Opinion: NM needs to think about water plan

For the past five decades or longer, the state Legislature has been planning for what we will do when the oil runs out. We’ve set up permanent funds to ensure we’ll be able to keep our schools open and provide other essential services, tucking away money that is not needed now.

We haven’t planned nearly as well for the depletion of an even more precious resource — water.

The state didn’t even have a water plan until 1987, and the one drafted that year led more to regional competition than conservation. Many of the plans submitted to the Interstate Stream Commission projected increased usage, often coming at the expense of neighboring districts.

Recent legislation gives the state a new, and perhaps final opportunity to prepare for the hotter, drier conditions that are already here.

The Water Security Planning Act is intended to bring new rigor to the water planning process. According to the ISC, the act “integrates the best available science and data, including the New Mexico Water Data Initiative, to guide regional water planning in New Mexico, ensuring transparency, objectivity and professionalism.” 

Before establishing new rules, the ISC will gather public input from residents throughout the state.

Information on that can be found at mainstreamnm.org .

While improved planning is long overdue, no plan is going to bring more water to our parched state.

According to State Climatologist Dave DuBois, the evaporation rate at Elephant Butte Reservoir is 8 inches for every 1-degree Celsius increase in the temperature. He predicts the Four Corners snowpack that feeds our lakes and rivers will decline substantially by the year 2070 and that our overall water supply will decrease by half in the next century.

We talk a lot in New Mexico about how much we value water. More precious than gold, we say. But the crass truth is, we value things based on price, and water is cheap.

The city of Las Cruces charges $13.60 for the first 3,000 gallons. You can get more than 23,000 gallons for another $5.23. To be clear, municipal water use is not the problem and I’m not calling for increased rates on residents. It’s only about 15% of our overall usage. And, we’ve done a pretty good job cutting back. You hardly ever see sprinklers watering sidewalks anymore. But, we can’t solve this with low-flow toilets.

The hard decisions are going to have to come where the water is being used, and that’s in agriculture.

While municipal use has remained flat, agricultural pumping has increased out of necessity to compensate for our lack of rain.

Will crops that require flood irrigation be sustainable in the future? If not, how can we help farmers transition to crops that use less water?

Any water plan we make now will be subject to the pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling on claims made by Texas alleging lack of required delivery. But it’s clear that we need to start treating water like a limited resource and prioritizing for the future.

Walt Rubel is the former opinion page editor of the Las Cruces Sun-News. He lives in Las Cruces, and can be reached at:

[email protected]