expand vol-
ume of water.
1 .A. Supplement river
flow via pumped
water.
1 .B. Induce precipita-
tion and runoff
via cloud
seeding.
I.C. Eradicate phreat-
ophytes above
Cabal lo Reservoir.
Water Quail ty
-If Increased flow Is left
In river, then concentra-
tion of salts wl 1 1 be
reduced.
-If Increase flow Is diverted
then the effect on the con-
centration of salts will
not be significantly differ-
ent from the present
situation.
-Most of the existing water
is pumped from the shallow
aquifers, which tends to
be of lower quality.
-The effects of cloud seed-
ing depend on the amount
of water generated.
-Could save 34,700 acre-feet
of water. Lower concentra-
tions below Cabal lo from
500 rog/1 to 1*80 mg/1.
Economic
-Higher quality of water from
flow In the river would
increase crop yields and
agricultural income.
-Make more water available
for Irrigation If Increased
flow Is diverted.
-Mining the water at a rate
greater than the recharge may
bring high returns in the short-
run, but would eliminate ground
water reserves that allow the
farmers to stay in business in
water-short years.
-Still an experimental techno-
logy and it is not clear that
benefits exceed costs.
-Costs of control would have to
be borne by beneficiaries, but
a subsidy might be arranged to
provide a public input into
the project (B/C ratio, USBR
4.63:1).
Legal
-Increased flow cannot be
left In the river untl 1
all existing appropria-
tions can be met.
-If existing appropria-
tions cannot be met, the
state may appropriate the
increased flow for in-
s Cream water quality
improvement.
-Potential interference
with existing wells.
-Would permit more con-
sistent diversions to
junior rights holders.
-Cloud seeding efforts in
one area may cause lia-
bility for damages In
another area.
-Would permit more consis-
tent diversions to junior
rights holders and allow
for new appropriations.
-Again, this would provide
more consistent diver-
sions to junior rights
holders.
Sociological
-If Increase water is used
for agriculture, the rural
farm population will be-
come more stable.
-Greater flow of water may
enhance the urbanization
of the area.
-Depending on the amount of
Increased water, attitudes
toward the use of water,
district improvements and
district authority wi 1 1
change.
-Some interstate agreement
must be established as to
the consequences of such
a program.
-Environmental objections
may be a problem.
-Resistance by users may
occur in having to pay
the costs.
-Environmental and aesthetic
objections will arise.
cx>
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
Water Qua!!ty
Economic
Legal
Sociologica1
t.D. Suppress evapora-
tion from the
reservoirs.
-Some 250,000 af (35,825 ha-m)
of water is now lost via
evaporation; but technology
is not yet developed.
-If 100,000 af (12,330 ha-m)
of water is saved it will
lower the concentration be-
low Caballo to ^35 mg/1.
-If 200,000 af (2J»,660 ha-m)
i s saved, It will lower
concentration below
Caballo to 350 mg/1.
-Technology is not yet devel-
oped; costs would be
prohlbllive.
-For this to be a success-
ful solution to IRFQC, it
would be necessary for the
Rio Grande Basin states to
obtain authority to
appropriate the increased
flows in the name of the
state. Otherwise, unappro
priated waters may be
fi ted upon.
-Methods in suppressing
evaporation will inter-
fere with recreation
pursuits in reservoirs.
Impound ffows of
highly saline
tri butarles.
00
-Reduce salt load and con-
centrations by keeping
saline water out of river.
Lower concentration at San
Marcial from bdQ mg/1 to
WO mg/1.
-However, loss of 66,000
af (&.135 ha-m) of water
per year.
-Costs of improvements to evapo-
rate these waters would be con-
siderable; costs would probably
be shared. Improvement in water
quality of 20 mg/1 is only a
small benefit to downstream
users, while the cost and de-
crease in total flow is high.
-Water in tributaries is of a
higher quality than Hudspeth
Co. now receives.
-Reduction of volume flows
may have adverse impact
upon vested rights giving
ground for legal action
if it can be demonstrated
that there is sufficient
dilution to provide useable
water qua!ities.
-The critical point will be
with loss of the water.
Farmers with junior rights
may be significantly
affected.
-This action may affect the
interstate .agreement on
delivery of a specific
quant i ty of water.
III. Provide aquaduct
from Caba Mo to
El Paso and
possibly beyond.
-Provision of water at 500
mg/t throughout the system
instead of the current
800 mg/1 at El Paso and
1500 mg/1 at the County
Line. Would provide
water of equal quality to
irrigated lands In Mesilla
and El Paso Valleys.
-Adverse environmental
effect on fish and
wildlife.
-Would be a costly means of im-
proving the quality of water
delivered to Texas, but would
provide a supply of water equal
to that used in Mesilla Valley.
-Existing constraints on crop
production in the E? Paso
Valley would be eliminated.
Crops of higher value could
be produced.
-Effect on gross income from
agriculture could be an increase
of liOl in the El Paso Valley.
Would probably cost $100 million
(rough estimate). If ^0% in-
. crease in gross agricultural
income, then benefits would be:
for 25 years @ 6%, $103-54
million.
-Legal effect may be inter-
ference with vested water
rights of the districts
at increased cost without
significant benefit to
either EBID or EPID.
-There will be a new
interorganizationai rela-
tionship between the USBR
(if they build it) and
irrigation districts.
-Wil1 there be new
management prob terns?
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternative;
Water Dualtty
Economic
Leg a 1
Sociologice
IV. Improve distribution
systems la
Irrigation
districts.
-Effects on water quality
would come principally from
allowing better on-farm
management. If water
supplied on demand, may
eliminate pumping of some
low quality ground waters.
-Would Increase efficiency of
water diversion and distribu-
tion, save some water for use
on crops.
-These improvements may be very
costly, as evidenced by a pro-
posed $108 million project for
EBID.
-Greater achievement of
states' beneficial use
concept, only possible
adverse effect nay be
reduction in amount of
water divertable under
existing rights.
-The irrigation districts
will have greater control
o\'e r wa t e r,
-Critical consideration is
the persuasion of the
district member that the
program 5s needed.
JV.A. Line canals and
put laterals in
concrete pipe.
-Would reduce seepage loss.
-Any practices or Improve-
ments which cause surface
water to be used more
efficiently result In: 1)
decreasing percolation
which decreases the ground
water reservoir; 2) de-
creasing concentration of
salts In the river, & in-
creasing concentration of
salts in the land.
-Would increase investment in
facilities and thus increase
capital costs of water systems,
but would lower annual
operating costs.
IV.6.
Install flow
measuring
devices.
-Would permit accurate
deliverles of water to
farms for better on-
farm management.
-Would allow accurate measure of
water applied to crops; greater
efficiency should cause reduc-
tion in costs of production.
IV.C. Deepen regulating
reservoirs of
Hudspeth County
C&RD, construct
reservoi rs on
arroyos.
-Reduce evaporation and
concentration of salts.
-Capture wild water.
-Would reduce evaporation and
concentration of salts; make
more water available for irri-
gation, increase crop production
and increase gross income.
-This may have significant bene-
fits in allowing Hudspeth Co. to
capture more water for
i rrigation.
-Uncertainty of water supply
may cause an aversion to
investment in storage
faci1i ties.
V. Modi fy Irrigation
practIces.
-At absolute best, make
water quality downstream
equal to upstream (500
mg/1 at Caballo).
-However, with a lower leach-
ing fraction, the concen-
tration of leachate will
increase so that the loading
will not decrease in propor-
tion to the decrease in
quantity of return flow.
-Would improve on-farm
management of water.
-Positive legal effects
as water users improve
water use efficiency.
-Will require technical
and perhaps financial
ass i stance.
-Educational program nec-
essary for
implementation.
{conti nued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
V.A. Implement an
i rrigati on
schedul Ing
program.
V.B. Hake some changes
in irrigation
methods and
practices.
VI, Divert return flows
in drains to
evaporative ponds
or desal inization
plants.
Water Qua] ity
-Lower leaching fraction
would reduce loading of
river where it is
occurring.
-Same as Ifl.V. above.
-Also trickle irrigation
is well adapted to some
crops, e.g., pecans, and
would periflit reductions
i n water used.
-Would keep highly saline
water out of river and
reduce salt load.
-Problem of brine
disposal .
Economi c
-Would provide for application
of water according to plant
requirements and increase crop
production.
-Changes in irrigation methods
would involve new investments
and would thus increase costs
of production.
-Construction of ponds would
require investment of public
and/or private funds; impact
on irrigated agriculture
would depend on cost-sharing
arrangement.
Legal
-Must consider rights to
d! vert
Sociological
-Organizational task
rearrangement will ensue.
-An additional work rela-
tionship between the USER
and the Irrigation dis-
tri cts wi 1 1 ensue.
-Resistance by users to
the costs that wi 1 1 be
levied may occur.
CO
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Institutional Alternatives
Water Qua!Ity
Economic
Legal
Sociological
I. Implement a discharge
permit system (quotas)
-With appropriate monitor-
ing of return flows, this
would maintain the river
quality at a prescribed
level.
-Could significantly affect
agricultural output by
limiting the use of water.
Extent of use will depend
on water quality standards
set for the river.
-N;M. has not adopted the
NPDES program & conse-
quently the federal pro-
gram would have to be
enforced by EPA.
-New regulations for con-
trolling discharges are
proposed by the M.M, El A
that would require a "dis-
charge plan" not a permit.
-Texas has adopted a NPPES
program.
-Can a permit system be
Implemented in the Rio
Grande? Resistance is
likely to be overwhelming.
Numerous suits wi11
undoubtedly be filed
contesting the administra-
tion of the law.
I.A. Issue permi ts to
the highest local
water management
authority.
-Would allow discharges
to vary as allocations
vary.
-Requires precise measurement
of each irrlgator's pollution
discharge. This is financ-
ially if not technically
unfeasible.
-No legal effect, positive
or negative.
-Consideration would have
to be given whether this
permit would be tied to
the water right.
1.8. Issue permi ts to
Individuals who
are users of
water.
-Would establish an upper
limit on discharges.
-Would establish a limit of dis-
charges which would be inde-
pendent of water applications.
-The permits or quotas will re-
quire Improved management of
water In irrigation methods,
ditch lining, etc., which
wl11 be costly.
-New Investments and higher
costs will be required.
-Can the Individual be
motivated to comply with
such a system?
Initiate charges
(taxes) for effluent,
to reflect quantity
and quality of return
flows and costs of
treatment.
-Make monitoring of return
flows necessary and sub-
sequent water quality
would depend on level of
taxes and/or treatment.
-Would require water users to
pay the costs of pollution,
I.e., the costs of treatment
of degraded return flows.
-Refer to Statement III.
-Similar programs for M&l
discharges have met suc-
cessfully the legal chal-
lenged of constitutionality
-Must be able to identify
pollution and the source
to satisfy the legal
quest Ions.
-What organizational mecha-
nism will be employed to
implement this program;
.i.e., who will monitor the
effluent & levy the taxes?
•What will be the degree of
the resistance by farmers?
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Institutional Alternatives
Water QuaIIty
Economic
Legal
Sociological
111. Develop incentives
for management/
control of irriga-
tion return flows.
-Depends on the level
of management and of
control.
-Would induce water users to
control distribution and use
of water.
-Would permit greatest
achievement of beneficial
use (maximum utilization)
while preserving property
interest in water rights.
-No legal constraints.
-An organizational structure
must be initiated to com-
municate the various pro-
grams to the farmer.
-Strategies for implementa-
tion must be created, i.e.,
demonstration farms.
I I I.A. Provide cost-
sharing programs
for capital
improvements.
-Would allow better on-
farm management, reducing
quant i ty of return
flows.
-Would encourage investment in
quality—improving plant and
facilrties, such as canal and
lateral lining, new irriga-
11 I .6. Make incent ive
payments for im-
proved water
management practices
-Would encourage improve-
ments in management of
land and water for
pollution control.
-Would encourage adoption of
quality improving methods
and techniques, such as
i rr i qa t i on schedu i i nq.
(JO
IV. Provide technical
assistance in land/
water management
programs.
-Improvement in water
quality would depend on
level of adopt ion.
-Would encourage 6 facilitate
installation of needed facil-
ities £ adoption of improved
practices.
-This would be a public invest-
nrent inimproved water quality.
-No legal constraints.
-Refer to Statement V.
-Which organizations will
be involved?
V. Faci I i tate sales of
the annual allotments
or fractions thereof
at negotiated prices.
-Depends on use to which
water is put.
•Would improve efficiency of
water use, moving "surplus"
water into higher-value uses.
-Prohibited by the USBR if
on a permanent basis and
outside district bound-
aries.
-If annual transfers, no
legal restrictions aside
from the requirement that
project users cannot be
adversely affected.
-Should improve understand-
ing of significance of
water to agricultural
production in the Valley.
VI. Sever the water right
from the land and
allow transfers
(sales) of rights.
-Depends on use to which
water is put.
-Would cause change in use of
water supply moving some water
into nonagricultural uses.
-While ability to buy a rigtit, as
opposed to a one-time allotment,
is very attractive to potential
buyers', potential sellers in an
area with highly variable sur-
face deliveries are Jess likely
to enter the market with rights
than with allotments.
-Under Reclamation Law,
water rights belong to the
BOR until the project is
paid off, then assigned to
the district. The water
rights are for certified
lands.'
-It would be necessary to
have legal agreement between
the district and theUSBRto
implement this alternative
-May serve as a catalyst to
further urbanization. It
would involve change in
water management practices
& policies.
-Wouldn't be popular among
district members.
•Conflict among users may
emerge due to questions of
whether rights should be
sold and to whom.
(con't inuedj
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Institutional Alternatives
Water Quality
Economic
Lega I
Sociological
VI .A. Limit sales to
agrlcul tural
-Depends on use to which
water is put.
-Would cause continuing use
of water in agriculture and
thus a lower total value-ln-
use.
-Legally possible within
districts provided dis-
trict rules do not pro-
vide the contrary.
-No state law restrictions
-Would encourage continued
growth of larger farms at
the expense of the smaller
farms.
-Would make this alternative
more acceptable.
VII. Add element of
water qualIty
to water right.
US
-Would maintain water
qual'i ty within
useable limits.
-Would increase cost of water
use, to maintain water
quality and cause changes In
crops 1 r.rigated.
-Would only apply to new
water rights and changes
requested In existing
rights.
-Would provide right
holder administrative
course of action.
•Considerations that must be
taken into account:
'Monitoring quality
standards;
•Enforcement mechanisms;
•Capability of users to
comp1y.
•Conflict among users with
new rights and those with
old rights will ensue.
VIII.
Issue regulation
for beneficial
-Depends on how strict
the defIn!tlon of
beneficial use is.
-Would enable state to
effectively control
waste.
-------
default on several occasions. There has been disagreement about what water
may be used to fulfill the compact, e.g., can drainage waters be used as a
portion of the delivery. There is disagreement in Colorado about how
Colorado's share should be used.
The Texas Water Plan is such a remote possibility that it does not
deserve much consideration at this time. But the master plan calls for a
diversion from the Mississippi, some of which would reach Elephant Butte
Reservoir. It would probably be very expensive water.
The technology of weather modification is unproven, but increased precip-
itation in the Rio Grande watershed is a possibility. There could arise some
quite difficult problems of rights to such "new" water. If rainfall in Colo-
rado is induced by cloud seeding, is it Colorado's water or Compact water?
How will it be shared? Who will bear the costs of weather modification?
When such questions arise, the irrelevance of political boundaries to water
supply and use is obvious.
Other measures are possible which relate principally to water quality
improvement. These are phreatophyte eradication, pumping of high quality
ground water, reservoir evaporation suppression and prevention of natural
salt inflow.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plans to restore to the Rio Grande a sub-
stantial portion of the water now consumed by noncommercial vegetation between
the Colorado-New Mexico state lines and Caballo Reservoir. This is to be
accomplished by selectively removing about 17,800 acres and thinning about
2,800 acres (1,13^ ha) of noncommercial phreatophytes and to control the
regrowth on the cleared and thinned areas. As clearing progresses, the plan
would also provide for construction of drains as necessary to maintain a lower
water table to recover salvaged water and discourage regrowth (USER, 1971).
The area of infestation in this reach is estimated to be 5^,900 acres
(22,235 ha). The clearing and thinning of the proposed area is estimated to
salvage 1.83 acre-feet per annum per acre or 3^,700 acre-feet (4,279 ha-m)
per year. Earlier salvage projects, including construction of the Rio Grande
conveyance channel at San Marcial, are estimated to have salvaged almost
twice this amount of water (New Mexico State Engineer, 1967).
The total cost of the water salvage project has been estimated by the
USBR to be $3,568,000, including funds for a 5~year Bureau of Sport Fisher-
ies and Wildlife study of the interrelationship of the vegetation and upland
game. Annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs have been esti-
mated to be $165,000 (all costs at January 1972 prices). The benefit-cost
ratio has been calculated to be 4.63:1, based on a per-acre-foot value of
$M for irrigation water. The salvaged water would provide an additional
0.22 acre-feet per acre (0.07 ha-m/ha) for irrigators, less losses. As water
consumed by phreatophytes is essentially pure water, the salvaged water would
be of the highest quality possible.
The plans for phreatophyte eradication have met vigorous opposition from
environmental groups who have expressed concern for possible detrimental
93
-------
effects on wildlife. Therefore, notwithstanding the economic benefits to the
downstream irrigators, consideration must be given to the overall environ-
mental impact.
High quality ground water is available in the Santa Fe aquifer underly-
ing the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys and in the Huerco Bplson in the El Paso
Valley near El Paso. The latter source is used for municipal supply by the
city and has not been extensively developed for agricultural use because of
limited recharge (estimated to be between 5,600 and 15,000 acre-feet (690
and 1,850 ha-m) per year)). The Santa Fe aquifer is now beginning to find
use as a source of agricultural water.
Water In the Santa Fe aquifer generally has a conductance of 300 to
1,000 mmho/cm compared to 500 to 5,000 in the alluvial aquifer, and is there-
fore to be preferred for irrigation. The Elephant Butte Irrigation District
has constructed five wells into the aquifer, these wells ranging from k20 to
1,200 feet (128 to 366 m) deep. The deepest well is 12 inches in diameter
and produces *»,310 gallons per minute (27 I/sec) of high quality water.
More wells are under construction and planned. All of the wells will dis-
charge into the EBID's distribution system.
This possibility for increasing the volume of available, good quality
water must be attractive to many farmers and water managers. But there should
be concern about the longer term impacts of pumping from the aquifers. Will
such use eliminate ground water reserves upon which irrigators draw in
water-short years?
The source and rate of recharge of high quality water to the Santa Fe
aquifer has not been accurately defined. Removal of water from the aquifer
in excess of this rate would constitute mining of this resource. The alluv-
ial aquifer immediately overlies the Santa Fe aquifer, and hence lowering of
the piezometric pressure in the underlying aquifer can be expected to induce
an infiltration of lower quality water from above. However, it is expected
that this source can provide great benefits to the district if it is used to
supplement water in the river. The marginal increment will be valuable,
especially in water-short years.
The ground water resources of the study area are currently under study
by the U.S. Geological Survey in New Mexico and by the Texas Water Develop-
ment Board in Texas. The results of their respective studies should give
considerable insight into the desirable extent of exploitation.
The Elephant Butte Reservoir has one of the highest rates of evaporation
of any in the United States. Evaporation from a Class A pan averages 118
inches annually, or approximately ten times the precipitation. Considerable
research has been carried out at Elephant Butte into means of evaporation
suppression. As with transpiration by phreatophytes, evaporation constitutes
the removal of pure water. The salvage of up to several hundred acre-feet of
this water per year would have a major water quality effect downstream and
would be of major economic benefit to irrigators.
-------
Although research on evaporation suppression appears to have slackened
in recent years, it still is an area in which potentially large water quality
improvements are possible. Suppression of a large percentage of the evapora-
tion from Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs would represent the salvage
of more high quality water than any other measure.
Galisteo Creek, the Rio Puerco and the Rio Salado discharge into the Rio
Grande a salt concentration approximately three times that of the receiving
waters. These three streams alone load the river with 105,000 tons (115,500
metric tons) per year on average, having an average discharge weighted concen-
tration of 1,150 mg/1. Their contribution to the flow in the river averages
66,000 acre-feet (8,138 ha-m) per year. Their effect is to raise the concen-
tration of the Rio Grande at San Marcial to 460 mg/1 from the MO mg/1 it
would be without them. (All figures are based on the period of available
records, 1966 to 1972.) The contribution from other ungauged streams is
probably quite small, as the catchments of these three streams, together with
the Jamez River (which contributes better quality water), include most of the
land area of the Rio Grande Basin from Otowi Bridge to San Marcial.
The inflow of salt from these streams into the Rio Grande could be re-
duced by retention and evaporation or by desalination. Both methods would be
expensive and difficult to justify. The quality of the inflowing water is
adequate for the growing of many crops and is in fact better than the average
quality received by irrigators in Hudspeth County. The overall effect on TDS
in the river is very small and the removal of this water from the system would
ultimately deprive the Hudspeth County irrigators of that quantity.
Improvement of the Water Delivery Subsystem
The Rio Grande Project is an old project, dating back to the period 1915-
1925. Many of the irrigation ditches now in use were built even earlier.
Some ditches on the project go back to the late 1600's. When the project was
formulated, many of these old ditches were incorporated into the system as it
is today. Furthermore, the Rio Grande was redirected and rechanneled in the
1930's. Thus, many irrigation facilities that were placed by virtue of a
former position on the Rio Grande have now no real reason to be in their pre-
sent location (Cunningham, 1971).
In view of this, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District plans to modern-
ize its system to take advantage of more recent technological developments,
reexamining and reengineering the distribution facilities to minimize and
eliminate as many redundant facilities as possible. A complete reevaluation
of the distribution system (known as the Archer Plan) would consider the
improvements discussed below.
As reregulating reservoir would be constructed somewhere on the project
downstream from the last diversion in the Mesilla Valley. The primary canals
would remain in their same general locations. From these primary canals,
laterals would extend at about right angles from each side of the canal to
the river or hill line. These laterals would be spaced at about one mile
intervals and would serve from about 600 to 1,800 acres (2^3 to 729 ha) each.
It is contemplated that these laterals would consist of pipe conduit. The
95
-------
main canals would be equipped with a system of on-site automatic checks and a
series of wasteways that would discharge to the river and ultimately to the
reregulating reservoir. These automatically controlled checks would maintain
a constant head over the pipe conduits, thus permitting a non-varying irriga-
tion head (which would allow the delivery of a constant flow rate to each
farmer). This system would operate within the capacity limits of the main
canal. Releases from storage reservoirs would be of proper amounts to satisfy
all systems and irrigation water would be reregulated for downstream use at
the reregulating reservoir.
A modification to this plan may now be suggested which incorporates water
quality features. In addition to placing the laterals in pipe conduit, the
main canal could be lined to form an aqueduct from Caballo Dam to El Paso and
beyond to the lower end of the Rio Grande Project. This would include carry-
ing the flow in the aqueduct through Selden Canyon and the pass at El Paso so
that at no time would the water flow in the river channel. The aqueduct would
carry the water supply for the Elephant Butte irrigation District, the City of
El Paso, the El Paso County Improvement District No. 1, and that required to
fulfill the treaty obligations to Mexico. The water would be carried in in-
verted siphons under the large uncontrolled arroyos to prevent contamination.
The use of wasteways to the river and a reregulating reservoir within the
EBID would not be necessary as the large capacity of the lined canal carrying
the total water supply would provide a large degree of buffering (regulation)
when used in conjunction with automatic water level controllers. A reregulat-
ing reservoir would be necessary toward the lower end of the El Paso CWID
No. 1 to regulate inevitable operating wastes for use lower in the system.
In addition to the advantages envisaged by the Archer Plan, the provi-
sion of a lined aqueduct through the length of the project'would offer a
number of water quality advantages.
The substantially reduced seepage from the canal and laterals would
reduce the possibility of salt pickup. Perhaps more significantly, demand
irrigation scheduling by farmers and accurage measurement of deliveries
would allow better on-farm management and a closer control of deep percola-
tion to more closely approximate the leaching requirement. The combination
of reduced seepage (estimated to be at least 20 percent of the water diverted
to the canals) and deep percolation would lower the water table, further
reducing evaporation from swamps and bogs and transpiration by phreatophytes
and preventing salt damage to agricultural lands where the water table is
close to the surface.
Concrete lining and related improvements to the existing distribution
system from Leasburg Dam to near the American Dam have been estimated by the
USBR (1956) to salvage about 98,^00 acre-feet (12,133 ha-m) annually for pro-
ject use in addition to providing to Mexico 11,800 acre-feet (1,A55 ha-m)
annually to meet treaty obligations.
Reduction in the project water delivery losses would decrease the
requirements for releases from project storage and increase the duration of
retention. This would result in increased evaporation from storage, the
96
-------
amount depending on storage level, with a resulting increase in total dis-
solved solids in the reservoir releases. This increase would be less than
currently occurs on passing through the project. The city of El Paso, Mexico,
and all elements of the Rio Grande Project would receive water of equal
quality, being the quality of water stored in Caballo Reservoir. An addi-
tional benefit would be the reduction or elimination of the need to pump
ground water.
The cost of system rehabilitation within the Elephant Butte Irrigation
District has been tentatively estimated by the district manager as $100 mil-
lion. The rehabilitation would be carried out for its operational advantages
rather than water quality considerations. The USBR estimated in 1956 that it
would cost $17,190,000 to construct a lined conveyance channel and related
facilities from Leasburg Dam to near the American Dam. An aqueduct from
Caballo Dam to El Paso carrying the water requirements of the Rincon and El
Paso Valleys, the City of El Paso and Mexico, in addition to those of the
Mesilla Valley, would require more than twice the capacity and would be about
75 percent longer. The cost (present prices) could be as much as $100 million
for this aqueduct.
The expected benefits in continuing the aqueduct below El Paso would
need to be considered separately. At this point, the primary objective of
delivering high quality water to the El Paso Irrigation District, to the
expanding city of El Paso and to Mexico would have been achieved. Some return
flows and drain waters are reused in the lower part of the valley and the ben-
efit these lands would receive from the delivery of the high quality water
would have to be weighed against the cost of continuing the aqueduct to the
end of the project. The operational advantages of rehabilitating the irriga-
tion district would probably play a large part,in this decision.
Planners for the city of El Paso are contemplating the necessity in the
future to construct a large diameter pipeline from Caballo Reservoir to the
city for domestic water supply. This would depend of course on acquisition
of additional water rights. The city currently contracts with the USBR for
the delivery of a small quantity of project water and the conveyance of
water from the Canutilla well field in the river to the treatment plant. As
the city expands, additional water will be required. The ability of ground
water supplies to meet this demand is limited, and most of the distant future
additional water demands will need to be supplied by the Rio Grande. The
cost of treating this additional quantity of water could justify the cost of
building the pipeline from Caballo. This water could alternatively be car-
ried in the aqueduct herein proposed, and the cost applied to its construction,
which would drastically reduce the costs to the irrigation districts. How-
ever, the needs of the city may not correspond temporally with those of the
irrigation district. Should the aqueduct be extended to the end of the pro-
ject, some of the salvaged water might be sold to the Hudspeth District to
further offset costs.
With construction of a lined aqueduct to carry the irrigation water
supply through the length of the Rio Grande Project, drain returns would be
expected to be lower than at present. Water available to the Hudspeth Dis-
trict from this source would be reduced. Operating waste water would still
97
-------
be available, although this could be drastically reduced if the El Paso Dis-
trict were to build a reregulating reservojr in the mid-part of its district
and use the collected operating waste for supplying the lower part.
Alternatively, should sufficient water be available, the Rio Grande Project
may find it more economical to sell all waste water to the Hudspeth District
rather than to construct the reregulating reservoir. If 5 percent of the
water allocated to the Rio Grande Project farm lands were wasted, this would
provide 1.33 acre-feet per acre (.4 ha-m/ha) to the 18,000 acres (A,290 ha)
of the Hudspeth District. More importantly, this water would be of equal
quality to that being delivered to the upper Valleys, having an average IDS
of about 500 mg/1 compared to the present quality of 1,500 mg/1.
The operating waste water from the Rio Grande Project could possibly be
conveyed onto the higher ground beyond Fabens, rather than along the flood
plain, and stored in an arroyo dammed for the purpose of providing adequate
capacity to receive such water. The land in the El Paso District below Fabens
would be served by Tornillo Canal, with any water wasted from this canal pass-
ing into the existing regulating reservoir at the county line. This reservoir
should be deepened to provide the additional capacity necessary to store any
arroyo inflow coming down the river. Although no estimate is available of
the amount of arroyo inflow available to the district, thfe fact that an
average of 76,000 acre-feet (9,371 ha-m) of water per year (not including
1942 when Elephant Butte Reservoir spilled) passes Fort Quitman indicates that
more water could be made available to the Hudspeth District if storage facili-
ties existed in which to conserve the water. Some of the tributary arroyos
could possibly be dammed to provide this storage and the regulating reservoir
at the county line also kept as empty as possible to provide maximum storage
potential.
With high quality water from the upper districts and arroyo inflow avail-
able to the Hudspeth District, it may be justifiable to rehabilitate many of
the district's facilities. Prevention of seepage losses would allow water
savings, and better water control.would allow better on-farm water manage-
ment. Potential would exist for reclamation or improvement of salt affected
lands.
The possibilities outlined above are by necessity cursory in nature and
dependent on the actions taken in the upper districts. Notwithstanding, the
solutions to the problems faced by the Hudspeth District, as reflected by the
acreage out of production and the lower per acre returns compared to the
other districts, may not be able to be prolonged until the other districts
act. These problems and their solutions require detailed study. However,
they relate more to the viability of the Hudspeth District as an irrigated
agricultural area than to water quality per se.
Improvement of the On-Farm Subsystem
There is a paucity of data for most irrigation systems in the Western
United States regarding on-farm evaluation of irrigation practices. The lands
of the subject area are no exception. Much can be accomplished by analyzing
existing irrigation methods and practices on a sufficient number of farm^
fields so that proper advice can be given to farmers regarding modifications
98
-------
to existing irrigation practices that would result in both water quality ben-
efits and increased crop production.
Historical canal diversions show the typical trait of large water deliv-
eries during the early season; however, the regulation provided by Elephant
Butte Reservoir is more than sufficient to allow water deliveries to be made
more according to crop water requirements. For example, the American Canal
diverts to El Paso Valley an average (1939-73) of 30,000 acre-feet (3,699
ha-m) in March and 32,000 acre-feet (3,946 ha-m) in April, after which
diversions are reduced in May to 27,000 acre-feet (3,329 ha-m) (see Table
13). The April diversion alone is 75 percent of the average diversion for
July and August when consumptive use could be expected to be at a peak.
During the three-month period, March, April and May, 33 percent of irrigation
diversions occur, while only about 20 percent of crop water requirements can
be attributed to this same time period. The large spring diversions not only
satisfy leaching requirements, but may also contribute to soil salinization as
a result of capillary rise from high ground water levels (waterlogging).
Traditionally, surface irrigation methods result in too much water being
applied during seedling and plant emergence growth stages. This is the com-
bined result of early season irrigation practices being similar to later
irrigations when larger water applications are necessary, as well as inherent
physical limitations in surface irrigation methods. However, much could be
done to "tune up" such irrigation methods to allow higher early season irri-
gation application efficiencies. A cognizance of desirable early season
improvements would undoubtedly have carryover effects into later irrigations,
thereby enhancing water use efficiency throughout each irrigation season.
TABLE 13. AVERAGE DIVERSIONS TO AMERICAN CANAL AT EL PASO, TEXAS, 1939-1970.
Month Diversion (acre-feet). Diversion (hectare-meter)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1,500
4,569
30,226
31,545
27,035
35,982
43,514
42,656
28,047
11,600
6,905
6,825
185
563
3,727
3,890
3,333
4,437
5,365
5,259
3,457
1,430
851
842
Yearly TOTAL 270,394 33,340
SOURCE: International Boundary and Water Commission.
99
-------
Field measurements are needed on farm fields throughout the study area in
order to establish the quality, quantity and timing of farm irrigation deliv-
eries (both surface canal deliveries and ground water pumping), the flow
characteristics of the irrigation method being employed (which is almost
entirely by surface methods), consumptive use by crops, tailwater runoff,
leaching requirements, and the quality of deep percolation losses. An
important consideration in the field data collection and analysis, in terms
of on-farm water management and optimizing water resources utilization in this
study area, is the utilization by farmers of the more saline ground water
flows during drought years. For each field from which such data are col-
lected, recommendations can be made regarding modified irrigation practices
that would more beneficially utilize water supplies and fertilizer. In
addition, the use of these data in a hydrologic evaluation of each valley,
as well as the hydrologic interaction between valleys, will allow recommend-
ations to be made for the entire study area. Also, this field data will show
constraints being faced by irrigators in achieving higher irrigation applica-
tion efficiencies.
The results of the field studies should yield recommendations regarding
a variety of physical improvements which could be undertaken to eliminate
some, or all, of the constraints faced by the water users. These recommended
physical improvements can consist of simple modifications to the existing
irrigation method (e.g., concrete head ditches, employing different sizes of
siphon tubes, flow measurement structure(s), gated pipes, automated concrete
head ditches, etc.); conversion to new irrigation methods (e.g., converting
from furrow or border irrigation to sprinkler or trickle irrigation); or
could involve physical improvements in the water delivery subsystem, in
particular the lateral(s) (e.g., lining the lateral, placing the irrigation
water supply in a pipeline, constructing water measurement structures,
improved water control structures, etc.). For a discussion of the merits
of sprinkler and trickle irrigation, see Appendix B, at the conclusion of
this report.
Improvements like these envisioned are not, of course, costless. Con-
siderable modification in some systems would be necessary to achieve effici-
encies possible with improved systems. Some systems would have to be
abandoned in favor of new ones.
Some special inducements to allow and facilitate changes in farm sub-
systems may be necessary. Low interest loans, perhaps made through commer-
cial channels with governmental guarantees, would permit some farmers to
modify or replace outmoded systems. Cost-sharing arrangements, perhaps
through the Agricultural Conservation Program, might be effective in inducing
changes. Special educational efforts, to demonstrate the effectiveness of
improved subsystems, would facilitate the development of more efficient irri-
gation technology on farms. Ultimately, the feasibility of improved facili-
ties for applying water would have to be shown. But with the emphasis on
improved water quality, the feasibility of improved systems may have been
enhanced. If farmers must internalize pollution costs, they may be quick
to employ pollution-reducing technology.
100
-------
1r r i ga t ion Sc hedu11ng
Irrigation scheduling programs have been developed for many areas. The
USER has developed irrigation scheduling services for some of its projects,
developed with a fivefold objective to:
a. increase crop yields and quality;
b. reduce fertilizer losses;
c. reduce the amount of unnecessary water and labor inputs to farming;
d. reduce drainage problems; and
e. improve the quality of return flows.
From the individual farm operator's point of view, the objectives may be
summarized as: applying the optimum amounts of water at the optimum time
intervals to obtain the maximum economic returns.
Long before the advent of digital computers, climatological monitors, or
instantaneous communication systems, successful irrigation farmers were
scheduling irrigations based on, for example, the appearance of the crop or
the feel of the soil. However, the fallibility of experience and judgment
has been demonstrated throughout the world as overapplication of water has
led to yield reductions due to fertilizer leaching, poor soil aeration, and
plant diseases. In addition, such inefficient irrigation practices have
created regional water quality problems, mosquito nuisances, public health
problems, and local property damage due to waterlogging of soils and seepage
of water into basements of homes and businesses.
The relative ease with which irrigation can be programmed for digital
computers has allowed irrigated scheduling service to be provided to a large
number of Frrigators by a single facility. Modern districtwide irrigation
scheduling programs consist of six primary steps (Figure 1*0-
First, an inventory of the soil and crop characteristics for each field
is made to gain an understanding of the essential requirements for efficient
irrigation. Then, a calculation of the water needs of the growing crops is
made, specifically,at what rates are the crops and soil surfaces utilizing
water from the soil moisture reservoir. Such estimates are generally based
on well tested empirical techniques, rather than actual measurements, because
of convenience and the established reliability of the computational
procedures. The next aspect of irrigation scheduling is to determine the
availability of moisture in the root zone for meeting crop needs between irri-
gations. This step is accomplished by initially sampling the soil profile to
measure the available moisture and update the consumptive use estimates.
Upon determining the amount of soil moisture available, the interval between
Irrigations is projected. In addition, by knowing the soil and irrigation
system characteristics, the amount of water to be applied (as well as the
means to accomplish the suggested application) can be determined. Finally,
the results of the previous steps must be delivered to the irrigator in order
101
-------
X*—•>.
(start)
Inventory Soil and Crop
Characteristics for Each Field
Compute Expected Values
of Evapotranspiration
During Next Seven Days
Measure Soil
Moisture Availability
Determine Date of
Next Irrigation
Determine How Much Water to be
Applied and the Means to
Accomplish the Specified Application
Communicate Scheduling
Suggestions to Individual Irrigators
Is This the
Final Irrigation?
Irrigator Communicates
Date and Amount of His
Last Irrigation to
Scheduling Service
Figure 1A. Irrigation scheduling components.
102
-------
to implement the suggestions. Also, proper implementation is highly depend-
ent upon flow measurements being available to the farmer so that he knows
"what he is managing." This program is subsequently repeated throughout an
irrigation season.
An irrigation scheduling service offers the potential to improve water
quantity and quality, while at the same time enhancing returns to the farmer.
The cost varies according to the extent of service offered, but is usually in
the range of $1.50 to $5.00 per acre ($3-70 to $12.35/ha).
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation implemented an irrigation scheduling ser-
vice in El Paso Valley during the early 1970's, but this program was unsuccess-
ful and was terminated after the 197*» irrigation season. The lack of flow
measurement structures, along with a lack of necessary field data for "tuning
up" the irrigation system, can be credited with the demise of this program in
the El Paso area.
Return Flow Subsystem
In order to increase agricultural productivity on some lands in El Paso
Valley, tile drainage would probably be desirable. Field data is required in
order to establish the suitability of tile drainage as a measure for increas-
ing crop production, as well as improving the quality of irrigation return
flows. Tile drainage should only be undertaken in conjunction with improved
on-farm water management practices, which in turn benefit from physical
improvements of the laterals delivering water to the farms.
Desalination of Return Flows
Although desalination would not appear to be necessary at the present
time, or in the immediate future, this technology may become important in fu-
ture decades as a result of increasing urban demands in El Paso Valley. The
use of tile drainage effluent as the inflow to a desalination plant would be
feasible if sufficient acreage is underlain by tile drainage. Also, at that
time, pump drainage may be desirable as a means of both reclaiming agricul-
tural lands and providing the saline water supply to a desalination plant.
A Discharge Permit System
It is the present intent and effort of the Environmental Protection
Agency and cooperating state agencies to control discharges of effluents
(return flows) from agricultural lands. The effort has not been successful
to this point because of the resistance encountered from agricultural users
of water. Believing in the inappropriateness of the NPDES, they have brought
suit against EPA in several states and have effectively blocked an imposition
of this control program on irrigated agriculture.
A discharge permit system does offer the potential for limitation of
effluent discharges and the control of quality of water in receiving streams.
But, a significant first problem in the implementation of such a system is
recognition, location and continual monitoring of return flows. These flows
are quite diverse and often are largely hidden. Unless collected by drainage
103
-------
ditches, terraces and other devices, the quantities cannot be effectively
measured and the quality of flows cannot be ascertained. The monitoring tech-
nique now employed is that of sampling the waters of receiving streams and
evaluating the quality of the samples. This technique will not be sufficient
for issuance of permits and monitoring of discharges of permit holders, unless
groups or organizations of water users, e.g., irrigation districts, are the
recipients of the permits. This would make enforcement possible and greatly
reduce the costs of a quality monitoring program. But, it would place the
burden of enforcement on the organization of users. The irrigation district
management would be required to monitor water use by individual farmer-
members. We should not expect that irrigation or drainage districts would
welcome this responsibility. The organizations might be directed by members
to function as permit holders and policemen, if the members saw no alterna-
tive to the permit system.
Whether irrigated agriculture could survive with water quality controlled
by a discharge permit system will depend upon the stream standards adopted in
areas where irrigated agriculture is the dominant user of water. Water qual-
ity degradation is an inevitable consequence of irrigation. Even when water
is not efficiently used, the concentrating effect will cause mineral concen-
trations in streams to rise. Decisions must be made about stream standards
that are consistent with water uses, water values, and demands for water
quality before we expect to employ a permit system in the control of quality
of return flows from agriculture.
Taxes and Subsidies
The difficult problem of monitoring return flows from individual tracts
or parcels of land will prove troublesome also in the implementation of one
kind of pollution tax, i.e., a tax on effluent discharges. The kind and
amount of effluent is the basis for the tax. The tax is levied to cause the
internalization of the cost associated with treatment of the effluent.
A user tax might also be employed, which increases the price (conveyance"
cost) of water to reflect the cost of pollution. It would not require the
monitoring of return flows. It is a tax on the water diverted and is used to
assess everyone, quite equally, for the damage done to water (i.e., to suc-
ceeding users) as it is used in agriculture.
The basic problem of implementation is simply that the effluent or user
tax increases the price of water. And, the profit maximizing producer resists
all increases in prices of productive inputs. Where he can have a voice in
price increases, he protests—loudly. The user tax will, however, increase
the price of water, cause more efficient use of this scarce resource and
generate revenues which can be used to promote improved water management,
or share costs of new distribution facilities, or treat the effluent
(desalination of return flows in the Rio Grande).
The subsidy of recommended rehabilitation of distributional facilities,
or of improved irrigation systems, or of new knowledge about using irrigation
water is usually acceptable to managers and users of water. Taxpayers may not
always endorse such assistance with good facilities and good practices, but
-------
some are inclined to go along with it, thinking that an improvement of water
quality is worth a small share of the cost of improvement. We have some
tradition of cost-sharing by government, to promote the adoption of soil
conserving methods and practices. The use of subsidies to provide incentives
for approved water management methods and practices should not, therefore, be
difficult to "sell" to the general public and to affected, water-using farmers,
Technical Assistance in Land/Water Management Programs
Provision of technical assistance for rehabilitation of distributional
facilitites and improvement of land/water management methods and practices
should be quite acceptable among irrigation farmers. Such a program will
have as its basis the many years of work of the Soil Conservation Service.
This organization will undoubtedly be at the forefront in the extension of
technical assistance to water users.
Coupled with subsidies, i.e., cost-sharing programs, this program of
assistance should provide for implementation of several of the measures
recommended by researchers and techniques for improvement of water use in
agriculture. These were previously identified as canal and ditch lining,
flow measuring devices, improved irrigation systems and methods, irrigation
scheduling, improved drainage, etc. Downstream users of water, in particu-
lar, and the public, in general, will benefit from these programs, in that
they will positively affect water quality. Farmers (irrigation district
members) will benefit In the provision of technical services at little or
no cost and in the installation of improved facilities at a fraction of
total cost. In some cases the subsidy will be |n the form of low-cost
loans; in others it will include cost-sharing. The decision about the sub-
sidy is a political one, to be made by the Congress.
Sales of Allotments or Rights
Sales of all or portions of allotments is a well-established practice
in the Elephant Butte District. They can probably be expanded in the El Paso
District by only a- little more experience with the practice. There is little
motive for transfers of allotments in the Hudspeth District.
Where transfers of water are regularly made, there is recognition of the
values of water in alternative uses and thus the opportunity costs associated
with its use. There is little or no fear of loss of the annual allotment, so
farmers rationally exchange and sell allotments.
It will be more difficult to develop a market for the water rights. In
Elephant Butte, where rights are held by the irrigation district, the rights
would have to be returned to the district members, then severed from the land
in order to make them negotiable. With negotiability, they could be sold to
anyone willing to buy, so that some rights (water) would leave agriculture.
The values of water would be higher in the nonagricultural uses; returns to
the limited resource would be greater. But there would be great resistance
among right holders in the project area to movement of water out of agricul-
ture. The Bureau of Reclamation would not be inclined to favor such trans-
fers out of project areas. So, efforts to create a market for water rights
105
-------
are probably not going to be successful. If El Paso continues to grow and
develop industrially, there may be efforts to buy water rights for urban uses.
The potential should not be ignored.
Modificationof the Water Right
There are numerous ways in which the water rights system In the Western
United States, and particularly the case study states of New Mexico and Texas,
can be improved. However, two specific changes have been suggested that will
increase the ability of the two states' water agencies to attack the problem
of controlling degraded return flows. These two suggestions are: a) to add
the element of water quality, specifically, to all new water rights and as a
condition to transfers or other changes in existing water rights; and b) to
promulgate regulations which set out standards and criteria for beneficial
use.
The first change is not foreign to Texas or New Mexico on an ad hoc
basis. As previously stated, in Texas a condition to granting a water right
is that if return flows exceed water quality standards, diversions under the
right can be curtailed. Also, in New Mexico there are several instances (in
the Pecos River Valley) where water quality of downstream users has been pro-
tected by incorporating the requirement of useable return flows in upstream
water rights. Adding water quality can be within general reference to the
restrictions against discharging return flows of unreasonable quality under
use and technology conditions, or where the need exists and conditions pre-
vail numerical standards can be placed in the water right. It is well
accepted that this recommendation cannot be applied to existing water rights
as a new feature. But, where case law or existing statutory provisions
recognize water quality specifically as an element of a water right, then
specification of the element could take place.
The second legal modification Is to define beneficial use more concretely
by setting up standards and criteria. This requires no statutory modification
tn either state for surface water and can be applied to ground water in New
Mexico under this administrative structure. The standards and criteria will
serve as the guidelines for water users and should be established for both
conveyance and application efficiencies.
The two modifications, together, will enable the water quantity and
water quality agencies to control a problem determined to exist through con-
certed effort, and not place the burden strictly upon the "effluent" controller
where a significant impact can be made by the "influent" controller. Flexi-
bility must be maintained in the administration of the law so that intensive
regulation would only occur in areas where a significant problem exists. The
reason for this is to minimize the cost of water use by requiring higher
standards of conveyance and use only in problem areas of the state.
FIELD ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Upon completion of the evaluation of alternative solutions by the re-
search team, attention was directed to an assessment of potential solutions
106
-------
by persons in the "field," i.e., federal and state agency personnel concerned
with administration of water laws in the study areas, managers of irrigation
districts, and farmers who are users of irrigation water and persons most
affected by water quality laws and regulations.
The "Summary of Technological and Institutional Alternatives," Table ^^
was used as a discussion outline in contacts with persons in the study areas.
The "Rationale for Discussions..." outlined in Table ]k was used to intro-
duce the content of our discussions. This procedure allowed us to approach
all the persons interviewed in the same way, i.e., with the same objectives,
same explanation, and the same questions. It is an approach essential to the
reduction of bias and to acquisition of information which can be used in com-
paring responses to alternative solutions.
TABLE ^k. RATIONALE FOR DISCUSSIONS OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS WITH
WATER USE ADMINISTRATORS, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MANAGERS
AND WATER USERS
J. We have asked you to meet with us as participants in a research project
which may be important to the use of water in agriculture.
a. We are inquiring about the quality of water used in irrigation and
returned to the source.
b. We are considering the alternative means and mechanisms for main-
taining that quality.
c. We are asking water users to help us evaluate those means and mech-
anisms that may be employed to maintain quality.
II. We are all aware of the growing public, interest in water quality.
Evidence of this interest is the Water Quality Control Act of 1972,
which expresses our intent to clean up the Nation's waters.
a. We are directed to establish quality standards, identify pollution
sources, measure and specify the pollutants, and take action to
control waste water discharges.
b. Various governmental agencies, chiefly the EPA, were given the
responsibility for implementing the Act.
III. We are also aware that a use of water which is important to us3 i.e.,
irrigation of crops, causes degradation of stream quality as silty or
salty return flows find their way back to the source.
a. Some of this kind of pollution is inevitable—it is a natural
consequence of use of water for irrigation.
b. But some return flows are unnecessarily silt laden or saline.
They are a consequence of improper management of water in diver-
sion, distribution and/or application of water to land.
c. We know that we must take action to remedy these pollution problems.
But what should we do? (continued)
107
-------
TABLE 1**, continued
IV. The EPA, acting at the instruction of Congress and without understand-
ing irrigated agriculture, tried to implement a control program—a
discharge permit system.
a. This system was not appropriate to agriculture and it is not
working.
b. They now seem ready to consider something else—a different approach
to maintenance of quality of streams where water is diverted for
irrigation.
c. They have commissioned us to find and to evaluate alternatives to
the discharge permit system.
d. We have conmitted ourselves to a search for workable alternatives
and we seek the involvement of water users in this search. For an
implementable policy or program for pollution control must be
acceptable to those who will be affected.
V. Now, the Rio Grande Valley has been identified as an irrigated area
with a problem—a problem of salinity created by concentration of salts
in return flows. We have reviewed the evidence and find that this prob-
lem does, in fact, exist. So we have started our search for alterna-
tive solutions—solutions that will alleviate or eliminate the problem
and that can be implemented.
VI. We began with the understanding that institutions (e.g., taxes, sub-
sidies, permits, rights, pricing policies, etc.) are as important to
pollution control as technologies (e.g., canal lining, new irrigation
systems, treatment plants, etc.).
a. We have sought those institutions> technologies, or combinations of
institutions and technologies that are acceptable, or least objec-
tionable, to water users in agriculture.
b. We have screened our lists of alternatives via consultation with
water lawyers, water agency personnel, district managers, et al.
c. We now seek your evaluation of these alternative, pollution
controlling technologies and institutions. And, if we 've over-
looked some, we hope you will add them to our list. Will you look
at them with us?
Response to these solutions depended to a great extent on who was doing
the evaluating, i.e., who was being interviewed. State and federal agency
personnel, who had responsibilities for administering laws governing rights
to and distribution and use of water, were inclined to favor measures that
fit within the framework of existing laws, rules and regulations. Conscious
as they were of problems of implementation, they resisted alternatives that
required new laws, rule changes, etc., which would affect administration.
Managers of distribution systems were very conscious of their responsibilities
in the transport and delivery of water to users. They favored proposals to
improve distribution systems and to provide financial assistance with capital
108
-------
improvements. They resisted alternatives that suggested controls on allot-
ments, diversions, use and return of effluent to receiving waters. But, they
recognized the possibility that such measures might be necessary and they
reluctantly agreed that the administration of control programs should be at
local levels, with some enforcement responsibilities in their office.
Water users, the members of the irrigation districts and irrigation
farmers quite logically favored the alternatives that were directed to im-
proved management of water on farms. They did not quickly admit that
inefficiencies in water uses were a problem, except on the farms of poor
managers, but they saw the need for improved scheduling of water applications,
improved transport of water on farms, and En some instances, new or improved
systems of application. They, of course, approved of provision of technical
assistance and of cost-sharing and incentive payments. Some maintained that
added investments in technology are impossible without some subsidy by the
public.
In Table 15, there is a summary of responses of agency personnel,
district managers and water users to the proposed technological and institu-
tional solutions.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
It was previously noted that the participants in the assessment/
evaluation process quite logically responded to the alternative solutions
from their perspectives. They tended to view the problem and the proposed
solutions in terms of the existing institutional framework, the costs and
benefits associated with change, the impacts on established practices and
methods, and the probable effects on social relationships. Knowing how
people looked at the return flow problem and how they responded to alterna-
tive technological and institutional alternatives allows us now to recommend
solutions, singly and in combination, that will be implementable. The extent
of the impact on the problem is not yet determined, for the water quality
goals (standards) have not been established and the relative effects of
solutions have been only approximately, if not inexactly, determined. But,
at this point we do have good indications of what people do not like, what
they think will work, what they will cooperate with, etc. And, we have in-
volved affected persons in a problem-solving process that has made them
aware of the problem, understanding of its complexities, appreciative of
the need for solutions, and aware of potential courses of action that will
be problem-solving.
Evaluation of the Assessment Procedure
The assessment procedure was well conceived but it suffered from insuf-
ficient participation within all groups. The federal and state agency people
showed a reluctance to consider alternatives which were new or unfamiliar to
them. They were more comfortable with existing law, associated rules and
regulations and established administrative procedures. They were even reluc-
tant to think about amendments or changes in the law. Irrigation district
managers were more flexible in their attitudes toward change, but they were
109
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF AGENCY PERSONNEL, DISTRICT MANAGERS AND WATER
USERS TO TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Technological Alternatives
Agency Personnel
District Managers
Farmers—Water Users
I. Increase flow of the river;
expand volume of water.
No responses.
An Increase in the available
supply of water would of course be
beneficial to agriculture. Depend-
ing on the source there might arise
a question of whose water it is,
i.e., how It should be shared.
Any addition to the quantity of
water would be welcomed. It would
be especially useful to farmers in
Hudspeth County, because It would
dilute existing water of poor
qualIty.
I.A. Supplement river flow via
pumped water.
No responses.
Pumped water is relatively costly;
It would not add significantly to
total volume; it is used more
efficiently as supplemental water
in years of small allotments.
Wells are more effectively used to
supplement reservoir water during
water-short years. Some wells do
not yield good quality water.
Some farmers could trade well
water for Elephant Butte water.
l.B. Induce precipitation and
runoff via weather
modification.
No responses.
Technology not yet developed;
a costly, risky venture;
can't be seriously considered.
Seems like a remote possibility.
Whose water would It be? The
watersheds are In Colorado and
Northern New Mexico.
I.C. Eradicate phreatophytes
above Caballo Reservoir.
No responses.
An alternative worthy of pursuit;
eradication now blocked by
environmentalists; probably
will be done eventually.
This is a feasible alternative
solution. Phreatophytes are not
native vegetation and are heavy
water users.
I.D. Suppress evaporation
from the reservoirs.
No responses.
Costs of evaporation suppression
are presently very high. The
current technology Is not effective
on large reservoirs. Might be a
possibility in the future.
Presently, too costly. The
techniques of suppression must be
developed.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Technological Alternatives
Agency Personnel
District Managers
Farmers—Water Users
II. Impound flows of highly
saline tributaries.
No responses.
This is not an acceptable
alternative. There is now more
concern for quantity than for
qua] ity of water.
Farmers are too concerned about
quantity to be willing to give up
flows from any tributaries.
III. Provide aqueduct from
Caballo to El Paso and
possibly beyond.
No responses.
Would require a separate accounting
system for the Elephant Butte and
El Paso districts. The good work-
ing relationship between the
districts would be severed.
Farmers in El Paso district would
be beneficiaries and would be
willing to share costs of it. But
it would be a costly venture and
would require public investment.
IV. Improve distribution
systems in irrigation
districts.
No responses.
An acceptable alternative and
one now being implemented by both
districts as rapidly as
possible. Limitation on implement-
ation is financial.
Within the limits of their finan-
cial capability, irrigation
district members are investing in
improvements in distribution
faci1ities.
IV.A. Line canals and put
laterals in concrete
pipe.
No responses.
Lining canals will reduce seepage
losses. Putting laterals in con-
crete pipe will allow pressuriz-
ation of system. This would
eliminate return flows
attributing to seepage.
A project costing more than $1
million is proposed for Elephant
Butte. El Paso district is pre-
sently spending more than
$400,0.00.
IV.B. Install flow measuring
devices.
No responses.
Would positively affect delivery
and application of water on lands
in the districts.
Would not be worth the cost. Water
allotments are so small that farm-
ers are careful about applications.
IV.C. Modify irrigation
practices.
In a policy statement, the Water
Quality Commission, New Mexico,
declared that where a land use
does have a significant impact on
water, the Commission would adopt
alternative engineering, land use
management and regulatory
approaches to this type of water
pol1ution.
Modification of methods and
practices would not have a major
effect on water quajity. Evapora-
tion and wind are limiting factors
in sprinkler irrigation. Limited
use (orchards, vineyards, etc.) Is
a problem with trickle irrigation.
Sprinkle and trickle irrigation
won't work on row crops. Furrow
irrigation is the best for many
crops in the Valley. Unskilled
and careless labor is a problem
in water application.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Technological Alternatives
V.A. Implement an Irrigation
scheduling system.
V.B. Make some changes In
Irrigation methods and
practices.
Agency Personnel
No responses.
No responses.
District Managers
Irrigation scheduling was tried,
but consultants found farmers
already doing what they would
recommend.
The trickle systems tried have
not functioned well. There Is
limited use of sprinklers on
certain sol Is.
Farmers—Water Users
A good job of scheduling is
already to be found on most
farms.
Trickle systems could be adapted
to irrigation of trees and vines.
Some lands need leveling. Timing
or scheduling is a problem on some
farms.
Institutional Alternatives
1. Implement a discharge
permit system.
I.A. Issue permits to the
highest local water
management authority.
1 .6. Issue permits to
individuals who are
users of water.
II. Initiate charges for effluent
to reflect quantity and
quality of return flows and
costs of treatment.
Agency Personnel
Return flows are not point
sources; the NPDES Is not
applicable to agriculture;
water quail ty Is not a
significant problem.
NPDES is not implementable.
Reliance will be placed on 208
program. Influent control
program considered to be more
appropriate to return flows
than any other program.
No responses.
No responses.
District Managers
Not applicable to Irrigated
agriculture In the Valley.
If implemented, it could
destroy Irrigated agriculture.
If a permit system is implemented,
administration should be located
at district level, and controls
should be imposed on districts,
not farmers.
To attempt enforcement at water user
(farmer) level would be folly.
Monitoring of return f lows ,. suf f i -
cient to implement an effluent tax,
would be prohibitively expensive
unless the tax were levied on
districts.
Farmers — Water Users
Not appropriate to irrigated
agriculture. Unrealistic stand-
ards and discharge permits would
eliminate irrigated agriculture.
If this system must be employed,
permits should be issued to the
districts. Districts could
enforce regulations affecting
water use on farms better than
federal and state agencies.
Wouldn ' t work.
Might be a good program because
it would penalize poor management.
It would provide incentive for
good management of water.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Institutional Alternatives
Agency Personnel
District Managers
Farmers—Water Users
111. Develop incentives for
management/control of
irrigation return flows.
El A, New Mexico and Texas Water
Quality Board regard irrigation
return flows as nonpoint sources
to be dealt with in 20.8 Water
Quality Planning efforts.
Improved land/water management
is key to pollution control.
Incentives for adoption of best
management practices will speed
up the implementation of these
practices.
Incentives are useful to adoption
of new and improved methods of
water management.
I I I.A. Provide cost-sharing
programs for capital
improvements.
No responses.
This would be helpful to district
rehabilitation of facilities. The
only present subsidy is long-term,
low-interest loans. Cost-sharing
for improved irrigation equipment
on farms would stimulate investment
in it.
Major changes in facilities and
equipment are facilitated by cost-
sharing programs. Cost-sharing
reduces the capital requirements
for districts and farmers.
I—i
I—"
UJ
I I 1.6. Make incentive payments
for improved water
management practices.
No responses.
A cost-sharing program like the
ACP would stimulate the adoption
of best management practices.
Cost-sharing through ACP is
already available for certain
improved water management
practices.
IV. Provide technical
assistance in land/water
management programs.
No responses.
Will be important to adoption
of best management practices.
The SCS could be productively
employed in extension of informa-
tion and assistance in improved
water management.
V. Facilitate sales of the
annual allotments or
fractions thereof at
negotiated prices.
No responses.
Transfers of allotments now
possible in all three districts.
Transfers of water allotments have
been very useful in some years and
some circumstances. Instances of
transfers are increasing.
VI. Sever the water right
from the land and allow
transfers (sales) of
rights.
New Mexico legislature: "The
Water Quality Act does not grant
to the commission or to any other
entity the power to take away or
to modify property rights in
water...."
This alternative is being seriously
considered in El Paso District where
urbanization is creating problems
of distribution of water. Perhaps
rights should be withdrawn from
urbanized lands. Otherwise, it is
not a practical alternative.
This alternative is generally
not acceptable. Water is needed
in agriculture. Sales of rights
would cause movement of water
into urban and commercial
(cbnYinued)
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Institutional Alternatives
Agency Personnel
District Managers
Farmers—Water Users
VI.A Limit sales to
agricultural users.
No responses.
Most farmers are very concerned
about removal of water from
agriculture.
This would be necessary to gain
approval of such sales.
VII. Add element of water
quality to water right.
New Mexico has a specific policy
which recognizes a reasonable
degradation of water through the
exercise of a water right and
the subsequent use of the water.
Would require greatly increased
monitoring of water use and
return flows.
No responses.
s
VIII. Issue regulations
for beneficial use.
The legal authority of the state
engineers office (New Mexico) is
to Insure that water users are
beneficially using their water.
The statutes say that waste of
water is a misdemeanor.
A beneficial use regulation
could be enforced at the district
level and perhaps should be
implemented.
No responses.
-------
constrained by their responsibilities for management of diversion and distri-
bution facilities. They also reflected farmer-member interests, perhaps being
more jealous of rights, customs, practices and methods than farmers them-
selves. Managers were quite conscious of water quality problems and willing
to do something about them, even to the point of assuming responsibility for
some quality control programs. The sample of farmers interviewed was un-
doubtedly biased in favor of "better" farmers. They were well-educated,
informed, articulate operators of relatively large commercial units, and
community leaders. A larger sample would have included some farmers not
so well-informed and not so capable of good judgment. But they would have
been a part of the affected water users, and should have been included.
Evolution of Solution Packages
The preferred solutions quite obviously include those that are directed
to improvement in the management of water in irrigated agriculture. They are
technological — the lining of canals and ditches, the measurement of deliver-
ies, the improvement of water application methods—and the institutional--
cost-sharing for capital improvements, incentive payments for improved
practices, and technical assistance for improved water management,. Sales
or exchanges of allotments have already been established as useful solutions
to problems of efficient use of water. Enforcement of beneficial use provi-
sions got some positive response.
Not favored were controls—permit systems, quality requirements and
effluent charges—plus some "far out" technological solutions like weather
modification and evaporation suppression.
115
-------
REFERENCES
Bureau of Reclamation. 1971- "Rio Grande Water Salvage Project: New Mexico
Division." Feasibility Report (April). Department of Interior, Regional
Office-Region 5, Amarillo, Texas.
Cunningham, Wayne. 1971- Problems and Projects of the Elephant Butte Irri-
gation District. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Water Conference,
New Mexico State University, Water Resources Research Institute. March.
Jetton, Elden V. and James W. Kirby. 1970. "A Study of Precipitation,
Streamflow and Water Usage on the Upper Rio Grande." Atmospheric
Science Group Report No. 25 (June), Austin, Texas. U. of Texas.
. National Resource Journal. Volume 1^, No. 2, pp. 16J»-167.
New Mexico State Engineers Office. 1967. "Water Resources of New Mexico:
Occurrence, Development and Use." State Planning Office, Santa Fe, N.M.
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1973- "New Mexico Water Qual-
ity Standards" (Aug.).
Schroeder, K. 1958. "Der Rio Grande del Norte unter dem Einfluss der Modernen
Wasserwirt schaft," Der Erde, Heft 3-4 (1958). quoted in John C. Day,
Managing the Lower Rio Grande, Department of Geography, The University
of Chicago (1970).
Water Quality Commission. 1975- Rio Grande Basin Report. September.
Wilcox, L.V. 1968. Discharge and Salt Burden of the Rio Grande above Fort
Quitman, Texas, and Salt-Balance Conditions on the Rio Grande Project.
Summary Report for the 30-year period 193^-1963. U.S. Salinity Labor-
atory, Research Report No. 113, August 30.
116
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfaro, Jose F. 1970. "Model Study to Predict Salt Distribution and Con-
centration of Water in Soil Profiles." Project Completion Report No.
A-016-NMEX-3100-67- Department of Agricultural Engineering, New
Mexico State University (December).
Alfaro, Jose F. 1971. "Application of a Physical Model Theory to Predict
Salt Displacement in Soils." Soil Science, Volume 112, No. 2 (May 10).
Anderson, J. U. and H. J. Maker. 197^. "Suitability of New Mexico Lands for
Irrigation." Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 276, New
Mexico State University (March).
Applegate, Howard G. and C. Richard Bath. 1973. Air Pollution Along the
United States-Mexico Border. Proceedings of the First Binational Symp-
osium on Air Pollution (September 27~28). El Paso: University of Texas
Western Press.
Barkley, W. A., e£ aj_. 197*4. "Waste Load Allocation for Critical Surface
Waters in New Mexico." Final Report submitted to New Mexico Environ-
mental Improvement Agency, Santa Fe (July 1973-February 197*0-
Barnes, Carl E. Ho date. "Irrigation Water Requirements for Crop Production-
Roswell Artesian Basin: An Agronomic Analysis and Basic Data." WRRI
Report No. k, Part I.
Easier, J. A. and L. J. Alary. 1968. "Quality of the Shallow Ground Water
in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, New Mexico and Texas." Report pre-
pared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Albuquerque,
N.M., in cooperation with the New Mexico State Engineer (August).
Ban-David, Shaul , et aj_. , 197*»- "Water As A Limiting Factor In Indian
Economic Development." WRRI Report No. 036 (April). Technical Comple-
tion Report Project No. 3109-125- New Mexico State University.
Ban-David, Shaul, e_t aj_. 197^. "Analysis of Water Characteristics of Manu-
facturing Industries and Their Adaptability to Semi-Arid Regions."
WRRI Report No. 0^0 (June), New Mexico State University.
Blaney, Harry F. and Eldon G. Hanson. 1965 "Consumptive Use and Water
Requirements in New Mexico." Technical Report 32, New Mexico State
Engineer, Santa Fe, N.M.
117
-------
Bureau of Reclamation. No date. "Report on the West Side Canal Seepage
Investigation, October-November 1949-" Rio Grande Project, New Mexico-
Texas (July). Region 5, Amarillo, Texas.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1956. "Reconnaissance Report on Water Conservation
Plans." Rio Grande Project, New Mexico-Texas (July). Region 5,
Amari1lo, Texas.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1970. "El Paso County Water Improvement District
No. 1." Rio Grande Project, New Mexico-Texas. Region 5, Amarillo,
Texas (June).
Casbeer, Thomas J. and Warren L. Trock. 1969- "A Study of Institutional
Factors Affecting Water Resource Development in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley, Texas." Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University (Sept.).
Chang, C. W. and H. E. Dregne. 1955- "Reclamation of Salt- and Sodium-
Affected Soils in the Mesilia Valley." Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 401 (November), New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts.
Christiansen, Paige W. 1973. "The Quest for Water in New Mexico." WRRI
Report No. 029 (August). New Mexico State University.
Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas. 1970. "Water Resources
of the Upper Rio Grande Basin." Prepared for the Texas Water Rights
Commission, Austin, Texas (August).
Claborn, B. J., B. C. Cook and Curtis Carter. 1974. "The Effects of Recrea-
tion Pool Size on Irrigation and Power Generation at Elephant Butte
Reservoir." Water Resources Center 71-1- Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech
University (July).
Clark, Ira G. 1968. "Administration of Water Resources in New Mexico."
WRRI Research Report No. 3 (June). New Mexico State University.
Clark, J. W. No date. "Sharing Water Across an International Boundary."
Unpublished paper. Water Resources Research Institute, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, N.M.
Coffey, P. J. 1966. "Influence of Irrigation Water Quality on Crop Yield,
Rio Grande Project." U.S. Government Memorandum (Aug. 15).
Conover, C. S. 1954. "Ground Water Conditions in the Rincon and Mesilla
Valleys and Adjacent Areas in New Mexico." Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 1230: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Cooperative Extension Service. No date. "Alfalfa Costs and Returns Under
Ditch Irrigation in Quay County." Plant Science Guide, N.M.S.U. 400A-307.
Cooperative Extension Service. No date. "Growing Bell Peppers in New
Mexico." Plant Science Guide, N.M.S.U. 400 H-214.
118
-------
Cooperative Extension Service. No date. "Irrigated Grain Sorghum Costs and
Returns in Union County." Plant Science Guide, N.M.S.U. 400 A-409.
Cooperative Extension Service. No date. "The NMSU Irrigation Water Classi-
fication System." Plant Science Guide, No. 400 A-116, N.M. State Univ.
Coppedge, Robert 0. and James R. Gray. 1968. "Recreational Use and Value
of Water at Elephant Butte and Navajo Reservoirs." New Mexico State
Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 535 (Oct.).
Corps of Engineers. 1961. "Report on Review Survey for Flood Control."
Serial No. 11, U.S. Army Engineer District, Albuquerque, N.M. (Oct.).
d'Arge, Ralph C. 1970. "Quantitative Water Resource Basin Planning: An
Analysis of the Pecos River Basin, New Mexico." WRR| Report No. 8
(December), N.M. State Univ.
d'Arge, Ralph C. 1971. "Decision Models for Minimizing the Cost Information
or Error in Estimating Benefit-Water Relationships with Special Applica-
tions to Irrigation." Partial Technical Completion Report, New Mexico
Water Resources Research Institute, Las Cruces, N.M. (Dec.).
Dawson, G. R; (ed.). 1973- "New Mexico Agriculture—1971." Agricultural
Experiment Station Research Report 260. Las Cruces, N.M. (Sept.).
Dirnberger, J. L. 1956. "Irrigation Siphon Tubes." Engineering for Better
Farming Circular 266 (July), Extension Service, N.M. A&M College.
Dregne, H. E. and Hessam Mojallali. 1969. "Salt-Fertilizer-Specific Ion
Interactions in Soil." Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 641
(January), N.M. State Univ.
Dregne, H. E. 19&9. "Irrigation Water Quality and the Leaching Requirement."
NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 542 (Jan.).
Dregne, H. E. 19&9. "Prediction of Crop Yields from Quantity and Salinity
of Irrigation Water." Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 543
(March), N.M. State Univ.
Dutton, Bertha P. 1975- Indians of the American Southwest. Englewood
Cliffs, N.d.: Prentice-Hall.
Eastman, Clyde. 1972. "Assessment Cultural Change in North-Central New
Mexico." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 592 (Jan.).
Environmental Improvement Agency. 1972. "Lower Rio Grande Basin Plan: Draft
New Mexico Water Quality Division." A Summary of EIA Activities for
1973-7^. State of New Mexico.
EPA Grant Application S-803565-01. New Mexico State University. 1974.
"Demonstration of Irrigation Return Flow, Salinity Control in the
Upper Rio Grande" (Sept.).
119
-------
Fergusson, Harvey. 1967- Rio Grande. New York: William Morrow 6 Co.
Fletcher, Herbert C. and Harold B. Elmendorf. No date. "Phreatophytes--A
Series of Problems in the West." Yearbook Separate No. 2620. Reprinted
from pages A23-^29 of the 1955 Yearbook of Agriculture.
Folster, Harry G. and Donald B. Wilson. 197^. "A Surface Water Model of the
Lower Rio Grande in New Mexico." Paper presented at Four State Regional
Meetings, American Society of Civil Engineers (Sept.), Amarillo, Texas.
Fuehring, H. D. and R. E. Finkner. 197^. "Grain Sorghum Production with
Different Nutrients, Populations, and Irrigation Frequencies." NMSU Agri-
cultural Experiment Station Bui. 613 (Feb.).
Garnett, Edwin T., e£ aJL No date. "Irrigated Pasture Costs and Returns in
the Upper Pecos River Basin." Plant Science Guide No. AOO A-306 (N.M.
State Univ.).
Geological Survey. No date. Water Resources Data for New Mexico, 1966-1972.
Parts 1 and 2. U.S. Dept. of Interior.
Gray, Roy M. and Warren L. Trock. 1971- "A Study of the Effects of Institu-
tions on the Distribution and Use of Water for Irrigation in the Lower
Rio Grande Basin." Water Resources Institute. Texas A&M Univ. (March).
Gunaji, Narendra. 1961. "Ground Water Conditions in Elephant Butte Irriga-
tion District." Engineering Experiment Station, NMSU (Nov.).
Hanson, Eldon G. 1967. "Influence of Irrigation Practices on Alfalfa Yield
and Consumptive Use." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. SI'*
(April).
Hanson, Eldon G. and B. C. Williams. 1968. "Influence of Subsurface Irriga-
tion on Cotton Yields and Water Use." Paper No. 68-760, prepared for
presentation at the 1968 Winter Meeting of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Chicago (Dec. 10-13).
Hanson, Marl in L. 1966. "Economics of Lining Farm Irrigation Ditches in the
Mesilla and Rincon Valleys." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station
Bui. 508 (Dec.).
Harper, Allan G., Andrew R. Cordova and Kalervo Oberg. 19*»3. Man and
Resources in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Albuquerque: The
University of New Mexico Press.
Henderson, Donald C. and Earl F. Sorensen. 1968. "Consumptive Irrigation
Requirements of Selected Irrigated Areas in New Mexico. NMSU Agri-
cultural Experiment Station Bui. 531 (Aug.).
120
-------
Hernandez, John W. 1971. "Management Alternatives in the Use of the Water
Resources of the Pecos River Basin In New Mexico." WRRi Report No. 12
(reprint) (Dec.), N.M. State Univ.
Hernandez, John, e^ aj_. 1973- "An Environmental Study of A Proposed South-
west Copper Refinery." Prepared for the American Smelting and Refining
Co., Project 3110-300 (March).
Horgan, Paul. 1954. Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hufschmidt, Maynard M. and Myron B. Fiering. 1966. Simulation Techniques
for Design of Water Resource Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Hughes, William C. 1970. "Economic Feasibility of Increasing Pecos Basin
Water Supplies Through Reduction of Evaporation and Evapotranspiration."
WRRI Report No. 9 (June), U. of N.M.
Huszar, Paul C., D. W. Seckler and D. D. Rohdy. 1969- "Economics of Irriga-
tion System Consolidation." Technical Bulletin 105, Colorado State
Univ. Experiment Station (Dec.).
Ingram, Helen M. 1969. Patterns of Politics in Water Resource Development:
A Case Study of New Mexico's Role in the Colorado River Basin Bill.
No. 79: Publications of the Division of Government Research, Institute
for Social Research and Development, U. of N.M.
. NO date. "Irrigation Water Management—Rio Grande Project, New
Mex i co-Texa s.''
Jenke, Arthur L. 1974. "Evaluation of Salinity Created by Irrigation
Return Flows." EPA 430/9-74-006. Office of Water Operations, Wash-
ington, D.C. (Jan.).
Johansen, Sigurd. 1971. "Population Changes in New Mexico." NMSU Agricul-
tural Experiment Station Report 191 (June).
Johansen, Sigurd. 1971. "New Mexico's Urban and Rural Population." NMSU
Experiment Station Research Report 207 (Sept.).
Johansen, Sigurd. 1972. "Changes in the Distribution of New Mexico's
Population Between 1930 and 1970." NMSU Experiment Station Research
Report 22 (Jan.).
King, W.E., ej^ aj_. No date. "Geology and Ground Water Resources of Central
and Wes"te~rn"~Dona Ana County, New Mexico." State Bureau of Mines & Mineral
Resources, Campus Station, Socorro, N.M., Hydrologic Report 1.
Kneese, A-len V. and Stephen C. Smith (eds.). 1966. Water Research.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
121
-------
Knolton, Clark S. (ed.). 1964. "Indian and Spanish American Adjustments In
Arid and Semi-Arid Environments." Contribution No. 7 of the Committee
on Desert and Arid Zone Research, Texas Technological College.
Knowlton, Clark S. (ed.). 1963. "International Water Law Along the Mexican-
American Border." Contribution No. 11 of the Committee on Desert and
Arid Zones Research, The University of Texas at El Paso.
Lansford, Robert R., et a_l_. 1969. "Irrigation Water Requirements for Crop
Production Roswell Artesian Basin, New Mexico." WRRI Report 5 (Nov.),
NMSU.
Lansford, Robert R., et^ aj_. 1970. "An Economic Classification of the Irri-
gated Cropland in the Pecos River Basin, New Mexico." WRRI Report No. 7
(April), NMSU.
Lansford, Robert R., e± aj_. 1973- "An Analytical Interdisciplinary Evalua-
tion of the Utilization of the Water Resources of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico." WRRI Report No. 020 (March), Las Cruces, N.M.
Lansford, Robert R., et. aj_. 1973- "Regional Water Management with Full
Consumptive Use." WRRI Proposal No. 015 (April).
Lansford, Robert R., et aK 1973. "An Analytical Interdisciplinary Evalua-
tion of the Utilization of the Water Resources of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico: Upper Rio Grande Region." WRRI Report No. 021 (Nov.).
Lansford, Robert R., et_ aU 1973. "An Analytical Interdisciplinary Evalua-
tion of the Utilization of the Water Resources of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico: Middle Rio Grande Region." WRRI Report No. 022 (Dec.).
Lansford, Robert R., et. aK 1974. "An Analytical Interdisciplinary Evalua-
tion of the Utilization of the Water Resources of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico: Socorro Region." WRRI Report No. 023 (Feb.).
Lansford, Robert R., et_ aj_. 1974. "An Analytical Interdisciplinary Evalua-
tion of the Utilization of the Water Resources of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico: Lower Rio Grande Region." WRRI Report No. 02** (March).
Lansford, Robert R. and Thomas G. Gebhard, Jr. 1974. "A Socio-Economic
Evaluation of Alternative Water Management Policies on the Rio Grande
in New Mexico." Article presented at the Four State American Society
of Civil Engineers Conference In Amarillo, Texas (Sept. 27).
Leedy, C. D. No date, "Reclaiming Sodic (Alkali) Soils.11 Plant Science
Guide No. 400 A-602. Cooperative Extension Service, NMSU.
Long, Roger B. No date. "Cost of Pumping Irrigation Water in Ten New Mexico
Counties." Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 490.
Lovato, Phil. 1974. "The Community Ditch Systems of Northern New Mexico."
Technical Report No. 1, New Mexico State Planning Office.
122
-------
Maker, H. J. , e£ a_L 1971- "Soil Associations and Land Classification for
Irrigation in Dona Ana County." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station
Research Report 183 (Feb.).
Maker, H. J., J. M. Downs and J. U. Anderson. 1972. "Soil Associations and
Land Classification for Irrigation, Sierra County." NMSU Agricultural
Experiment Station Research Report 233 (Sept.).
Malm, Norman R. 197*». "Heat Units and Upland Cotton Production, New Mexico
1939-1972." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 275
(Feb.).
Malm, Norman R. and Morris D. Finkner. 1968. "Fertilizer Rates for Irri-
gated Grain Sorghum on the High Plains." NMSU Agricultural Experiment
Station Bui. 523 (Jan.).
. 1972. Managing Irrigated Agriculture to Improve Water Quality.
Proceedings of National Conference on Managing Irrigated Agriculture to
Improve Water Quality. Sponsored by U.S. EPA and Colorado State Univ.
(May 16-18).
Mendieta, H. B. 1974. "Reconnaissance of the Chemical Quality of Surface
Waters of the Rio Grande Basin, Texas." Texas Water Development Board
Report 180 (March).
Meyer, W. R. and J. D. Gordon. 1973- "Water-Budget Studies of Lower Mesilla
Valley, El Paso County, Texas." Openfile Report prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey, El Paso (June).
Majallali, Hassam and H. E. Dregne. 1968. "Relation of Soil Hydraulic
Conductivity to Exchangeable Cations and Salinity." NMSU Agricultural
Experiment Station Bui. 5^0 (Nov.).
Naff, Richard L., e_t^ a_K 1975. "Environmental Controls on Ground Water
Chemistry in New Mexico. 1. The Effects of Phreatophytes." WRRI Re-
port No. 052 (Feb.), Technical Completion Rpt. Project No. A-030-NMEX.
New Mexico State University. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual New Mexico
Water Conference. Theme: People and Water in River Basin Development
(April 1 and 2, 19&5).
New Mexico State University. 1969. "Fourth Annual New Mexico Water Confer-
ence: Water and Water Law." November 5-6.
New Mexico State University, Texas A&M University and University of New
Mexico. 1973. "Regional Water Management with Full Consumptive Use."
Water Resources Research Institute Proposal No. 015 (April), Las
Cruces, N.M.
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1963. "Proceedings of the
Eighth Annual New Mexico Water Conference: Saline Water Conference.
July 1 and 2, NMSU.
123
-------
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1966. "Eleventh Annual New
Mexico Water Conference: Water Economics with Limited Supplies and an
Increasing Population." NMSU (March 31 and April 1).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1967- "Twelfth Annual Water
Conference: New Mexico—Water Quality, How Does it Affect You." NMSU
(March 30-31).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1968. "Thirteenth Annual
Water Conference: Water for New Mexico to the Year 2000 and 2060." NMSU
(March 28-29).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1969- "Fourteenth Annual
New Mexico Water Conference: Water Research and Development." NMSU
(March 27-28).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1970. "Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Annual Water Conference: Water—There Is No Substitute."
NMSU (March 12-13).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1971. "Proceedings of the
Sixteenth Annual Water Conference: A Key to a Quality Environment."
NMSU (March 25-26).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1972. "Proceedings of the
Seventeenth Annual New Mexico Water Conference: .Water in Land Use
Planning." WRRI Report No. 007 (Aug.).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1973- "Rio Grande Regional
Environmental Project." WRRI Proposal No. 008 (March).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1973- "Proceedings of the
Eighteenth Annual New Mexico Water Conference: State Water Plan."
WRRI Report No. 026 (July).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1974. "A Set of Papers
Supporting the Theme of the Proposed Nineteenth Annual New Mexico
Water Conference: Water in Food and Fiber Production." WRRI Report
No. 039 (June).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1974. "Water Resource
Problems ^nd Research Needs of New Mexico." Technical Completion
Report, WRRI Report No. 045 (July).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1974. "Quality and Quantity
of Return Flow as Influenced by Trickle and Surface Irrigation: July,
August and September, 1974." WRRI Report No. 046 (Oct.).
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1975. "Water Resources
Research Institute Publications List." Flowsheet (Feb.).
-------
O'Connor, G. A. No date. "Reclamation of a Sodium-Affected Soil With Limited
Gypsum Applications." NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station Research
Report 242.
. 1962. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual New Mexico Water Conference.
Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, NMSU.
. Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission. 1974. To the Governors
of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas.
Richardson, Gary Lee. 1971. "Water Table Investigation in the Mesilla
Valley." Unpublished Masters Thesis, NMSU (Dec.).
. "Rio Grande Project, New Mexico-Texas: Area-Capacity Tables for
Elephant Butte Reservoir Survey of 1957."
Rio Grande Project, New Mexico-Texas. 1973- "Water Resources of El Paso
County, Texas." Prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, Austin.
Texas.
. 1961. Sixth Annual flew Mexico Water Conference (November 1-2):
Ground Water: Availability, Quantity, Quality, Uses. New Mexico
State University.
Skogerboe, Gaylord V. and James P. Law, Jr. 1971. "Research Needs for
Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control." Report prepared for the
Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency
(Nov.).
Soil Conservation Service. 19^0. Prelimi na ry Exam? nat i on Report. Runoff
and Water-Flow Retardation and Soil-Erosion Prevention for Flood-
Control Purposes.
Stucky, H.R., Robert S. Lansford, and Bobby J. Creel. 1971- "Citizens'
Conference on Water 1971: A Consideration of the Pressing Water Prob-
lems of New Mexico...Wity Citizens' Recommendations." Water Resources
Research Institute Report No. 11 (Oct.), NMSU.
Sullivan, D.T. and J.V. Enzie. 1972. "Soi1-Management Methods in Apple
Orchards Under Irrigation." Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
591 (Jan.), NMSU.
Summers, W.K. 1972. "Factors Affecting the Validity of Chemical Analyses
of Natural Water." Ground Water, Vol. 10, No. 2 (March-Apri1).
Summers, W.K. and L.A. Brandvold. No date. "Physical and Chemical Varia-
tions in the Discharge of a Flowing Well." Publication authorized by
the Director, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources.
Taylor, Andrew M. 196?. "Geohydrologic Investigations in the Mesilla
Valley, New Mexico." Unpublished Masters Thesis, New Mexico State
Univ. (Sept.).
125
-------
Texas Water Commission. 1973- "Reconnaissance Investigations of the
Groundwater Resources of the Rio Grande Basin, Texas." Bulletin 6502,
Second Printing (August), by Texas Water Development Board.
University of New Mexico School of Law. 1975- Natural Resources Journal
Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan.), Entire issue.
U.S. Boundary and Water Commission. Water Bulletin Numbers 1-40. Flow of
the Rio Grande and Related Data.
U.S. National Resources Committee. 1938. Regional Planning; Part VI—The
Rio Grande Joint Investigation in the Upper Rio Grande Basin in Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas, 1936-1937- Washington, D.C., USGPO (Feb.).
Utah State University Foundation. 1969. "Characteristics of Pollution
Problems of Irrigation Return Flow." Report prepared for the U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
(May).
Walker, Wynn R. 1973. "Mathematical Modeling of Urban Water Management
Strategies." Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State Univ. (Aug.).
. Water for Texas (magazine), Vol. 5, No. 6 (June), entire issue.
. "Water Quality Control Commission Regulation" (May 197*0.
Water Research Center. 1975. Washington State's Water: A 1975 Report.
West, S.W. and W.L. Broadhurst. 1973* "Summary Appraisals of the Nation's
Groundwater Resources—Rio Grande Region." U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Geological Survey Open File Report (Dec.).
Wierenga, P.J. and T.C. Patterson. No date. "Irrigation Return Flow Studies
in the Mesilla Valley." Managing Irrigated Agriculture, pp. 173-179.
Wierenga, P.J. and T.C. Patterson. 1973. "Quality and Quantity of Return
Flow as Influenced by Trickle and Surface Irrigation." Quarterly
Report for the period Jan. 1-March 31, 1973, Project 13030 GLM, NMSU.
Wierenga, Peter J., et a_L 1972. "Soil and Water Management for Salinity
Control." WRRI Report No. 018 (Dec.), Technical Completion Report.
Wilcox, L.V. 1963. "Discharge and Salt Burden of the Rio Grande Above Fort
Quitman, Texas, and Salt-Balance Conditions of the Rio Grande Project
/nr tte nefr 1962>" U'S' Salin|ty Laboratory Research Report No. 102
(Oct.), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Wilcox, L.V. 1964. "Discharge and Salt Burden of the Rio Grande Above Fort
Quitman, Texas, and Salt-Balance Conditions of the Rio Grande Project
for the Year 1963." U.S. Salinity Laboratory Research Report No. 106
(Oct.), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
126
-------
Williams, .B.C. and Eldon, G. Hanson. 1973- "Subsurface Irrigation of
Cotton: A System and Its Effects Upon Production, With and Without
Fertilizer Application." Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
610 (Nov.), NMSU.
Wilson, C.A. 1972. "Projected Proposal for a Comprehensive Study of the
Water Resources of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Area, New Mexico."
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Albuquerque, N.M.
(Sept.).
127
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS: GENERAL POPULATION
County
General Social Characteristics
Median Years
of School
Sierra 9.2
Dona Ana 12.3
El Paso 12.2
Hudspeth 9-5
p
Unemployed
tt)
M
10.5 3-1
12.1 5.4
11.5 4.9
10.2 1.9
F
4.6
8.1
5-8
7.3
Occupation:
Farmers
and Farm
Managers (%)
3.6
2.2
0.3
14.9
Median
Income
$4833
$7395
$7792
$5314
Per Capita
Income
$2068
$2250
$2359
$1652
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-1970.
TABLE A2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS: RURAL NOMFARM POPULATION
County
Median Years
of School
Industry of Em-
ployment: Agri-
culture, Forestry
6 Fisheries (%)
Occupation:
Farmers &
Farm Managers
M (» F
Median
Income
Per Capita
1 ncome
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
10.0
8.9
8.3
9.9
25.8
12.4
12.3
21.4
2.5
2.7
2.1
12.7
$4757
$5860
$6047
$5175
$1894
$1776
$1606
$1610
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-1970.
TABLE A3. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS: RURAL FARM POPULATION
County
Median Years
of School
Industry of
Employment:
Agriculture,
Forestry 6
Fisheries (%)
Occupation:
Farmers 6
Farm Managers
(*>
M F
Median
Income
Per Capita
Income
Sierra 10.0 52.9 45.2 — $5400 $2030
Dona Ana 8-9 57.0 30.1 2.6 $5739 $1684
El Paso 10.1 45.1 20.2 3-6 $6281 $2109
Hudspeth 9.9 66.8 38.0 11.1 $5818 $1776
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-1970.
128
-------
NO
TABLE A4. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 1960 AND 1970
County Total
1970
URBAN
Total
%
Urban
Urbanized
Areas
Other
Urban
RURAL
Total
Places
1000-2500
Other
Rural
I960
Total
Urban
Rural
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
TOTAL
7,189
69,773
359,291
2,392
438,645
4,656
46,189
344,938
--
395,783
64.
66.
96.
—
8
1
0 337,471
--
4,656
46,189
7,467
—
2,533
23,584
14,353
2,392
42,862
—
4,843
3,742
—
2,533
18,741
10,611
2,392
6,409
54,948
414,070
3,343
383,770
4,269
33,754
280,262
--
2,1 40
26,194
33,808
3,343
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-197o'.
-------
TABLE A5. URBAN AREAS IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY.
Urban Area
Truth or Consequences
Las Cruces (area)
Las Cruces (city)
La Mesilla
University Park-Tortugo
El Paso (City)
El Paso (SMS A)
1970
4,656
43,735
37,857
1.713
4.165
332,261
337,471
I960
4,269
33,754
29,367
N/A
4,367
276,687
% Change
9.1
28.9
--
28.9
16.5
SOURCE: U.S. Census of PopulatJon-1970.
TABLE A6. PERCENTAGE CHANGE OF THE POPULATION IN THE
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY FROM I960 to 1970
County
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
State
New Mexico
Texas
Total
Population
12.2
16.4
14.4
-28.4
6.8
16.9
Urban
Population
9.1
36.8
23.1
13.1
24.1
Rural
Population
18.4
-10.0
-57.6
=28*4...
-5-3
-'4.9
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-1970.
TABLE A7. PERCENT OF THE RURAL POPULATION TO THE TOTAL POPULATION
IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY: 1970
County
% Rural Non-Farm
1970
Rural Farm
1970
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
23-1
26.9
3.3
73.1
18.9
6.6
0.4
26.9
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population-1970.
130
-------
TABLE A8. TYPE OF FARM ORGANIZATION IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Type of Farm Organization
Independent
Family (3) Partnership
FARMS
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
ACREAGE
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
75
423
226
90
402,467
386,573
232,132
872,566
C78.1)
(84.6)
(81.6)
(76.9)
(33.0)
(70.4)
(63-5)
(55.7)
13
54
33
23
107,644
90,993
108,438
693,666
<*)
03.5)
(10.8)
(11.9)
(19.6)
(8.8)
(16.6)
(29-7)
(44.3)
Corporate
(shareholders)
10 10
8
21
17
4
709,302
71,021
24,808
N/A
2
1
260
N/A
Total %
(8.4)
(4.6)
(6.5)
(3.5)
(58.2)
(12.9)
(6.8)
(--)
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture-1969.
TABLE A9. TENURE OF FARM OPERATORS IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
County
Full Owners
Type of Farm Tenure
Part Owners
Tenants
(*)
FARMS THAT HAVE HARVESTED
CROPLAND
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
HARVESTED
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
47
345
184
39
ACREAGE
1,527
18,575
14,538
8,948
(54.0)
(51.6)
(52.0)
(47.6)
(31-9)
(24.5)
(26.3)
(33.1)
33
235
115
29
2,861
47,758
30,321
12,990
(37.9)
(35.2)
(32.5)
(35.4)
(59.9)
(62.9)
(54.9)
(48.1)
7
88
55
14
392
9,594
10,405
5,073
(8.0)
(13.2)
(15.5)
(17.0
(8.2)
(12.6)
(18.8)
(18.8)
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture-1969.
131
-------
TABLE A10. PERCENTAGE OF IRRIGATED FARM LAND TO TOTAL FARM LAND
IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
FARMS
County
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
Total
156
768
452
131
1969
% 1
84
633
327
83
rri gated
(53.8)
(82.4)
(72.3)
(68.4)
Total
195
869
403
139
1964
% 1
131
820
342
94
ACREAGE
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
1,245,839
644,997
386,596
1,737,284
5,183
80,700
57,966
46,610
(0.41F
(12.5)
(15.0)
(2.5)
1,147,050
661,745
513,755
1,893,750
5,626
91,680
60,194
37,289
rrigated
(67.2)
(94.4)
(84.9)
(67.6)
(0.49)
(13.9)
(11.7)
(1-9)
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture-1969.
TABLE All. ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Farm Unit Size in Acres
County
en
i
NUMBER OF FARMS
IRRIGATED LAND
Sierra 3
Dona Ana 81
El Paso 77
Hudspeth
ACRES OF
IRRIGATED LAND
Sierra 7
Dona Ana 347 3
El Paso 327 1
Hudspeth
en
•sr
o
*~
WITH
17
178
81
4
220
,606
,630
48
en
i
o
in
6
49
14
~—
212
2,319
765
en
en
i
o
r**
8
53
14
5
391
3,630
874
278
en
r~
O
o
*""
9
53
17
1
363
5,084
1,775
109
en
i—
o
-3-
^™
10
41
19
10
687
4,626
2,631
1,143
en
CM
o
CO
^™
3
26
11
4
365
4,359
2,044
637
en
in
CM
i
o
CM
CM
3
28
13
1
310
4,627
2,625
233
en
j-
o
\O
CM
6
64
36
16
691
18,968
11,810
3,731
en
en
en
o
o
in
6
39
31
22
333
20,502
17,162
9,619
en
en
en
i
o
o
o
5
12
7
6
858
6,384
7,264
4,547
M
~
o
o
fM
8
9
7
14
810
6,348
9,059
22,265
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture-1969.
132
-------
TABLE Al2. NUMBER OF FARM UNITS PER ECONOMIC CLASS IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
VA)
Economic Classes
County
Sierra
Dona Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
en
en
-a-
t
1
25
27
4
en
-------
APPENDIX B
SPRINKLER AND TRICKLE IRRIGATION
IN THE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
A conversion from surface methods of Irrigation to sprinkler irrigation
systems by many of the farmers in the Mesilia and El Paso Valleys would be
highly beneficial in terms of efficient water use, with the greatest benefits
occurring during drought years. Sprinkler irrigation systems—properly de-
signed, installed and operated—have many advantages, both in terms of water
quantity and quality. Uniform water application is possible on all types of
soils. A properly designed system should result in no tailwater runoff and
drastically reduced deep percolation losses, which would also result in more
efficient fertilizer use. Drainage problems would be alleviated and existing
surface water supplies would be more effectively utilized. Also, ground
water supplies could be easily employed for sprinkler irrigation.
Apart from the water quality benefits, there are many other advantages
to farmers in converting to sprinklers. The labor savings are particularly
noticeable in comparison with surface Irrigation methods. With portable
solid-set or permanent set systems, labor is negligible and the systems lend
themselves to automation for all water application purposes.
During times of comparatively low water allocation—such as the drought
years of the 1950's—the waste of water under surface methods frequently means
that farmers must resort to pumping the more saline ground water flows.
Since sprinkler systems allow small streams of water to be distributed over
a larger area, irrigation can be accomplished where there is insufficient
water to irrigate efficiently with other methods.
Associated with the reduction of nutrient losses by reducing deep perco-
lation, further fertilizer loss reduction can be achieved by the ability to
use sprinkler systems to apply fertilizers at the time required by the plant.
Water soluble fertilizers can be applied through the sprinklers with the
timing and amount controlled to meet the needs of the plant. The ability to
schedule fertilizer applications to plant needs (rather than to cultural
operations as with surface irrigation methods) reduces the opportunity for
leaching nutrients below the root zone. The amount of water applied can
also be controlled to meet the needs of the crop, with light applications
for seedlings and young plants. Water soluble herbicides and insecticides
can also be applied through the sprinklers. As drainage problems are allev-
iated, salt accumulation on the soil surface is reduced. This reduces the
hazard to seed germination and plant growth from the accumulated salts.
-------
All of these advantages add up to a potential for cost savings and
increased returns for the farmer operators. Generally, one of the major
obstacles to adoption of sprinkler irrigation, however, is the high capital
cost involved. The cost of converting from surface irrigation methods to
sprinklers will vary markedly depending on the particular system adopted and
the acreage irrigated. Typical capital costs for different systems (based on
installations at Yakima Valley and Grand Valley) show per acre (per hectare)
costs ranging from approximately $250 ($6l7/ha) for handmove and sideroll
sprinkler irrigation systems, $800-$1,000 ($1,800 - $2,500) for portable
and permanent nonautomated solid-set sprinkler systems, with an additional
cost of approximately $500 per acre ($1,234 per hectare) for automating such
systems.
Trickle or drip irrigation is a recently developed irrigation method and
would appear to have potential for orchard crops in the study area. This
method of irrigation has gained attention during recent years because of the
potential for increasing yields, while decreasing water requirements and labor
input. The concept behind trickle irrigation is to provide the plant with
the optimal soil moisture environment continuously. This is accomplished by
conducting water directly to individual plants, through laterals running along
each row, instead of providing water to the entire field as with flood or
sprinkler irrigation. The multitude of lateral lines are supplied by mani-
fold lines which connect to the main line which in turn connects to the
water source. A control head is provided, generally at the water source,
to regulate pressure and flow and to filter suspended solids from the water.
A fertilizer injection system is often incorporated into the control head.
A wetted profile, the shape of which is largely dependent on soil char-
acteristics, develops in the plant's root zone beneath the "trickier" or
"emitter." Ideally, the area between tree rows is dry and receives moisture
only from incidental rainfall. Trickle irrigation saves water because only
the plant's root zone is supplied with water and little water should be lost
to deep percolation or evaporation under proper management. The only irriga-
tion return flow is that due to a leaching fraction which may be necessary to
prevent excessive salt buildup in the root zone. There is no surface runoff
and very little nonbeneficial consumptive use of water by weeds. Water
savings are affected through the ease with which the correct amount of water
is accurately applied.
New Mexico State University has been successfully growing crops with
trickle irrigation in recent years. This work should be highly beneficial
in implementing trickle irrigation in Mesllla Valley, and perhaps El Paso
Valley. In the El Paso Valley, crops are grown with trickle Irrigation using
domestic water at the Texas A&M University field station.
For irrigating widely spaced crops (e.g., nut trees), the cost of a
correctly designed trickle irrigation system is relatively low in comparison
to that for other solid-set or permanent Irrigation systems. In orchards,
the cost of a trickle irrigation system may be lower than that for a solid-
set or permanent sprinkler system having the same level of automation. In
addition, where clogging is not a problem and emitter line maintenance is
minimal, operation and maintenance costs of the trickle irrigation system
135
-------
are usually quite low. However, in plantings of row crops or vines, where
the average distance between emitter lines must be less than 10 feet, the
cost of trickle irrigation is relatively high.
The cost of a trickle irrigation system for orchard crops is usually
slightly more than $1,000 per acre ($2,469 per hectare). The cost of
automating trickle irrigation systems is only $100-$200 per acre ($2^7-
per hectare).
136
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-l7^c
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIONING.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN
RRI GAT I ON RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume III: Middle Rio Grande Valley Case Study
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Warren L. Trock, Paul C. Huszar, George E.
Radosevich, Gaylord V. Skogerboe, and Evan C. Vlachos
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803572
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.-Ada, Okla.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 7^820
13. TYPE OF REPQRT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fina'
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volume I: Methodology, EPA-600/2-78-17Aa
Volume II: Yakima Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-17*ib
Vo1ume IV: Grand Valley Case Study. EPA-600/2-78-17^d
16. ABSTRACT
Degradation of water quality as a consequence of use in irrigation in the Lower f\i
Grande Valley of New Mexico is a largely unavoidable phenomenon. In this region annual
allocations of water to irrigated farms, about 2.5 acre-feet per acre, are little more
than enough to produce crops. Evaporation and transpiration, occurring because of
irrigation, cause concentrations of salts in return flows to be greatly increased, and
the addition of these highly saline return flows to a quite limited flow of water in
the Rio Grande causes the quality of the river water to be significantly reduced.
It is possible to affect the quantity and quality of return flows by improvement
of water transport facilities (canals, laterals and ditches) and by improved management
of water on some farms. These two technical improvements can be accomplished by ex-
tension of technical assistance through existing federal and state agencies and by
cost-sharing programs such as the Agricultural Conservation Program. But it is also
possible to achieve improved management of water on farms by facilitating exchanges or
sales of allotments among farmers who are members
------- |