Commentary: In a recent radio interview on KRWG, Congressman Steve Pearce spoke in favor of the Gila Diversion, a project aimed at diverting New Mexico’s last free-flowing river. The Congressman cited a number of reasons why the diversion was a good thing for New Mexico: water, jobs and low cost.
Mr. Pearce, a self-styled fiscal conservative, needs to do his homework. The “million acre feet [of Gila River water] that has flowed to Arizona” since 1968 is not “free” water and would have been paid for by New Mexico if kept here in our state. Under the Arizona Water Settlement Act (AWSA), New Mexico is only allowed to divert 14,000 acre feet, and New Mexico pays Arizona for its use.
Mr. Pearce suggests an infrastructure project that estimates put at $1 billion to move that water to communities in southwest New Mexico. Spending approximately $900 million in New Mexico taxpayer dollars on a project that would only provide 14,000 acre feet of water is the height of government inefficiency and waste. To his credit, Mr. Pearce was right: the diversion project would create jobs. But, what are the chances of those being New Mexico jobs?
According to the US Bureau of Reclamation—the nation’s leading dam authority—the Gila Diversion proposal is not cost effective. The Interstate Stream Commission’s own reports say nearly half the water diverted would be lost to evaporation and leakage before reaching its final destination. Southwest New Mexico’s water needs can be met sooner with smart infrastructure projects, conservation methods, sustainable ground water management, water recycling and wastewater reduction, all of which can be completed with available funds.
The definition of conservative: adhering to and tending to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to change or progress; moderate, cautious, within a safe margin. Supporting the Gila Diversion could not be further from fiscal conservatism.