Table of Contents
Section
Page
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. Water Budget Integration: Issues with Approach and Terminology ........................................ 4
2.1 Objectives in Developing Water Budgets ....................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Area .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Time Period ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3 Technical Approach ............................................................................................ 7
2.1.4 Inconsistencies Within Plans ............................................................................... 9
2.2 Recommended Terminology ........................................................................................ 10
3. Accounting Templates ......................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Water Budget Template ............................................................................................... 14
3.2 Implementation Template............................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Water Conservation Template ........................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Water Supply Template..................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Compact Compliance Template ........................................................................ 17
4. Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 18
References ............................................................................................................................... 21
D:\533563466.doc
i
List of Figures
Figure
1
The Three Middle Rio Grande Planning Regions and Surface Water Basins
List of Tables
Table
1
Sources of Information for Water Budgets in the Three Planning Regions
2
Terms for Surface Water Budgets in the Three Planning Regions
3
Water Budget Terms for Estimating Flow in the Rio Grande at Elephant Butte
Reservoir
4
Recommended Terminology for Surface Water Budget Terms
5
Recommended Groundwater Budget Terminology
6
Template for Tracking Surface Water Budgets
7
Template for Tracking Groundwater Budgets
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Surface Water Budgets from the Three Planning Regions
B Groundwater Budgets from the Three Planning Regions
D:\533563466.doc
ii
1. Introduction
Regional water planning was initiated in New Mexico in 1987, with the purpose of protecting
New Mexico water resources while ensuring that each region is prepared to meet future water
demands. The state was segregated into 16 planning regions, and each region developed its
own regional water plan with some type of oversight committee.
Regional water planning
activities throughout the State were primarily funded and overseen by the New Mexico Interstate
Stream Commission (ISC).
In central New Mexico, three of the planning regions—Jemez y Sangre (JyS), the Middle Rio
Grande (MRG), and Socorro-Sierra (SS)—all rely for a portion of their supply on the Rio
Grande. Use of the water supply along the Rio Grande, including connected groundwater, is
limited by the Rio Grande Compact, an agreement among the states of Colorado, New Mexico,
and Texas.
The Rio Grande Compact defines a schedule of deliveries at Elephant Butte
Reservoir based on index flows at the Otowi Gage, which is located in the JyS planning region
(Figure 1); the required deliveries at Elephant Butte effectively limit consumptive uses in the
area between the Otowi gage and Elephant Butte, known as the Middle Rio Grande Surface
Water Basin (MRGWSB).
Since the three regions rely at least partially on this one limited water supply, the New Mexico
Water Dialogue, a non-profit group devoted to water planning, initiated efforts in 2006 to begin a
discussion of the common water supply among the three regions, resulting in the forming of a
coalition of representatives from the three regions and from the ISC, informally referred to as the
“upstream/downstream group.” This group, with ISC funding and oversight, retained Daniel B.
Stephens & Associates, Inc. and Amy C. Lewis to integrate the water budgets laid out in the
three regional water plans. Key objectives in evaluating a shared supply for the water planning
regions between Otowi and Elephant Butte, as defined in the scope of work, are to:

Define common terms and methodology so that the regional water plans can be
compared in a manner that accurately reflects the technical situation.
D:\533563466.doc
1

Provide a brief summary of methodology and assumptions that each region used to
assess its water supply and demand. Describe a process and methodology toward
standardization of the data, assumptions, and methodology in the three plans, including
establishing items to be included in a water budget, such as categories of supply and
use.

Without revising estimates of projected supply or demand based on new information,
integrate the data from the three plans, using assumptions as are reasonable and
necessary, and assess the common supply in relation to current and proposed demands
to understand whether the supply is adequate to address demand.

Identify and understand conflicts between the plans (i.e., if each planning region is
intending to meet its future demands with the same source of supply, a conflict exists
that needs to be resolved).

Develop an accounting template to be used as a tool to measure the effectiveness of
actions taken to balance the water budget at the regional and basin levels.
This interim report summarizes the first two tasks and the last task of this scope of work. While
the three water budgets were integrated, the approach needs to be vetted with the original
authors and conflicts in interpretations resolved before finalizing the integrated budget. This
initial effort also indicated the need for better development of the goals and objectives before
proceeding with the integration of the water budgets and development of the templates. The
limited time and budget available for the first phase of this project did not allow for the review
and revisions necessary to do so.
Each of the planning regions faces a wide variety of issues, some of which are pertinent to
issues regarding groundwater that is not connected to the Rio Grande or tributaries distant from
the Rio Grande. For this analysis, however, the focus of the review of the water budget terms is
for the MRGSWB, which includes the Rio Grande and its tributaries between the Otowi gage
and Elephant Butte Reservoir and stream-connected groundwater (Figure 1).
D:\533563466.doc
2
A detailed study of the MRGSWB was funded by the ISC and the COE (S.S. Papadopulos &
Associates, Inc. [SSPA], 2004). The 4-year study involved probabilistic modeling of the inflow
and outflow terms for the MRGSWB water supply to evaluate the likelihood of being in
compliance with the Rio Grande Compact. The work included in the scope of this evaluation
was not intended to replace or critique the much more detailed earlier work of the MRGSWB
study, as detailed in the Middle Rio Grande Water Supply Study report (SSPA, 2004).
However, the integration of the water budgets involved using the SSPA study as a suggested
approach and recommending modifications.
D:\533563466.doc
3
2. Water Budget Integration: Issues with Approach and Terminology
Review of the water budgets revealed several issues that need to be resolved before integrating
the water budgets. To move forward with integration of the water budgets, the objectives and
goals for developing the budgets need to be consistent and the terminology and definitions of
water budget components need to be compatible. The tables in Appendix A show the water
budget components for the tributaries and the mainstem as detailed in each of the three region’s
water plans. Appendix B is a compilation of the groundwater budget information available in
each regional plan. Water budgets for the three plans were obtained from the reports listed in
Table 1. Table 2 details the differences in each of the water budget components, as compiled in
Appendices A and B; the specific inconsistencies and incompatibilities are discussed in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
2.1 Objectives in Developing Water Budgets
Each of the three regions had different approaches to developing the water plans, which
resulted in conflicts when integrating the various components. The conflicts develop where
(1) the areal extent is not coincident with the MRGSWB, (2) the time period evaluated is
different among the regions, and (3) the technical approach to and/or assumptions made in
developing the budget varies. Some of the differences in the water budgets evolved because
the issues within each region are different or the available data are different:

In the JyS region, the critical water budget components are the flows in the tributaries
and groundwater; the source of supply for the portion of the JyS region that is within the
MRGSWB is not the Rio Grande (although some new supply directly from the Rio
Grande is expected to begin to be used in the next few years). Therefore, the supply
and demand numbers involved diversions from Rio Grande tributaries and from
groundwater. Water budgets were prepared for both surface water (from the tributaries)
and groundwater for each subregion within the JyS region, but no water budget was
developed for the Rio Grande, because the flow into the Rio Grande, while estimated,
was not critical to answering water supply questions in the JyS region.
D:\533563466.doc
4

The MRG water budgets have focused only on the Rio Grande. While demands on the
Rios Jemez and Puerco (tributaries to the Rio Grande) were estimated in a subregional
plan (Hebard and Johnson, 2004) appended to the MRG water plan, the water budget
components (such as inflow and seepage losses) were not estimated.

Although recharge to groundwater basins in the SS region was estimated, the SS
regional water budgets also focused primarily on the Rio Grande, which supplies the
majority of the water demands in the region through the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District (MRGCD).
The fact that some of the plans only addressed impacts to the Rio Grande and others
addressed demands on tributaries is one of the most difficult aspects of integrating the water
plans between regions, because not all of the demands have an impact on the flows of the Rio
Grande originating at Otowi. In moving forward with the integration, the upstream/downstream
group will need to agree on a methodology for considering demands (such as diversions from
the Santa Fe River by the City of Santa Fe) that don’t impact the main stem. For instance,
should the supply component of the water budgets include flows originating at the mountain
front, or should demands that do not have a direct impact on the Rio Grande be excluded?
While it may be simpler to address only the flows on the Rio Grande, it becomes complicated to
compare supply against demand and assess a possible deficit when some of the demands are
met through supply that doesn’t directly impact the Rio Grande.
2.1.1 Area
Several inconsistencies exist regarding the area considered for the water budgets in the three
plans:

As shown in Figure 1, the JyS region extends above the Otowi gage into the Upper Rio
Grande Basin.

The SS region includes portions below Elephant Butte Reservoir in the Lower Rio
Grande Basin.
D:\533563466.doc
5

The water budgets developed by SSPA (2004) for the MRG planning region used data
from a groundwater model of the MRG groundwater basin that did not include the reach
from Otowi to Cochiti; thus their surface water model lacked detail from Otowi to Cochiti.

For the Santa Fe-Los Alamos area, SSPA (2004) relied on the New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer (OSE) administrative groundwater model (McAda and Wasiolek, 1988)
for the impact on the Rio Grande caused by pumping the Buckman well field; however,
part of those impacts occur above the Otowi gage, so not all of this should be included in
the MRG reach.

The SSPA (2004) water budget did not include open water and riparian
evapotranspiration between Otowi and Cochiti.

Tributary flow from Rio Puerco enters the SS region, but was also included in the MRG
plan.
Accordingly, the upstream/downstream group needs to decide what areal extent should be
covered in the integration of the plans.
2.1.2 Time Period
The period of record used to establish a mean or median value of streamflow or diversion will
impact the value of a water budget component. For example, both the MRG and JyS regions
included the Santa Fe River in the water budgets, as an inflow in the former and as an outflow in
the latter. However, the MRG assumes a much higher number for inflow from the Santa Fe
River into the Rio Grande than the JyS estimated outflow. For the MRG, SSPA (2004) based
the Santa Fe River flow of 9,580 ac-ft/yr on the relatively short period of record from 1993 to
1998 at the La Bajada gage; conversely, the JyS region estimated only 1,110 ac-ft/yr based on
the long-term water budget of the Santa Fe River (1913 through 1997).
A decision should always be made regarding the appropriate time period for the water budget
analysis. Unfortunately, consistent periods of record are not always available.
D:\533563466.doc
6
2.1.3 Technical Approach
Several different approaches among the plans resulted in inconsistencies, as outlined in the
following subsections.
2.1.3.1
Santa Fe River Assumptions
In addition to the different time periods used by the MRG and JyS regions for the Santa Fe
River water budget estimates (Section 2.1.2), other assumptions were also different. While the
MRG region assumed that the Santa Fe River contributes significant inflow into the Rio Grande,
the JyS region estimated that the Santa Fe River loses flow to groundwater between the La
Bajada gage and the Rio Grande because the flow in the Santa Fe River rarely makes it into
Cochiti Reservoir. Because the JyS region was focused on the components of the groundwater
budget, this loss became a recharge component in the groundwater budgets. Even though
such losses likely reappear as spring flow issuing to the Rio Grande, they would need to be
tracked as spring/stream gain rather than tributary flow.
2.1.3.2
Agricultural Demand
SSPA’s (2003, 2004) method of estimating agricultural demand in the MRG and SS regions
differed from the technique used by the JyS region. SSPA’s methodology introduced a water
budget term called “effective precipitation” that is not included in the JyS water budgets, and
SSPA only estimated irrigation depletions, whereas JyS showed both diversions and return
flows.
For the MRG and SS regions, SSPA estimated the total consumption by crops using a 1992
GIS coverage of irrigated acreage and potential evapotranspiration rates from 1975 to 2002.
The estimate also included the amount of water that crops consume from precipitation, (i.e.,
effective precipitation), which was added to the inflow components. Effective precipitation was
estimated to be 50 percent of the average annual rainfall (8.52 inches) at the Albuquerque
WSFA Airport meteorological station from 1950 to 2002. SSPA’s methodology also did not
include the amount of incidental depletions that occur with irrigation (such as open-water
evaporation and evapotranspiration along canals). These were included as separate water
D:\533563466.doc
7
budget terms (open-water and riparian evapotranspiration for both agricultural- and nonagricultural-related depletions).
In contrast, the JyS region based its irrigation demand on estimates of diversions and return
flow.
The irrigation depletion estimates (necessary to estimate return flow) included the
consumptive irrigation requirement and incidental depletions of the diverted water only; the
amount of precipitation consumed by the crops was not part of the water budgets. While no
water is diverted from the Rio Grande below Otowi, the JyS region did estimate the amount of
water diverted from tributaries (namely, the Santa Fe River and the Galisteo River) for irrigation
using OSE’s estimates for 1995 (Wilson and Lucero, 1997), which are based on crop areas and
ditch efficiencies.
To fully integrate the budgets, the upstream/downstream group will need to agree on the
approach to developing the water demand components, that is, should all components of
irrigation (diversions, depletions, return flows) be included in the water budgets?
2.1.3.3
Stream Gain/Loss
The Rio Grande is generally considered a gaining stream and certainly was so prior to
development of connected groundwater resources. A model developed by McAda and Barroll
(2002) estimated the predevelopment total gain to the Rio Grande within the MRG to be 49,940
ac-ft/yr. SSPA estimated that 16,500 ac-ft/yr of groundwater fed the Rio Grande within the SS
region above Elephant Butte based on Roybal (1981). The JyS region estimated inflow of
10,670 ac-ft/yr based on groundwater level contours (Duke, 2001) and flow net analysis. SSPA
added a term to the water budgets to account for the impact of groundwater pumping in the JyS,
MRG, and SS regions on the flow in the Rio Grande as estimated by the McAda and Barroll
model (2002).
The details of these estimates should be examined and made consistent with the
predevelopment gains for all reaches of the Rio Grande. For instance, SSPA includes impacts
from pumping at the Buckman wells, but does not include the predevelopment gain within this
reach, nor does it include the impacts of pumping from Los Alamos wells. Because impacts of
pumping do not necessarily draw water directly from the river, but may instead intercept water
D:\533563466.doc
8
that would have flowed to the river, it is important to include the predevelopment stream gains if
the groundwater impacts are to be included in the budget. In the SS region, only the pumping
from the City of Socorro and New Mexico Tech was included (3,300 ac-ft/yr) and the impact of
that pumping was considered to be 100 percent. However, according to Wilson et al. (2003),
the total pumping in the SS region from all demands is closer to 44,000 ac-ft/yr, including more
than 36,000 ac-ft/yr from irrigation wells. While the impact from the irrigation wells is included in
the irrigation depletion component, the 8,000 ac-ft/yr of pumping from other uses (including the
3,300 ac-ft/yr from the City of Socorro and New Mexico Tech) is not fully considered, and the
impact from pumping may therefore be underestimated.
2.1.4 Inconsistencies Within Plans
Some additional inconsistencies between estimates within individual water plans (e.g., between
estimates of demand and water budget components) were noted:

Demand projections for the SS plan relied on OSE-estimated year 2000 demands
(Wilson et al., 2003) and then projected changes to 2040. However, the year 2000
demands are not consistent with the demand estimates used in the water budget. For
instance, the irrigation depletions in the SS plan water budget (as extracted from SSPA,
2003) were estimated at 48,500 ac-ft/yr when accounting for effective precipitation
(Section 2.1.3.2) (55,360 ac-ft/yr minus 6,820 ac-ft/yr).
However, the demand
projections in the SS plan show irrigation depletions of 77,600 ac-ft/yr. This discrepancy
occurred because the demand projections, including agricultural use, were developed
prior to and independently of the SSPA model and were based on OSE's water use
report (Wilson et al., 2003).

Based on the OSE 2000 water use report (Wilson et al., 2003), the portion of irrigation
depletions in Socorro and Sierra Counties that lie within the MRG are about 82 percent
of the total county depletions, or about 64,000 ac-ft/yr, about 30 percent more than the
amount shown by SSPA for the water budgets.
D:\533563466.doc
9

In the MRG, SSPA (2004) simulated the impacts on the Rio Grande from historical
pumping of 150,474 acre-feet in 2000. However, the demand projections in the water
plan show pumping of 163,450 acre-feet in 2000.
To fully integrate the budgets, the upstream/downstream group will need to agree on an
approach to make the projections consistent with the demand numbers in the water budgets.
2.2 Recommended Terminology
Review of the water budgets revealed the need for consistent terminology when developing and
discussing water budgets. Two terms that often cause confusion are “deficit” and “supplydemand gap.”

The term deficit could refer to many different aspects of a water budget. For instance, it
could refer to a shortfall in meeting a Compact obligation, or the amount of water
currently depleted that exceeds recharge, or the difference between demand in a wet
year and supply in a dry year.
Clear adjectives, such as “Compact deficit” or
“groundwater budget deficit,” are necessary when using this term.

The supply-demand gap term used in the JyS region refers to the gap between the
supply available to meet current demands (as of 2000) and the projected demand in
2060, which could also be considered a “deficit” between supply and demand in the year
2060. The potentially diminishing supplies are not factored into the supply-demand gap
as defined here. Supplies that may diminish even if demand does not increase (such as
surface supplies impacted by climate change or groundwater supplies that diminish from
over-pumping, thus creating another type of supply-demand gap) should be assessed
separately.
Each region will have different issues with regard to deficits and gaps, and the scope and
definition of each term should be clearly stated. Such terms may not be transferable between
all regions. For the water budget integration, the following definitions are proposed (and should
be discussed by the upstream/downstream group):
D:\533563466.doc
10

Modeled compact deficit: Simulated deficit in meeting the median compact delivery
obligation

Annual (or actual) compact deficit: Difference between actual deliveries and the delivery
obligation in a particular year.

Groundwater budget deficit:
Difference between the amount of recharge and the
amount of pumping minus return flow to the aquifer.

Supply-demand gap: Difference between the amount of water supply available to meet
demand at the time of the study (which is for the plans in question, the year 2000) and
the future water demand for a given year (e.g., 2040). The demand is expressed in
terms of diversions, but can also be expressed in terms of depletions and called a
supply-demand depletion gap. In some cases the supply-demand gap can simply be
calculated by subtracting the current demand from the future demand. However, if a
region has more supply available than is required to meet current demands, then the
supply available should be subtracted from the future demand to estimate the supplydemand gap.
To improve consistency among the water budgets tracked by the three regions, definitions of
other water budget terms should also be standardized. For example, a definition of riparian
evapotranspiration should be agreed upon and clearly stated. One issue regarding this term is
whether it should include acreage of riparian vegetation that occurs along irrigation canals, or
whether that should (or can) be tracked separately. The answer could be yes or no depending
on the situation.
If the canals are located in the floodplain, the riparian losses may have
occurred even if the canals were not present. On the other hand, if a canal traverses along a
hill slope, the “riparian losses,” if defined only to be riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods,
may need to be applied to incidental depletions associated with irrigation.
An alternative
method to define riparian acreage could be the depth to groundwater.
The various entities that are involved in water budget tracking should agree upon the
appropriate terminology and definitions. Tables 3 and 4 summarize generic surface water and
D:\533563466.doc
11
groundwater budget components that are applicable to any water plan and provide suggested
definitions of the terms.
Table 5 explains each of the water budget terms that are
recommended to be included in a water budget that is focused on the flow in the Rio Grande
only.
D:\533563466.doc
12
3. Accounting Templates
The scope of work developed for this project specified the development of a standard method of
tracking changes in water supply and demand in the region that could help decision makers
understand progress made or additional problems arising regarding the water balance in the
MRGSWB. Ongoing tracking of the water supply and demand terms would be helpful to:

The planning entities, in incorporating new data to help refine the understanding and
reduce uncertainty regarding Rio Grande water budgets

Communities within the region, in assessing changes they have made to increase their
supplies or to reduce their demands through conservation

The agricultural sector, in understanding how they can make better use of the available
water

Municipalities that face increasing demands

The State of New Mexico, to better understand depletions and assess future Compact
compliance status
There are several different mechanisms that may be appropriate for tracking changes in water
supply, demand, and associated gaps:

A water budget template could be used to track inflows to and diversions from the Rio
Grande based on measured data for the time period of interest and to reflect updates to
estimated parameters (such as groundwater inflow or riparian evapotranspiration based
on new scientific studies)

A general tracking template could be used to assess progress on implementing the
various alternatives or strategies that were outlined in each of the regional plans and to
determine the impact that implementation of these strategies has on the water supply
D:\533563466.doc
13
and demand balance in the region. In order to quantify the relative impact of various
strategies, supporting templates could be used to track

Water conservation initiatives

Water supply development projects
A summary and examples of these types of templates are provided in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
3.1 Water Budget Template
A water budget template should track all components of both groundwater and surface water.
The diversions and return flows should be specified, and the proximity to the mainstem of a
tributary should be clearly stated. Table 6 is an example template for tracking the surface water
budgets in each region. The terms shown on Table 6 can be used to track changes in the water
budgets over time, using updated information from scientific studies or actual measured data to
refine the understanding of the water budgets. Appendix A provides a compilation of the water
budget terms from the three regions using this template.
Groundwater budgets should clearly define the inflow and outflow components in specified subbasins within the regions, ideally as they relate to tributaries of a mainstem. Table 7 provides a
proposed groundwater budget template; this proposed template was used in compiling the
groundwater budget components shown in Appendix B (Table B-1).
The water budget template should clearly summarize all of the depletions to the Rio Grande
(including evapotranspiration) and allow for comparison of the depletion “pie” from one year
another. The total supply can then be compared to depletions and projected depletions. This
template could be used both to track the depletions in comparison to the supply and to track
potential compact compliance problems.
D:\533563466.doc
14
3.2 Implementation Template
The purpose of the implementation template is to assess the progress of the alternatives or
strategies identified in the water plan and to determine how effective those strategies have been
in reducing demand or increasing supply. The JyS region recently completed a draft update of
their regional water plan that included a survey of local governments regarding progress or
changes in water issues. In many cases the individual water providers are pursuing actions on
their own and are not necessarily in communication with the regional water planning groups.
Nonetheless, the actions implemented do have an impact on the regional supply, and it is
therefore valuable to periodically track the cumulative actions within the water planning or larger
region (in the case of this group, the region would be the MRGSWB between Otowi Gage and
Elephant Butte).
A decision analysis tool, such as the one developed for the MRG region by Sandia National
Laboratories (http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/Tidwell-2002.pdf) using Powersim, may be the
most appropriate method to track the impact or proposed impact of actions taken to address
water supply and demand issues. The model has the ability to quantitatively evaluate the
consequences of water management actions, such as indoor water conservation (low flow
toilets, efficient washing machines, etc), on such outcomes as the flow in the Rio Grande or
groundwater depletion. In addition, Sandia and the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model
(URGWOM) Team are currently collaborating on a monthly time step decision support model in
the MRG that supports and is calibrated to URGWOM results.
The upstream/downstream
group should communicate with the URGWOM Team to understand the refinements underway
and how the URGWOM tools might be helpful to the MRG water budget integration process.
3.2.1 Water Conservation Template
One of the most viable and effective methods of balancing demand and supply is to reduce
demand through water conservation. The effectiveness of conservation in changing demand
should be tracked to allow updating of the water budgets based on revised demand.
D:\533563466.doc
15
Agricultural conservation can be an effective mechanism for improving crop yield through better
water management or for improving deliveries where system losses are significant. However, in
many cases conservation measures may result in additional water being applied more
efficiently, resulting in improvements in crop yields but not necessarily in water savings.
Consequently, the potential for agricultural water conservation should be evaluated on a caseby-case basis and is not included as part of this evaluation.
It is recommended that tracking of water conservation be focused instead on the public water
supply sector. In order to track water savings or potential increases in water demands, it is
important to track both the per capita uses as well as the total population served by the system,
to see if the conservation gains have been offset by the addition of new customers, or other
potential demands could be filled with the savings.
The population estimate at a given time should be compared to the corresponding projection in
the water plan to determine if the population projections are still on target. Once the population
estimates are evaluated and, if necessary, revised, they can be linked with a conservation
tracking template to develop revised water demand projections. The OSE Water Use and
Conservation Bureau has been actively involved in developing standardized accounting
procedures for tracking water demand. Use of the OSE templates would not only standardize
accounting between the three regions, but also would make the plans consistent with water use
around the state.
3.2.2 Water Supply Template
To understand changes in the water supply-demand balance also requires tracking changes to
water supply. Specific methods of calculating how much water would be derived from a given
water supply project vary depending on the nature of the project, and it is therefore difficult
develop a simple estimate for calculations. Regardless, entities that are undertaking water
supply projects generally conduct their own engineering and feasibility studies, and therefore
the planning regions do not need to do complex calculations. A simple method of tracking
supply is to track the following information on each project:
D:\533563466.doc
16

Responsible party

Nature of new supply (brackish water, imported water, transfer)

Are water rights secured?
(Projects that don’t result in water rights, such as
phreatophyte removal, cannot be used to address the M&I gap.)

Expected completion date

Expected amount of new supply

Will the supply be reliable during drought conditions?

Water quality concerns

Where will the new water supply be used?
3.2.3 Compact Compliance Template
A Rio Grande Compact compliance template could begin by tracking required deliveries against
actual deliveries (information that is already tracked and reported by ISC). This information
could be used to chart years when deficits in Compact deliveries occur and those when New
Mexico accrues credits, thus allowing for an ongoing quick visual presentation of Compact
delivery compliance.
Using information from the other templates, as well as updated
information on all water use sectors, including riparian evapotranspiration, open water
evapotranspiration, and agricultural water use, estimates of the total depletions in the MRGSWB
could be tracked and compared to the Compact-allowable depletions based on the delivery
schedule. This type of accounting would involve tracking the total consumptive uses in the
MRGSWB from the Rio Grande and connected groundwater between Otowi and Elephant
Butte. Depletions resulting from other water sources, such as importation of San Juan-Chama
water or desalinated water, would be excluded.
D:\533563466.doc
17
4. Summary and Recommendations
To integrate the water budgets in the regional water plans, each plan needs to follow consistent
terminology and methodology, have boundaries that are coincident with hydrologic boundaries,
and have the same time frame. Having said that, in many cases, the water budgets will need to
be developed from the data available, which may not allow for consistent methodology or time
frames. The data limitations and other constraints, such as differing goals, make integration of
water budgets and water planning difficult.
Recommendations for either retrofitting existing water plans into a standard template or
developing new water budgets are provided. However, prior to conducting further analysis to
integrate the plans, it is important to revisit the overall goal of doing so. Is the goal to monitor
potential changes in flow in the Rio Grande for meeting Compact obligations? Is it to examine
the potential impact on agriculture in the region? To answer the former question, the water
budget components must be well understood; to answer the later, water budgets are not
needed. Some of the data in the plans have changed and hence it may be more beneficial to
use current data for any further reconciliation or updates, rather than devoting more effort to
working with the plans in the current versions.
Key conclusions and recommendations regarding the water budgets are:

Decide on the scope of the water budgets, that is, whether they should address impacts
to the Rio Grande only or include the demands and supply on the tributaries? If only the
Rio Grande is considered, then the demands that are met from supplies on the
tributaries should be removed (a problematic approach for the JyS region, where
demands are met by a mix of tributary and direct diversions).

The surface water budget template should separate tributary water budgets and
mainstem water budgets. Groundwater budgets should be developed separately, ideally
based on the geographic area of the tributaries to a mainstem or the boundaries of a
closed basin. If the budgets are developed in this manner, they can be aggregated as
D:\533563466.doc
18
needed to answer specific questions.
Appendix A shows the water budgets
disaggregated in this manner using the information available.

The terminology, methodology, and time frame should be clearly defined in each plan.
The terminology should be based on that proposed in Tables 4 and 5; however, the time
frame and methodology may vary based on the information available to characterize the
water budgets.
In addition, decisions regarding issues such as those discussed in
Section 2 need to be made to make the water budgets consistent, for instance, whether
all components of irrigation (diversions, depletions, return flows) will be included in the
water budgets or just the depletion amount.

The projections of water demand need to be made consistent with the demand numbers
in the water budgets.

As stated in Section 1, a detailed hydrologic model is a better method of understanding
hydrologic water balances than simple spreadsheet calculations.
Whereas a
spreadsheet analysis can only track the components for one time period and for the
system as a whole, a groundwater model can track changes with time and assess local
conditions. For instance, the water budget of the Santa Fe River appears to have more
inflow than outflow, yet the aquifer levels are declining around the well fields. The fact
that the return flow is occurring far down gradient of the well pumping will not be
revealed by a spreadsheet analysis.

The upstream/downstream group should communicate with the URGWOM Team to
understand the refinements underway and how their tools might be helpful to the MRG
water budget integration process, particularly in filling the gaps in groundwater inflow in
the reach from Otowi to Cochiti.

The systems dynamics model for the MRG Basin, a decision analysis tool developed by
Sandia National Laboratories for the MRG could be reviewed and expanded to include
information for the three regions and assess the impacts of the alternatives currently
D:\533563466.doc
19
being pursued.
This tool would be a working model, constantly updated as new
information (including groundwater modeling results) becomes available.

As the planning regions within the MRGSWB continue to refine their planning goals,
appropriate decisions regarding updating and standardizing the integrated water budget
can be made.
D:\533563466.doc
20
References
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) 2003. Socorro-Sierra regional water plan.
Prepared for Socorro Soil and Water Conservation District, Socorro, New Mexico. December
2003.
DBS&A and Lewis, A. 2003. Jemez y Sangre regional water plan. Prepared for Jemez y Sangre
Water Planning Council. March 2003.
DBS&A and Lewis, A. 2007. Draft Jemez y Sangre regional water plan 2007 update. Prepared
for Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council. June 30, 2007.
Duke Engineering & Services (Duke). 2001. Water supply study, Jemez y Sangre Water
Planning Region, New Mexico. Prepared for the Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council.
January 2001.
Hebard, E.M. and J.A. Johnson. 2004. Río Puerco & Río Jemez subregional water plan: 20002050. Chapter 12 of the Middle Rio Grande regional water plan. Prepared for Río Puerco y
Río Jemez Water Users. April 2004.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants (HRC). 2000. Historic and current water demand in the
Socorro-Sierra water planning region.
HRC. 2001. Water budget for the Socorro-Sierra water planning region.
McAda, D. and P. Barroll. 2002. Simulation of ground-water flow in the Middle Rio Grande Basin
between Cochiti and San Acacia, New Mexico. USGS Water Resources Investigations
Report 02-4200.
McAda, D.P. and M. Wasiolek. 1988. Simulation of the regional geohydrology of the Tesuque
aquifer system near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Water-Resources Investigations Report
D:\533563466.doc
21
87-4056, U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico, prepared in cooperation with
the New Mexico State Engineer Office and the Santa Fe Metropolitan Water Board.
Roybal, F.E. 1991. Ground-water resources of Socorro, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigation Report 89-4083.
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (SSPA). 2000. Middle Rio Grande water supply study.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, and New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission. August 4, 2000.
SSPA. 2002. Socorro-Sierra planning region water planning study: Groundwater resources in
the Rio Grande and La Jencia basins. Prepared for New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission. July 2002.
SSPA. 2003. Middle Rio Grande water supply study, Phase 3: Interim partial draft. August 6,
2003.
SSPA. 2004. Middle Rio Grande water supply study, Phase 3. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Albuquerque District, and New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. November
24, 2004.
SSPA. 2006. Middle Rio Grande water budget: Present and projected. October 2006.
Water Assembly (WA). 1999. Middle Rio Grande water budget (Where water comes from, &
goes, & how much): Averages for 1972-1997. Action Committee. October 1999.
Water Assembly (WA) and Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG). 2004. Middle Rio
Grande regional water plan, 2000-2050. August 2004.
Wilson, B. and A.A. Lucero. 1997. Water use by categories in New Mexico counties and river
basins, and irrigated acreage in 1995. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical
Report 49.
D:\533563466.doc
22
Wilson, B., A.A. Lucero, J.T. Romero, and P.J. Romero. 2003. Water use by categories in New
Mexico counties and river basins, and irrigated acreage in 2000. New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer Technical Report 51.
D:\533563466.doc
23