A History of the Gila River
Basin in New Mexico
Events,
Adjudications and
Limitations
Presented by:
Tink Jackson
District 3 Manager, OSE
NM Gila River Watermaster
Court Cases
• 1935 – First Court Case on Gila in NM
– June 29 – Globe Equity Decree Entered
– NM included only to the extent of the surface
water of the Virden Valley
• 1952 – Arizona sues California over
Colorado River Supply
– Grows to include settlement of rights on Gila
between NM and AZ
California’s Motivation
• AZ –v- CA
– NM included at the request of California
– California’s effort was to secure water for
future uses from Colorado River
– California claimed that Arizona could meet
some of her needs with Gila water
New Mexico’s Concerns
• New Mexico was both an involuntary
and unwilling party.
– Wanted to avoid the expense
– BUT, Had a major interest in the outcome
– NM was only using a small portion of water
created within our boundaries
– NM was allowing 270,000 acre-feet to flow
downstream
Rifkind
• 1955 – The USSC appointed the
Honorable Simon Rifkind as Special
Master
– To determine water use and needs in both
NM and AZ
• 1957 – Rifkind Report limited NM to
current uses at that time
Rifkind Reasoning
• Rifkind was concerned with unpredictable
flow of the Gila River
• Considered the river over-appropriated
– NM using less than 10% of water produced
• Decided it was unreasonable to withhold
water from senior users downstream for
new “junior” appropriations in NM
Special Master’s Report
• Present uses as determined by Rifkind
came in way below NM’s claims
– 1930’s report by SE showed approximately
30,000 acres irrigated in Gila Basin
– Declarations filed by NM users were ignored
– NM originally “offered” 10,878 acres
NM Response
• Protested the Special Master Report
• Steve Reynolds entered into negotiations
with AZ to improve NM’s position - other
states resisted NM/AZ process
• State Engineer started looking for other
options
Central Arizona Project
• NM decided to work to secure the right
to 18,000 acre-feet as part of the CAP Act
• Acquiring was a more viable option than
continuing litigation under AZ –v- CA
• CAP water could be used to fill gaps and
meet the future needs in the basin
The Rifkind Negotiation
• The State Engineer did secure some
benefit from AZ –v- CA negotiations
• The parties agreed to allow a 15%
increase in the amounts recommended by
Rifkin if NM would complete the Gila
Hydro-Survey in 4 years
– NM ended up with 12,226 acres allowed
– Still not enough to meet current uses
NM Adjudication - 1967
• 6th Judicial District Court adjudicated the
rights in the Gila Basin in NM
• Court found the limitations set by the
USSC to be far below actual uses
• Sections of the basin were therefore overadjudicated from day one
Continued CAP Work
• USSC decision opened the way for
Colorado River water to be used in NM
• CAP water could be used to offset the
effects of increased uses in NM & makeup lost rights
• Reynolds foresight provided for filling the
gaps and additional development and
growth lost in AZ –v- CA
The Real Deal
• NM could not win!!!
– We were outnumbered and out-gunned!
• GSF hydro-survey completed to “match
Decree” and not “find rights” – not today
• Issues not addressed
– Korean War (1951-1957)
– Drought
Same Today???
• Northern New Mexico acequia’s are being
adjudicated rights that have not been used
since the 1800’s!
• LRG groundwater rights not exercised
since mid-1950’s are being adjudicated
today (from the same time frame)
Who Was Affected
• The residents of the Gila-San Francisco
Basin were the only citizens in New
Mexico affected by the Decree
• The primary purpose of the CAP water
was to offset those effects
The Problem
• GSF is “frozen in time”
• The continued transfer of agricultural
rights to accommodate new growth is
inefficient and reduces habitat for
endangered species
• Additional surface water must be provided
to meet these needs
Why Not Ground Water?
• Look at it as bank accounts
• Surface water is your monthly income – it
is “renewable”
• Ground water is your savings account – it
took YEARS to build that account up
• Why let our pay check - the renewable
source - go to Arizona while you drain your
savings account?
The Environment
• A do nothing approach does
NOTHING to protect the environment
• The diversion of water under the AWSA is
only peak flows – not base flows
• Storage facilities and conveyances could
create additional habitat of significant
proportions