2001- 2002 Newsletters

[ Home ] [ The Rio Ruidoso ] [ Mission Statement ] [ Information About Membership & The Association ] [ Current Newsletter ] [ Calendar of Upcoming Events ] [ River Cleanup Pictures ] [ Corporate Sponsors ] [ Water Rights Discussion ] [ Misc. Reports ] [ State Engineer's Water Plan Report ] [ Oct. 1998 - Dec. 2000 Newsletter Archive ] [ Feb. 2001 - March 2006 Newsletter Archive ] [ Links ]

July, 2006

Dear Riverkeeper:

Happy Birthday to us!!! How time flies! It was 10 years ago, in the summer of 1996, that your Association was founded in response to a bone-dry Rio Ruidoso. As Ben Mason wrote in his birthday-card article for the Ruidoso News a couple of weeks ago (see our website at www.ruidosoriver.com), we have accomplished much over the past ten years and we thank you for your support and contributions.

Up until a week ago when it graciously started to rain like old times every day, the Rio Ruidoso has been almost dry again this year due to what may be the worst drought in New Mexico history. What a difference a year makes! Last year was the 5^th best year on record! Incidentally, as we pointed out last spring, a very good year in the middle of a drought is not atypical. In 1958, for example, we had a similarly good year and the drought continued on for another 7 years, so beware of those predicting the end of the drought! Total flow in the Rio Ruidoso over the first 6 months of 2006 was just 286 acre feet (8 % of average), the second lowest total on record (only 1971’s 1^st 6 months were worse at 228 af). Hopefully the monsoons have come. That’s the good news. The bad news is the Water Task Force (WTF) may very well take their eye off the ball again.

What Water Crisis? We certainly share with the (WTF) the hope that the 2006 monsoons will be at least “normal” because that’s what it will take to fill Grindstone Lake back up by fall. Even then, contrary to their Pollyannaish prediction, filling Grindstone back up is still not a slam dunk because of the myriad of variables that are involved, i.e., Eagle Creek surface flow, North Fork well production, high enough flow at the Hollywood gage, enough water rights left in the Ruidoso Basin, etc.

Suffice it to say that it is possible to fill Grindstone by fall, but our figures show that it will take nearly perfect conditions. I sincerely hope we get them. A key variable is getting flow in the Rio Ruidoso up to over 6 cubic feet per second at the Hollywood gage, because a good part of the VOR’s rights on the Rio Ruidoso are tied to that restraint and the Rio Ruidoso is the only source of supply for Grindstone.

For the record, as of July 4 Grindstone Lake was holding 670 af of water, versus a “normal” level of 1090. Under perfect conditions we can divert about 14 af/day. At the same, in the monsoonal months (the high tourist season) the treatment plant uses more than 2/af day. Under perfect conditions day in and day out, we estimate that it would take 6-8 weeks to get the lake up to “normal.”

The other restraint is if the Village of Ruidoso (VOR) has enough water rights left in the Ruidoso Basin to pull it off. Currently it doesn’t, but several recently filed transfer applications seem likely to be approved in time. Filed as “emergency” transfers, these petitions end-run the normal protest process, in which down-stream rights holders can protest the transfer because it impairs their rights. Needless to say, these “emergency” transfer applications have downstream rights holders screaming “foul!”

This conundrum, exacerbated by an inexplicable myopia about the current drought, frames Ruidoso’s failed water “plan.” Ever since the day that basically the same WTF privately realized that the North Fork wells would never deliver the water they promised (and were paid $1 million for), they have been working on a thinly-veiled plan to transfer those illusory rights from the Eagle Creek Basin into the Ruidoso Basin whenever and wherever they can. Since Day One they have looked to the Rio Ruidoso for their salvation, but as they have learned this year, surface water is not dependable in a protracted drought. More importantly, this tunnel-vision has precluded, until very recently, the search for, and development of, other realistic sources. It has also left all sycophants totally blind-sided by current events.

With respect to the North Fork wells, the jig may finally be up! The Office of the State Engineer (OSE) has recently demanded that the VOR “must and shall” prove “beneficial use”of 5,648 af/year of water rights there by November 1, 2006. Inasmuch as the most the VOR has ever produced there was 1,033 af in 1999 (with an average of 589 af), this appears to be an impossible assignment. Certainly the WTF will request another postponement on behalf of the VOR, but the fact that this proof is already 16 years overdue, another postponement seems unlikely. If the WTF cannot pull a rabbit out of the hat, 4000+ afy of the VOR’s water rights are in jeopardy!!!!. As I warned several months ago, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”

The 40-year Water Plan: There is a rumor in the mill that a new 40-year Water Plan is nearing publication. We haven’t seen it, nor been asked to comment. I understand that not even the councilors have seen it. One wonders, given the above, how realistic this one will be.

Our minimum flow agreement. “What,” you may rightly ask, “is happening to the association’s minimum flow agreement with the VOR during all of this?” The answer is that, with several mutually agreed exceptions, it has been honored. The agreement has had very little applicability this year because flows have been so miniscule. We have no reason to believe that once flows are back to normal, the VOR will not continue to honor it. Incidentally, for those who have never read this agreement and still use it to denigrate us, it behooves me to say that the agreement has not even once come close to preventing the VOR from taking all the water to which it was entitled (and then some).

River Crossing: For whatever reason, this development has slowed to a crawl. In response to the EPA administrative order mentioned in my last letter, they have added some structures consistent with a responsible Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan, but continue to blatantly ignore others. For example, they have been disposing of excess wet concrete by dumping it down the slope to the river (look behind the 1^st high-rise). Last week I saw them washing out cement trucks on a steep sloping road (River Trail) to the river. When I complained, the supervisor snapped back, “That’s not a river, it’s just a wash!” Such is the difference between Houston and Ruidoso. In my opinion, even the refurbished sediment control structures are still inadequate for a steep canyon setting at the cusp of the monsoon season. What should be silt fences are, instead, tiny wattles set on a very steep slope. Time will tell. Meanwhile, the Rio Ruidoso awaits the mother of all mudslides!!

Speaking of large new developments, please be advised that there are 4 more of them on the drawing board, eagerly salivating for the end of the moratorium. Certainly, in a market economy, the developers have a right to propose them, especially if they have been led to believe there is plenty of water (“We have no water problem”) by the failed 40-year Water Plan (more chickens coming home). It seems fall-down obvious to us, however, that development of a sustainable water supply has to precede growth, not vice-versa. We agree with Bill Midkiff, who wrote in the Ruidoso News several weeks ago, that as long as water is being rationed in any way to current tax-paying citizens, there is, by definition, none available for growth. Protecting the public welfare is the number one job of city government, not providing a casino for speculation. We hope that P&Z sees it that way, too, and we hope they are not blind to the fact that all of Ruidoso suddenly seems to be for sale as it worries about water.

As for developments along the river, it has always been our position that they should be natural and blend-in with the stream corridor, as in river “trail,” not as in river “walk” (think San Antonio, Texas). It is ironic, isn’t it, that those wanting to develop along the river don’t realize that the water in the river and the water they want to use are mutually exclusive. River Crossing, which the whole town already abhors, should be warning enough about what the average citizen thinks.

Our annual River Cleanup Party on June 3 was once again a great success! Under a different format, in which we asked people to register ahead of time, we still had 289 volunteers, who pulled over 40 cubic yards of debris from the rivers and shores. With the exception of some stuff pulled out of the river in the Gavilan Canyon area, the comments I got back is that the river was pretty clean. Thanks to all who participated and/or donated.

Watershed Restoration Projects: Due to the extreme fire danger that closed both the Mescalero Reservation and the Lincoln National Forest until last week, our watershed restoration projects have been on hold. One that is proceeding, however, is our plan to rehabilitate the severely degraded watershed at Two Rivers Park. Situated behind our Chamber of Commerce, this park should be a gateway showcase. Our plan, in partnership with the VOR Parks and Recreation Department, is to use in-stream structures, bank restoration, and re-vegetation to nurse the corridor back into a properly functioning condition. Once that is done, we hope to use it as an interpretive center to show how a healthy river should “work.”

Dick Wisner

Water Games

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the formation of the Ruidoso River Association, a 501 (c) (3) corporation, “to preserve and protect a healthy and free flowing Rio Ruidoso”. It has been a decade of solid achievement, but not without some rough patches and controversy.

The river is a very special gift to the village, but a fragile one that requires protection. The Association was founded when the river most needed a friend – when it went dry during the 1996 drought, causing many of us to wonder why. The answer quickly became clear. Almost the whole river was being diverted into a 16-inch pipe which led to Grindstone Lake, then through the treatment plant and into the water lines of a thirsty village. Not unreasonable, we thought at first, but we also began to see things that needed rethinking.

First, we heard that Grindstone Dam leaks and then learned that the leakage was serious – 600, even 800 acre-ft. per year. We next found that leakage was meticulously metered and recorded because replacement water from the river was free; no water rights were consumed when an exact compensating amount of fresh upstream river water was routed to the lake to make up for the leakage. At that point, we understood that the municipal water works was drying up the river not just to slake the thirst of our village but also to provide the hundreds of acre-feet of lake water that seeped unseen down Grindstone Canyon to Carrizo Creek.

The leakage figures led us to other data. The Office of the State Engineer (OSE) requires the village to file an enormous amount of water-related daily information – the flow of each well, every surface water diversion, treatment plant production, lake level and seepage rate; Hollywood gage reading, and much more. Separately, the village water department provides monthly information on water distribution to all uses – total production, metered sales, filter back wash, line flush, village use, pipe breaks, and unaccounted-for losses. We were able to get these figures as far back as 1990, and as we built them into more useful spreadsheets, a clearer picture of water use and misuse emerged. We saw that Grindstone Lake had been kept at the same level during its whole history. It was being managed as a fishing pond instead of a municipal reservoir. The lake didn’t rise during the good moisture months, and it didn’t fall during the bad. Instead, the river, Ruidoso’s most valuable resource, was regularly sacrificed to maintain the lake level.

As time went on, our research became more and more useful to the village management. A pump-back system was installed to recover seepage losses, and reservoir management was implemented to take advantage of good moisture seasons. The village administration was extremely helpful when the Association partnered with USGS to install a flow measuring device at the upstream end of the village. The Rio Ruidoso flow rate is now broadcast to any internet user. Knowing the real flow rate, it became easy to divert stream water when flow was good and save it when it was poor. The village was now enabled to take out more water than ever before, but still sustain instream flow so that not even the fish, much less the fishermen, knew when water was diverted. Rational reservoir management has been so successful that the village and the Association entered into an agreement (with unanimous approval of the council) to administer stream flow and diversions to protect instream flow and the fishery. The agreement is of course subject to drought and emergency and has always been applied with real-time flexibility.

Meanwhile, the Association secured federal grants to work with the New Mexico Environmental Department to reduce pollution, especially the suspended solids resulting from massive flooding damage in the ski area in 1998. A drainage plan was developed for the ski resort, and year after year, small rock dams, gabions, water bars, bypasses, and paving financed by the Association grants have reduced the energy (and the sediment) of storm flow in Deepfreeze and other problem areas. Another grant works to thin out the forested watershed above the Upper Canyon. The Association sponsors river cleanups that removed literally tons of trash from the river every year and has offered seminars and course work on watersheds and rivers through the local schools.

During our decade of river advocacy, we have never yet found a person who did not agree that the Rio Ruidoso is an ever-renewing asset; nevertheless, we have encountered ambivalence and even animosity in the growth-oriented constituency of real estate, construction, and finance. Opposition like this, led by Ruidoso’s “water team”, stimulated our reliance upon the database.

Our perception of Ruidoso’s water prospects, as depicted by our database, had become very different from that of the official water team. The database, which now comprises fifteen years of information, provides the Association with businesslike and fact-based answers to important questions regarding Ruidoso’s water status, especially the interaction of water supply and population growth. Unfortunately, the answers and forecasts generated from our database have not been glad tidings. Our figures on production and consumption indicate that during the last ten years, the growth rate of demand has far exceeded that of supply, and we have largely lost control of our destiny. For example, during the first six months of 2005, the river registered a flow of 9,256 acre-feet at our gage, but we were able to divert only 156 acre-feet to Grindstone Lake because our rights had been so depleted by overdrafts during prior years. If we had maintained a healthy reserve through acquisition of credible water rights or had put real effort to loss reduction, then we might have been in a position to fill Grindstone Lake. Instead, the water team wrote a happy 40-Year Water Plan and drilled futile wells on Eagle Creek, each cannibalizing its neighbor. At the same time, dialog between the Association and the village administration had collapsed, and our guest commentaries in the newspaper became our only means of communicating our concern.

Our relationship with the water team had already hit bottom. In 2003, we noticed that the pump-back system was shut down more than half the time, and we inquired about it. We were told that the cost of the operation had reached $80,000 per year, and the village could no longer support it. Sulfuric acid used to treat the return water had become too expensive, and pump maintenance costs were astronomical. The return-water pump would quickly deposit limestone on the shaft bearings, impellor, and casing, then seize up, requiring removal and expensive repair by a specialist firm. Deeply concerned, the Association reviewed the underlying chemistry of the pH reduction problem. We visualized, then tested a completely different procedure which does not require acid and also eliminates the pump incrustation problem. Supported by some council members (including the current mayor), the new process was emplaced and has been operating successfully ever since. We estimate that the village now saves $70,000 per year.

With the publication of the 40-Year Water Plan, we realized that the Association and the village consultants no longer spoke the same language. The Plan boasts (for example) that we have 7,100 acre-ft per year of water rights in the Eagle Creek basin, and that our Eagle Creek pumps have a “sustainable capacity” of 5,200 acre-feet per year. The latter figure was “estimated from well logs and State Engineer proof of completion”. Association statistics (based on actual pumping records) tell us that we have never pumped more than 1,215 acre-ft. from Eagle Creek basin in a year (1999), and the average production is only 850 acre-ft. per year. Similarly, line breaks and unaccounted-for losses cost us about a third of all the water we produce, and despite lower losses often cited, that figure hasn’t dropped below 31% since 1995. Despite the divergence between our view and that of the recent administration, we are confident that the village would have benefited from a free interaction between the Association and the now disbanded water team. We regret that the team carried out all of their work in deep secrecy, chaperoned by village authorities like teenage cotillion virgins.

During this decade of progress and research by the Ruidoso River Association, it has emerged as a parallel, but unofficial advisory body. The Association relies on fact, recorded history, and the ability and willingness to call a spade a spade. We anticipate a warm and mutually respectful relationship with the new village administration and hope that the informational resources and institutional integrity of the River Association may be of use in dealing with a calamitous drought.

March, 2006

Dear Riverkeeper:

New Grant: Some good news first! I am delighted to tell you that we have been awarded an additional $368,400 by the New Mexico Environment Department/EPA to continue our restoration work on the Rio Ruidoso. These new monies are earmarked for two distinct projects:

To remove and relocate a maintenance road out of the Deep Freeze ski run at Ski Apache. This road runs adjacent to the North Fork of the Rio Ruidoso. This area is one of, if not the largest, sediment sources in the watershed.
The second is a hazardous fuels thinning project on tribal lands at the top of the Upper Canyon. This is particularly dense stand of mixed conifer that is in the #1 hot spot in Ruidoso.

Water Crisis: As one of the driest winters on record in New Mexico drags on, there is no---zip, zero, nada---snow on the mountain and, consequently, very little water in the Rio Ruidoso. The water crisis in Ruidoso is getting more critical by the day. Hopefully, the looming crisis will force our newly-elected administration to address, rather than ignore the problems:

A realistic 40-year Water Plan needs to be resubmitted,
The recommendations of a the Water Conservation Task Force need to be adopted,
We need to fix leaks –we are losing more than 30% of our treated water.
We need to control growth until we have the “wet” water to service it.
We need to acquire more “wet” water rights in the Ruidoso Basin
We need to connect the Grindstone complex to the rest of the system.

The Grindstone Treatment Complex, which supplies water to 25-30% of the village, still has only one source of water—the Rio Ruidoso. It is not connected to the rest of the system, so if the river dries up, there is no way to get water to that treatment plant, other than by draining Grindstone Lake, which we then could not refill without river flow and adequate rights. For the record, Grindstone Lake is currently holding 900 acre feet of water, which is a 15 month supply down to the mud (we can’t go there).

Isn’t it obvious that we have been so busy romancing growth that we have ignored the infrastructure? The chickens are coming home to roost.

River Crossing. The attitude at River Crossing (RC)---“we are big shots from Houston, you are a little town”---continues in spades. This was made abundantly clear again last week when the development planted a Texas flag on top of the iron structure of the first of the tenement buildings. A flood of protests got the flag down, but not before even more ill-will was needlessly created.

RC continues to ignore the compliance requirements of their EPA discharge permit and attendant Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP outlines how a contractor is going to control run-off from the construction site in the event of a storm or accidental spill.

The recent attached photos clearly show RC’s disdain for the rules. As you can see (top picture), when RC wants to cross the river, they just push dirt it in and throw a board across. Note how the silt fence has failed in the middle picture just below the huge water chute. The last picture shows a pile of an unknown, powdery white substance unprotected just 6 feet from the river! All of these are egregious violations of the Clean Water Act.

Thankfully, help is finally on the way! On February 22 the U.S. EPA issued Administrative Order #CWA-06-2006-1813 to RC demanding that they come into compliance within 30 days or face fines of $32,500 per day.

Separately, RC has finally submitted (to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) plans for a span bridge over the Rio Ruidoso which will have no supports below the bank-full water line. The plan promises no discharge of any kind into the river during construction. Yeah, right! Based on RC’s insouciant behavior to date, the chances for that happening are zero to none.

Can you imagine how much of that site, its debris, and its building material would be in the river if we were having a normal winter? What would you call a developer who comes into a town disdainful of its residents and their natural resources?

Moon Mountain: The machinations regarding the trade by the Commissioner of Public Lands of Moon Mountain for part of a ranch in “Timbuktu” continues behind the scenes. I think the fact that a great deal of time has gone by with nothing done belies the rumor that it’s a done deal. I believe Patrick Lyons will consider other viable options if Ruidoso can come up with some.

River Cleanup Party: Can you believe we had to cancel the river cleanup last year because the river was running too high! This year it looks like we will be able to do it in dress shoes. We are considering a different format this year for a cleanup in June. More next letter.

License Plates: We have created a handsome license plate to use for fundraising and promotional purposes. If there is an “S” on your mailing label, you will get one. If not, send me a check for $15 (includes P&H).

Upper Canyon Escape Route: Despite an active veto pen by Governor Bill Richardson, most ($475,000) of the Village’s request for $545,000 from the New Mexico State Legislature 2006 capital outlay funding for the creation of a Upper Canyon escape route remained intact. In all, the governor vetoed 600 projects that the legislature had approved. $100 million for his spaceport has survived, however.

In Memoriam: I am sorry to say that on January 13 we lost one of Ruidoso’s most knowledgeable water people. John C. Schuller saw (and warned about) the current water crisis 20 years ago. He was an outspoken critic of the North Fork well Field sham from the get-go. May he rest in peace.

Letter Stuffers: This letter is put together and sent out by an invaluable group of volunteers, which includes Clara and Don Wenner, Louise and Alden Ritch, Eilene Histon, Linda Shoop, Sheree Wisner, Fran Redinger, Sue Koepp, and Jody Brundrett. If you can help us with an hour or so every other month, we’d be very grateful I will deliver and pick up. Call me 257-9494.

Dick Wisner

December, 2005

Dear Riverkeeper:

Sorry this is so long, but there’s a lot going on.

River Crossing Development: You need to know that this grotesque development in mid-town, which has chosen to showcase our beloved river, is, in fact, trashing it! One would think that a development using our most precious resource as a magnet would post armed guards around it. Not so! Not only has this interloper wantonly ignored the requirements under Federal permits to control storm-water pollution run-off during construction, but it has also (as of this writing) felt above the need of applying for the permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required by federal law to work around waters of the United States. This one is a high-quality cold water fishery. Because existing bridges will not support heavy equipment, when the developers need to cross the river, they just drive across the river on illegal, make-shift bridges (see photo). Needless to say, the Rio Ruidoso is at their mercy. The course of the river has already been irreparably changed. Despite a wide public outcry and a patronizing, self-serving rebuttal by developer John Hamilton at a village council meeting, the violations continue. I am sorry to conclude that this behavior, when coupled with a long list of other building permit and inspection violations, belies an arrogant corporate culture much more than the “unexpected situations” as proffered by Mr. Hamilton.

The size of this development and its haughty attitude have taxed the ability of the village to control it. Thankfully, with respect to the Clean Water Act violations, compliance and regulation fall with the EPA, the New Mexico Environment Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These organizations have been contacted, but move slowly. Nevertheless, I am confident that continuing non-compliance will result in fines and/or shut-downs. The Village Council has already passed a resolution encouraging the development to comply with its federal permits. The next step (I hope) will be an ordinance that will demand compliance with all federal permits as a condition of local permits. This is our river and our town. River Crossing is the new kid on the block.

River Flow: Although river flows in the Rio Ruidoso are now down to barely a trickle (1.5 cubic feet per second), 2005 will still go down as one of the highest flow years ever. Historically, annual flows have averaged 5,000-6,000 acre feet (The highest ever recorded was 17,000 acre feet in 1978, when flows were ballooned by floods). Flows for 2005 will be around 11,000 acre feet. Unfortunately, none of this largess has helped the water supply situation because the failure (versus grossly overstated assumptions) of the North Fork wells over the past 5 years has forced the village to overdraw on its rights the Ruidoso Basin and it now has very few left. In fact, the village is now facing 3 different constraints on surface water diversion from the Rio Ruidoso: 1) the effluent credit available is minimal because Eagle Creek is not flowing, 2) any diversion with flows at 1.5 cfs will threaten the health of the river, not to mention violate the village’s minimum low-flow agreement with us, and 3) there is very little left in the bank account to draw on. At the end of September, the Ruidoso Basin account shows a balance of 238 acre feet. While some may take naïve comfort that this is a positive number, there are 13 months left in the cycle and that normal production at Grindstone requires 55 acre feet per month. Thus, despite one of the best years ever with respect to water supplies, the water situation is getting critical again. As we pointed out years ago, continuing to overstate the wet water at the North Fork wells, while failing to add more water rights in the Ruidoso Basin, is a train wreck waiting to happen. The good news is that most of the highly-paid consultants who put these trains on a collision course are gone. The bad news is that the trains are still on a collision course.

The Airport Exploratory Well: Preliminary estimates of production and water quality of the village’s exploratory well at the airport seem to be favorable. The quality of the water appears to be “significantly better” than the Hollywood well and the guesstimated production of 200 gallons a minute, although at the low end of expectations, is acceptable. If completion of the well proves out this data, the cost of an acre foot of water at the well-head would be $1850, which compares quite favorably with a going rate of $5,000-$6,000/af. This is a good start, but only that. As outlined in our last letter, there are still plenty of hurdles (and lots more costs) before this water will find its way into the system.

Wastewater Treatment Plant: The results of the New Mexico Environment Department’s 2-year study of pollutants in the rivers of the Upper Hondo Watershed were presented in Ruidoso in a public meeting on October 27. There were no surprises. As expected, the main findings were that 1) excessive levels of phosphorous and nitrogen were found about 70% of the time in the stream segment immediately below the WWTP and that 2) turbidity (sediment) and temperature were too high in the river segment between U.S. 70 and the Mescalero Reservation. Since this study will be used by the EPA to determine pollution standards for discharge at the WWTP, the report amounts to a death knell for the cities’ plea to get the standard lowered to avoid a costly upgrade ($30-40 million) of the Biscuit Hill WWTP. Plans to upgrade and expand the plant (as well as how to pay for it) should be forthcoming shortly. My guess is that the villages will not be fined for the 2 years of non-compliance. As for what may seem like an outrageous cost to upgrade the WWTP, I am reminded of the old Fram oil filter advertisement years ago that warned, “If you don’t fix it now (maintenance and upkeep), it’ll cost a lot more to fix later (a new engine).”

Ski Apache Restoration: The pictures to the right show what we are doing up at Ski Apache. The top picture shows a series of dam structures built across the headwaters of the North Fork of the Rio Ruidoso in the Deep Freeze Ski Run. These structures will not only reduce the energy of the stream in storm events, but will also collect sediment.

Control structures in the Deep Freeze Ski Run

The bottom picture shows the diversion structure being installed at the lower holding pond which will enable Ski Apache personnel to divert the stream around the pond to clean out built-up sediment. Up until now, storm events have pushed the built-up sediment downstream. When finished, the gabion wall and the toe of the eroding slope will be graded to keep sediment from sloughing into the pond.
Diversion gate and gabion wall at sediment pond.

The tragedy of a commons: Please go to our web-page (www. ruidosoriver.com) to read Ben Mason’s brilliant application of this old economic parable to the water situation in Ruidoso.

Dues dates on mailing labels: Here is the key to the dues dates on your mailing label. If you have an annual due-date there, it is just that. The other notations are as follows: S-major sponsor, RCU-river cleanup member, C-complimentary member, and WET-project wet sponsor.

Dick Wisner

November 11, 2005

The Tragedy of the Commons

by Ben Mason

Running out of water is perhaps the most foolish and harmful misfortune that a community can bring upon itself, making it all the more disturbing that no reasoned and responsive debate on water shortage has yet occurred, either officially in Ruidoso’s village council chambers or in local media. Many citizens, engineers as well as informed lay people, have expressed dismay over our water prospects and concern about rapid population growth outstripping the meager growth of our water resources. The growth lobby and the administration have thus far had no answer other than pious assertions that there is no shortage.

In December, 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin published an article in the journal Science that may be the widest read paper ever submitted to that distinguished journal. The title was “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin’s fundamental interest was the problem of overpopulation, but in developing his argument, he demonstrated the existence of a huge underlying paradox that has been the cause of untold misery, including hunger, water and air pollution, water shortage, the loss of fisheries, even the extinction of species.

Hardin pictured the old English commons, pastures open for anyone to use. As a rational being, each herdsman will try to keep as many animals on the common as possible. Each seeks to maximize his own gain, and consciously or not, asks himself “What is the benefit to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” Although he understands the consequences of overgrazing, he knows that the additional animal is of great value to him, but the effect of overgrazing is shared by everyone, so his personal cost is small. The same motivation impels every other herdsman to increase his own herd. Although each herdsman is following a rational policy individually, when they all pursue it together, they are locked into a system guaranteed to ruin them. When the day of reckoning comes, the commons will support neither man nor beast. Hardin argues that this is a general rule, and it is hard not to agree that all resources must be either privatized or regulated if they are to escape the “remorseless working of things” to a tragic end – and this may well describe the fate of Ruidoso.

The English commons were saved in the 18^th and 19^th centuries by the “Inclosure Acts” which privatized and fenced them. Here and elsewhere, however, the problem still returns and must be dealt with. Our own national parks were once a commons. Threatened by traffic congestion, air pollution, and overuse, they were saved by regulations controlling entry, permissible activities, and lodging. Recently, the City of Santa Fe recognized that its limited water supply was a commons that had to be brought under regulation. Now, a developer must bring his own water rights for transfer to the city in order to have his plat considered.

Our New Mexico acequia tradition, derived from the Moors via Spain and Mexico, governed water distribution and delivery in a way that led naturally to our prior appropriation doctrine. It is firmly based on the proposition that water is a finite resource, while the commons tradition is a dreamy (and ultimately fatal) notion that there will always be more. In Lincoln County, developers and the successive village administrations have blurred this clear distinction by the aggressive employment of “fuzzy engineering” – a shell game that confuses water rights and real water. Ruidoso’s recent growth rate (1990-2003), at 2.82%, will double the population every twenty five years, but a strong constituency in Ruidoso promotes continued population growth and declares that there is plenty of water.

In actual fact, Ruidoso is already in the grip of water shortage, detailed in a separate appendix below. Our limited water supply is now a commons where each developer or builder profits from the addition of a new connection, but the endgame is dry hydrants and empty reservoirs.

Right now, a race to exhaust our water resources by population growth or annexation is particularly foolhardy. Every possible civic indicator – water shortage, traffic congestion, deep-rooted wastewater treatment problems, water piping that loses a third of production, and an overstretched budget – all of these conditions are screaming for us to reexamine the baggage that unrestrained growth is bringing with it, including its financial costs. Even during a time of prosperity and good moisture, this village can’t afford a new firehouse without passing a tax increase, a stark illustration of the downside of growth. The old argument that growth pays for itself is ludicrous. We should learn from the example of Ruidoso itself; a small village with negligible taxation that grew into a large village with one of the highest tax bills in the state.

Ruidoso as a preferred resort and second home is at risk. Its overall ambience and mystique have always evoked pleasure, tranquility and peace of mind. Its climate, majestic scenery, forest, wildlife, and its unique Noisy River form a legacy that can pay dividends forever, but only if we protect it.

Until now, the long-term prosperity of the village and the county has been based upon one factor – not generic growth, but Ruidoso’s ability to attract and keep retirees and the summer people who own property and spend significant time here. This clientele breaks all the rules and enriches us by paying most of our property taxes while demanding almost nothing in return. They fund our schools but don’t make us educate their children; they pay the salaries of our police but commit no crimes. When they spend, it is new outside money that magnifies as it reverberates through the system. They add to our employment but don’t compete for jobs. Does it make any kind of economic sense to degrade the ambience that brought these people here? At some point, even if our public officials are blind to the threat to the property values of residents, they should somehow find the courtesy to protect our fellow taxpayers who have no vote. To clarify the threat presented by uncontrolled growth, let’s look into the growth lobby’s crystal ball to see what Ruidoso will look like in twenty five years when our population will have doubled.

Traffic, pollution, and congestion will be intolerable. The growth community will demand relief streets to break the gridlock on Sudderth and Mechem, and the mid-town merchants will be livid. There is no way for our water supply to grow with the population, so we will make do with half the water per capita that we consume now. Outdoor watering will be outlawed, and private wells will be brought under regulation and metered. Summer people who remember what the village used to be will drift away, and property values will plummet with their exodus. Zoning and building regulations will be relaxed to attract more growth, and second homes will revert to day rental.

If this scenario sounds too apocalyptic, let the growth promoters join the debate. Let them recall that growth is a dynamic process and watch how it devours water. We will need about 2,000 acre-ft. of new water for twenty-five years of growth, but there is no obvious possibility of finding it. We would like for the growth community to address this. Let them state clearly where that water will come from. Do they have a plan?

August, 2005

Dear Riverkeeper:

2005 is turning out to be a real maverick. After a record breaking run-off this spring, July was one of the driest on record. The summer monsoons have finally come on in mid-August with lots of welcome rain. If flows are only average for the balance of the year, 2005 will still be one of the most prolific years in recorded history for the Rio Ruidoso. Water Director Ken Mosley’s team has done an excellent job of managing the meager water that is given to them and we finish the summer in great shape for the Labor Day onslaught. The storage tanks are 80% full and Grindstone is holding 19 months supply. Even Alto Lake is still contributing from the spring runoff. The question, “Is the drought over?” is still very much on hold.

Due to a number of emergency, temporary, and short-term transfers, the water rights balance in the Rio Ruidoso Basin account at the end of June was 288 acre feet. While it may appear to some as if this balance puts us back in the black, that conclusion quickly fades when one considers there were 16 months left to go in the cycle. 55 acre feet per month is needed to maintain historical production as the Grindstone Dam Treatment Plant even if nothing is taken from the downstream wells. That’s only 7 months worth of rights for the 16 months that are left. “Not to worry,” a member of the beleaguered water team told council members at the July 26 Village Council meeting: “water rights in the Ruidoso Basin “would be available if needed.”

Speaking of water supplies, once again the Ruidoso Village Council was asked last month by the WTF to vote on a very expensive water project ($500,000) with little advance notice and, more importantly, with very little information. The project is a very deep (1,800 feet!) exploratory water well on village land out near the airport. The motion to proceed passed unanimously with very questions. While we are certainly in favor of finding new “wet” water anywhere outside of the Ruidoso Basin to match up with water rights the village already owns (questionable) and earnestly hope they are successful, please be advised that this well is an extremely expensive crap shoot” and that, if successful, will still have a myriad of obstacles to overcome, e.g., 1) more than likely any water found will not be as good as the Hollywood well (same aquifer), 2) it would still have to be piped 12 miles, 3) the water rights the village would hope to transfer to use it are currently not owned, but leased from Capitan, and only until 2010, at which point the cost of this lease will more than likely multiply 4) those rights are subject to minimum flow conditions at the Government Springs gauging station near Lincoln, which, we have been advised, have historically only been met during runoff or flood events, 5) Finally, the proposed transfer would have to be approved over what is sure to be intense protests from downstream users. While we await the results of the initial 8 inch test, we are assuming that the WTF has taken all of these variables into consideration versus other alternatives from an economic, as well as scientific standpoint.

Mention was made in my last letter that the association was sponsoring a seminar in Ruidoso the week of July 17-22 for high-school students and their teachers. We had full attendance with students and teachers from 19 different high schools across the State of New Mexico. The topic of the week was “Water Quality in the Rio Ruidoso,” and the group spent a week here analyzing water quality via field trips all the way from Ski Apache to the waste water treatment plant and presentations from experts all week long. It was a very rewarding event and we thank the New Mexico Environment Department for funding through our Clean Water Act grant. Other sponsors were Los Alamos National Labs and WERC, which is a consortium of New Mexico colleges and universities for environmental education and technology development. It was a huge success. We were proud to be involved. There is nothing more important than teaching kids about healthy water.

Negotiations between Ruidoso/Ruidoso Downs and the EPA on the waste water treatment plant imbroglio continue behind closed doors. It is my current guess that the proffered trade-off proposal (watershed improvements for a less stringent phosphorus limit at the plant) is dying on the vine and that the cities will be forced somehow to expand and upgrade the plant ($25 million). Where the money will come from is the $64,000 question. My guess: grant money and significantly higher fees for all of us. The lesson here is simple: “PLAN AHEAD!”

We have had to cancel the river cleanup party for 2005. When it was originally postponed by strong river flows in May, we looked at the activity schedule for the rest of the summer and thought we could hold it on Saturday, August 27. Subsequent reconsideration has led us to the conclusion that we could not pull it off after all in the midst of all of the tourist activity. Hopefully, we will be back on schedule next May.

Work on erosion control continues up at the Ski Apache Resort. Here is a progress report on the 3 areas of concern: 1) The Deepfreeze Ski Run: a number of erosion control structures have been completed in the streambed which will work to restore the stability of this badly-incised headwaters channel by slowing the water down, coaxing it to meander, and collecting sediment; 2) Another chunk of the parking lot has been paved, bringing the completed portion up to just under half. This will greatly cut down on sediment loading from the previously all gravel parking lot; 3) At the sediment holding pond area we are building a device to divert the river around the pond so that the sediment can be removed and relocated periodically so that it is not pushed downstream during storm events. This structure is expected to be completed before snowfall. After so many fits and starts, it is very `gratifying to see this work underway.

I am enclosing a copy of our new, updated brochure for your information. Thanks again for your continued support. You are the wind beneath our sails. Please check your label for your dues date.

DICK WISNER

February, 2005

Dear Riverkeeper:

Delightedly, the Rio Ruidoso is acting more and more like its noisy old self over the past few months. Flows measured at the USGS gauging station in the Upper Canyon were not only well above average for the last 3 months of 2004, but the months of January and February have delivered the highest flows on record for these two months, save for floods in 1978-79. Steady rain for three days ahead of Valentine’s weekend pushed river flows up to an incredible 200+ cubic feet per second. By way of comparison, January-February flows are normally less than 3 cubic feet per second!

Besides making it characteristically noisy and reminiscent, the high flows for the river are very healthy because they give it a good scouring out. The sediment being pushed out may also indirectly help the nutrient issue (see below), too, because nutrients ride piggy-back on the sediment. Another by-product of the moisture is a wetter, healthier forest, which will make it less prone to fire as that dreadful season approaches. For its part, Ski Apache reports that the skiing is the best EVER!

All of the area’s creeks are now flowing for the first time in years, including Little Creek and Eagle Creek, and lots of other unknown creeks and springs that haven’t flowed in years. With Eagle Creek flowing, the all-important Alto Lake reservoir is finally filling fill up. Not only does this add much needed water to the system from the Eagle Creek Basin itself, but, more importantly, the contribution of that water also allows the waterworks to take matching effluent credit from the Rio Ruidoso. This is critical because the failure of the Eagle Creek Basin to live up to its potential has forced the village to use up all of its basic water rights in the Ruidoso Basin. Unless new water rights are secured in the Ruidoso Basin, diversions from the Ruidoso Basin (river and downstream wells) will be continually be limited to effluent credits based on the Eagle Creek Basin production all the way until November of 2006. This developing scenario really puts the much-ballyhooed North Fork wells on the spot. At the same time that it is reassuring to see the North Fork aquifer filling up so quickly, that very fact also begs the size of the aquifer. With the aforesaid water right restraints on the Rio Ruidoso, Grindstone Lake is going to take some time to fill, which is a shame with the river rushing by like it is.

With respect to those North Fork wells, Ruidoso’s Water Task Force continues to advise the village (and developers) that 5648 acre feet of water "discovered" by the same consultants for a king’s ransom in the North Fork Field in 1984 is still realistic, even though the highest production ever from the field was just over 1000 acre feet in 1999, and the average 14-year average production of the field is only 600 acre feet. In addition, these 5648 acre feet of rights are subject to proof of beneficial use, which is obviously impossible given these production numbers. Meanwhile, it appears as if the WTF "game plan" continues to consist of trying to transfer illusory rights in the North Fork field into wet water in the Ruidoso Basin. Hopefully, a continuation of recent precipitation will continue to replenish the North Fork aquifer on a continuing basis and prove us wrong, but that is a long shot.

Speaking of long-term plans, the Office of the State Engineer has recently agreed with us the Village’s 40-Year Water Plan is "not acceptable." This, to nobody’s surprise, and for many of the same reasons we have been pointing out since the plan was submitted last February (see our analysis at ruidosoriver.com). Although the WTF was dismissive of the rejection, opining that it probably "did not have enough details," the main reason for the rejection was abundantly clear: the OSE wants to see more proof of the sustainable capacity of the village’s stated water supply in the light of the village’s growth projections, adding that it found some statements by the consultants about water supply sources "troubling..."

All of the above begs the question "Is the drought over?" It is far too early to tell, but the last six months have been a Godsend. The bad that may come with the good here is that the WTF will once again think our water crisis is over.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Update: The twin threats of $37,000 fines per day and pulling the discharge permit continue to hang like a sword of Damocles over the villages of Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs as they continue to negotiate with the EPA on a resolution to the phosphorous problem at the jointly-owned Biscuit Hill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The problem, you will recall, is that nuisance algae in the Rio Ruidoso has triggered an almost impossible phosphorous limit on the WWTP’s discharge into the Rio Ruidoso. This new limit can only be attained with outrageously expensive ($25 million) upgrades to the plant. These are far beyond the economic ability of the villages, save huge increases in existing water and sewer rates.

Solutions under consideration range all the way from full compliance to zero discharge, which could be theoretically achieved, we are told, by piping the discharge instead to supposedly-willing Mescalero farms. Both of these options, in our opinion, are non-starters. The first from an economic standpoint, the second from a contractual one.

The more likely solution lies somewhere in the middle. The villages contend, correctly we feel, that the high-cost update to the WWTP will not solve the problem, since test result have shown that the Rio Ruidoso has high levels of phosphorous upstream of the WWTP as well as below it., It would be far more beneficial, they contend, to spend precious dollars in a two-point watershed-wide effort to reduce phosphorous. The first thrust would be to implement far less expensive, but economically feasible, upgrades to the WWTP to attain a much lower phosphorous content. The second would be a holistic plan to identify, limit, and control other upstream sources of nutrient input. Both of these efforts have been offered together as a trade-off to the new low standard at the WWTP. Negotiations have been on-going since January of 2004, when the new standard went into effect. The last meeting between the EPA and the joint owners was Wednesday, February 15, 2005 during which the villages reiterated their "trade-off" proposal, to which the EPA once again "appeared receptive." Meanwhile, in what only adds fuel to the fire, the ambulance-chasing Forest Guardians have filed sued against both villages and the EPA for dragging their collective feet on a resolution. This only means more legal costs, which is the last thing the village needs. Forest Guardians notwithstanding, any kind of resolution still seems months off.

Ski Apache Update: We met recently with the USDA-Forest Forest Service, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, and Ski Apache personnel to make sure that, when the weather permits, we will hit the ground running on the Ski Apache Watershed Restoration Project. Consortium plans for this "working season" are: 1) to complete the diversion and sediment control devices in the holding pond areas at the bottom of the resort by June 30, 2) to build several different prototype erosion control devices in the lower Apache Bowl and Upper Deep Freeze ski run for evaluation, and 3) to pave another ¼ of the parking lot.

River Cleanup: For your information, we are reconsidering the whole format of our Annual River Cleanup Party. Not only have our attendance numbers been falling back over the past several years, but they have also included an increasing number of free-loaders who come to eat, get T-shirts, win prizes, but go home in-between. For now, the tentative schedule date is still Saturday, May 14, but it looks more and more likely that we may push it into back. More on this as decisions are made.

Web Page Update: Take a look at our refreshed and updated webpage at ruidosoriver.com. Our Webmaster has really spruced it up. In time, we hope to make this site our primary source of information.

Check your envelope label to see if your dues are outstanding. Thanks for your continuing support.

Dick Wisner

August, 2004

Dear Riverkeeper:

By far the best news I have to report this month is that, after seemingly endless delays of one kind or another, the restoration work up at Ski Apache is now actually underway! By way of review, there are three specific areas at the resort that are particularly subject to erosion: 1) the Upper Deep Freeze ski run, 2) the parking lot, and 3) the sediment holding ponds. I am delighted to tell you that construction is well underway on a system/structure at the sediment ponds that will contain sediment much more effectively. This project will be operative by the beginning of the ski season. Also, work will begin in the next month on a series of rock structures across the confluence of the Apache Bowl and the Upper Freeze Ski Run that will slow down and diffuse the tremendous amount of run-off that enters Deep Freeze from Apache Bowl during storm events. But wait, there’s more! We are told by Ski Apache personnel that they hope to pave half of the parking lot next year and the other half the year after! Not only will these projects significantly reduce turbidity in the stream, but they will also enable us to finally begin to identify and mitigate the many other sources of sediment loading in the stream.

After barely trickling by in July as a result of little monsoonal activity, but helped by recent August rains, the Rio Ruidoso is back up to about average flows for this time of the year. Year-to-date, the flows are a little above average. Grindstone Dam is holding 970 acre feet of water, which is equivalent to 16 months of supply at historical usage, less if it has to subsidize the Eagle Creek Basin. Although rains over the past week have caused some flow in Eagle Creek, Alto Lake remains virtually empty.

Meanwhile, the water situation in Ruidoso remains critical. The drawdown of the North Fork Wells in the Eagle Creek Basin during the on-going drought has forced the village to depend more and more on the Ruidoso Basin (the Rio Ruidoso and the downstream wells). So much so, in fact, that by late June the city’s rights account in the Ruidoso Basin had dwindled to a precious few with more than 2 years left in the current accounting cycle! A crisis was averted in late July when the Office of the State Engineer granted the village a temporary emergency permit to take more water (about 0.7 cfs) from the Ruidoso Basin based on effluent credits from the pumpage of the North Fork wells. (Effluent credit comes from water that is used, treated, and returned to the stream). The Ruidoso Basin, you will recall, includes not only the surface flow of Rio Ruidoso, but also the prolific downstream wells at Hollywood and Cherokee. Although this emergency permit is a god-send, it is only temporary and, unless amended, it has a fatal flaw: the water 1) must be taken instantaneously with North Fork well production and 2) can only be taken from the surface flow of the Rio Ruidoso. The downstream wells are noticeably not included as points of diversion. What this means is that this water must be taken from the river on a day-to-day basis with North Fork production or the credit is lost. Therefore, not only is this credit dependent upon sufficient flows in the river (>1.5 cfs), but it also brings into play our minimum flow agreement with the village, especially during the upcoming historically low flow winter months, which have historically averaged only 1.5 cfs). In response to this crisis, we have met with village officials and have agreed to an emergency amendment to our low flow agreement (to a minimum of 1.5 cfs from 2.5 cfs) until the crisis passes and/or the downstream wells are added as diversion points. I should also note that this drawn-down and subsequent ruling effectively shuts down the prolific downstream wells until November of 2006 unless the village is able to buy or transfer some additional rights in the basin! It is imperative that village officials/advisors do whatever they have to do to get the downstream wells includes the emergency permit ASAP. Without those wells, if the river dries up, we are only left with the drawn down North Fork.

In our opinion, the new water plan outlook is still far too rosy. We have posted our comments on our web-site at ruidosoriver.com. Have a look. One thing is certain: even if underground water resources are keeping up with population growth, as a preliminary Lincoln County/USGS study tentatively "guessed" last week (don’t bank on it!), the day of reckoning is right around the corner. We must control growth until and unless we buy more wet water rights.

For those of you who want to make more sense out of this area’s biggest problem, water, our own ENMU has once again come up with two new and timely courses to help you. They are Geology 293: "Hydrology," which will study the sources, distribution, movement, and disturbance of surface and groundwater, and Biology 293, "Biological adaptations to the Desert Environment," which will cover issues such as characteristics of desert environments, plants/grass adaptations and fire ecology. Call 257-2120 to sign-up for these informative courses.

WWTP Update: Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs will soon learn the fate of their proposal to the EPA to postpone the implementation of a stricter phosphorous limit on the Biscuit Hill WWTP. A year of independent testing just completed seems to back them up, which concludes "if the plant were taken out of the equation, you would still see…algae." You will recall that it was "the presence of nuisance algae that triggered the stricter standard in the first place. The EPA now advises that an administrative order is imminent that will outline the agency’s response to the proposal.

Our 11^th Annual River Cleanup Party on May 15 was again a success. More than 350 volunteers joined us to remove an estimated 30 cubic yards of debris from the rivers around Ruidoso. This year 131 local businesses donated over $9,000.

Special thanks (!) to those of you who have sent in sizeable donations in past weeks. Thanks also to those of you keeping your dues current. The status of your dues is listed on your mailing label, which shows when your next renewal is due. If there is not a date there, you are either: 1) a major sponsor (S), 2) complimentary (C), 3) a volunteer (RRA), 4) a river cleanup participant or sponsor (RCU), or 5) a memorial beneficiary (MEM). If the top right hand corner is blank, I don’t know your status.

Dick Wisner

April, 2004

Dear Riverkeeper:

I am delighted to report that the noisy river has been noisy again this spring! Supplemented by some much needed, but rare, late spring precipitation, the spring runoff has been both good and, more importantly steady, ever since early March. I personally can’t remember the river roaring by in mid-April, with the forest cool, and the mountain still white!

Despite the sub-par winter snow, the Grindstone System has fooled the doubting Thomas’ still one more time. Voila! Grindstone Reservoir has been filled up to the brim again by tapping the spring runoff efficiently. Approximately 2000 acre feet of water has passed by the diversion since early March and Larry Grasmick and his crew has captured about a third of that and put it into Grindstone Lake. The lake is now holding 1200 acre feet of water, which is a 20-month supply at historic production rates (If the Grindstone System is needed to subsidize the Eagle Creek System, of course, that supply would be reduced faster). The downside to this feat is that the village has used up a majority of its annual water rights in the Ruidoso Basin.

An important point to make here is that, for the 4^th year in a row, despite an on-going drought, the theory of taking water from the river when flows are high (runoff and monsoons), and not cannibalizing the river when flows are low, has worked like a charm. We don’t need to take (or have a right to) all the water that goes by. After all, we have a right to only 10% of the surface flow. Meanwhile, the considerable excess flow we’ve enjoyed this year beyond what the village is able to divert (a max of 8 to 10 cfs) has given the river a good, healthy scouring.

Meanwhile, for the first time in 4 years, Eagle Creek is carrying some water into the village’s other reservoir at Alto Lake. The North Fork wells are still shut down to allow recharge. The Eagle Creek surface flow, incidentally, also increases Ruidoso’s water rights in the Ruidoso Basin.

The late spring precipitation---wet, steady, and slow, with every drop staying very close to where it fell---has also cooled the forest down and pushed back the fire season at least a month.

I’m not a hydrologist, but my guess is that no small amount of the greater than expected runoff this spring is coming from all of that snow that Ski Apache manufactured last winter…. Speaking of Ski Apache, what a fantastic job Denny Grover and his crew did in keeping the resort open all winter! All of us in Ruidoso who profited (or broke even) from this feat are indebted to him.

Meanwhile, negotiations with the EPA to forestall the implementation of cost-prohibitive phosphorous (P) standards on the Biscuit Hill WWTP are continuing. At this point, the Village of Ruidoso and the City of Ruidoso Downs have updated and resubmitted their holistic proposal to reduce P in the whole watershed as a trade-off for less-stringent standards at the plant. It is their contention (and we agree) that the watershed approach would not only be much more cost-effective, but would also be much more likely to improve water quality throughout the watershed.

Finally, a broad-view comment on Ruidoso’s recently completed 40-year water plan. With all due respect, it starts out with the cart in front of the horse. On page 1, it reads "future water supply capability must meet a future resort-style population that is expected to expand to a …26,900 (permanent) persons over the next 40 years (emphasis mine)." Why? And, at what cost? Why is demand the assumption, rather than supply, especially at a time when we are scrambling to find enough "wet" water for only 7,700 people? It seems to me that a responsible "plan" would be to manage growth to the realistically antic