Local programming on KRWG Public Media made possible in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm KC Counts, and it's been 13 years since Texas sued New Mexico and Colorado over its fair share of water from the Rio Grande, which it said was being impacted due to excessive groundwater pumping for agricultural purposes, mainly in southern New Mexico.

Interstate Stream Commission Director Hannah Riseley-White joins us to explain the deal, why it took so long to get to this point and what comes next for stakeholders in the region.

Hannah, thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for having me KC.

And before we dive into the water here, KRWG Multimedia Journalist, Noah Raess took a dip to help put the topic in perspective.

Rafael Rovirosa has deep roots in southern New Mexico.

His family has been farming in the area since before 1925, and he currently works as the vice president at Stahmann Farms, helping to oversee one of the largest pecan businesses in the world.

Oh, it means a lot to me.

This is where I grew up.

This is all I've, and all I've known for for my entire life.

I've lived in other places before, but I always come back, and this is where I'm going to spend the rest of my life.

But for over the last decade, his farming operation and many others like it has been watching a lawsuit making its way through the court system.

In 2013, Texas sued New Mexico, alleging that the state was pumping too much water out of the ground in breaking a nearly eight decades old compact.

After journeying all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a settlement was reached in May of 2026.

The settlement includes creating an index for how much water New Mexico has to deliver to Texas, letting New Mexico keep 57% of the water from the Rio Grande project, and having the state of New Mexico buy groundwater pumping rights from voluntary settlers totaling 18,200 acre feet of water over ten years in the lower Rio Grande.

One acre foot is roughly 325,000 gallons of water.

Rovirosa said that he is glad that there is now certainty around water, but says that there will be some negative effects for the ag community.

Yeah, there's there's definitely going to be an impact on the ag community.

That 18,200 acre feet.

It can come out of other uses.

It almost certainly won't because they won't be willing to sell for the prices that they're offering.

It's almost all going to be farmers that are willing to take that price.

As far as the index goes, when things are in medium or dry conditions, more water is going to go to Texas.

The process of the state buying groundwater rights is still in the beginning stages, but Ryan Serrano, Lower Rio Grande bureau chief for the interstate Stream Commission, said that there is a lot of flexibility in which type of groundwater rights the state can buy.

Serrano also said that the 18,200 acre feet of water seems like a lot of water, but it only makes up a fraction of all water use.

When we're comparing the 18,200 acre foot requirement, you know you can think of that as the equivalent of roughly 6% reduction in current diversion amounts on top of the 18,200 acre feet requirement.

The state may also have to cut more groundwater pumping if there are poor hydrologic conditions in the area.

If a volunteer purchase program does not produce enough sellers, other options are being negotiated.

Local water users have the ability to establish, shortage sharing plans or alternative administration plans, and those are locally based solutions for limiting, depletions in those hard times, as opposed to heavy handed, government intervention.

If you look at the recent flows of the river and what is sustainable, for the lower Rio Grande in New Mexico, it's a much smaller number than has been pumped historically.

Norm Gaume, former director of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and president of New Mexico Water Advocates, says that this will have much more of a major impact on the area's water supply.

You know, if you assume that things are going to continue, if I say things, if the water supply is the same as it has been for, say, the last two decades, we have to make huge cuts if it's worse than the last two decades.

And who says it's going to be any better than those cuts become really severe.

Gaume says that how the region uses water is partially responsible for how the lawsuit came about.

He says that under the Richardson administration in New Mexico, pecan farms exploded in the lower Rio Grande and received a special water right, receiving nearly five acre feet of water a year.

Today, pecans make up around 40,000 acres of farmland in the area.

This, combined with population growth in the area and a long lasting drought, led to more groundwater pumping at what he says is an unsustainable rate.

Frankly, I don't know how these issues could have been settled without the litigation, but now they have been their final and we have an unbelievably difficult task to get things back in balance.

However, Rovirosa says to pin the blame on pecans for the lawsuit and less water is an oversimplification.

He says that many others pump groundwater in the area as well.

Yet, to say that it's pecan trees that are making it so that we don't have enough water in the region is a false assertion.

Pecans.

Agriculture has been using the same amount of water in the region since the 1970s.

We haven't increased even though we've planted more countries.

The amount of water we use stayed the same.

The reason we don't have water in the region is because it hasn't been snowing as much in the mountains since the early 2000.

And because it's gotten hotter, that's why.

Negotiations regarding the settlement are still ongoing.

For KRWG Public Media, I'm Noah Raess.

Our thanks to Noah, and to Interstate Stream Commission Director Hannah Riseley-White, who could further explain the settlement and what it means for us here in southern New Mexico and West Texas.

So let's dive into the topic now.

Thank you for joining us once again, and maybe you can start by talking about the lawsuit itself, why did Texas sue over water?

Thank you KC.

Texas sued New Mexico in 2013, claiming that groundwater pumping in the lower Rio Grande was intercepting surface water deliveries to Texas.

And since that time, we've spent tremendous resources across all of the states and multiple parties, in US Supreme Court litigation.

So we're very pleased to be in this moment of time, settling this lawsuit and moving forward to investing resources in solutions on the ground.

At the time, can you put into perspective how bad the problem was or how much less water Texas was getting than it was supposed to be getting?

One of the challenges with the Rio Grande Compact, which, as you know, was signed in 1938, is it left open the question of what happens below Elephant Butte reservoir, both in terms of the apportionment of surface water between New Mexicans using water below the reservoir and Texas, and with regards to groundwater pumping and the implications of groundwater pumping in the lower Rio Grande.

And so one of the benefits of this settlement is that it clarifies both of those points.

It provides certainty in terms of the apportionment of surface water, and it protects significant groundwater pumping for New Mexicans below Elephant Butte reservoir, resolving those pieces of the compact that weren't weren't clarified in 1938.

Talk about how groundwater pumping affects the water coming down from the Rio Grande.

Absolutely, actually, New Mexico was the first state in the nation to manage surface water and groundwater conjunctively.

So there's a relationship between surface water and groundwater when they're connected.

And in most stream systems in New Mexico, you have groundwater systems, that are recharged by the surface water, but also groundwater pumping can deplete the aquifers such that the stream systems lose water to the groundwater.

And so the claim from Texas was that pumping groundwater pumping in the lower Rio Grande was depleting the aquifer significantly enough to reduce surface water flows to the state line.

So let's talk about, just for a moment, the complexity of water policy, all of the different interests that are involved and how they're governed.

Sure, I mean, this case and resolving this case involved literally hundreds of hours and millions and millions of dollars of resources amongst the three states, the federal government and numerous parties that intervened in the case, including major stakeholder groups in New Mexico and Texas.

So a significant investment, a significant fight amongst all of those parties and then a significant investment in the resolution, of this case, and I should say resolving the case, it's complicated.

It involved five separate agreements, each of which in different forums with different parties.

And the resolution couldn't have happened without all five of those agreements in parallel.

So its a little bit of a complicated settlement to explain.

We're very much looking forward to being in the lower Rio Grande later this fall with some open house information sessions, and we'll get the word out, and hopefully you all can help to invite people to come and learn more about the settlement at those events.

Happy to do it.

So it's starting to become more clear, with so many stakeholders and multiple agreements, why it may have taken 13 years to get to this point.

Maybe you can tell us about some of those points of contention along the way, and why it did take so long?

Yeah, I mean, I think water, water is highly contentious, particularly in the West.

And water will continue to be highly contentious as we face increasing water scarcity due to climate change.

And so for everyone involved, what was at stake was huge for their communities.

And therefore reaching resolution needed to make sense to all the parties involved.

And I want to be clear, we see this settlement as a real win for New Mexico.

It also means that there's significant work ahead, including one of the commitments that the state has made through the settlement is to develop a lower Rio Grande water management plan over the next two years with stakeholder input.

And I think that plan is really where we together with local water users, will craft our own destiny in terms of the future of the region.

And that will involve additional significant effort.

So, you know, we were in conflict, and now we've resolved that conflict.

But there are major pieces of work to do to determine how New Mexico will meet its obligations, including both crafting that plan, but then also, significantly, we have a new state line delivery obligation.

So New Mexico will still have an obligation to deliver water to Elephant Butte Reservoir.

And there's significant effort underway in the Middle Valley, at the state level, and with our partners to increase deliveries to Elephant Butte.

And then also, there's a commitment by the state through this agreement to reduce groundwater depletions through a water rights acquisition program that we're, kicking off later this year.

Okay, so talk about that water rights acquisition program, because that was something I think a lot of people are wondering about.

Will they continue to have their water rights and what does the future look like?

The good thing about this settlement is that it protects, water rights and it protects New Mexico's use of groundwater.

It also gets more surface water back to New Mexico through the way that the Rio Grande project is operated, but it does require us to reduce groundwater depletions by 18,200 acre feet, which is about 6% of current groundwater annual groundwater depletions in the lower Rio Grande.

So it's not insignificant, but it allows us to protect all of that remaining groundwater pumping, which was at the heart of the issue, and was something that the United States in particular took issue with in the last part of the litigation was really the three states fighting with the federal government over this specific issue.

So we're pleased that we've protected significant groundwater pumping for New Mexico.

But we have committed through this settlement to acquire water rights through voluntary acquisitions.

So there will be no seizing of anyone's rights, over the next ten years.

So we're also glad that we have time to execute those purchases.

Now, obviously, the sooner we can get those purchases in place, the better in terms of cost, obviously prices continue to increase.

And probably our acquisitions will have some impacts on that, but also because those acquisitions will support New Mexico and meeting that state line delivery requirement.

So we are pleased to say we also have secured $40 million in federal funding to support the first round of those acquisitions.

And we're working closely with our partners at the US Bureau of Reclamation to implement this purchase program.

But it will be voluntary acquisitions of water rights.

And those water rights can come from agriculture or from other sectors.

we just have to meet our requirement.

Ultimately, of the 18,200 acre feet of reduced depletions.

Any idea what someone's water rights would be worth?

Well, we're in the process of completing an updated market study.

We've been using market data to inform, leasing program that we've run over the last five or more years.

That leasing program has allowed farmers to participate in single year, two year or three year leases to the state for payment.

And so weve that's been informed by market studies, that updated market study will be released as part of the solicitation that we're mounting for, for the acquisition program.

And prices really range throughout the basin, depending on where you're where you're looking at.

I should also emphasize that the state's plan, is to purchase just the groundwater, not the land itself.

And that means that we need to invest in supporting communities and transitioning that land so that it remains viable for the communities that that live in those areas.

What are the federal interests here?

The federal government was, is interest, is interest, is largely related to their operation of the Rio Grande project.

So they they own Elephant Butte reservoir, and they operate the project to the to the benefit of the two irrigation districts, one in New Mexico and one in Texas that are served by that project.

And so they intervened in the litigation in interest of protecting the project.

And they had concerns about groundwater pumping.

And that was sort of, as I mentioned, the crux of the last, last leg of the litigation was resolving those concerns from the United States.

So let's talk about I've heard multiple people say that it's a win for New Mexico.

Why would you say that It's a win for New Mexico?

I think it's a win for New Mexico because number one, it protects significant groundwater pumping.

The case that the US was putting on in the US Supreme Court was proposing to limit New Mexico to the groundwater pumping that occurred in 1938 when the compact was signed, that would have essentially shut off almost all groundwater pumping in the lower Rio Grande which would have had catastrophe, catastrophe for our local economy, including our assessment, is that this settlement protects over $125 million a year in annual revenue generated through pumping of groundwater, largely for, for agricultural purposes in the lower Rio Grande.

So if they had won, in the court, if we had gone to trial and won in the court, we would be looking at a completely different future for the region, including largely shutting down groundwater use.

Yeah, that's a, that, that's a, an unimaginable thought I think.

So talk about the planning over the next two years.

And who's going to be at the table to decide how we move forward?

Our plan is to engage first all of the major water users themselves.

And we're in a process, of engaging with them right now in crafting what's called alternative administration.

And then to engage with all of the public, provide an opportunity for every single stakeholder in the lower Rio Grande to engage in crafting of the plan that I mentioned earlier.

And one of the other reasons we see this settlement as a win is that it really not only protects the groundwater pumping as I just mentioned, but it also allows New Mexico to retain control of how we manage water in the lower Rio Grande and provides an opportunity for stakeholders to engage in that process.

And I can't emphasize enough how important engaging in that process is going to be.

I think the decisions that we make, together as communities over the next couple of years have the potential to have implications for generations to come.

And I also want to emphasize we are facing some of the most dire hydrologic conditions that we've ever seen.

In the past year, we've had record breaking low snowpack, record breaking high temperatures.

As we sit here today, almost half of the Rio Grande day between Cochiti and Elephant Butte Reservoir is dry, literally dry riverbed.

And so we're going to have to get super creative about how we use an increasingly limited water supply.

And that's relevant for the lower Rio Grande, but it's relevant for the entire state.

And so we're very much looking to engage New Mexicans across the state, but in particular on on the lower Rio Grande, given given the settlement and what that water planning effort looks like and how we need to to manage our water looking into increasing water scarcity in the future.

One of the things we haven't touched on yet is Colorado's role in all this, where, where the river begins, What role will they play in moving forward, if any?

I mean, I think one of the things we hear a lot at Interstate Stream Commission is, why do we have to comply with these compacts?

Like who cares?

Well, first of all, it's federal law, and in New Mexico, meeting our compact deliveries on the Rio Grande basically will be the highest priority above any other water use, with the single exception of tribal, tribal water on the Rio Grande is exempted from those, compact requirements.

So, first of all, we have to meet our requirements.

Second of all, we rely on Colorado meeting their requirements, so they're required to deliver water to us in New Mexico.

That's water that's relied upon throughout the basin.

So they will have a continued role in terms of the compact in meeting their compact deliveries.

And they do significant water rates administration to meet those deliveries.

But I think they, like we and like Texas, we're very invested in protecting state autonomy and water management, and preventing the federal government from dictating how we manage water in our states.

And so they also are very pleased with this outcome.

And can we talk a little bit about Mexico's interests at this point?

I believe, policy there is governed to mainly by treaty, right?

Correct, and I'm glad you raised that because the we also have obligations to Mexico.

And so it'll this settlement helps provide certainty in terms of those deliveries to Mexico as well.

All right, and with a little bit of time we have left, maybe you can talk about what sense we might have at this point of the future of agriculture and some of the solutions that are possibilities at this point.

I would say, in my experience working with agricultural communities, I am super impressed with how intelligent they are.

And using increasingly limited supplies, how creative they are in terms of finding solutions.

We see, farmers in the lower Rio Grande as significant partners in the work ahead and we see them as, and the city of Las Cruces, as well as all the other users, as the folks who really need to drive the solutions.

Those water users on the ground know their systems better than anyone.

And so it's critical for us at the state to be listening to them, understanding their interests and crafting together and investing together in the solutions that will protect their economies and future generations in the lower Rio Grande.

Alright.

Interstate Stream Commission Director Hannah Riseley White, thank you so much for joining us and putting this very complicated issue in perspective.

Thank you so much for having me.

And we'll continue this conversation.

Thursday, July 23rd at 1 p.m.

on Voice of The Public on KRWG FM.

And you'll have a chance to call in with your questions.

I hope you'll join us.

Joining us now is KRWG Public Media Membership Coordinator, Liz Liano, who's been speaking with the Las Cruces Mayor's Top Teens.

In this segment, we hear from Centennial High Schools, Amy Sheen.

Hi.

Welcome to Mayor's Top Teens.

I'm Liz Liano, and we're going to be talking with Amy Sheen.

Amy, welcome and congratulations on being a Mayor's Top Teen.

It's an honor.

Well, it's so great to have you here today.

Thank you.

So we'd love to know a little bit about you.

What are some of your activities and some of the things that have got you into being Mayor's Top Teen?

So at school I'm currently the president of HOSA its Health Occupations Students of America, and I also partake in MESA, Science Olympiad.

I'm in National Honor Society.

And, you know, outside of school, I'm in track and field.

I rock climb a lot as a hobby and I do puzzles.

I'm also an altar server at my church up in El Paso, because we have a little Korean community up there.

So over the weekends, I also help the elderly, you know, take them to the doctor's appointments, help them translate, you know, into English.

And, yeah.

Wow, that is quite a list.

Oh my goodness.

Okay, so, you do a lot of activities in your school.

You said you do HOSA and the Science Olympiad, right?

I do.

So what does, HOSA consist of?

What is that?

So a HOSA is primarily, health occupations.

So I went into it thinking I wanted it to focus on the dental dentistry in my future.

But because HOSA offers such a wide variety of all the medical fields I dabbled into, you know, nursing, which is hopefully what I'm going to major in now.

So we do competitions, regionals, state, and internationals actually.

Last year internationals at Nashville and it was very fun.

I built a lot of friendships over HOSA and yeah, I think that solidified my future career.

And what is your future career you want to do?

Nursing.

I would love to major in nursing.

Wonderful, wonderful.

And do you have an idea, what do you want to specialize in something as a nurse?

Yes, I've been looking into the CRNA programs, but however, it's a very long route.

And to before becoming a CRNA, you have to be into like an ICU nurse first and you have to go back into grad school, but long way, but very hopefull.

Can you school me what, what is CRNA?

CRNA is a nursing in specialties in anesthesiology.

So you just aid the anesthesiologist.

And, you know, it's more primarily in the surgical field.

Oh.

Yes.

WowWow Wow.

That sounds pretty up there.

Yes.

But that's your aspiration?

Okay cool.

And you also said you do the Science Olympiad?

I do.

And is that also dovetail that interest?

Yes, so, Science Olympiad is a lot more broader.

They have engineering, astronomy, I primarily focused on anatomy and physiology.

And I dabbled in some code busters.

I did a lot of computer science classes in school.

So that helped a lot as well.

Very cool.

Wow.

Such diverse scientific interests.

Very cool.

And you also do a lot of community service.

You said you, participate at your church.

Yes.

Cool.

So, Amy, what school do you want to end up going to?

I did apply, Oh, like, everywhere, though.

I did it like the West coast, the East coast.

But my sister goes in the East coast, at Boston College.

So hopefully around there.

If not, I would love to live in Texas as well.

Wonderful.

I'm sure living near your family is always nice.

It is.

Great.

And, let's see, and you want to study to be a nurse?

Yes.

Fantastic, well, it sounds like you've got a lot to keep you busy in the mean time.

For sure.

Wonderful.

Well, I want to congratulate you Well, I want to congratulate you again Amy for being a Mayors Top Teen.

Thank you.

Thanks to Liz and Amy, and thank you for watching and for supporting local programming like this.

You can watch episodes of all our local programs at KRWG.org, where you can also sign up to receive the award winning Friday News Wrap, our weekly newsletter that helps you catch up on our local coverage for the week from KRWG Public Media.