|
Last March Santa Fe County made what many considered a surprise move to transfer over 110 acre-feet of water rights to approximately 19 wells south of Santa Fe for the County water utility. The wells are supposed to be for backup during drought to supplement the surface water coming from the Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD), yet there is no commitment to limit their use to drought.
The County's applications followed a suspension of all public discussion about their plans for pumping the aquifer. To date, they remain unwilling to include citizen input related to the creation of a piped water infrastructure of unknown extent throughout the County. Consequently, they have not been forthcoming about their "smart" growth plans.
While the BDD will supply surface water from the Rio Grande, the County transfer applications for creating a groundwater supplement for the BDD show that the aquifer is still erroneously seen as an "endless" source of water by many developers and government agencies. Simply put, the aquifer is not and never will be an endless supply of water.
Santa Fe Basin Water Association (SFBWA) coordinated a response to the County’s untimely actions, with the result that over 200 well owners and associations protested this application with the State Engineer. If the County continues to operate without public information or input, the SFBWA, along with other local organizations will continue to work at both the political and legal fronts to bring County plans into the open. The SFBWA is supporting the creation of comprehensive water planning that moves away from development-driven water planning and includes input from the interested public.
The County frames the process of switching back and forth from surface water (BDD) to the proposed well field groundwater as "conjunctive use" and "permanent water". However, the possibility of adding tens of thousands of new residents south of Santa Fe (there are already over 15,000 homes approved, but not yet built in the County) ultimately means they are not importing water to preserve groundwater or to support the existing population during drought, but rather to import growth.
During a recent panel discussion, a senior County planner spoke about the potential for a new population of 35,000 on 1/4 acre lots that would be served by " imported water" - this, for just one landowner's subdivision. A recent SF County and City advertisement (The Reporter, July 18, 2007) claims the BDD water is"not really" for new growth, yet County Manager Roman Abetya says without equivocation: " [O]nce the Buckman Direct Diversion comes on line, we're going to have water available for development." (The Reporter, Top Dog, August 8, 2007).
Who will pay for this BDD Water? In at least three instances, the same advertising supplement warns residents that water rates may go up and that the County may issue bonds and use gross receipt taxes. However, it is developers who need to pay as they go for such infrastructure, rather than taxpayers or existing users.
While a smart growth plan may employ the smart use of resources, this would only work if it did not also spur a rapid growth scenario. Such growth could outstrip resources before we know what has happened, leaving an expanded population dependent on groundwater during extended drought. With piped water, development could occur too rapidly.
Santa Fe County residents treasure their rural residential life, but some County planners and Commissioners view it as "sprawl" that they want to defeat by creating high-density cluster developments. Smart growth has its virtues, but it could also simply be masking the over-allocation of water if global climate change is not taken seriously and accounted for.
Developers tell us to be "inclusive" while they profit from high-density developments. Their water rights would be imported mostly from agriculture, further depleting our agricultural base. While existing residents are constantly reminded to " conserve water", planners view this residential conservation as a new water source that they can use in order to further expand the population. Meanwhile, planners may allocate as little as .16 acre-feet or 4,000 gallons per month to each new household. This leaves little to cut back on during expected drought, with little or nothing available for gardens, creating a serious quality-of-life issue. Investors and those with little concern about over allocation of water want to label climate-change drought predictions "fear mongering". We disagree. It is the best science we have and should be included in models of the future.
Citizens deserve to be included in future planning in order to balance the power of developers that can distort planning. Although there is much good to be said about "smart growth" planning, it needs to be done openly to include those who already live here who would be affected by increased traffic, water shortages and other population pressures. Infrastructure can induce growth. With planners unable to distinguish the difference between " rural residential" and "sprawl", rural Santa Fe County could quite easily become like the suburbs of Denver.
by ANN MURRAY, ROSS LOCKRIDGE and SFBWA
(From, San Marcos Association Desert News, Fall 2007)
Links to related County documents
SF County Conjunctive Management Plan for the Santa Fe Basin DRAFT ~ 6 MB PDF file
Growth Management Strategy Water & Wastewater Plan DRAFT
Growth Management Strategy Environmentally Sensitive Areas DRAFT
Santa Fe County Utility Plan DRAFT
Comments on Conjunctive Management Plan
Comments on Water/Wastewater Plan and Utility Plan
|
