© 2024 KRWG
News that Matters.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Gila River Diversion rolls along with little public notice or input

NMFO

Commentary:  The NMSU classroom where I teach tends to be hot. There is an electronic thermostat on the wall with a button I can push that lowers the desired temperature, but it does not actually control the air conditioner. For a moment I may feel like I'm in command of the environment, but no real change follows my action. When I told my students this reminded me of American democracy they understood the joke immediately.

 

Like the thermostat, many of the official ways we interact with our representative government are more show than substance. A great many decisions that affect you, the community where you live and work, and the options available to you in pursuit of your own freedom and enjoyment of life, are made without your input. To the extent you seek input in those decisions, the agencies and officials involved in the business are inclined to view you as an irritant, not a constituent: a problem to be managed rather than an important and valued voice.

 

This has been my observation of the controversial Gila River diversion as it rolls through the public square like a train. To recap: the Arizona Water Settlements Act entitles four New Mexico counties (Grant, Luna, Hidalgo, and Catron) to collect 14,000 acre-feet of water from the Gila before it flows into Arizona. The law provides the counties with $66 million for local water projects, and an additional $62 million for a diversion project. The Interstate Streams Commission has been pushing for a diversion ever since.

 

Problems with the project abound. The current proposal is for a project that costs more than double the amount of federal money available, to capture an uncertain yield of water, with vague details on who would actually benefit. Since it will not create a significant source of drinking water, is this water going to be commodified? To whom will it be marketed? Will it generate more revenue than cost? When the federal money is spent, where will the additional revenue come from?  We are told the water will be skimmed during flood conditions, but how will long-term drought and worsening climate change affect the yield? If the diverted water is sent to an aquifer - a plan rejected by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2014 but which seems to have returned - how much water will be lost to evaporation and seepage?

 

Answers to these questions have been inconsistent or vague, and sometimes avoided altogether. In July, Attorney General Hector Balderas determined that the CAP entity responsible for executing the ISC's will had violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing the scope of work in closed sessions, not presenting it publicly until after handsome engineering contracts had been awarded. The CAP entity is not an elected body, but it is helping the ISC distribute public money to private contractors in meetings where the public may only spectate and comment. Elected officials can hold them accountable, but only if they hear from voters.

 

Another way to manage the public (rather than talk to them or include them) is to hold public meetings at times when most people who work cannot attend. OnTuesday, September 6, the CAP entity will hold a public meeting at Deming's Special Events Center, on 2300 East Pine at 10:00 AM. I am told public comments will be permitted.

 

If you can make it, it would be more helpful than not to have a strong turnout. Unfortunately, I'll be at work, pushing buttons on a useless thermostat.

--

Algernon D'Ammassa writes the Desert Sage column for the Deming Headlight and Sun News papers. Write to him at DesertSageMail@gmail.com.