Taos Water: Faith & Logic V. Science and Nature

Taos Friction congratulates Commissioner Blankenhorn for accepting the challenge of creating a dialogue on Water Rights transfers. In the exchange below, the Commissioner has accused the Taos Friction Editorial Staff of a “false statement” re: that “the prospective new El Prado well would be a new use of water. “ He claims the new deep well “ would replace an existing use.” Taos Friction and the Commissioner discuss the justification or lack thereof of permitting inter-basin watershed transfers re: the El Prado/Painter purchase of Water Rights from northern Taos County and similar threats to Taos Water resources by Santa Fe County. TOW stands for Top of the World or the Ute Mountain (Pot Mountain) area north of Sunshine, not far from the Colorado border in Taos County. There is some repetition because the argument is complex and must be drilled into the minds of readers.

Commissioner Blankenhorn: The dialogue can be made intentionally more complex in order to muddy the waters. It is a simple fact that El Prado needs another source of water to fulfill its current uses and that the deep well along with the water rights from Gallagher will cure that deficiency. It is also a simple fact that the Gallagher water came from a direct diversion of Rio Grande recharge, and that the new El Prado well would have a less direct effect on the Rio Grande.

Your point is that the new deep El Prado well could also affect the inflows from the Rio Lucero and other tributaries, but the entire purpose of the new well would be to mitigate those effects that already occur from the existing wells. All in, I believe that the El Prado transfer does serve the interests of the County as a whole.

Friction Editorial: It certainly is a new use on the stream systems, watersheds or ground water (aquifer systems) of the Taos valley. While the Commissioner seeks to justify approval of the El Prado/Gallagher/TOW transfer, he ignores the science of hydrology by wrapping reason around the axle of logic, logic that ignores the evidence and systemic connections of watersheds and water on the surface and below ground in Mother Nature’s plan.

Commissioner Blankenhorn: El Prado’s is not a new water use. The wells to the west will pump water to replace the production from the two existing wells. The only new use will be if there is growth in the District and if there were growth that water would have to come from somewhere. I know that you must know that this is true, and so I can’t for the life of me figure why you would continue to make patently false statements.

Friction Editorial: Anytime you change the point of diversion you are not “replacing” the water from the existing wells but tapping into a new source, especially when the depth of the new wells taps into a much deeper, older aquifer, Peggy Johnson and Paul Bauer (New Mexico Tech geo-hydrologists) both spoke to the fact that fractures near the Rio Grande wells make it very problematic to predict whether these wells will affect surface and shallow groundwater wells nearby. The Commissioner’s argument is tied to John Painter’s history as a water broker and the fact that El Prado cannot support its increase to 575 afy (acre feet per year) with any facts that anticipate that kind of use, above and beyond its failure to adequately address conservation, drought, and planned growth.

Commissioner Blankenhorn: As to the choice of where the water comes from, it’s not the County’s choice of where to drill the new wells. The location was determined by hydrologists in order to protect the surface waters of the Buffalo Pasture and the Rio Lucero. If there is evidence that they were wrong then there are provisions to limit or stop production of the new wells. In any event, there is no denying that the shallow wells north of Questa when pumped to pivot irrigate that land did real harm to surface water supplies. I suggest that you read reports from the State Engineer’s office that detail that harm. In fact, at the height of drilling in the 50’s the effects were noticed all the way down to Elephant Butte.

Friction Editorial: Francis West, the retired hydrologist who testified before the advisory committee several years ago has always maintained that the Balleau aquifer model the OSE used to study the effect of pumping of groundwater at TOW and the connection to surface water in Pojoaque is out of date and inadequate. The 1959 Winograd U.S. G. S. report estimates that in 1955 pumpage in Sunshine Valley amounted to approximately a fifth or sixth of the accretion to the river, not taking into account return flow. This was felt all the way to Elephant Butte? We don’t even know how much water was pumped. The report concludes that we don’t know quantitatively the accretion to the Rio Grande from any source, including TOW.

And how is that groundwater recharged? By runoff from the Sangre de Christos, which are experiencing below normal snowfall and in all likelihood will continue to do so.

The applicants for TOW water rights will use the same argument that the Commissioner used to justify decisions re: Abeyta/Prado/Lucero transfers: these settlements have been approved by the OSE and Interstate Stream Commission and any protests threaten the agreements and the water rights of the non-Pueblo parties to them. They’ll (Santa Fe) use this argument against us and Taos County won’t look good.

The Commissioner’s argument weakens the credibility of the Taos County ordinance and the advisory committee’s recommendations, which of course weakens the public welfare argument, which the County plans to use in the response to Santa Fe County’s transfer of TOW.