An Informal Consensus on Taos Water Issues
(Taos) At Monday’s Oct. 28 special Taos County Commission meeting on the Regional Water Plan, audience members and commissioners discussed the permutations of water in the greater county. Though no action was taken, a consensus based on the discussion “seemed” to form.
1) The Abeyta—Taos Pueblo Water Settlement should be honored but transfers should be analyzed when signatories purchase water rights in watershed basins outside the immediate Taos Valley.
2) Longtime Soil and Water Conservation advisor and geologist Tony Benson noted that much of the information or facts regarding wells and water flows from both shallow and deep aquifers remains unavailable due to a lack of a central data collection facility. Either the data hasn’t been published or it remains unavailable due to being overlooked or in private hands or distributed among various state and federal institutions. The County has set aside $20,000 in hopes that the Town, Taos Pueblo, and the Soil and Water Conservation Service will join in funding research and developing a public library with all the hydro-geologic information available so elected and appointed officials can make informed decisions about requests for water rights “transfers.”
(3) The Commissioners and staff are taking a hard look at the procedures involving the Regional Water Advisory Committee and the effects of the Public Welfare Statement and how it all works with an ordinance adopted for the purpose of protecting and preserving Taos County Water. In effect the Public Welfare Statement was developed in response to federal judicial mandates so states and counties would have a defensible argument and record in court, based on the practical application of decision criteria involving culture, economics, and water resource management. The Committee recommends, the County Commissioners approve or disprove.
(4) If the County wants to protest against water rights transfers, like Top of the World water rights being sold to Santa Fe to support the Aamodt Settlement downstream, then the County must also vet and publish its record of decision re: intra-County transfers re: El Prado and the Rio Lucero purchases of water rights from northern Taos County or it will be challenged in court about making exceptions that smack of “special” or “political” decisions that undermine its own criteria. In other words Commissioners must balance special and general interests but make sure transfer decisions are consistent and well-argued so they can stand up to potential legal challenges from downstream municipalities and governmental entities.
(5) If Taos County is to sustain its 150 acequias, municipal and mutual domestic water claims, claims by sewer and water districts, as well as residential claims on water, it must take a holistic view of both the wet water available as well as the paper or legal claims. The Abeyta agreement, a mini miracle in itself considering the difficulties and forty-year negotiations, is subject now to unknown administrative complexities, due to mitigation wells and the lack of a system for implementing the agreement. (Healthy watersheds are our future though nobody pays much in the way of lip service to Mother Nature.)
(6) Meanwhile, the Questa area suffers from state mandates to acquire water rights, which it cannot afford. And the greater Questa area does not have a water plan in place aimed at sustaining the area. Penasco, where water rights haven’t been adjudicated and there appears to be plenty of water, would seem to be a tempting target for downstream predators. Both Picuris and Penasco area parciantes need an organizing principle—lest they lose the source of “aqua es vida” for that emerald valley.
In conclusion, Monday’s meeting at Taos County was remarkable for a free and open discussion by commissioners and activists, who have been involved or familiar with the issues going back some 50 years. Among others who spoke, Rudy Pacheco, Palemon Martinez, Robert Romero, and David Fernandez mentioned the past and present. Fernandez a former commissioner and columnist invoked the name of Andres Martinez and the Tres Rios Association as well as the Indian Camp Dam controversy. Some referred to the notorious loss of thousands of acre-feet of the San Juan-Chama water rights, due to local apathy. Newer and younger activists or those who joined the tussle later, like Kay Matthews, Ron Gardiner, Robin Collier, Tony Benson, and Simeon Herskovits, also spoke.
I was reminded on Monday of the first meeting about water issues I attended re: Indian Camp Dam and Tres Rios et al, along with the first meeting of personalities like Rudy Pacheco, Andres Martinez, and John Nichols, a meeting in the very early 70s. That meeting was I believe the genesis for Nichols’ Milagro Beanfield War.
Well, the war ain’t over and a sequel is being written today by the characters mentioned above as well as Commissioners Barrone, Blankenhorn, Duran, Romero, and Sanchez. Here’s what Taos needs, as Rudy or somebody said: we need some young people to get involved because the water activists in general are getting old, damn old in some cases. Why, even young Ron Gardiner said he turned 60 on Monday.