February-March, 2007

Dear Riverkeeper:                                                                           

It has been some time since my last missive and for that I apologize.  I wish I could say that there has been no news, but as you will see, that would be far from the truth.   

First, the obvious good news.  Due to historical monsoonal activity last summer, river flows in the Rio Ruidoso for 2006 were the second highest ever at 15,434 acre feet.   Only 1978, aided by damaging floods, was higher at 17,003 a/f.   The average is 6,700 a/f.

That, coupled with a somewhat late, but prolific, snow season (153 inches so far at Ski Apache), should have our aquifers and reservoirs bulging this spring.  All creeks are flowing, including some that only the natives can remember.     It also makes the upcoming fire season a little less threatening.

It would be nice if all of that water were ours to use as we saw fit, but alas, it is not.  Despite the largess, we are still constrained by our water rights and where they are located.   By our calculations, supply and demand are currently about equal.  Ruidoso simply has to find more supply.   To this end the village (VOR) is continuing to acquire more water rights in the Ruidoso Basin and has filed applications to buy or lease an additional 300 a/f per annum to add to the 625 a/f VOR already has.   All of these transfers are on hold, though, pending the resolution of protests filed by downstream users.    As a result of these purchases, a real donnybrook is shaping up in the Hondo Valley with property rights proponents on one side and historical acequias (irrigation ditches) on the other.  By ownership, water rights appear to be equally divided.  

At the same time that the VOR is trying to acquire new water rights in the Ruidoso Basin (where there’s lot of wet water), it is in jeopardy of losing a bunch in the Eagle Creek Basin (where there’s not much wet water).  This, because last September the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) denied the village’s routine request for more time to “prove out” the difference between the 5,648 a/f it is claiming in the North Fork and the most it has ever produced there, 1,200 a/f in 1999.   The VOR has understandably appealed the denial and the OSE has set the decision aside pending a hearing.  What this amounts to is that the jury is out on essentially up to half of the village’s claimed water rights, which is, in turn, the basis for a sophomoric growth scenario.    In truth, it appears that the VOR will have trouble making its case since the beneficial use provision allows 40 years to put water already found to beneficial use, not to stake a claim and then get 40 years to find it.  At any rate, this hearing should shed some light on the long-standing argument about how much wet water is really there.    Please be advised that if VOR does lose some water rights in the North Fork, it will not really lose any wet water because it was never there.   What an upholding of the denial would do, though, is drop a big wrench into the growth-friendly 40-year water plan.       

VOR has also drilled exploratory wells at the airport and off of Ski Run Road.   We await definitive water quality tests on both wells.  Rumor has it that the Ski Run Road well has encountered geothermal water, which, if true, may indicate a new pocket of water (good), but it would not be rechargeable (bad).   At any rate, both wells would require the transfer of water rights with all of the problems that entails.   One assumes that if either pans out, the VOR will try to transfer some unproven North Fork rights to these wells.  

As for other sources, the cheapest “new” water available by far continues to be the already-treated water that leaks out of the system before it gets to your faucet.  Based on village records, Ben Mason estimates that such leakage accounts for 675 a/f per year (fully 1/3 of the water we treat!) and costs $700,000 to produce!   Although fixing the leaks appears to be a no-brainer, it really isn’t a no brainer  because nobody knows where the leaks are!   As Ben said in a recent letter to the Mayor and Councilors, “If we could find and fix only half of them, we can ‘acquire’ 300 a/f of water per year with no flow restrictions, no long-lasting litigation, no environmental problems, not even any treatment costs; perhaps best of all, full ownership of the recovered water rather than the tyranny of leasing.”   We await the hire of a specialized engineer to find the leaks.

Concerns about water and growth by an increasing number of the citizenry spawned initiatives last fall for a “time-out.”  Although these initiatives were dutifully suffered and given a day in court by village officials, they have subsequently been consigned to the dark hole of task forces.

For lack of any progress at all, the work one of these, the proposed water task force, appears to have been pre-empted by a Sandia National Laboratory project which will be comprised of all stakeholders in the county and which will develop a computer water model through which different development scenarios could be compared.   The first input to the model will be, of course, the $64,000 question: “How much water do we really have (or will we have) to divvy up?”   Although this model will take up to 3 years to complete, it does promise a realistic assessment that is above politics with the imprimatur of a highly-respected institution.

As you know, we have spoken out against large-scale developments along the river in midtown.   We have done so primarily because of the economics of the water situation, but also because, unless handled very carefully, these developments are serious threats to the heath of our golden goose without municipal ordinance oversight, which we do not yet have.   Both of the new developments on Eagle Drive do promise a river trail component (as does River Crossing), but all appear to be inadequate and ill-defined.   For the record, the river trail we envision is not that of San Antonio, Texas nor is our vision of downtown that of Branson, Missouri.   Some disagree, of course.

The 13^th Annual River Cleanup Party will be on Saturday, June 9.

Finally, an update on some of the projects we are working on:

Ski Apache Restoration:    As you know, we have been trying for years to work with the Mescalero Apache Tribe (MAT) and the Forest Service (USDA-FS) to control sediment loading at the resort.  This, because it eventually works its way down and muddies our water, which is not only unsightly, but also plays havoc with our high-quality cold water fishery.   After any number of fits and starts, we (the RRA, the MAT, and the USDA) finally began installing structures to this end in the summer of 2005.   For one reason or another, most of these structures were blown out in last summer’s monsoons.  We met once again last week with Ski Apache personnel and are again hopeful that we can finish this summer.   This project will cost $150,000 (Clean Water Act (CWA) grant).

Two Rivers Park:    This restoration project is aimed at rehabbing the Rio Ruidoso back to a properly functioning condition as it winds through Two Rivers Park behind the Chamber of Commerce.   We will do this by stabilizing badly eroding stream banks, by inducing meandering, and by planting native vegetation, etc.  This will create pools and spawning areas.   Once the river is functioning properly, we then intend to use the area as an interpretive center.   This segment of the river will become an important part of the long-awaited river trail.  This is a $50,000 project (CWA).   

Upper Canyon Thinning:   This is a fuels reduction (forest thinning) project to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in the cabin area just inside of tribal lands at the top of the Upper Canyon.    We are partnering with MAT on this project, which also includes an interesting beaver reintroduction component.   Over 200 acres has been cleared so far, with 350 more acres on tap for the spring of 2008.   This is, in total, a $350,000 project (CWA grant).

New Middle School Wetlands:   Your association has joined with a host of others in putting together a grant proposal to prepare the municipal and USFS lands around the new middle school off of Warrior Drive for an educational demonstration forest to enhance existing and incubating Natural Resource Programs within the municipal school district and Eastern New Mexico University.   If the proposal is funded, the RRA will manage the restoration of the creek and wetlands along the north side of Warrior Drive ($50,000).

Jr. High Gifted Class:   Your association is partnering with teacher Beverly Peterson at the Ruidoso Middle School to provide monitoring equipment and guest speakers for a river curriculum in a class of gifted students.   

River Raccoons Day Care Center:    We have designed, and will soon build, a small model of the Rio Ruidoso watershed on the campus of the River Raccoons Day Care Center which will demonstrate, with real water, how a watershed works.

Please be advised that our office has moved across the street to 2819 Sudderth.  Lastly, please check your dues date on the mailing label.    Thanks.  

Dick Wisner    

                               Rio Ruidoso River Flows

              Highest Years                                     Lowest years

1978         17,003 acre feet                 1964              1,257 acre feet

2006         15,434 acre feet                 1956              1,512 acre feet

1974         14,260 acre feet                 1854              1,878 acre feet

1979         12,262 acre feet                 1959              1,943 acre feet

1958         11,783 acre feet                 1961              2,242 acre feet

2005         11,468 acre feet                 2002              2,718 acre feet

1962         10,658 acre feet                 1970              3,062 acre feet

1966           9,880 acre feet                 2000              3,080 acre feet

                              Average Year---- 6,700 acre feet

New Water Purchases

February 19, 2007

The Honorable Mayor and Council

Village of Ruidoso

313 Cree Meadows Dr.

Ruidoso, NM 88345

Dear Friends:

The purpose of this letter is to express our concern about leakage and loss of treated water from the Ruidoso piping network, which  apparently leaks or otherwise loses a third of all production every year.   Our secure water supply will be increased by something over 300 acre-ft. per year if we can save half of that.  Since the lost water has already been fully processed for delivery to customers, it represents a substantial financial loss as well.  Based on the 2003 audited village financial statement (the latest in our files),  the lost water costs the village over $700,000 per year to produce and treat.  This estimate is based upon operating expense and personnel and does not include billing department expenses or capital outlays.

We know that you are aware that a problem exists, but we also know that two counter arguments have been put forward that blunt the sense of urgency  which we attach to leakage control.  The first says, in effect, that the problem is not that severe.  Instead of our calculation of 33% loss, far lower figures are cited.  The second argument says that the village is dealing with the problem and has already replaced many miles of defective or inadequate pipeline.  The situation is under control, so don’t worry.

The first argument is difficult to respond to because we do not know the source of the lower leakage figures.  The data in the table above comes directly from the village water department, and to the best of our knowledge, they comprise the only valid statistics on system leaks and losses.  We have merely converted regular monthly data to annual and gallons to acre-ft.

Every month, Ruidoso’s water utility issues a report showing its total production and a detailed listing of where the treated water went – metered customer usage, filter backwash, line flushing, village use, and project use.  Known or estimated losses are listed as “Main Breaks and Repairs”.  Separately, “Unaccounted  Water” is the final remainder after subtracting all known or estimated usage (including Main Breaks) from the total production.  Unaccounted water is a catch-all of hidden leaks, meter error, and any other loss.  We term the sum of main breaks and unaccounted water “Leakage and Loss” in the accompanying table.

With regard to the second argument – that our leakage and loss problem is already being addressed and solved – our answer is that the ten-year record shows that nothing has been solved.  Year in and year out, we lose a third of all of the water that we produce and treat.  We understand that much of the line replacement in recent years (aside from the Mechem upgrade) has been the rehabilitation of subdivision piping by replacement of  2-inch galvanized lines with

6-inch PVC.  That was absolutely necessary since 2-inch piping cannot support fire hydrants.  Moreover, in the case of old galvanized piping, incrustation was a more important problem than leakage.  In some cases, the capacity of old 2-inch pipe has been reduced to that of ¾-inch line.  In brief, our recent pipe replacement programs have addressed (and cured) problems almost wholly unrelated to leakage.

If our information and our reasoning are correct, control of leakage and loss of treated water is far and away the most  promising source of “new” water that the village can pursue.   There is nowhere else that we can acquire 300 acre-ft. of water per year that has no Hollywood Gage restrictions, no never-ending litigation and no risk of an adverse court decision; no environmental problems, not even any treatment costs; perhaps best of all, full ownership of the recovered water rather than the tyranny of leasing. 

Naturally, there is a cost.  The village will have to employ a specialist engineering firm that has the leak detection equipment, the isolation and metering technology, and the knowhow  to do the job.  And we should expect expensive excavation for pipe replacement or repair.  Truly solving the leakage problem will require a permanent program of surveillance and line replacement.

All in all, however, the economics look overwhelmingly favorable.  As noted above, we are already paying almost three quarters of a million dollars a year to treat water that is subsequently lost, hence recovered water  will require no new treatment supplies, facilities, pumping, or manpower. 

Finally, it should be well understood that Ruidoso’s high leakage and loss rate is not the fault of the operating management and  personnel.  They play the hand that was dealt them – a system that was put into the ground long ago. The loss sources within their control have been soundly managed in recent years: backwash and line flush have been halved, and response to breaks has been rapid.  Obviously, department management does not have the authority to institute the costly long-term leak control program needed, and the subject has never been assigned a high priority by our recent water planners.

The Ruidoso River Association hopes that you will give this memorandum your most serious consideration, and if you agree with our conclusions, that you will take action.  We would like very much to discuss this with you if you have any questions.

 Yours very truly,

For the Ruidoso River Association

            Dick Wisner

            Ben Mason