ALAMOGORDO 

REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

VOLUME 2 --APPENDICIES

PREPARED BY

BLM

BLM

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Las Cruces District Office

1800 Marquess Street

Las Cruces NM 88005

August 2010
APPENDIX A

NMOSE 2005 Report
1

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY ) 

CITY OF ALAMOGORDO FOR PERMIT TO ) Hearing No. 02-035 

APPROPRIATE UNDERGROUND WATERS ) 

FROM THE SHALLOW AQUIFER LOCATED) OSE File No. T-3825 thru 

IN THE TULAROSA BASIN OF NEW MEXICO) T-3825-S-9 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE HEARING EXAMINER

This matter came on for hearing before Victor Kovach, the State Engineer's 

designated Hearing Examiner, on October 14 through 17 and October 20 through 24, 2003, 

in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The parties appeared as follows: James C. Brockmann, Esq., 

and Jay F. Stein, Esq., represented Applicant City of Alamogordo; Jeffrey L. Fornaciari, 

Esq., and Paula M. Buchwald, Esq., represented Protestants HFR Corporation (HFR) and 

Three Rivers Cattle Ltd Co. (Three Rivers); A. J. Olsen, Esq., represented Protestants 

David & Julia M. Christopher (Christophers); Peter T. White, Esq., represented Protestants 

Dan C. Abercrombie, Elsie I. Bailey, David Rankin, Laymon Hightower (Tularosa Farms), 

Allen “Bill” Trammell, Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation, and Cates Farms (referred to 

 collectively as “Tularosa Protestants”); and William D. Teel, Esq., represented the Water 

Resources Allocation Program (a.k.a. Water Rights Division) of the Office of the State 

Engineer (OSE). Jefferson R. Rhodes, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Village of Tularosa 

on October 14, 2003, and, prior to the presentation of witnesses, the protest of the Village 

of Tularosa was voluntarily withdrawn and it was dismissed from the proceedings. Having 

considered the evidence and pleadings submitted in this matter, the Hearing Examiner 

recommends the following findings and order. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The State Engineer has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter. 

2. On September 6, 2000, and in January 2002, the City of Alamogordo (hereinafter 

“City”) filed ten Applications numbered T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9 with the State 
2

Engineer for Permit to Appropriate the Underground Waters of the Tularosa 

Underground Water Basin of New Mexico. Notice for Publication of the Applications 

was issued on February 1, 2002. The Applications and Legal Notice filed in this 

matter, reflect that the City proposes to drill ten wells for a diversion of 1,500 acrefeet per year (afy) per well, with the combined diversion from all ten wells not to 

exceed 13,450 afy, and to desalinate and treat the water for use for municipal, 

industrial or commercial purposes in Otero County, New Mexico, by all water 

systems or operations in the County that wish to participate in the program and 

purchase bulk water. The proposed well-field would be located on property owned 

by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

approximately 8.5 to 11 miles north of Tularosa, New Mexico and east of Highway 

54 at sites described by New Mexico Principle Meridian (NMPM) coordinates, as 

follows:

Well No. Subdivision Section Township Range

T-3825 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

T-3825-S SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 31 12 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-2 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 31 12 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-3 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 35 12 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-4 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 35 12 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-5 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 6 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-6 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 7 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-7 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 7 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-8 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-9 NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

An Affidavit of Publication was filed on March 11, 2002.

3. Protests objecting to the granting of the Application were filed by HFR Corporation, 

Three Rivers Cattle Ltd Co., Cates Farm, David & Julia Christopher, Dan C. 

Abercrombie, Robert Baca, Elsie I. Bailey, David Rankin, Tularosa Farms, 

Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration Corporation (SMWRC), Village of 

Tularosa, Allen "Bill" Trammell, and the Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation.
3

4. The protest of Robert Baca was dismissed by order entered in this matter on August 

23, 2002.

5. The protest of SMWRC was dismissed by order entered on April 17, 2003. By 

Order Adopting Stipulation, Rick Warnock, in his capacity as President of SMWRC, 

appeared as a fact witness testifying to SMWRC’s concerns with the Application.

6. By order entered in this matter on April 22, 2003, the City was granted leave to 

amend its Application to reduce the total amount of water applied for from 13,450 

afy to 10,000 afy. 

7. Pursuant to NMSA 1978 § 72-1-9 (2003), municipalities are authorized and allowed 

“a water use planning period not to exceed forty years.” Water rights for 

municipalities must be based upon “a water development plan . . . for reasonably 

projected additional needs within forty years.” Id. Additional need is determined by 

comparing projected future water demand to available supply.

8. The City’s 40-Year Water Development Plan, City Exhibit 10, contains population 

and water use projections to the year 2040. Using the University of New Mexico 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) medium growth methodology, 

the City estimates that its population will increase to approximately 56,137 by the 

year 2040 as follows: 

Year Projection

2010 41,168 

2020 46,366 

2030 51,252 

2040 56,137 

The BBER methodology incorporates economic, demographic and migration trends 

and is a widely accepted method for forecasting population. The City’s population 

projection is reasonable. 

9. Assuming an average water use of 165 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd), which is 

equivalent to an annual per capita use of 0.1848237 afy (165 gpcpd x 365 days = 

60,225 gallons ÷ 325,851 gallons per acre foot = 0.1848237 afy), the City estimates 

its water demand (rounded off to the nearest whole number) through the year 2040 
4

as follows:

Year Population Projection Per Capita Use Demand

 2010 41,168 x 0.1848237 afy = 7,609 afy 

2020 46,366 x 0.1848237 afy = 8,570 afy 

2030 51,252 x 0.1848237 afy = 9,473 afy 

 2040 56,137 x 0.1848237 afy = 10,375 afy 

The City’s demand estimate through 2040 is reasonable.

10. OSE records reflect that the City of Alamogordo has existing surface and ground 

water rights and permits to divert 23,458.79 afy from its wells and surface 

diversions, as follows: 

 Surface Diversions OSE File No. Diversion Amount

 Bonito Lake SP-13 1,449.02 afy (2.26867 cfs) 

 La Luz – Fresnal SP-01110 thru 01115 

 01118 thru 01121

 01342 thru 01346

 01383, 01411, 01412 

 01455, 01456, 01562

2886 and 1122 891.20 afy + 16 cfs 

 + (11,583.43 afy) 

 Alamo Canyon SP-06037 and 2176 3,078.00 afy

 SUBTOTAL 17,001.65 afy 

 Ground Water Diversions

 La Luz Wells T-32 4,572.88 afy 

 Prather Wells T-33 1,354.00 afy 

 Golf Course Well T-814 269.935 afy 

 Landfill Well T-2408 100.00 afy 

 Cemetery Irrigation T-3489 160.33 afy

 SUBTOTAL 6,457.145 afy 

TOTAL 23,458.795 afy 
5

11. The City currently holds water rights and permits that exceed its projected water 

demand for the forty-year planning period.

12. Approximately 72% of the City’s water rights (17,001.65 afy out of 23,458.79 afy) 

are surface water rights. The ability to fully exercise those rights is susceptible to 

drought conditions.

13. The City contends that the supply of surface water that is actually available for use 

is far less than its surface water rights and that it is unable to fully develop and 

utilize the 6,457.145 afy of ground water under its existing permits.

14. In determining the additional needs of a municipality over the forty-year planning 

period, it is reasonable to consider historic diversions and historic water supply, as 

well as the amount of vested water rights and permits held by the municipality.

15. Table 2 of City Exhibit 15 reflects that for the years 1967 through 2001, the City’s 

surface water diversions from La Luz-Fresnal flume, Alamo Canyon, and Bonito 

Lake (receival) averaged 3,614 afy, 1,372 afy and 1,400 afy respectively. The City 

shares Bonito Lake diversions equally with Holloman Air Force Base. The average 

historical surface water diversion for the City, combined, for the period of 1967 

through 2001, is 5,686 afy (3,614 afy + 1,372 afy + 700 afy).

16. Protestant HFR and Three Rivers Exhibit 34, Attachment A, reflects that the City’s 

groundwater diversions for the last five (5) years have averaged approximately 

2,088 afy. The City has failed to establish, by credible evidence, that it would be 

unable to sustain production from its current wells at this level. A groundwater 

supply of 2,088 may be considered in supply calculations for purposes of this 

Application, provided that conditions limit the City’s actual combined annual 

groundwater diversions to the sum of the amount of groundwater considered to be 

available (2,088) and the amount permitted under T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9, or 

require that the City files Proof of Beneficial Use consistent with that figure.

17. The City projects that its water demand will be 10,375 afy, in the year 2040, based 

upon its assumption that water use in the year 2040 will be equal to its current 

approximate annual average use level of 165 gpcpd. It is similarly appropriate to 

consider that the City’s available supply of water in the year 2040 will be at least 
6

equal to the average amount of water that the City has historically diverted from its 

surface and groundwater sources. A short-term drought or temporary loss of 

surface supply can be addressed, in part, by provisions that allow for temporary 

increase in annual groundwater diversions from the subject wells and averaging of 

the increase over five years. During long-term drought conditions, good 

conservation practice requires implementation of drought management plans that 

include tiered or increased water rate structures, reductions in water use and, if 

necessary, rationing.

18. The average water supply that has been historically available to and diverted by the 

City from both surface and groundwater sources is 7,774 afy (5,686 afy surface 

water + 2,088 groundwater). Accordingly, the City’s unmet water demand through 

the 40-year planning period, is no more than 2,601 afy (10,375 afy – 7,774 afy). 

19. Section 4.3.2 of City Exhibit 11 reflects that the City expects 84% recovery of 

potable water from the desalinization process. A diversion of 3,096.43 afy would be 

required to produce 2,601 afy of potable water.

20. The City proposes to divert the water applied for in accordance with the following 

pumping schedule: diversion of 5,000 afy through 2009; diversion of 6,500 afy from 

2010-2020; diversion of 8,000 afy from 2020-2030; and, diversion of 10,000 afy for 

2030 and beyond. There was considerable and significant disagreement among the 

experts as to the projected effects of the proposed scheduled pumping and the 

reliability of the models constructed and employed to predict those effects.

21. Simulations of the effects of diversions under the City’s proposed pumping schedule 

for forty years were conducted using modified versions of the Morrison groundwater 

flow model for the Tularosa Underground Water Basin (Morrison 1989) and a model 

of the Basin constructed by John Shomaker and Associates (JSAI).

22. Protestants HFR and Three Rivers expert hydrologists, Maryann Wasiolek and 

Michael P. Spinks, of Hydroscience Associates, Inc., (hereinafter “Hydroscience”) 

estimated hydraulic effects of the subject applications utilizing a modified version of 

the Morrison model wherein the model boundaries are extended three miles north of 

 
7

the City’s proposed well field and the model grid is refined for the areas north of the 

Tularosa Underground Water Basin Administrative Area. 

23. WRD’s technical expert, Eric Keyes, utilized the Hydroscience refined grid of the 

Morrison Model and further modified the model by changing transmissivity values to 

match higher transmissivities observed during a recent aquifer test of Exploratory 

Well No. T-3825. The results of simulations of pumping the City’s proposed wells for 

forty years, in accordance with the City’s pumping schedule, using the refined and 

modified Morrison model, as reflected in a March 2003 report submitted into 

evidence as WRD Exhibit 1, indicate that the largest impacts to other wells occur at 

HFR Corporation wells where water columns are reduced by as much as 81 feet 

with one well T-1797-S-4 going dry. The results reported in WRD Exhibit 1 were 

derived based upon the static water columns in nearby wells and did not consider 

the effect of self induced drawdown in the water columns of irrigation wells, referred 

to as ‘irrigation dynamic drawdown’ or ‘pumping drawdown’.

24. Mr. Keyes subsequently performed a hydraulic analysis of the subject Applications 

using the refined and modified Morrison model with consideration given to the effect 

of ‘irrigation dynamic drawdown’. WRD Exhibit 1-A and Amended Exhibit 1-A 

reflect that after 40 years of pumping the proposed wells under the City’s proposed 

pumping schedule, eighteen (18) nearby wells of other ownership would go dry or be 

significantly impacted.

25. The Hydrology Bureau of the OSE considers a well to be significantly impacted 

when its available water column is reduced by more than 70% or there is less than 

10 feet of water above and below the pump.

26. The City’s technical experts, John Shomaker and Associates, developed a separate 

groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of pumping the proposed wells 

(JSAI Model). The JSAI model, described in City Exhibit No. 14, was prepared by 

Steven T. Finch under the direction of Dr. John W. Shomaker. The model differs 

from the Morrison model in several ways including the following: it is a threedimensional model that includes the mountain block east of the basin fill as an active 

part of the model and considers additional recharge from the mountain block; all of 
8

the boundaries are no flow boundaries with the western boundary considered an 

evaporation boundary, wherein the groundwater discharges through 

evapotranspiration and does not flow westward and across the boundary; and the 

calculated discharge by evapotranspiration in the western boundary is approximately 

equal to the mountain-block recharge.

27. JSAI model simulations reflect that the Protestant Christophers’ domestic well T4316 and another domestic well of other ownership, T-2911, will go dry or be 

significantly impacted as a result of pumping the proposed wells for forty years 

under the City’s pumping schedule. The results are derived based upon static water 

levels in nearby wells and do not consider the effect of ‘irrigation dynamic drawdown’ 

or ‘pumping drawdown’.

28. The predicted effects under both the JSAI model and the refined and modified 

Morrison model are based upon a comparison of baseline effects from a forty-year 

projection of continued historic pumping, without the proposed pumping, to a fortyyear projection of those baseline effects with the proposed pumping done in 

accordance with the City’s pumping schedule. The baseline does not necessarily 

consider permits as being fully exercised and, as emphasized by Protestants, the 

effect of pumping the full diversion amount requested by the subject application, 

10,000 afy, was only considered for ten years. Expansion of the modeling efforts to 

include the full exercise of permitted rights in the base line and to simulate pumping 

the proposed wells at 10,000 afy for forty years would result in an expansion and 

acceleration of effects.

29. Evidence concerning the effects of diverting less than the full amount requested, 

although limited, was credible.

30. The nearest wells of other ownership include permitted and declared wells of 

Protestants HFR and the Christophers. 

31. Protestants HFR and Three Rivers expert hydrologist, Michael P. Spinks, testified 

that groundwater diversion of 2,500 to 3,000 afy from the proposed well field would 

not impair or adversely impact the production of Protestant HFR or 3 Rivers’ wells. 
9

32. Protestant Christophers are the owners of the High Nogal Ranch. They claim 

ownership of the following declared wells located within the ranch boundaries and 

within the vicinity of the proposed well field: 

Well No. Location Declared Declared Declared 

 T R S SD Amount Use Priority

T-4311 13S 10E 18 413 3 afy Livestock Pre 07/1982 

T-4312 12S 10E 15 123 3 afy Livestock Pre 07/1982 

T-4313 13S 10E 9 1412 3 afy Livestock Pre 07/1982 

T-4314 12S 10E 30 234 3 afy Livestock Pre 07/1982 

T-4315 12S 9E 25 421 3 afy Livestock Pre 07/1982 

T-4316 13S 10E 6 334 3 afy Domestic & 1940 

 Livestock 

The Declarations for the above wells were filed in 2003, after the City filed the 

subject Application. The Christophers also claim ownership of livestock well No. T3845, located in the Section 3, Township 12 South, Range 10 East, NMPM, 

completed March 1, 2001.

33. Protestant Christophers’ Exhibit 16 includes reports of a field check conducted on 

April 30, 2003, by OSE staff David Bernadone and Sheldon Dorman. The Field 

Reports contain the following entry for each of Well Nos. T-4312, T-4313, T-4314 

and T-4315: “well is not equipped and is an abandoned open hole.” The Field 

Report for Well No. T-4316 reflects that it was “equipped and in use.” 

34. Table 3 of Protestant Christophers’ Exhibit 22 reflects that the water level in well 

Nos. T-4311 and T-4314 is at or below the well depth. 

35. Well T-3845 is located approximately seven (7) miles north and east of the proposed 

well field. OSE records reflect that Well T-3845 has a static water column of 

approximately 298 feet. Well No. T-3845 will not be adversely affected by ongoing 

groundwater diversions of at least 3,000 afy from the City’s proposed well field. 

36. Table 3 of Protestant Christophers’ Exhibit 22 reflects that Well No. T-4316 has a 
10

well depth of 290 feet and a static water level of 278 feet. Well No. T-4316 is within 

the City’s proposed well field and will lose its water column as a result of diversion of 

3,000 afy from the proposed well field. 

37. Protestant Christophers’ Exhibit 22 reflects that Well No. T-4316 is located less than 

5,000 feet east of the City’s test Well No. T-3825 which was drilled to a depth of 710 

feet. Expert witnesses Eric Keyes and Michael Spinks testified that Well No. T-4316 

is located in the Basin Fill.

38. The evidence reflects that Well No. T-4316 can be deepened or replaced to recover 

production. The ability to deepen wells to recover production is considered a factor 

in determining whether a proposed appropriation of groundwater will impair an 

existing right. 

39. The City of Alamogordo has agreed to pay for the cost of deepening or replacing 

Well No. T-4316 or to replace the water.

40. Given the indication that Well No. T-4316 can be deepened to recover production 

and that the City has offered to assume the cost for deepening or replacement, 

granting of the proposed application for a diversion of at least 3,000 afy will not 

impair Well No. T-4316.

41. In February 2003, Protestant Christophers also filed Declarations of Ownership of 

Water Right concerning a number of springs located within the boundaries of the 

High Nogal Ranch, as follows: 

OSE File No. Location Amount Use

 T R S SD

 SD-05221 12S 10E 8 333 3 afy Stk 

SD-05222 12S 10E 19 213 3 afy Stk 

SD-05223 12S 10E 15 132 3 afy Stk 

SD-05224 12S 10E 15 223 3 afy Stk 

SD-05225 12S 10E 12 243 3 afy Stk 

SD-05226 12S 10E 1 223 3 afy Stk 

 SD-05278 12S 10E 17 344 3 afy Stk 

 SD-05279 12S 10E 11 343 3 afy Stk 
11

 Maxwell Spring 13S 10E 2 333 12 afy Dom & Stk 

 (no file no.) 13S 10E 11 112 

 So. Aguilar Spring 13S 10E 20 423 3 afy Stk 

 The above locations are described by township (T), range (R), Section (S) and 

subdivision (SD). 

42. The springs on High Nogal Ranch are generally located in the mountain front 

recharge area up gradient from the proposed well field. 

43. The weight of the evidence presented reflects that Maxwell Spring is located at the 

contact of the San Andres Limestone with the underlying lower-conductivity Yeso 

Formation, which impedes downward flow. The springs identified as File Nos. SD05222 (Kitty Spring), SD-05278 (Crosby Spring) and SD-05221 (Aguilar Spring) are 

located in an area where water is moving downward in the Santa Rosa Sandstone to 

the lower-conductivity beds in the Artesia group, and where igneous dykes impede 

groundwater flow causing water to appear at the surface.

44. The weight of the evidence presented reflects that the springs on the High Nogal 

Ranch that are nearest to the proposed well field are contact or perched springs that 

would not be significantly affected by the ongoing diversion of at least 3,000 afy from 

the well field. The other springs on the High Nogal Ranch are farther removed from 

the proposed well field and are not likely to be effected by diversions from the well 

field.

45. The weight of the evidence presented reflects that ongoing diversion of at least 

3,000 afy from the proposed well field will not dry up or adversely affect the springs 

on the High Nogal Ranch. 

46. The point of diversion for the Tularosa Community Ditch is located in the SW 1⁄4 of 

Section 15, Township 14 South, Range 10 East. The Tularosa Community Ditch 

provides irrigation water to 55 farmers and about 190 residents in the Village of 

Tularosa.

47. WRD’s hydrologic expert, Eric Keyes, modified the JSAI model by adding constant-
12

head cells to represent the Rio Tularosa as being in connection with the water table 

and estimated that diversion of 10,000 afy in accordance with the proposed 

diversion schedule, could cause induced base flow loss to Tularosa Creek of 

approximately 16 afy at the end of forty years.

48. The Rio Tularosa does not appear to be in direct connection with the regional water 

table in the area of interest. In the mountain block, water levels in wells close to the 

river appear to be in the range of 20 feet to about 100 feet below land surface. The 

depth to water in wells near the river, where it flows out across the basin fill, varies 

from 80 feet to over 100 feet.

49. The WRD’s addition of constant-head cells to the JSAI model results in overestimation of effects to the Rio Tularosa.

50. Diversion of at least 3,000 afy from the proposed well field should not result in 

reduction of available flow in the Rio Tularosa at the point of diversion for the 

Tularosa Community Ditch. 

51. Concerns were raised as to the propagation of effects from the proposed pumping 

within the Tularosa Basin Administrative Area. The State Engineer’s Tularosa 

Underground Water Basin Administrative Criteria (TUWBAC) for the AlamogordoTularosa Area became effective on May 19, 1997. The TUWBAC provide guidelines 

for OSE staff to apply in evaluating applications within the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

administrative area, which is a sub-area of the Tularosa Underground Water Basin. 

 The TUWBAC include certain water level decline standards and limits for prescribed 

areas, or blocks, within the administrative area. The TUWBAC limit the average 

annual groundwater level decline rate within any administrative block, caused by 

existing and proposed uses, to no more than 2.5 feet per year, unless the portion of 

the decline rate attributed to the proposed pumping is not greater than 0.05 feet per 

year.

52. The administrative area covered by the TUWBAC extends approximately 6 1⁄2 miles 

north of the Village of Tularosa. The City’s proposed well field is located 

approximately 8 1⁄2 to 11 miles north of the Village of Tularosa and approximately 2 

to 5 miles outside the northeast boundary of the administrative area. The TUWBAC 
13

provide that wells outside of the administrative area will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis.

53. Generally, evaluation of applications for diversions from wells located outside, but 

near, an administrative area, includes consideration of the resulting effects or 

drawdowns within the administrative area and whether those drawdowns exceed 

limits for the administrative area.

54. Simulations performed using the modified Morrison model reflect that diversion of 

10,000 afy from the proposed wells would result in induced drawdowns in excess of 

permissible levels under the guidelines. 

55. WRD contends that the TUWBAC should not be strictly applied to this application 

because the ambient drawdowns anticipated under the criteria have not occurred in 

the application area. The inference to be drawn is that there is more water available 

in the specific area of interest than had been originally projected. 

56. The evidence presented suggests that ongoing diversion of 3,000 afy from the 

proposed well field may not result in actual induced drawdowns in excess of 

permissible levels under the guidelines. If the subject Applications are approved, 

the City’s authority to continue diverting water should be conditioned upon 

monitoring of appropriate wells, and filing of reports establishing, to the satisfaction 

of the State Engineer, that the TUWBAC limits on annual groundwater decline rates 

are not exceeded.

57. Estimates of salinity migration resulting from diversion of 10,000 afy in accordance 

with the proposed diversion schedule, calculated using the modified Morrison model 

coupled with the United States Army Corps of Engineers transport model MT3DMS 

(Zheng 1999), show very small induced salinity variations. The largest increase in 

induced TDS concentration at any well was 24 mg/l after 40 years. Diversion of 

3,000 afy would have significantly less effect. The diversion of 3,000 afy from the 

proposed well field would not impair water quality. 

58. The ongoing diversion of 3,000 afy from the proposed well field, subject to 

conditions, will not impair existing water rights or result in significant degradation of 

water quality. A temporary increase in annual diversions, up to 4,500 acre-feet, will 
14

not impair existing water rights provided that the sum of annual diversions for any 

consecutive five-year period does not exceed 15,000 acre-feet.

59. The diversion of unappropriated brackish groundwater and conversion of that 

brackish water into potable water, through desalination, would be beneficial to the 

public welfare of the state. Desalinated water is a potential resource for providing 

a reliable supply of potable water in other areas of the Tularosa Basin. In that 

regard, the Tularosa Basin has been chosen as the site for a national desalination 

research and development facility.

60. If the City’s desalination project proves to be successful, and monitoring shows 

limited effect to ground and surface water sources in the region, the City and other 

public governmental entities covered under NMSA 1978 § 72-1-9 could, as coapplicants or a regional water authority, file an application for permit to increase 

diversion based upon regional demand. Alternatively, the City could apply for 

permit to transfer its valid existing rights into the well field. 

61. The City has reduced its per capita water use rate since 1990 by 37% through 

adoption and implementation of a successful water conservation program. Records 

reflect that in 1990 the City’s gpcpd was 245.54. The City’s gpcpd since 1998 is as 

follows: 173 gpcpd in 1999; 184 gpcpd in 2000; 155 gpcpd in 2001; and 134 gpcpd 

in 2002.

62. The City’s water conservation program addresses elements of the State Engineer’s 

Water Conservation Guidelines for Public Water Supply Systems and it includes 

repair and replacement of pipelines and meters, tiered structuring of water rates, 

rationing in times of drought, use of reclaimed water, public outreach and education. 

63. Approval of the subject application would not be contrary to the conservation of 

water within the state. 

64. The Applications should be approved for a diversion of 3,000 afy, subject to 

conditions of approval including, but not limited to, a condition that the diversion in 

any year may be increased up to 4,500 acre-feet provided that the sum of annual 

diversions for any consecutive five-year period does not exceed 15,000 acre-feet. 
15

ORDER

THEREFORE, Application Nos. T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9 filed by the City of 

Alamogordo are partially approved for the diversion of up to 3,000 afy, subject to 

conditions, as follows: 

Permittee: City of Alamogordo 

Permit No.: T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9 

Date of Application: September 6, 2000 

Source of Water: Tularosa Underground Water Basin 

Points of Diversion: 

Well No. Subdivision Section Township Range

T-3825 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

T-3825-S SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 31 12 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-2 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 31 12 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-3 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 35 12 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-4 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 35 12 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-5 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 6 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-6 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 7 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-7 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 7 13 South 10 East 

T-3825-S-8 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

T-3825-S-9 NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 1 13 South 9 East 

Amount of Water: Up to 3,000 afy. The diversion for any calendar year may be 

increased up to 4,500 acre-feet, provided that the sum of

annual diversions for any consecutive five-year period does not 

exceed 15,000 acre-feet. 

Purpose of Use: Municipal, Industrial, Commercial or Irrigation 

Place of Use: Service area of the City of Alamogordo water system 
16

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Permit No. T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9 shall not be exercised to the detriment of valid 

existing water rights or in a manner that is contrary to the conservation of water 

within the state or detrimental to the public welfare of the State of New Mexico. 

2. The total annual combined diversion of groundwater from Well Nos. T-3825 thru T3825-S-9 under this permit shall not exceed 3,000 afy, except that the City may 

increase the total annual combined diversion of groundwater from said wells during 

any calendar year up to 4,500 acre-feet, provided that the sum of annual diversions 

for any consecutive five-year period does not exceed 15,000 acre-feet.

3. During any year in which groundwater is diverted from Well Nos. T-3825 thru T3825-S-9 under this permit, the City’s total annual groundwater diversions from said 

wells and wells under OSE File Nos. T-32 (La Luz Wells), T-33 (Prather Wells), T814 (Golf Course Well), T-2408 (Landfill Well) and T-3489 (Cemetery Irrigation Well) 

combined shall not exceed 5,088 afy (2,088 + 3,000), or 6,588 (2,088 + 4,500) 

during a year in which the Applicant increases its diversions under Condition of 

Approval 2.

4. Prior to the drilling of Well Nos. RG-3825 thru RG-3825-S-9 under this permit, the 

City shall submit to the State Engineer an acknowledged statement, executed by the 

owner of the land upon which the wells are to be drilled, establishing that the 

permittee has permission to occupy such portion of the owners land as is necessary 

to drill and operate the wells. 

5. Well Nos. RG-3825 thru RG-3825-S-9 shall be equipped with totalizing meters of a 

type and at locations approved by and installed in a manner acceptable to the State 

Engineer. The City shall provide in writing, the make, model, serial number, date of 

installation, initial reading, units, and dates of recalibration of each meter and any 

replacement meter used to measure the diversion of water under this permit. At a 

minimum, all meters shall be calibrated in accordance with industry standards 

annually and the results shall be submitted to the Office of the State Engineer. 
17

6. Records of the amount of water diverted from Wells T-3825 through 3825-S-9 shall 

be submitted to the State Engineer on or before the 10th day of January, April, July 

and October for the preceding three (3) month period. 

7. Prior to diversion of water under this permit, the permittee shall furnish to the State 

Engineer, such documents as the State Engineer may find necessary to establish 

that the City has assumed financial responsibility for deepening or replacement of 

Well No. T-4316 as necessary to sustain production of 3 afy from said well for forty 

years, or that the owner of Well No. T-4316 has waived or released any claim of 

liability against the permittee for injury resulting to such well from operations under 

this permit, or that the permittee has acquired the rights of such persons in such 

wells, or that the permittee and the owner of Well No. T-4316 have reached other 

mutually acceptable agreement concerning replacement of water from said well.

8. Prior to diversion of water under this permit, the permittee shall propose and 

implement a monitoring plan and system, acceptable to the State Engineer, 

involving the monitoring of water levels in wells and surface water flows. In July and 

January of each calendar year, the permittee shall measure water levels and total 

dissolved solids within the monitoring wells and surface flows. The permittee shall 

report the data to the State Engineer, in writing, on or before January 31 and July 

31 of each calendar year.

9. The State Engineer may order the temporary suspension of all or a part of 

groundwater diversions under this permit if the water levels, total dissolved solids or 

surface water flows reported pursuant to Condition of Approval 8 above, indicate 

that impairment to valid existing senior rights to divert water is likely to occur or that 

groundwater decline rates within the Tularosa Underground Water Basin 

Administrative Area are likely to exceed those allowed by the TUBWAC as a result 

of the continued operation of Well Nos. RG-3825 thru RG-3825-S-9 at then current 

diversion levels.

10. Issuance of this permit is predicated upon the expectation that the permittee’s 

annual water use will not exceed the product of the population within its service area 

for each year times 0.1848237 (165 gpcpd converted to afy). The permittee is 
18

expected to reduce its water use during periods of extended drought consistent with 

appropriate drought management plans. Additionally, the permittee shall utilize the 

highest and best technology available to ensure ongoing conservation of water to 

the maximum extent practical. The permittee shall submit progress reports on its 

Water Conservation Plan on or before February 1st of every fifth year, commencing 

five years after the date of approval of this permit. 

11. Proof of Completion of Work(s) shall be filed on or before May 15, 2009. 

12. The permittee shall file Proof of Application of Water to Beneficial Use under this 

permit on or before May 15th of the fourth year after the permittee first puts water to 

beneficial use under this permit and shall file additional Proofs on or before May 15th

of every fourth year thereafter for additional amounts of water put to beneficial use. 

13. The State Engineer shall retain jurisdiction over this permit for the purpose of 

ensuring that exercise of the permit does not violate the forgoing conditions.

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Victor Kovach 

Hearing Examiner 

I ACCEPT AND ADOPT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING

EXAMINER THIS DAY OF 2004. 

JOHN R. D’ANTONIO, JR., P.E. 

NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER 
APPENDIX B

NMOSE Decision 2008











APPENDIX C

Recent Court Rulings and 

Settlement Agreements
































































APPENDIX D

Public Scoping Report
































































































APPENDIX E

Minute Order
























APPENDIX F

Technical Reports #51 and #48




















































































































































































































































































APPENDIX G

Snake Tank Plan of Development








APPENDIX H

Water Resources Technical Report
	

		

				

	


	






Prepared for 

Jason Allen 

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

1800 Marquess 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005 

Telephone: (505) 525-4300 

and 

Hector Garcia 

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

555 Broadway NE, Suite 100 

Albuquerque, NM 87102-2352 

Telephone: (505) 462-3550 

Prepared by 

SWCA® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

7001 Prospect Place NE, Suite 100 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 

Telephone: (505) 254-1115, Facsimile: (505) 254-1116 

www.swca.com 

and 

CDM 

6000 Uptown Blvd. NE, Suite 200 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 

Telephone: (505) 243-3200 

www.cdm.com 

SWCA Project No. 7938-181 

March 17, 2006 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 ii 

		



List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iv 

List of Table.....................................................................................................................................v 

 
	
	
  

 			

	
	


	


2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY............................................................................. 2 

2.1.1 Pre-Cenozoic Rocks................................................................................................ 4 

2.1.2 Cenozoic Deposits .................................................................................................. 6 

2.2 SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................ 6 

2.2.1 Surface Water Quantity........................................................................................... 7 

2.2.2 Surface Water Quality............................................................................................. 9 

2.3 SPRINGS ......................................................................................................................... 9 

2.4 GROUND WATER ....................................................................................................... 14 

2.4.1 Water Occurrence And Quality ............................................................................ 14 

2.4.1.1 Pre-Cenozoic Rocks...................................................................................... 14 

2.4.1.2 Cenozoic Deposits ........................................................................................ 16 

2.4.2 Fresh Ground Water Sources................................................................................ 17 

2.4.3 Slightly Saline Ground Water Sources ................................................................. 17 

2.4.4 Saline Ground Water Sources............................................................................... 19 

2.5 NEW MEXICO WATER LAW .................................................................................... 19 

2.5.1 Application Process .............................................................................................. 19 

2.5.2 Water Rights Issues Specific To The Tularosa Basin........................................... 21 

2.5.3 Summary Of Permitted Water Rights In The Tularosa Basin .............................. 21 

2.6 ESTIMATED WATER RESOURCES VERSUS FIRM YIELD ................................. 28

  	

	
  

3.1 PERMITABILITY......................................................................................................... 32 

3.2 RECOVERABILITY..................................................................................................... 34 

3.3 LAND OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................... 37 

3.4 PRELIMINARY WATER RESOURCES ALTERNATIVES...................................... 37

! 

	
!!

4.1 RESULTS OF WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES SCREENING........................... 44 

4.2 EVALUATION OF WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 44 

4.2.1 Snake Tank Road .................................................................................................. 46 

4.2.1.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics...................................................................... 46 

4.2.1.2 Potential Impacts of New Water Development ............................................ 48 

4.2.2 White Sands HQ Area........................................................................................... 49 

4.2.3 Grapevine Canyon ................................................................................................ 51 

4.2.4 Alvarado Area....................................................................................................... 51 

4.2.4.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics...................................................................... 51 

4.2.4.2 Potential Impacts of New Water Development ............................................ 54
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 iii 

" 			

	
 ""

5.1 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER PERMIT APPLICATION ............................. 55 

5.2 EXISTING GROUND WATER MODELS .................................................................. 56 

5.2.1 Morrison Model .................................................................................................... 58 

5.2.1.1 Domain and Grid........................................................................................... 58 

5.2.1.2 Material Properties........................................................................................ 58 

5.2.1.3 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................... 58 

5.2.1.4 Aquifer Stresses ............................................................................................ 59 

5.2.1.5 Model Calibration ......................................................................................... 60 

5.2.2 JSAI Model ........................................................................................................... 60 

5.2.2.1 Domain and Grid........................................................................................... 60 

5.2.2.2 Material Properties........................................................................................ 61 

5.2.2.3 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................... 63 

5.2.2.4 Aquifer Stresses ............................................................................................ 63 

5.2.2.5 Model Calibration ......................................................................................... 64 

5.2.3 HAI Model............................................................................................................ 64 

5.2.4 Modified OSE Model............................................................................................ 64 

5.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM EXISTING MODELS ......................................... 65 

5.3.1 Morrison Model .................................................................................................... 65 

5.3.2 JSAI Model ........................................................................................................... 65 

5.3.3 HAI Model............................................................................................................ 67 

5.3.4 Modified OSE Model............................................................................................ 70 

5.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 70

#
 $

APPENDIX A 

APPENDIX B 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 iv 

	


2.1 Map of the Tularosa Basin showing the western and eastern sub-basins 

(after Lueth et al. 2002). ......................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Cross-section of the Tularosa Basin, illustrating the western and eastern sub-basins (after 

Lueth et al. 2002). ................................................................................................................... 4 

2.3. Stratigraphic column indicating lithology and thickness of rock units in the Tularosa Basin 

(taken from Broadhead 2002). ................................................................................................ 5 

2.4. Map showing major river drainages from the Sacramento Mountains to the Tularosa Basin.8 

2.5. Map showing the locations of springs in the Tularosa Basin. .............................................. 12 

2.6. Thickness of fresh water unit (from McLean 1970). ............................................................ 15 

2.7. Thickness of slightly saline water unit (from McLean 1970)............................................... 18 

2.8. Thickness of 3,000 to 10,000 TDS saline water unit (from McLean 1970). ........................ 20 

2.9. Map of the Tularosa Underground Water Basin defined by the New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer. ...................................................................................................................... 22

2.10. Permitted ground-water diversions (ac-ft/yr) in the Tularosa Basin by type of use, shown 

as percent of total permitted diversions. ...............................................................................24 

2.11. Distribution of individual permitted ground-water diversions (water rights) for the 

Tularosa Basin by type of use...............................................................................................24 

2.12. Well locations from W.A.T.E.R.S. database (Tularosa Groundwater Basin). .................... 25

2.13 Distribution of individual permitted ground-water diversions (water rights) for the 

Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area by type of use..................................................26 

2.14. Permitted ground-water diversions (ac-ft/yr) in the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative 

Area by type of use, shown as a percent of total permitted diversions.................................26 

2.15. Distribution and locations of existing water diversions within the NMOSE Administrative 

Area near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The total amount of ground water presently diverted 

within 1 square mile is represented by colored cells. ........................................................... 27 

3.1. Area of basin-fill deposits considered in the development of water resources alternatives. 31 

3.2. Area of basin-bill deposits showing the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area and 

the location of existing senior water rights (each water-rights locationshown with a 2000-

foot radius)............................................................................................................................ 33 

3.3. Area of basin-fill deposits where ground water is present within 400 feet of the surface.... 35 

3.4. Areas of basin-fill deposits where well yields of more than 300 gpm can be expected....... 36 

3.5. Area of basin-fill deposits with public land ownership. ....................................................... 38 

3.6. Areas of basin-fill deposits that meet all preliminary screening criteria. ............................. 39 

3.7. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with fresh (0–1000 mg/L TDS) 

ground-water resources......................................................................................................... 41 

3.8. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with slightly saline (1000–3000 mg/L 

TDS) ground-water resources............................................................................................... 42 

3.9. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with moderately saline 

(3000–10,000 mg/L TDS) ground-water resources.............................................................. 43 

4.1. Water-resource alternatives remaining after preliminary screening..................................... 45 

4.2. Snake tank well field site. ..................................................................................................... 47 

4.3. White Sands Missile Range Headquarters site. .................................................................... 50 

4.4. Proposed location of well field west of Grapevine Canyon. ................................................ 52 

4.5. Proposed location of Alvarado well field. ............................................................................ 53 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 v 

5.1. Map showing area of applications, outlines of the OSE and JSAI model grids, major 

watersheds in the Sacramento Mountains, military lands, the Jarilla Fault, and other 

geographic features of the Eastern Tularosa Basin (from JSAI 2003a)................................ 57 

5.2. Map showing JSAI model–predicted drawdown due to historic and projected future 

pumping (1910 to 2040) without T-3825 et al. (from JSAI 2003a)...................................... 68 

5.3. Map showing JSAI model–predicted drawdown due to historic and projected future 

pumping (1910 to 2040) with T-3825 et al. (from JSAI 2003a)........................................... 69 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 vi 

	

2.1. Springs in the Tularosa Basin ............................................................................................... 10 

2.2. Existing Water Rights within the Tularosa Basin and the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

Administrative Area.............................................................................................................. 23 

2.3. Comparison of Permitted Water Rights and Calculated Firm Yield 

(modified from JSAI 2003b)................................................................................................. 29 

3.1. Preliminary Water Resources Alternatives Screening Criteria............................................. 37 

5.1. Comparison of Morrison and JSAI Models, Alamogordo Application T-3825 et al. .......... 62 

5.2. Comparison of Morrison and JSAI Models, Alamogordo Application T-3825 et al. .......... 66 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 1 

 
	
	


The purpose of this Water Resources Technical Report (the Report) is to supplement the general 

information presented for water resources in the Alamogordo Regional Water Supply 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This technical report serves as the basis for evaluating 

the long-term viability of water resources available for municipal uses in the project area. 

Information presented in the Report will also be used to examine alternatives to the proposed 

well field near Snake Tank Road. This report provides a technical overview of: 

• The quantity and quality of surface water resources in the Alamogordo region 

• The distribution and quality of ground-water resources within the Hueco-Tularosa 

aquifer 

• Existing ground-water development and pumping 

• Simulations of future ground-water development and pumping 

In addition, a review of existing technical reports and documents and a limited number of 

ground-water modeling simulations from the City of Alamogordo (John Shomaker & Associates, 

Inc. [JSAI] 2003a), the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) (Morrisson 1989), and 

Hydroscience Associates, Inc. (HAI) (2003a and 2003b) are discussed for the Snake Tank Well 

Field Alternative. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 2 

 			



	
	
	


Agriculture, industry, municipalities, and residents in the Tularosa Basin rely on a combination 

of surface water and ground water to meet potable and other water needs. The population 

centers of Alamogordo and Tularosa were founded and have grown due to their access to reliable 

sources of fresh water. However, demands have grown, in some cases outstripping readily 

available supply, and understanding the occurrence and availability of water resources in the 

Basin has become increasingly important. This section describes the physical setting of the 

Tularosa Basin and the conditions that influence the occurrence, quality, reliability, and 

availability of water. New Mexico water law as it applies to surface water and ground-water 

resources in the project area is briefly summarized in Section 2.5. 

 	
		

The Tularosa Basin is a broad, north-trending intermountain depression that occupies 

approximately 6,500 square miles in south-central New Mexico (Figure 2.1). It extends 

approximately 170 miles north from the New Mexico–Texas border, where a slight 

topographical divide separates the Tularosa Basin from the Hueco Bolson to the south. To the 

north and west lies Chupadera Mesa. The Tularosa Basin varies in width from about 25 miles to 

60 miles. Bounding the basin are the Sacramento Mountains on the east, Sierra Blanca Peak to 

the north, and a series of mountain ranges that defines the western extent of the basin from the 

Franklin Mountains in the south to the Organ and San Andres Mountains in the central and 

northern portions of the basin, respectively. Elevations range from less than 4,000 feet in the 

south-central portion of the basin to nearly 12,000 feet at Sierra Blanca Peak. 

The basin formed as a graben or structural trough as a result of extensional forces. Nearly 

vertical north-trending faults separate the down-thrown basin floor from the mountain blocks to 

the east and west. This faulting has exposed Precambrian through Tertiary igneous and 

sedimentary rocks in the mountains bordering the basin. Generally, the same geologic units are 

present in the center of the basin beneath up to 8,000 feet of basin-fill sediments of Tertiary and 

Quaternary age (Orr and Myers 1986). 

In the south-east portion of the basin, beginning with the Jarilla Mountains near Orogrande and 

extending northward to Round Mountain west of Tularosa, a smaller uplifted block of Paleozoic 

rocks interrupts the basin-fill sediments, dividing much of the Tularosa Basin into two northtrending sub-basins (Figure 2.1). The western extent of this smaller uplifted block is defined by 

the steeply dipping Jarilla Fault. The thickest accumulation of basin-fill deposits occurs just 

west of the Jarilla fault along the north-south axis of the larger Tularosa Basin and underlying the 

White Sands Missile Range. The eastern sub-basin is smaller and is asymmetrical in cross 

section (Figure 2.2), with the greatest thickness of sediments (up to 2,500 feet) closest to the 

Sacramento Mountain–front fault (McLean 1970). Communities within the smaller eastern subbasin include, from south to north, Valmont, Alamogordo, Tularosa, and Three Rivers. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 3 

Figure 2.1 Map of the Tularosa Basin showing the western and eastern sub-basins 

(after Lueth et al. 2002). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 4 

Figure 2.2 Cross-section of the Tularosa Basin, illustrating the western and eastern sub-basins 

(after Lueth et al. 2002). 

 %
	&		

Consolidated bedrock of Precambrian to Tertiary age is present predominantly at the margins of 

and beneath the basin floor. Figure 2.3 shows a stratigraphic column that describes the lithology 

and thickness of rock units in the Tularosa Basin. Precambrian rocks occur mostly at depth 

within the mountain blocks but are also exposed along the eastern flanks of the Organ and San 

Andres Mountains. These exposures consist primarily of granitic intrusive rocks with some 

metamorphic units. Paleozoic rocks older than Permian in age are present in thicknesses ranging 

from 2,000 to 5,000 feet and are widely exposed in the San Andres, southern Organ, and 

Franklin Mountains to the west (McLean 1970). These older Paleozoic units also make up much 

of the western flank of the Sacramento Mountains between Valmont and Tularosa. Predominant 

lithologies include dolomite and limestone, with lesser amounts of sandstone, siltstone, and 

shale. 

Permian formations with combined thicknesses up to 3,500 feet comprise much of the remaining 

consolidated rock exposed in the area (McLean 1970). These units, including the Bursum, Abo, 

and Yeso Formations, the Glorieta Sandstone, and the San Andres Limestone, consist of arkosic 

sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, dolomite, and evaporates. These rocks make up much of 

the exposures in the northern and southern Sacramento Mountains, those at higher elevations 

within the central Sacramento Mountains, and nearly all of Chupadera Mesa. The relative 

importance of the Paleozoic rocks for water supply and their impacts on surface water and 

ground-water quality are discussed later in this section. 

Mesozoic rocks are exposed in the Tularosa Basin from the Three Rivers area north and east to 

north of Carrizozo. These units include the Dockum Group of Late Triassic age and the 

Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. Exposed in the Carrizozo 

area, the Dockum Group sandstones, siltstones, shale, and limestone are up to 500 feet in 

thickness. The sandstone, shale, and local coal beds of the Mesaverde Group are from 500 to 

1,000 feet thick in this area and are underlain by approximately 1,200 feet of the lowpermeability Mancos Shale and about 100 feet of Dakota Sandstone (McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 5 

Figure 2.3. Stratigraphic column indicating lithology and thickness of rock units in the 

Tularosa Basin (taken from Broadhead 2002). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 6 

 
	&		

Igneous Tertiary rocks, both intrusive and extrusive, are exposed primarily in the northeastern 

portions of the Tularosa Basin. Here they make up the Godfrey Hills northeast of Three Rivers, 

as well as most of Sierra Blanca. Lesser exposures are also present in the Jarilla Mountains and 

the Organ Mountains in the southern portions of the basin. 

The majority of Cenozoic deposits, and the units most important in terms of water resources and 

supply in the Tularosa Basin, are the unconsolidated Tertiary and Quaternary basin-fill sediments 

of the Santa Fe Group. This thick sequence of clay, silt, sand, and evaporite deposits began to 

accumulate in the middle Tertiary (Miocene) time as the mountains bordering the basin formed 

(McLean 1970). Alluvium derived from the adjacent uplands was carried into the basin by 

streams and deposited in alluvial fans, floodplains, lakes, and playas throughout much of the late 

Tertiary and Quaternary periods. Late Quaternary fill consists largely of playa, eolian, and 

alluvial plain deposits, which are commonly gypsiferous, especially nearer the center of the 

basin. A sheet of basaltic lava over 100 feet thick, probably of late Holocene age, caps the basinfill deposits in the northern portion of the Tularosa Basin (Bedinger et al. 1989). 

Much of the basin-fill deposits consist of clay and silt that intertongue with wedges of coarser 

sand, silt, and gravel alluvial fan deposits along the basin margins (Bedinger et al. 1989). 

Geophysical surveys and a number of test and water-supply wells drilled throughout the basin 

have documented the thickness and nature of basin-fill sediments (McLean 1970; Meinzer and 

Hare 1915; Orr and Myers 1986). The coalescing alluvial fans along the basin margin are 

variable in size and thickness. The poorly sorted sediments that make up these units range from 

thin veneers over shallow bedrock to thick sequences of hundreds of feet that are important as 

local water supply aquifers. Coarser-grained units, including sands, silts, and gravels, are more 

common not only along the basin margins, but in the upper portion (upper several hundred feet) 

of the basin-fill deposits. Beneath these coarser, shallow subsurface units, clay dominates the 

lithology, with interbedded sand units typically comprising 25 percent or less of the profile. One 

deep stratigraphic test well, T-14, drilled on White Sands Missile Range penetrated mostly sand 

between depths of 3,600 and 6,000 feet; lateral extent of this coarser unit cannot be determined 

due to the lack of other deep test wells. 

 


The Tularosa Basin is a closed basin with respect to surface water flow. Precipitation varies 

significantly within the basin, with the lower elevations receiving about 40 percent less than the 

surrounding mountain regions (Garza and McLean 1977). Differences in average annual 

precipitation are illustrated by the records for Holloman Air Force Base, with approximately 8.5 

inches per year, and Cloudcroft, with about 26 inches per year. Much of the surface water in the 

basin originates as runoff from the mountains in the form of winter and spring snowmelt and 

summer runoff from intense thundershowers. The amount of runoff from the Sacramento 

Mountains to the east is approximately twice the runoff received from the San Andres and Organ 

Mountains to the west, owing to differences in altitude and resulting precipitation patterns 

(Waltemeyer 2001). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 7 

Surface water enters the basin from the surrounding mountain ranges by way of intermittent and 

perennial streams that drain toward the center of the basin. These streams typically originate at 

springs that issue from bedrock in the mountains. As the perennial streams exit the canyons and 

flow onto the alluvial fans and basin fill, much of the water is diverted for agricultural or 

municipal uses or infiltrates the bottom of stream channels to recharge shallow ground water. 

Some surface water collects near the center of the basin in a series of playas or shallow, shortlived salt lakes where it evaporates, leaving behind an accumulation of minerals including 

gypsum, halite, and potassium salts. 

 
'



The largest drainages entering the Tularosa Basin originate in the Sacramento Mountains and 

include, from north to south, the Three Rivers drainage, Rinconada Canyon, the Tularosa Creek, 

the Fresnal/La Luz Creek system, and Alamo Canyon (Figure 2.4). These streams are 

characteristically perennial in their upper reaches, where they flow across the bedrock, with 

some discharge to and recharge from shallow ground water. Much of the remaining streamflow 

typically infiltrates into the basin fill to recharge shallow ground water within a relatively short 

distance after passing the Alamogordo Fault Zone. Each of these streams has been developed as 

a water supply for municipal purposes, irrigation, or both. 

Waltemeyer (2001) estimates the mountain-front mean annual streamflow available for potential 

recharge to the Tularosa Basin using two regional regression models. The Basin-Climatic 

Characteristics Method estimates mean annual streamflow based on stream drainage area and 

mean annual precipitation using the formula 

Qa = 1.70 × 10-4 A1.35 P1.65

 where Qa = mean annual streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

 A = drainage area, in square miles 

 P = mean annual precipitation, in inches 

The second method, the Channel-Geometry Characteristics Method, estimates streamflow based 

on channel width. Waltemeyer (1993) previously demonstrated a statistically significant 

relationship between these variables at six streamflow-gauging stations in southern New Mexico. 

Streamflow was estimated by this method using the formula 

Qa = 0.04 W1.59

 where Qa = mean annual streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

 W = active-channel width, in feet 

The estimated streamflow for each of the major Sacramento Mountains drainages listed above 

derived from these two methods is: 

• Three Rivers 11.5 ft3

/s* to 18.8 ft3/s† 

• Rinconada Canyon 12.7 ft3/s* to 24.1 ft3/s† 

• Tularosa Creek 24.2 ft3

/s* to 8.93 ft3/s† 

• La Luz Creek 7.3 ft3

/s* to 16.4 ft3/s† 

• Alamo Canyon 1.98 ft3

/s* to 17.0 ft3/s† 

*Derived from Basin-Climatic Characteristics Method †Derived from Channel-Geometry Characteristics 

Method. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 8 

Figure 2.4. Map showing major river drainages from the Sacramento Mountains 

to the Tularosa Basin. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 9 

Waltemeyer (2001) also estimated the total annual streamflow available for recharge to the 

Tularosa Basin as 68,800 acre-feet for a year of average precipitation. An estimated 47,800 acrefeet, or nearly 70 percent, enters the eastern portion of the basin from the Sacramento Mountains, 

with the remainder from the San Andres and Organ Mountains to the west. Waltemeyer’s 

estimates appear not to consider diversions for municipal supply or irrigation from the 

Sacramento Mountain drainages (Waltemeyer 2001). 

The Regional Water Plan for the Tularosa and Salt Basins utilizes the data reported by 

Waltemeyer (2001) for streamflow as part of an estimate of watershed yield that considers both 

streamflow and infiltration to bedrock upstream of the mountain-front (South Central Mountain 

RC&D Council, Inc., [RC&D] 2002). From watershed yield, the direct recharge of basin-fill 

deposits and recharge due to flow from the bedrock formations of the northern and eastern 

portions of the basin are estimated. Including this bedrock recharge, the Regional Water Plan 

estimates a basin recharge rate of 30,000 acre-feet for the Northern Tularosa Basin, 9,291 acrefeet for the Western Tularosa Basin, and 47,099 acre-feet for the Eastern Tularosa Basin, for a 

total of 86,390 acre-feet for the basin as a whole. 

 
'


Water quality in the streams draining the Sacramento and San Andres Mountains generally 

exceeds that found in ground water of the Tularosa Basin. The quality of surface waters is 

influenced by the geologic formations in the headsprings areas and by the lithology of the other 

formations exposed downstream along these drainages. Water quality also can be expected to 

vary with the seasons and with the volume of flow in these channels, deteriorating to some 

degree at lower flows. 

Surface water quality in the upper Three Rivers drainage is among the best in the eastern 

Tularosa Basin. This is likely due to the low solubility of the igneous rocks in most of this 

drainage basin. RC&D (2002) reports a dissolved solids concentration of 678 milligrams/liter 

(mg/L) and sulfate at 299 mg/L in a single sample collected in May 1985. In the lower reaches 

of this stream water quality degrades, with dissolved solids rising to more than 1,000 mg/L and 

sulfate up to 651 mg/L (Hood and Herrick 1965). 

Further south along the Sacramento Mountain front, Tularosa Creek water quality patterns are 

similar to those found in the Three Rivers drainage. Dissolved solids of 585 mg/L near the 

headsprings increases downstream to 1,230 mg/l at Bent, approximately 12 miles upstream of the 

Village of Tularosa. Sulfate concentrations range between 128 and 220 mg/L over this stretch of 

the river (Garza and McLean 1977). 

 


There are reports of at least 50 springs in the Tularosa Basin, most of them identified during a 

1911 survey. Table 2.1 lists the name, location, geologic source unit, flow, and total dissolved 

solids (TDS) for each spring; Figure 2.5 shows their locations. Springs found in the canyons of 

the western Sacramento Mountains serve as an important source of water for communities along 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 10 

Table 2.1. Springs in the Tularosa Basin 

Location Name Geologic Unit Flow (Gpm) Total Dissolved Solids (Mg/L) Reference(S) 

T6S R6E S20 Deer Spring Madera Limestone 1-2 390 McLean 1970 T6S R6E S20 Rabbit Spring Quaternary alluvium Not reported 331 McLean 1970 T6S R6E S31 Council Spring Madera Limestone 1–15 393 McLean 1970 T7S R6E S9 Yates Spring Madera Limestone Not reported 434 McLean 1970 T7S R6E S29 Dripping Spring North Gallery Madera Limestone 1–2 450 McLean 1970 T7S R6E S29 Dripping Spring South Gallery Madera Limestone Not reported 584 McLean 1970 T7S R7E S 6 Seep Spring Abo Sandstone 10 724–919 McLean 1970 T7S R7E S15 Red Canyon Spring Abo Sandstone 1–2 3,130 McLean 1970 T7S R10E S26 Carrizozo Spring Quaternary alluvium, Cretaceous rocks 50 1,603–2,040 McLean 1970 T8S R6E S27 unnamed spring Not reported Not reported 2.244 McLean 1970 T8S R9E S29 Lower Willow Spring Mancos Shale, Quaternary alluvium 5 2,280–2,560 McLean 1970 T8S R10E S22 Upper Coyote Spring Quaternary alluvium, Cretaceous rocks, undivided 6 1,258 McLean 1970 T9S R8E S23 Bull Gap Spring Dockum Group 2 5,220 McLean 1970 T9S R8E S34 Phillips Spring Dakota Sandstone 3 1.760–1,938 McLean 1970 T9S R9E S9 Root Spring Mesaverde Group 5 1,840 McLean 1970 T9S R9E S10 Jakes Tunnel Mesaverde Group 3 1,722 McLean 1970 T9S R9E S10 Jakes Spring Mesaverde Group 30 1,480–1,625 McLean 1970 T9S R9E S32 Milagro Spring Mesaverde Group 20 1,254–1,430 McLean 1970 T10S R6E S23 Mound Spring #7 Quaternary alluvium 5 4,682 McLean 1970 T10S R6E S23 Mound Springs Quaternary alluvium 3 4,170 McLean 1970 T10S R6E S26 Mound Spring #25 Quaternary alluvium 2 4,133 McLean 1970 T11S R4E S35 Brady Spring Not reported Not reported Not reported McLean 1970 T11S R9E S35 Falls Ranch Spring Cretaceous rocks, undivided Not reported 1,897 McLean 1970 T12S R4E S2 Grapevine Spring Not reported 1 Not reported McLean 1970 T12S R7E S8 Malpais Spring Quaternary basalt 220–1 1,500 McLean 1970; Bedinger et al. 1989 T13S R2E S12 Rhodes Spring Abo Sandstone 0.25 Not reported McLean 1970 T13S R9E S5 Chosa Spring Quaternary alluvium 5 3,272 McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 11 

Table 2.1. Springs in the Tularosa Basin, continued 

Location Name Geologic Unit Flow (Gpm) Total Dissolved Solids (Mg/L) Reference(S) 

T13S R12E S27 Sulphur Spring (North Spring) Not reported Not reported Not reported McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T14S R8E S35 Tularosa Spring (Tula Spring) (Barrel Spring) Quaternary alluvium 25 1,250–1,838 McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T14S R9E S3 Lomitas Spring Quaternary alluvium 5 2,602 McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T14S R12E S12 Head Springs Yeso Formation Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T15S R9E S10 unnamed spring Quaternary alluvium Not reported 8,056 McLean 1970 T15S R9E S9 Mesquite Springs Quaternary alluvium Not reported 7,846 McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T15S R11E S11 unnamed spring Not reported Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T15S R11E S24 Maruchi Springs Not reported Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T15S R11E S25 La Luz Springs Not reported Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T16S R9E S7 unnamed spring Quaternary alluvium Not reported 4,576 McLean 1970 T16S R9E S14 unnamed spring Quaternary alluvium Not reported 9,413 McLean 1970 T16S R10E S1 Fresnal Canyon Springs Not reported Not reported Not reported McLean 1970 T16S R11E S2 Wooten Spring Madera Limestone Not reported 1,324 McLean 1970 T16S R11E S28 Caballero Canyon Springs Not reported Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T17S R8E S6 Salt Spring Not reported Not reported 7,504 McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T17S R8E S28 Black Spring Pennsylvanian rocks, undivided (?) Not reported 8,970 McLean 1970 T17S R11E S7 Alamo Canyon Springs Quaternary alluvium Not reported Not reported Garza and McLean 1977 T18S R8E S17 Harrington Spring Not reported Not reported Not reported McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T18S R8E S17 Salt Spring Not reported Not reported Not reported McLean 1970; Garza and McLean 1977 T19S R5E S4 unnamed spring Quaternary alluvium Not reported 94,980 McLean 1970 T20S R4E S17 Burke Spring Not reported 2 480 McLean 1970 T21S R4E S12 Bonney Spring Quaternary alluvium 1 496 McLean 1970 T21S R4E S34 Aguirre Springs Not reported Not reported Not reported BLM, undated T23S R4E S24 Globe Spring Not reported Not reported 302 McLean 1970 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 12 

Figure 2.5. Map showing the locations of springs in the Tularosa Basin. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 13 

the eastern margin of the Tularosa Basin. Examples include the La Luz, Fresnal, and Alamo 

Canyon Springs (and springs tributary to these drainages), which are an important source of 

water for Alamogordo. The Tularosa Creek, on which the community of Tularosa and some 

irrigators depend for water, also originates at several springs in the western Sacramento 

Mountains. Similar bedrock springs are found in the mountains on the western side of the 

Tularosa Basin, including Rhodes Canyon in the northern San Andres Mountains and Aguirre 

Springs in the Organ Mountains. However, there are fewer large springs on the western side of 

the basin. 

A number of smaller springs are located on or near the floor of the Tularosa Basin, some of 

which issue from bedrock (limestone, shale, and sandstone) near the contact with basin-fill 

materials. The majority of these springs are located in the northern portion of the Tularosa 

Basin. Examples of bedrock springs in the northern portion of the basin include Carrizozo 

Spring near Carrizozo and Jakes and Milagro Springs near Oscura. Malpais Spring is at the 

southern edge of a Quaternary basalt flow in the northern basin, at the contact with underlying 

basin-fill deposits. A few springs originate in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. Examples 

include Mound Springs, west of the Quaternary basalt, and Salt Springs on White Sands National 

Monument. 

Few data are available regarding the discharge of ground water from springs outside of those that 

feed the important mountain drainages. McLean (1970) reported estimates of the flow from 

Carrizozo, Jakes, and Milagro Springs as 50, 30 and 20 gallons/minute (gpm), respectively. 

Measurements of flow from Malpais Spring from several investigators ranged from 220 gpm to 

1,500 gpm (Bedinger et al. 1989). Discharges from Mound Springs in the northern basin are 

estimated to be in the range of 2 to 5 gpm (McLean 1970). 

Perennial springs in La Luz and Fresnal Canyons provide water of good quality to La Luz Creek. 

Water quality declines downstream from a dissolved solids concentration of 672 mg/L at the 

Fresnal Canyon springs to 1,700 mg/L at La Luz, with sulfate concentrations rising from 112 to 

799 mg/L over this same distance. The springs in Alamo Canyon provide water of good quality 

to Alamo Creek. Dissolved solids are commonly around 500 mg/L, and sulfate is present at 130 

mg/L (RC&D 2002). 

Few water quality data are available for the smaller tributaries and springs of the eastern or 

western Tularosa Basin, but similar patterns can be expected based on the bedrock types found 

within the drainage basins. 

Springs located near or on the basin floor are typically higher in total dissolved solids than those 

found in the mountains. Dissolved solids measured in water from the bedrock springs in the 

northern basin (e.g., Carrizozo, Jakes, Milagro) range from about 1,250 to 2,500 mg/L. Springs 

that issue from Quaternary deposits typically range from 4,000 to 10,000 mg/L of dissolved 

solids, with one sample from Salt Spring reportedly containing 94,980 mg/L (McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 14 

! 	



Ground water has been developed from both bedrock and basin-fill aquifers in the Tularosa 

Basin. The basin-fill deposits represent the most important aquifers in the area in terms of the 

quantity of water available, achievable production rates, and the degree of historic development 

of these resources. Ground water in the basin-fill deposits generally originates as precipitation in 

the mountains that moves into coarse material at the proximal ends of alluvial fans. 

! 	


'


! %
	&		

The Precambrian rocks of the Tularosa Basin are mostly crystalline, with low primary 

permeability and some limited secondary fracture permeability. Because of the low solubility of 

the minerals that comprise these rocks, water quality is typically good, with dissolved solids 

concentrations of less than 1,000 mg/L. However, owing to their low permeability and limited 

distribution, Precambrian rocks are not an important source of ground water within the basin. 

The pre-Permian Paleozoic rocks commonly exposed in the San Andres, Organ, and Franklin 

Mountains are largely crystalline sedimentary formations composed of dolomite and limestone 

and are also fairly low in permeability. Ground water yields are low in these units, with wells 

typically producing less than 100 gpm and with a drawdown on the order of 500 feet. Supplies 

produced from shallow outcrop areas tend to be calcium bicarbonate water of good quality with 

dissolved solids of less than 1,000 mg/L (Figure 2.6), but quality probably declines with depth, 

especially where water enters from overlying Permian rocks (McLean 1970). 

Permian formations represent marginal water sources within portions of the Tularosa Basin. The 

Yeso Formation supplies water to stock and domestic wells in the northern portion of the basin. 

Water in the upper portion of the saturated zone may have a TDS of 1,000 to 3,000 mg/L and a 

calcium sulfate ionic composition, but the salinity increases quickly with depth due to the 

gypsum that is dominant in the formation. Further, the well yields in the Yeso are typically low 

(less than 5 gpm), though they may be higher where solution cavities exist (McLean 1970). The 

Glorieta Sandstone and San Andres Limestone are both important water-producing units outside 

of the basin, but they are either thinner or less permeable within the basin. Thus, though water 

quality within these units is typically good, yields are low. 

In the area southwest of Carrizozo, the Late Triassic Dockum Group yields water of usable 

quality (TDS of 1,000 to 3,000 mg/L) in springs and irrigation wells. These wells are 

characterized by low yields, except where fractures are intercepted and wells producing up to 

150 gpm have been reported (McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 15 

Figure 2.6. Thickness of fresh water unit (from McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 16 

Cretaceous rocks are also locally important as aquifers in the Carrizozo area, where wells 

completed in the sandstones of the Mesaverde Group can produce up to 850 gpm. The 

underlying Mancos Shale produces little water, but at greater depth the Dakota Sandstone also 

yields sufficient water (5–125 gpm) for development of wells. Water from both of these 

formations has a typical TDS of 1,000–3,000 mg/L (McLean 1970). 

! 
	&		

The most important aquifers in the Tularosa Basin are within the unconsolidated basin-fill 

deposits. As described in Section 2.1.2, these deposits are variable in nature, both by location 

and by depth. Water in these aquifers is probably Holocene in age (1,000–10,000 years old), 

based on dating in the southeastern part of the basin (Huff 2002). The ground water gets older as 

it moves deeper and farther away from the mountain-fronts. 

Wells in Cenozoic deposits generally have yields in the range of 700–1,400 gpm. The highest 

yields generally correspond with the water of best quality, which comes from within the coarse 

deposits high on the alluvial fans on the east and west sides of the basin. However, the spatial 

extent and continuity of these coarse-grained deposits within the alluvial fans may be limited, 

which would constrain the water available for water supply. A geophysical study conducted in 

Grapevine Canyon suggests that structural features within the alluvial fans are filled with finergrained sediments and that the permeable coarse-grained materials may be limited to thin layers 

(Belzer et al. 2002). Another study in alluvial fan deposits in the vicinity of Soledad Canyon 

found the hydraulic properties to be highly variable because of both the heterogeneity of the 

sediments and tectonic activity (Naus 2002). 

With distance from the mountain-front, these alluvial sediments typically become finer grained 

and interfinger with lacustrine clays and evaporate deposits present in the center of the basin. On 

the lower fans, well yields of 300–700 gpm can be expected (McLean 1970). Little information 

is available regarding well yields in the center of the basin because high salinities have led to 

limited water development in this area. Within the main portion of the basin, sands and silts that 

can produce greater quantities of water are mostly present within a few hundred feet of the 

surface. Sands encountered between 3,600 and 6,000 feet from at least one test well may or may 

not be laterally continuous in a large portion of the basin. The Jarilla Fault, running north-south 

through the basin, divides a smaller sub-basin along the Sacramento Mountain–front from the 

main part of the basin. The flow conditions across this fault are not known, although it probably 

represents a zone of at least reduced permeability. 

Water quality declines with distance from the mountain-fronts. Close to sources of recharge 

(from surface water infiltration and an unknown volume of bedrock flow), fresh water (less than 

1,000 mg/L TDS) is often available to wells. The chemistry of these waters is dependent on the 

geologic units, present at depth, that are exposed in the drainage basins and on the composition 

of the alluvial materials that make up these basin-fill aquifers. Generally speaking, salinity also 

increases with depth within basin-fill deposits. However, recent sampling at the Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination Research Facility and at a Snake Tank test well (B. McGuire, personal 

communication) have documented the opposite trend, with ground-water samples collected at 

depth showing lower concentrations of dissolved solids. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 17 

! 	

	


Significant volumes of fresh water (TDS of less than 1,000 mg/L) exist in basin-fill sediments in 

two main areas along the margin boundaries, one in the fan deposits along the southern 

Sacramento Mountains and a second area in the fan deposits adjacent to the southern San Andres 

and Organ Mountains (Figure 2.7). As mapped by McLean (1970), the area of fresh ground 

water along the southern Sacramento Mountains is about 20 to 25 miles long, extending from 

Alamo Canyon south of Alamogordo to about 10 miles beyond Grapevine Canyon. The width 

of this zone varies from 2 miles to a maximum of about 4 miles opposite Grapevine Canyon. 

Near the mountain-front the fresh-water zone is up to 1,200 feet thick, thinning to an irregular 

edge westward where it is underlain by more saline water. This fresh-water zone has been 

extensively developed by Holloman Air Force Base and by private irrigation and domestic users. 

McLean (1970) estimated that approximately 3 to 4 million acre-feet of fresh water is present in 

this zone. 

The other significant area of fresh-water resources in the basin is adjacent to the south San 

Andres and Organ Mountains. This area extends over 50 miles, from Ash Canyon in the north to 

south of the Texas border. A reentrant in the mountain-front at White Sands Missile Range 

Headquarters contains over 1,800 feet of basin-fill sediments saturated with fresh water. This 

area serves as the water supply for the range. Despite the ground-water withdrawal from the Post 

Headquarters well field, ground-water storage in the Soledad Canyon area has not been affected 

(Naus 2002). The remainder of this zone is elongated north-south along the mountain-front, is 

200 to 1,000 feet thick, and ranges in width from 2 miles in the north to nearly 10 miles in the 

south near the Franklin Mountains. An estimated 7 million acre-feet of fresh water is present in 

this area (McLean 1970). 

! 
	

	


Water containing dissolved solids concentrations between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L is found 

generally around the margins of the Tularosa Basin and also exists as a transition zone between 

the fresh water areas described above and the saline water that characterizes most of the basin 

(Figure 2.7). McLean (1970) represents this water quality unit as a band around the basin 

margin, ranging from about 2 to 5 miles in width and having a thickness of up to a few hundred 

feet with the notable exception of two areas, in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the 

basin. The slightly saline zone in the northeastern basin extends about 30 miles from 

Alamogordo in the south to Three Rivers in the north, with its widest expression (10 miles) in the 

south and the narrowest (4 miles)in the north. The lack of a significant volume of fresh ground 

water in this area is likely due to the presence of soluble minerals in the alluvial materials and to 

recharge from ground water flowing through sedimentary rocks rich in sulfate materials (Hood 

and Herrick 1965). 

John Shomaker & Associates, Inc., (JSAI) (2003a) and the South Central Mountain RC&D 

Council, Inc., (RC&D) (2002) have a more conservative interpretation of the extent of this 

slightly saline unit, recognizing the presence of more saline water closer to the Jarilla Fault. 

JSAI estimates that about one-third of the water in the eastern sub-basin, or approximately 13 

million acre-feet, is in the slightly saline range. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 18 

Figure 2.7. Thickness of slightly saline water unit (from McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 19 

!! 
	

	


The central portion of the basin is saturated with water that ranges from moderately saline to 

brine (Figure 2.8). In places, ground water of the central basin contains dissolved solids in 

excess of 100,000 mg/L. Limited water quality analyses are available for these waters, but most 

data indicate sodium and chloride as the primary ions. McLean (1970) estimates that 98 percent 

of the alluvial deposits in the Tularosa Basin are saturated with sodium chloride brine, with a 

dissolved solids content of over 35,000 mg/L. In some areas, shallower wells have produced 

water with a TDS range of 13,900–57,600 mg/L, in which the predominant ions were either 

sodium and sulfate or sodium, chloride, and sulfate (Orr and Myers 1986). 

" 
(	

The New Mexico Constitution declares that all natural waters in New Mexico, both surface water 

and ground water, belong to the public and are subject to appropriation for beneficial use. An 

appropriator does not own the water, only the right to use the water. The state’s water law and 

framework for water rights are defined in New Mexico Statutes Chapter 72 and administered by 

the Office of the State Engineer (OSE). Under the statutes, beneficial use is the basis, measure, 

and limit of the right to use water. The OSE has the authority to determine what constitutes 

beneficial use. All beneficial uses are considered equal; however, under the state’s doctrine of 

prior appropriation, “senior” water rights are given priority over more “junior” water rights. This 

policy takes effect in consideration of new applications for water rights and when water supply is 

limited and cannot meet all water demands. 

" 	
	

A permit is required for the appropriation of any surface water within the state and for 

appropriation of ground water in any basin declared by the OSE to have reasonably ascertainable 

boundaries. The underground waters of the State of New Mexico comprise 33 declared basins 

(New Mexico Office of the State Engineer [OSE] 2005). Exceptions to the permitting 

requirement include domestic uses and small-scale stock watering. Small livestock and domestic 

ground water users must submit a permit application but are exempt from other permitting 

requirements. 

Upon filing an application for a water use permit with the OSE, the applicant must publish a 

public notice of the proposed appropriation. Any person, firm, or corporation who believes that 

the granting of the application will impair their existing water right may file an objection or 

protest with the OSE within an established protest period. Protests may also be filed on the basis 

that granting the application will adversely affect public welfare or would be contrary to the 

conservation of water within the state. The applicant and protestants may reach a settlement, or if 

a settlement is not reached, the applicant may request a hearing before the OSE. In these 

hearings, the burden of proof is on the applicant. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 20 

Figure 2.8. Thickness of 3,000 to 10,000 TDS saline water unit (from McLean 1970). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 21 

In evaluation of a permit application, the OSE must consider the following: whether the 

application will impair any existing water right; whether granting the application would be 

contrary to the conservation of water within the state; and whether the application will be 

detrimental to public welfare. The OSE may approve the application as submitted, for a lesser 

amount of water or different period of use than requested, or under other conditional approval, or 

may reject the application. If approved, the application becomes a permit to appropriate water 

and must state the time within which construction will be completed and water will be 

appropriated for beneficial use. Any appeals to the OSE decision go to the District Court. 

A water right, once granted by the OSE, becomes a private property right and can be bought or 

sold. The right can also be forfeited in part or in whole for failure to put the water to beneficial 

use. Any change in the point of diversion requires a new permit application. Water rights 

approved for the purpose of irrigation become appurtenant (attached) to the land upon which the 

right is used. Transfer of an irrigation water right to another property or for another use also 

requires a new permit application. 

" 
	


	


The Tularosa Underground Water Basin, an area of 6,070 square miles, was declared by the OSE 

on July 7, 1982, and was subsequently extended by 586 square miles on September 27, 2005, by 

OSE Special Order 162 (19.27.64.7 NMAC). The current Tularosa Basin Underground Water 

Basin is 6,656 square miles (Figure 2.9). To assure the orderly development of ground-water 

resources in the more populous Alamogordo-Tularosa corridor, the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

Administrative Area (Administrative Area) was adopted by the OSE in May 1997. The Water 

Rights Division developed criteria for water rights administration and the processing of water 

rights applications within the new sub-basin. A ground-water model developed by Thomas M. 

Morrison of the OSE (Morrison 1989) serves as a tool to assist in the administration of water 

rights in the Administrative Area. The administrative criteria for new applications establish a 

maximum allowable drawdown of 100 feet over a 40-year planning period, or dewatering of 

approximately one-quarter of the available fresh-water thickness. Because of the high level of 

total dissolved solids in much of the ground water in the Tularosa Basin, ground-water 

applications in the Administrative Area are also evaluated for their potential impact on 

distribution of dissolved solids in the aquifer. 

" 
	



	


Information regarding existing permitted water rights within the Tularosa Basin is available to 

the public through the WATERS Database on the OSE internet website (OSE 2005b). Data 

listed in WATERS for each water right includes the owner, the location of the point of diversion, 

the permitted maximum diversion, and the intended use. Analysis of these data illustrates the 

geographical distribution of water rights within the Basin and provides an indication of the 

relative consumption by each type of water use (e.g., agricultural, municipal, military, 

residential). Data are provided for both surface water rights and ground-water rights; however, 

the analysis provided below focuses solely on ground-water rights. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 22 

Figure 2.9. Map of the Tularosa Underground Water Basin defined by the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 23 

A summary by use type of 4,911 permitted ground-water rights within the Tularosa Basin is 

provided in Table 2.2. For comparison, the table also includes a separate analysis of the water 

rights data for the smaller Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. The number of water 

rights by use type is listed for the Tularosa Basin and for the Administrative Area, as is the total 

permitted diversion by acre-foot per year (ac-ft/yr). As illustrated in Figure 2.10, the majority 

(62%) of individual water rights in the Tularosa Basin are owned by residential users. 

Agricultural users (25%) make up the second largest number of water rights permitted within the 

Basin. The balance of water rights is divided between commercial (3%), municipal (1%), 

“other” uses (9%) including exploration, monitoring, highway construction and unspecified use, 

and lastly, military use (<1%). Total permitted ground-water diversions within the Basin by acft/yr are represented in Figure 2.11. In terms of permitted diversions, agricultural users dominate 

with 58% of the total water use, even though agriculture makes up only 25% of the permitted 

diversions in the Basin. Military water use (16%) ranks second, followed by municipal (12%), 

residential (9%), commercial (4%), and the combined category of other water uses (<1%). As 

shown in Figure 2.12, the majority of these 4,911 water rights are concentrated within the 

Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. 

In general, the ranking of the number of ground-water rights by usage type is the same in the 

Administrative Area (Figure 2.13) as for the Basin as a whole (residential, agricultural, other 

uses, commercial and municipal). However, the top three use types for ground-water diversions 

(Figure 2.14) are agricultural (67%), municipal (19%) and residential (12%) as there are no 

military ground-water diversions from within the Administrative Area. These figures show that 

agriculture accounts for 67% of the total water used in the Administrative Area, even though it 

makes up only 24% of the permitted diversions. Figure 2.15 provides an illustration of the 

current density and distribution of consumptive ground-water uses in and around the 

Administrative Area. 

Table 2.2. Existing Water Rights within the Tularosa Basin and the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

Administrative Area 

 Tularosa Basin Water Rights Administrative Area Water Rights 

Use Type Number of 

Water Rights 

Diversion Total 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Number of 

Water Rights 

Diversion Total 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Agricultural 1,216 92,562 775 64,202 

Commercial 128 6,149 88 2,317 

Municipal 41 19,278 16 18,305 

Residential 3,083 14,570 2,209 12,048 

Military 6 26,046 0 0 

Other 437 248 192 144 

Total 4,911 158,853 3,280 97,016 

Source: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer WATERS Database, November 16,2005, (OSE 2005b) 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 24 

25%

3%

1%

62%

0%

9%

AgriculturalCommercialMunicipalResidentialMilitaryOther

59%

4%

9%

12%

16%

0%

AgriculturalCommercialMunicipalResidentialMilitaryOther

Figure 2.10. Distribution of individual permitted 

ground-water diversions (water rights) for the Tularosa 

Basin by type of use. 

Figure 2.11. Permitted ground-water diversions 

(ac-ft/yr) in the Tularosa Basin by type of use, shown as percent 

of total permitted diversions. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 25 

Figure 2.12. Well locations from W.A.T.E.R.S. database (Tularosa Groundwater Basin).
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 26 

24%

3%

0%

67%

6%

AgriculturalCommercialMunicipalResidentialOther

Figure 2.13. Distribution of individual permitted 

ground-water diversions (water rights) for the 

Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area by type of use. 

67% 2%

19%

12%

0%

AgriculturalCommercialMunicipalResidentialOther

Figure 2.14. Permitted ground-water diversions 

(ac-ft/yr) in the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative 

Area by type of use, shown as a percent of total permitted 

diversions. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 27 

Figure 2.15. Distribution and locations of existing water diversions within the NMOSE 

Administrative Area near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The total amount of ground water 

presently diverted within 1 square mile is represented by colored cells. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 28 

# 	





Water rights have been established in the Tularosa Basin based on estimates of the available 

supply and the demonstrated need or proposed beneficial use. In practice, the amount of water 

that can be diverted under a water right varies and may be significantly less than the amount 

permitted under the water right. These variations in yield may be based on hydrologic, 

collection, and distribution system limitations and may impact the reliability of a water resource. 

In planning for future water needs, the City of Alamogordo has used the concept of “firm yield” 

of existing water resources in comparing their existing water supply to current and projected 

future demands. Alamogordo consultant JSAI defines “firm yield” as “the minimum yield during 

the life of the reservoir [supply] (JSAI, 2003b:pg. 2).” In applying this concept to analysis of the 

City’s supply sources, JSAI states that “firm yield is based on the lowest surface- and groundwater diversions for the period of record (JSAI 2003b:pg. 2).”

In calculating the firm yield for surface water sources, JSAI took into account reductions in 

annual yield due to recent drought conditions, pipeline conditions, periods of poor water quality, 

and minimum lake level requirements (Bonito Lake) for fish, wildlife, and recreation. It was 

assumed that the amount of water diverted from each source was the maximum amount that 

could be taken. The fifth percentile was chosen as a conservative flow value that would be 

available on demand, “since 95 percent of historical flows exceed the fifth percentile (JSAI 

2003b:pg. 2).” 

Variability in the annual yield from ground-water sources results from aquifer capacity, number 

of wells, well performance, and equipment downtime for maintenance and replacement. JSAI 

calculated the firm yield of the City of Alamogordo’s La Luz Well Field by summing the 

minimum annual production from each well for the period 1999 to 2002, adding a factor of 20 

percent to correct for year-round pumping (currently, the wells are used 8–10 months of the 

year), then subtracting the minimum annual production from the single best-producing well as a 

reliability factor. 

These firm-yield calculations provide a conservative estimate of reliable water resources 

availability for planning purposes. The estimates are conservative because they assume 

historical minimum (or near minimum) production from each of the City’s water sources at the 

same time (data from multiple surface water sources for a 35-year period and from the La Luz 

Well Field for 4 years). Table 2.3 compares the permitted water right for each of the City’s 

sources and the calculated firm yield used for planning purposes. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 29 

Table 2.3. Comparison of Permitted Water Rights and Calculated Firm Yield 

(modified from JSAI 2003b) 

Water Resource Permitted Water Right 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Calculated Firm Yield 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Firm Yield as a Percent 

of Permitted Water Right 

La Luz–Fresnal Canyon 12,395 2,557 20 

Alamo Canyon 3,078 750 24 

Bonito Lake 1,719 0* 0 

La Luz Well Field 4,573 1,093 24 

TOTAL 21,765 4,400 20 

*Assumed for planning and contingency
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 30 

  	



	


In the development and analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) project team conducted an independent evaluation of water resource availability 

in the general project area. The intent of this evaluation was to develop a set of feasible options 

for a reliable source of water to meet the identified need for a minimum period of 40 years. As 

stated in the EIS purpose and need, existing regional water users (especially municipal, 

agricultural, and military users) are heavily dependent on surface water. As demonstrated by 

conditions over the past decade, surface water is particularly vulnerable to drought, impacting 

the reliability of regional water systems. To meet the purpose of providing a sustainable water 

supply, the team limited the evaluation to ground-water resources of the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer. 

The team was aided by a significant body of existing published literature on the occurrence and 

quality of ground water within the basin. Chief among the references consulted were: 

• Saline Ground-Water Resources of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico, 1970, McLean, J. 

S., US Geological Survey, Research and Development Progress Report No. 561. 

• Water Resources in Basin-Fill Deposits in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico, 1986, Orr, 

Brennon R., and Myers, Robert G., US Geological Survey, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report No. 85-4219. 

• Alamogordo Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Study, New Mexico (Working 

Document), 1986, US Bureau of Reclamation. 

• Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin Regional Water Plan, 2000–2040, 2002, Livingston 

Associates and John Shomaker and Associates, Inc., for South Central Mountain 

Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. 

The development of alternatives for water resources focused on aquifers within the basin-fill 

deposits of the Tularosa Basin. These deposits, including the alluvial fans flanking the mountain 

fronts on the east and west sides of the basin and the lacustrine and eolian deposits of the central 

basin, contain substantial quantities of saline and, to a lesser extent, fresh ground-water 

resources. The area considered in the development of water resources alternatives extends from 

the New Mexico/Texas border north to Oscura and from near the crest of the Sacramento 

Mountains in the east to near the crest of the San Andres and Organ Mountains in the west 

(Figure 3.1). Much of the region outside of this area is characterized by bedrock, present at or 

near the ground surface, with limited water production potential. Alluvial or basin-fill deposits 

outside of the Tularosa Basin were not considered in the development of alternatives, due largely 

to the administrative difficulties posed by trans-basin water diversion. 

To screen potential water resources locations within the area of evaluation, the EIS team applied 

a number of criteria related to the quality, quantity, accessibility and availability of ground water. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 31 

Figure 3.1. Area of basin-fill deposits considered in the development 

of water resources alternatives. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 32 

The criteria used were both scientific (e.g., ground water quality, quantity, and recoverability) 

and administrative (e.g., permitability and current land ownership). The selection and definition 

of these criteria were influenced by the availability of data in published literature. Utilizing a 

Geographic Information System (GIS) approach, available data for each criterion were overlain 

on a map of the area to identify the most favorable alternatives for further analysis. The 

following sections outline the criteria that were used in this analysis and the resulting preliminary 

water resources alternatives developed. 

  

Permitability is an important consideration for alternatives identification and screening, given 

that water users in New Mexico must obtain their water rights under state law, and that these 

rights are administered by the OSE. The application process for new water rights is described 

above in Section 2.5.1 under New Mexico Water Law. By declaring the 6,665-square-mile 

Tularosa Underground Water Basin (see Section 2.5.2), the OSE established the requirement for 

water rights by permit. Therefore, any new ground water development by the City of 

Alamogordo within the Tularosa Basin will require an approved permit application prior to 

construction. 

Additional considerations are imposed by the OSE for any new ground-water development 

within the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. The OSE established in 1997 that these 

considerations were necessary because the Tularosa is a “mined water basin,” or one in which 

the water withdrawal from wells exceeds natural or induced recharge. Further, the majority of 

existing and pending well applications in the Tularosa Basin were found to be within this 

Administrative Area. Under the Administrative Area requirements, applications for new water 

rights are considered with respect to their potential to cause significant drawdown within groundwater model “blocks” or to impact fresh (<1,000 mg/L TDS) ground-water quality by 

influencing migration of saline water. A number of model blocks within the Administrative 

Area are already considered “critical” under the defined criteria, and no further ground-water 

development is permitted in those areas. 

Because of the degree of existing ground-water development in the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

Administrative Area, the more stringent criteria for permit application approval, and the large 

areas already considered critical where further ground-water development is not permitted, new 

water rights of the magnitude required by the City of Alamogordo are unlikely to be granted. 

Ground water within the boundaries of the Administrative Area has therefore been eliminated 

from further consideration as a water resources alternative for this project (Figure 3.2). 

Outside of the Administrative Area but within the Tularosa Basin, permitability of ground-water 

resources is affected by the proximity to other, senior water rights. Application for a new water 

right can be challenged if it is believed that the ground-water development will cause 

unacceptable impairment of an existing water right. Additionally, the City of Alamogordo has 

stated that it is their intention to minimize impacts to the existing agricultural lifestyle that 

characterizes much of the Tularosa Basin (Livingston and Shomaker. 2002). For this reason, the 

permitability criteria used for water resources alternatives development also consider 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 33 

Figure 3.2. Area of basin-bill deposits showing the Alamogordo-Tularosa 

Administrative Area and the location of existing senior water rights 

(each water-rights location shown with a 2000-foot radius). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 34 

proximity to existing senior water rights. Figure 3.2 shows the location of existing permitted 

ground-water wells (OSE 2003) outside of the Administrative Area. Each well is shown with a 

2000-foot radius to approximate the area of greatest hydraulic influence. The GIS analysis of 

water resources alternatives considered only those areas outside of the Administrative Area, 

where a new well field (assumed to occupy 10 square miles) could not be within 2,000 feet of the 

nearest existing permitted well. 

  	

Two aquifer characteristics, depth to ground water and potential yield to wells, were used to 

provide a preliminary measure of ground-water recoverability in potential water resource areas. 

Other attributes considered but discussed later in this section include water quality and estimated 

thickness of the production zone. 

Data on depth to ground water were obtained from McLean (1970). Depth to water was included 

as a criterion in the comparison of ground-water resources alternatives because of the 

progressively increasing technical difficulty of drilling and maintaining deeper wells. A depth to 

water of 400 feet or less was selected as a preferred condition for development within the 

evaluation area (Figure 3.3). McLean (1970) used this depth in his analysis of water resources 

availability. As can be seen in Figure 3.3, nearly all ground water within the evaluation area 

occurs within 400 feet of the surface. Therefore, this criterion excluded very little of the basin 

from further evaluation as a water resources alternative. 

McLean (1970) summarized data on potential yields of wells developed within the upper 500 

feet of the saturated zone in alluvial and lacustrine deposits within the Tularosa Basin. These 

data were contoured in several ranges: 0–300 gpm, 300–700 gpm, and more than 700 gpm. In 

general, the highest yields (in some cases, over 1,000 gpm) are in wells drilled in the coarse 

sands and gravels of alluvial fans bordering the eastern and western mountain fronts. Lower on 

these alluvial fans, toward the center of the basin, wells are typically completed in finer sands 

and silts and yield from 300 to 700 gpm. The distal alluvial deposits and lacustrine sediments of 

the central portion of the basin are typically higher in clay and evaporate minerals, and well 

yields are frequently very low. As discussed earlier, bedrock aquifers at the margins of the basin 

have limited water production potential. Although locally important for municipal, stock, or 

agricultural uses, well yields in these bedrock aquifers are commonly less than 100–200 gpm and 

are frequently much less. 

Based on the available data, the EIS team adopted a well yield of 300 gpm as a recoverability 

criterion for water resources alternatives. To meet the City of Alamogordo’s projected need of 

10,000 afy, a well field of 10 wells would need to achieve an average pumping rate of over 600 

gpm per well. To meet this same target at a well yield of less than 300 gpm would require more 

than 20 wells, representing a significant increase in the well field area, project complexity, and 

capital, operational, and maintenance costs. Figure 3.4 shows portions of the basin-fill deposits 

where well yields of more than 300 gpm can be expected, based on the information reported by 

McLean (1970). This criterion eliminates from further consideration the center of the Tularosa 

Basin, as well as portions of the northwest and southeast areas of the basin. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 35 

Figure 3.3. Area of basin-fill deposits where ground water is present 

within 400 feet of the surface. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 36 

Figure 3.4. Areas of basin-fill deposits where well yields of more than 

300 gpm can be expected.
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 37 

  
	


For the purposes of this preliminary alternatives screening, privately owned lands and Native 

American and Tribal lands have been excluded from consideration. Public lands considered 

accessible for the development of water resources alternatives include those managed by the 

Department of Defense (including White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, and 

Fort Bliss), the National Park Service (White Sands National Monument), the BLM (except 

those currently identified as BLM Wildlife Management Areas), the Forest Service, and the State 

of New Mexico (State Lands, State Parks, and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish). 

Each of these public land management agencies has different requirements for development of 

water-resources projects. It is quite possible that further investigation will demonstrate that some 

of these public lands are not available to the City of Alamogordo for the proposed water 

resources development project. However, all listed federal and state lands were considered 

accessible for this preliminary alternatives screening. Figure 3.5 shows the areas of public land 

considered accessible for development of water resources alternatives. 

Table 3.1 summarizes the preliminary screening criteria used in the development of water 

resources alternatives. Water quality is considered in Section 3.4, and a more detailed analysis 

of the remaining water resources alternatives is presented in Section 4.0. 

Table 3.1. Preliminary Water Resources Alternatives Screening Criteria 

Water Resource 

Consideration Criteria used for Preliminary Screening 

Permitability outside of the Administrative Area 

more than 2,000 feet from existing senior water rights 

Recoverability ground water present within 400 feet of the surface 

expected well yields of 300 gpm or more 

Land Ownership publicly owned land (federal and state), excluding BLM Wildlife 

Management Areas 

 ! 


	



GIS overlay maps showing areas that meet the permitability, recoverability, and land-ownership 

criteria defined above can identify areas for further investigation of water resources alternatives. 

Figure 3.6 shows the areas that survived this preliminary screening. A large area north and west 

of the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area remains for further analysis. This area 

contains the City of Alamogordo’s proposed Snake Tank Well Field site and extends northwest 

to include the southern portion of the Quaternary basalt flows in the northern Tularosa Basin. 

Another large area remains in the southwest portion of the basin, east of the southern San Andres 

and Organ Mountains and extending south to the New Mexico–Texas border. Smaller areas that 

meet all the screening criteria are also present south of Alamogordo in the vicinity of the 

Grapevine Canyon alluvial fan and to the northwest in narrow strips along the front of the central 

San Andres Mountains. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 38 

Figure 3.5. Area of basin-fill deposits with public land ownership. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 39 

Figure 3.6. Areas of basin-fill deposits that meet all preliminary screening criteria.
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 40 

Ground-water quality is an important consideration in water resources alternatives development 

for the proposed project that has not been factored into the preliminary screening process 

described above. McLean (1970) has provided data on the distribution of salinity in Tularosa 

Basin ground water, in terms of both area and depth. When these data are overlaid on Figure 3.6, 

the resulting maps (Figure 3.7, Figure 3.8, Figure 3.9) show potential water resources 

alternatives for fresh (0–1000 mg/L TDS), slightly saline (1000–3000 mg/L TDS), and 

moderately saline (3000–10,000 mg/L) ground water. As discussed in the more detailed analysis 

of alternatives that follows (Section 4.0), use of fresh-water resources means that desalination is 

not required prior to distribution. Slightly and moderately saline water sources require 

increasinglevels of treatment to remove TDS, with obvious impacts for project complexity and 

cost. 

In applying McLean’s (1970) water-quality data for water resources alternatives development, 

only aquifer zones with thicknesses of 250 feet or more were considered viable for development. 

For screening purposes, if the saturated thickness for a specific salinity range was less than 250 

feet, it was considered insufficient to support the defined water needs. Each of the areas 

surviving this preliminary screening process is further evaluated through the EIS process. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 41 

Figure 3.7. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with fresh 

(0–1000 mg/L TDS) ground-water resources.
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 42 

Figure 3.8. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with slightly saline 

(1000–3000 mg/L TDS) ground-water resources.
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 43 

Figure 3.9. Areas of basin-fill deposits meeting screening criteria with moderately saline 

(3000–10,000 mg/L TDS) ground-water resources. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 44 

! 

	


The development and screening of water resources alternatives in Section 3 identified four 

potential water supplies in the Tularosa Basin area that may represent viable alternatives to meet 

the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives are listed in Section 4.1 and further 

explored in Section 4.2. For each alternative, available information is summarized regarding 

hydrogeologic conditions, existing water development, and potential impacts to existing water 

rights and environmental receptors. The volume and depth of previous studies for each 

alternative vary considerably. The extent of the discussion of each alternative is a reflection of 

the available literature. Section 4.3 presents a matrix comparison of the four remaining resources 

alternatives. 

! 
	







Four water resource options remained after the preliminary screening of alternatives. All four 

involve the development of ground water from basin-fill or alluvial-fan deposits near the margins 

of the Tularosa Basin. These alternatives are listed below and shown on Figure 4.1. 

1. Snake Tank Well Field Site – Development of a slightly saline ground water, 

approximately 3 miles north of the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. 

2. Alvarado Area – Development of a slightly saline ground water, in the southwest 

portion of the Tularosa Basin, south of White Sands Missile Range Headquarters between 

US 54 and the Franklin Mountains. 

3. White Sands Missile Range Headquarters Area – Development of a fresh ground water 

resource, coincident with the mountain-front embayment east of San Augustin Pass. 

4. Grapevine Canyon – Development of a fresh ground water resource, in alluvial fan 

deposits west of Grapevine Canyon and approximately 3 miles south of the AlamogordoTularosa Administrative Area. 

These four alternatives met all preliminary screening criteria for physical, hydrogeologic, and 

administrative conditions defined in Section 3. 

! 
	
	





Additional information on each of the four water resources alternatives is summarized in the 

following subsections, beginning with the Snake Tank Well Field. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 45 

Figure 4.1. Water-resource alternatives remaining after preliminary screening.
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 46 

! 

	

! 			

The Snake Tank Well Field site (Snake Tank site) is located east of US Route 54 and occupies 

approximately 5 square miles along the northeast margin of the Tularosa Basin in an area of 

alluvial fan basin-fill deposits extending west from the Sacramento Mountains (Figure 4.1). The 

proposed well field is a few miles northwest of the mouth of Rinconada Canyon, and much of the 

alluvial material in this area is likely carried from the mountains by this drainage. McLean's 

(1970:Figure 5) map showing the elevation of bedrock and the basin-fill water table suggests that 

there is a trough of saturated alluvial deposits in this area, ranging in thickness from about 1,500 to 

2,500 feet. Little information is available regarding the underlying bedrock, but it is likely 

characterized by the sedimentary Permian units exposed in the Sacramento Mountains to the east. 

In general, Quaternary alluvial fan materials in this area can be expected to be more coarse grained 

near the mountain-front, consisting largely of sand and gravel. With distance from the mountainfront, fan deposits become increasingly fine grained, with a greater fraction of silt and clay. 

The Snake Tank site lies in the area of the main north-south range-bounding fault separating the 

Sacramento Mountain block from the Tularosa Basin (Figure 4.2). The location of the fault can 

be approximated from drilling logs and geophysical survey data. Offset of bedrock units across 

this fault, with a downdrop to the west, likely leads to significant differences in the thickness of 

the alluvial fan deposits beneath the eastern and western portions of the Snake Tank site. 

The City of Alamogordo has drilled several test wells at the Snake Tank site, but as of this writing, 

lithologic logs are available from only one well. The well log filed with the OSE (T-03837, drilled 

October–December 2001) reported a total depth of 710 feet, with alluvium/basin-fill sediments 

encountered to total depth. The alluvium was described as predominantly gravel with lesser seams 

of sand, silt, and clayey gravel. The depth to water in this well is reported to be 177 feet. At least 

one of the City’s test wells at the Snake Tank site penetrated 900 feet of alluvial deposits before 

encountering bedrock (B. McGuire, personal communication). The depth of alluvial sediments on 

the western portion of the Snake Tank site is likely in excess of 1,500 feet. 

McLean (1970) estimated a well yield of at least 300–700 gpm over an area of alluvial basin-fill 

deposits that includes the Snake Tank site and extending to the west. Well yields are probably 

more than 700 gpm closer to the mountain front, but only where thickness of basin-fill deposits is 

adequate. The City estimated a specific capacity of 10 gpm per foot (gpm/ft) of screened well for 

the basin-fill deposits at the Snake Tank site, based on aquifer tests performed at well T-03837 

(JSAI 2003a). The Permian-age strata beneath the basin-fill deposits may also yield water to wells; 

however, no wells are known to have penetrated these units in the area of the Snake Tank site. 

Ground water quality at the Snake Tank site is in the slightly saline range of 1,000–3,000 mg/L 

TDS. McLean (1970:Figure 8) shows a slightly saline unit with a saturated thickness of 500–

2,000 feet in this area. Ground water salinity at the Snake Tank site was predicted to be 2,000–

3,000 mg/L TDS in estimates developed by the City of Alamogordo (JSAI 2003a) and confirmed 

by analysis of a water sample from City well T-03837, which contained 2,220 mg/L TDS. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 47 

Figure 4.2. Snake tank well field site. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 48 

Surface water features within 10 miles of the Snake Tank site include the Tularosa Creek, 

numerous intermittent streams, and a number of springs. The Tularosa, located approximately 8 

miles south-southeast of the site, is the only perennial stream. Temporal Creek, an intermittent 

stream, drains west-southwest from the Sacramento Mountains and across the basin-fill deposits 

approximately 2 miles south of the Snake Tank site. The intermittent Three Rivers drainage runs 

west from Sierra Blanca, then turns to the southwest and passes about 3 miles northwest of the site. 

At least 27 springs are within 10 miles of the Snake Tank site (see JSAI 2003a:Appendix A). 

Three of these springs—the Falls Ranch Spring, Chosa Spring, and Lomitas Spring—are described 

in the published literature and are included in the description of Tularosa Basin springs in Section 

2.3. Several of the springs listed by JSAI (2003a), including Chosa Spring, Cowen Spring, and 

Lomitas Spring, issue from Quaternary alluvial basin-fill deposits. Many other springs flow from 

Cretaceous or Permian bedrock exposed in the foothills of the Sacramento Mountains. A 

protestant to the City of Alamogordo’s Permit Application with the OSE has filed permit 

applications for 10 springs on the High Nogal Ranch, all within 8 miles of the Snake Tank site. 

! 	
	
	


JSAI (2003a:Appendix E) listed over 600 wells located between Three Rivers and Tularosa. 

Ground-water well uses include municipal (Village of Tularosa), irrigation, stock, commercial, 

and domestic. Additionally, there are a number of permitted surface-water diversions from the 

Tularosa Creek for irrigation and stock-watering. The potential impacts of the proposed water 

development to ground-water users nearest the Snake Tank site has been estimated by others 

using the ground-water models discussed in Section 5.0. Using different modeling methods, 

HAI (2003a) and JSAI (2003a) each determined that drawdown from pumping would reduce the 

water column in four existing wells to less than 70 percent of initial levels over a 40-year period. 

Keyes (2003) predicted that up to nine wills would experience a reduction in water column to 

less than 70 percent of initial levels. Each model also found that one existing well, the 

Christopher well at High Nogal Ranch, would go dry due to the proposed water development. 

All of the other wells found to have a final water column of less than 70 percent of initial levels 

are owned by protestant HFR Corporation. Well users at greater distances from the site may 

experience drawdown effects of less than 70 percent of the initial water levels, potentially 

leading to reduced well yield or needed well maintenance (e.g., lowering pumps). 

Existing ground-water users could also be affected by changes in ground-water salinity resulting 

from the proposed development, though the authors of the modeling efforts summarized in 

Section 5.0 found less agreement on the potential changes. HAI (2003a) concluded that 

insufficient data exist to model potential changes in water quality, but predicted that “it seems 

highly likely that within the area of the proposed wellfield and at some of the closer wells, water 

quality would likely decline over time.” However, JSAI (2003a) completed solute-transport 

modeling and determined that there would be no changes in salinity at existing wells, as the 

capture zone of the pumping wells would not extend far enough to the west to induce the flow of 

more saline water. Finally, Keyes (2003), using the same model employed by HAI for analysis 

of drawdown effects, found that induced salinity changes in existing wells would be “very 

small,” with the greatest increase in salinity in any single well being 24 mg/L TDS over a 40-

year simulation period. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 49 

Potential impacts of the proposed project on the surface-water features are unknown. Section 5.0 

describes the use of ground-water models by the City of Alamogordo and others to assess the 

potential hydrogeologic impacts of the proposed ground-water development. Consideration of 

surface water/ground water interactions in these models is limited to the simulation of groundwater recharge via stream leakage. The models predict the pumping-induced drawdown in the 

regional basin-fill aquifer and impacts on existing water wells in the area. The predicted 

drawdown impacts extend as much as 12 miles north and south of the Snake Tank site and 5 

miles or more to the east and west (see JSAI 2003a:Figure 18). This area of potential impacts 

encompasses most of the springs identified by JSAI (2003a) and includes the Tularosa Creek 

from its exit from the mountain-front, west through the Village of Tularosa and beyond. It is 

possible that these surface-water features will be affected by the proposed pumping, if they are 

hydraulically connected to the regional aquifer from which water would be produced. Possible 

effects could include increased induced recharge from the Tularosa, resulting in reduced stream 

flows and reduction or cessation of flows at springs if they are hydraulically linked to the 

regional aquifer. Springs that issue from the Quaternary alluvium, especially those closer to the 

site, may also be affected by pumping-induced drawdown. 

The information on surface water/ground water interactions in the existing literature is not 

adequate to make reliable predictions regarding potential impacts of the proposed ground-water 

development to surface-water users. Users who rely on springs, especially springs that issue 

from the Quaternary alluvial deposits that are nearest the Snake Tank site, are the most likely to 

be affected as a result of the proposed development. 

The same data limitations that preclude the evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed 

pumping to surface-water users also limit the assessment of potential environmental impacts. If 

induced drawdown due to proposed pumping would cause a decline in shallow water table 

elevations and reduces spring discharge, the possibility of impacts to riparian habitats would 

exist. In the semi-arid climate of the Tularosa Basin, small changes in water table elevations 

could result in significant changes in these riparian habitats that rely on a shallow depth to 

groundwater, and could influence the flora and fauna located in these settings. Collection and 

analysis of additional data to characterize the hydraulic connection between shallow ground 

water and the regional basin-fill aquifer would reduce the uncertainty of potential environmental 

effects of the proposed project. 

! 
'

The White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) Headquarters area (Figure 4.3) was considered for 

locating ground-water wells, but eliminated from further analysis because of restricted land 

access. The mission of WSMR is to provide the Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense, 

and other customers with high quality services for experimentation, test, research, assessment, 

development, and training in support of the Nation at war. Developing ground-water wells to 

serve a municipal drinking water system for the City of Alamogordo does not fit the mission of 

WSMR (Appendix A – letter from WSMR). As a result, the WSMR well field alternative was 

eliminated from detailed analysis. Please see Chapter 2 of the EIS for further information. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 50 

Figure 4.3. White Sands Missile Range Headquarters site. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 51 

! 

	


The area west of Grapevine Canyon (Figure 4.4) was considered for locating ground-water wells, 

but was eliminated from further analysis because of restricted land access. Fresh water resources 

at this site are located within the McGregor Range, a large tract of land that has been withdrawn 

from public domain for use by the U.S. Army (Fort Bliss). This land was withdrawn under the 

Military Lands Withdrawal Act (PL 106-65) for military purposes. The McGregor Range is the 

principal training facility for air defense systems, a critical part of military operational readiness 

for national defense (BLM 2005). As a result, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed 

analysis because developing ground-water production wells on this land would compromise the 

U.S. Army’s mission for the McGregor Range at Fort Bliss (Appendix B – letter from Ft. Bliss). 

Please see Chapter 2 of the EIS for further information. 

!! 	

!! 			

The Alvarado Well Field Site (Alvarado area) is located between Route 54 and the Franklin 

Mountains, about 20 miles south of the White Sands Missile Range Headquarters Area. The 

region of interest occupies an irregular area of approximately 18 square miles along the 

southwest margin of the Tularosa Basin in an area of alluvial fan and basin-fill deposits 

extending east from the Franklin Mountains (Figure 4.1). The unusual shape of the Alvarado 

area is an artifact of the overlapping GIS layers used to screen potential water resource 

alternatives (Figure 4.5). 

The prospective well site is several miles southeast of Fillmore Pass, the former path followed by 

the Rio Grande into the Tularosa Basin (Seager 1981). The Alvarado area is east of the rangebounding Organ Mountains Fault in an area of thick basin-fill deposits. Repeated movement 

along the Organ Mountains Fault, the Artillery Range Fault Zone, and related faults paralleling 

the mountain front have created a deep trough where a thick sequence of alluvial fan, debris 

flow, and fluvial deposits of the Camp Rice Formation accumulated during the Pliocene and 

Early Pleistocene (Seager et al. 1987). Contours of the altitude of the top of consolidated 

bedrock, as presented in McLean (1970), suggest that the thickness of the basin-fill deposits in 

the Alvarado area ranges from a few hundred to several thousand feet. An east-west crosssection drawn a mile south of the Alvarado area (Seager et al. 1987) shows a basin-fill thickness 

of up to 5000 feet. Well data on file with the OSE indicate that the majority of water wells 

drilled in this general area are between 500 and 600 feet deep, although several have penetrated 

1000 feet or more of basin-fill deposits. 

In general, the piedmont-slope and fluvial sediments of the Camp Rice Formation are composed 

of sand, gravel, and conglomerate, grading to finer-grained deposits with distance from the 

mountain-front. The deposits closest to the mountain front contain poorly sorted debris flow 

units; fluvial units are characteristically well sorted. Toward the eastern portion of the Alvarado 

area these ancestral Rio Grande–related units likely interfinger increasingly with finer-grained 

lacustrine deposits, including clays and evaporates. Calcium carbonate cement, frequently well 

developed, is irregularly distributed throughout the basin-fill deposits (Naus 2002). Several 

north-south faults that occur within the Alvarado area have experienced late Pleistocene 

movement, resulting in offset within the Camp Rice sediments (Seager et al. 1987). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 52 

Figure 4.4. Proposed location of well field west of Grapevine Canyon. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 53 

Figure 4.5. Proposed location of Alvarado well field. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 54 

McLean (1970) estimated well yields of 300–700 gpm in the eastern half of the Alvarado area 

and over 700 gpm in the western half. Review of well records on file with the OSE confirms 

production rates in these ranges, with several wells reportedly producing 2000 gpm or more. 

Production rates for specific wells can be expected to vary significantly due to differences in 

lithology of basin-fill deposits and the presence and degree of cementation present. 

Additionally, the presence of several faults within the Alvarado area is likely to influence 

hydraulic properties in a manner that is difficult to predict. Based on well data from the White 

Sands Missile Range Headquarters Area, Kelly and Hearne (1976) concluded that fault zones in 

this portion of the basin represent zones of increased hydraulic conductivity. However, in 

analyzing data from a well closer to the Alvarado area, Lyford (1970) determined that a fault 

zone acted as a barrier to ground-water flow. 

Data on ground water quality specific to the Alvarado area are limited. McLean (1970:Figure 7) 

shows a fresh water unit with a thickness of 200 to 400 feet overlying a slightly saline unit about 

250 feet thick. Presumably, the water below this depth is even more saline. Water produced 

from the eastern portion of the Alvarado area is likely more saline than the water derived from 

wells farther west. Analytical data reported by McLean (1970) for 20 wells located near the 

Alvarado area indicated dissolved solids concentrations in the majority of these wells of less than 

1000 mg/l. In the Soledad Canyon area about 12 miles north of Alvarado, the freshwater unit is 

estimated to be about 10 miles wide and almost 2000 feet thick. Naus (2002) reports that salinity 

increases with depth in this portion of the basin. 

Few surface water features of any significance exist within 10 miles of the Alvarado area. 

Several small, intermittent streams drain the east flanks of the Franklin Mountains a few miles 

west of the site. The direction of flow in these channels is generally to the east-northeast. A 

mile south of the western portion of the Alvarado area is Quirke Lake, an intermittent playa. 

Several springs are located in and around Soledad Canyon 12 to 15 miles north of the site. 

!! 	
	
	


The OSE WATERS Online Database lists approximately 200 wells within about 6 miles of the 

Alvarado area. Ground-water well uses include irrigation, stock, commercial, and domestic. 

The potential impacts of the proposed water development to ground-water users in the Alvarado 

area and to surface-water features are unknown. Collection and analysis of additional data to 

characterize the hydraulic connection between shallow ground water and the regional basin-fill 

aquifer would reduce the uncertainty of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 55 

" 			



	


Water planning efforts by the City of Alamogordo have led to the preliminary selection of an 

alternative for future water resource development. This alternative involves the development of 

a well field at the Snake Tank Road Site, approximately 25 miles north of Tularosa, and 

extraction of brackish water, water treatment to potable standards, and water distribution. This 

section describes the City’s application to the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) 

for water rights for this alternative, ground-water models that have been used to assess the 

potential impacts of this development, and how the results yielded by these models contribute to 

the evaluation of alternatives for this EIS. 

" 		



	


On September 6, 2000, and in January 2002, the City of Alamogordo filed 10 applications 

(numbered T-3825 through T-3825-S-9) with the OSE to appropriate ground water from the 

Tularosa Underground Water Basin. The original application was to divert 1,500 acre-feet per 

year (afy) per well, with a total not to exceed 13,450 afy. Under the permit application, 10 wells 

would be drilled approximately 10 miles north of the Village of Tularosa on property owned by 

the Bureau of Land Management in Township 12 South, Range 9 East, Sections 35 and 36; 

Township 12 South, Range 10 East, Section 31; Township 13 South, Range 9 East, Section 1; 

and Township 13 South, Range 10 East, Sections 6 and 7. The applications contemplate 

pumping brackish water on a graduated schedule, treating it, and transporting it via pipeline for 

beneficial use within Otero County. 

Notice of the applications was issued on February 1, 2002. The applications were protested by 

several parties, including the Three Rivers Cattle Company, Ltd., HFR Corporation, High Nogal 

Ranch (David Christopher), and the Tularosa Community Ditch Company. Some of the protests 

were dismissed in August 2002 and April 2003. The City amended its application on April 22, 

2003, to reduce the total amount of water applied to 10,000 afy. This amount is consistent with 

population projections contained in the City's 40-Year Water Development Plan (the Plan) and a 

per capita per day usage of 165 gallons (Livingston and Shomaker 2002). The Plan proposes 

City pumping at a rate of 5,000 afy for the first 10 years, 6,500 afy for the next 10 years, 8,000 

afy for the next 10 years, and 10,000 afy thereafter. 

The OSE held a hearing on this amended application 2003. A key issue discussed during the 

hearing was the issue of the City’s unmet water demand. The average water supply the City has 

historically had available to divert from both surface and ground-water sources has been 7,774 

afy. The OSE determined that the City’s unmet water demand would be 2,601 afy. The City 

expects an 84 percent recovery of potable water from desalination of the brackish water and thus 

would need to divert 3,096 afy (2,601 afy divided by 0.84) to produce the unmet potable water 

demand. The hearing also included much testimony on and discussion of the possible effects of 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 56 

the proposed wells on existing senior water rights and on water levels in the Tularosa Basin 

Administrative Area. The Morrison (1989), regridded Morrison (HAI 2003), and modified 

regridded Morrison (Keyes 2003) and JSAI (2003a) ground-water models were applied in 

analyzing possible outcomes. 

The OSE approved the permit application on December 29, 2004, with the conditions that the 

City could divert up to 3,000 afy from its proposed wells on an average annual basis but could 

divert up to 4,500 afy for any calendar year provided that the sum of annual diversions for any 

consecutive 5-year period not exceed 15,000 afy. The OSE further conditioned its approval to 

allow the City’s existing wells to divert no more than 2,088 afy, to require that the City meter the 

new wells and submit quarterly records of water pumped, and to require semi-annual reports of 

water level and total dissolved solids monitoring from surface and ground waters. The OSE 

further requires the City to drill and operate the new wells and submit a proof of completion 

prior to May 2009. Several entities filed appeals to the OSE decision within the allotted 30-day 

protest period. These appellants include the City of Alamogordo, High Nogal Ranch (David 

Christopher), and the Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation. As of this writing, the appeals 

are still pending. 

" (
	

	

To date there have been two significant modeling efforts on ground water in the Tularosa Basin. 

The models were developed for different purposes and thus are conceptually different. This 

section provides an overview of the existing models, including conceptual bases, numerical 

inputs, and calibration. Section 5.3 is a comparison and discussion of the modeling results for 

the proposed ground-water development project. 

The first major model for the region, developed in 1989 by the OSE (Morrison 1989), is referred 

to herein as the Morrison model. This model was developed and has been used to help 

administer water rights in portions of the Tularosa Underground Water Basin, a 6,656-squaremile region within Doña Ana, Lincoln, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro Counties. Specific objectives 

for this model included evaluating the effects of proposed wells on water rights and estimating 

future water level declines due to existing water development. The Morrison model consists of 

a two-dimensional ground-water flow model and a separate two-dimensional mixing-cell waterquality model. The Morrison model grid was refined and rerun in March 2003 (HAI 2003a) on 

behalf of HFR Corporation and High Nogal Ranch, entities protesting the City of Alamogordo’s 

OSE permit application. This refined Morrison model was further modified and rerun by the 

OSE as part of the well protest hearings (Keyes 2003). 

The second major model for the region was developed in March 2003 by John Shomaker and 

Associates, Inc. (JSAI 2003a) and is referred to herein as the JSAI model. This model was 

developed for the City of Alamogordo to support its application for supply wells under OSE 

Permit numbers T-3825 through T-3825-S-9. The JSAI model is an integrated and fully three 

dimensional ground-water flow and solute transport model. The respective model domains for 

the Morrison and JSAI models are illustrated in Figure 5.1. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 57 

Figure 5.1. Map showing area of applications, outlines of the OSE and JSAI model grids, 

major watersheds in the Sacramento Mountains, military lands, the Jarilla Fault, and other 

geographic features of the Eastern Tularosa Basin (from JSAI 2003a). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 58 

" 		
	

" 	



The OSE’s Morrison ground-water model was developed using the USGS finite-difference 

numerical ground-water flow model called MODFLOW (MacDonald and Harbaugh 1988). In 

the project area, the Morrison (OSE) model covers an area of approximately 1,600 square miles, 

discretized into a model domain oriented northwest parallel to the estimated pre-development 

ground-water contours and parallel to the mountain-front (Figure 5.1). The model domain 

extends beyond the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. The proposed City of 

Alamogordo supply wells are located within but relatively close to the eastern and northern 

boundaries of this model domain, approximately 10 miles from the northern boundary and 

approximately 0.75–3.0 miles from the eastern boundary. 

The model is subdivided into cells, in 82 rows by 24 columns, that range in area from a halfsquare-mile on the east near the Sacramento Mountains to 5 square miles on the northwest and 

southeast corners. In the vicinity of the proposed Alamogordo well field, the model cells are 1.5 

to 2 miles long north-south and 0.5 mile wide east-west. The model consists of one layer that is 

coded as an unconfined aquifer with constant transmissivity in a given model cell. 

" 	

The Morrison model uses aquifer transmissivity based on 29 data points compiled from three 

sources. These values were adjusted during model calibration. The report includes a table 

comparing the reported values and the final calibrated values in the corresponding model cell 

(Morrison 1989). Observed transmissivity values range from 60 to 20,000 square feet per day 

(ft2

/day), with most values in the 1,000–2,000 ft2/day range. Transmissivity values in the 

calibrated model range from 100 to 6,000 ft2

/day, with the higher values in the alluvial fans at 

the mouths of the canyons issuing from the Sacramento Mountains. For the transient simulations, 

the storage coefficient is used. Observed values range from 0.0004 to 0.04. The model uses 

values representative of an unconfined aquifer, with values in the calibrated model ranging from 

0.01 to 0.12. The calibrated storage coefficient values generally are higher than the observed 

values but appear reasonable for the types of unconsolidated sediments described for the basinfill alluvium and for an unconfined aquifer. The Morrison report presents the transmissivity and 

storage coefficient values used in the model as contour maps. 

"  	

	
	


The Morrison model was developed to represent a subset of the basin-fill unconsolidated 

deposits of the Tularosa Basin so that the boundary conditions depict flow conditions at its 

edges. The north and south ends of the model (top and bottom rows) consist of no-flow 

boundaries to represent lines of ground-water flow. The eastern edge (rightmost row) of the 

model represents the escarpment of the Sacramento Mountains and is also simulated as a no-flow 

boundary. The western edge (first row) was simulated as a constant head boundary to represent 

underflow for the steady-state model. This was replaced with a no-flow boundary during the 

transient simulations so that the entire model was surrounded by no-flow boundaries. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 59 

"! '


Aquifer stresses consist of the inflows and outflows simulated in the ground-water model other 

than the model boundary conditions. The steady-state model simulates ground-water recharge 

from the Sacramento Mountains to the east and ground-water discharge through both 

evapotranspiration and deeper underflow on the west. For the transient model the stresses 

consist of recharge on the east and evapotranspiration on the west. 

Ground-water recharge is primarily a function of precipitation in the Sacramento Mountains. 

Given the short duration and high flows of summer thunderstorms, little recharge is thought to 

occur during the summer, so almost all recharge occurs in the winter and spring periods. Direct 

runoff occurring as sheet flow, runoff infiltrating into streambeds that drain the mountains, and 

infiltration from springs are represented as part of the overall mountain-front recharge. The 

model defines recharge from the mountains by specified-flux using the Well package in 

MODFLOW. 

The Morrison model uses a combination of approaches to estimate ground-water recharge, all of 

them based on the assumption that precipitation can be used to approximate recharge. A drainage 

area from the Sacramento Mountains of approximately 600 square miles is used to estimate 

ground-water recharge, with 35 individual drainage basins used to calculate precipitation using a 

regression equation developed by the OSE that is based on a land surface elevation. Other 

parties have estimated recharge in specific drainage basins of the Sacramento Mountains using 

Darcy’s Law. The current modeling effort translated these data into the percent of precipitation 

estimated as recharge, with values ranging from 1 to 4 percent for the major drainages to 8 

percent in smaller drainages. The result was an overall estimate of 14,847 afy, about 3 percent of 

total precipitation on the mountainous drainage area for the steady-state model. For the transient 

version of the model, the mountain-front recharge was reduced in several drainages (the Tularosa 

Creek and La Luz, Fresnal, and Alamo Canyons) in proportion to diversion of surface water as a 

source of water supply. Declines in ground-water levels at the mouth of Alamo Canyon of 

several hundred feet compared to pre-development conditions was used as the evidence for a 

decrease in recharge associated with surface-water diversions. 

Evapotranspiration was estimated to occur to a depth of approximately 15 feet below land 

surface, with the highest values at land surface. The maximum value is not specified in the 

Morrison model report. Estimates were made by comparing average land surface elevation to 

the average pre-development water level for each model cell. For the steady-state model, the 

locations and values assigned for this parameter were determined through model calibration, 

with a total evapotranspiration loss in the model area estimated at 5,300 afy. This parameter was 

simulated in the model as a specified flux using the Well package of MODFLOW. For the 

transient version of the model, evapotranspiration was reduced in proportion to the decline in 

water table surface compared to the steady-state water surface. 

Pumping was simulated in the transient version of the Morrison model. Irrigation well pumping 

was calculated based on estimates of irrigated acreage using air photos and notes from field 

surveys. Ground-water pumping was then estimated to be 2.2 afy per irrigated acre. Municipal 

and other non-agricultural pumping, such as from Holloman Air Force Base, was estimated from 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 60 

water rights declarations records on file with the OSE and from records compiled by the USGS 

and Reclamation, or was assumed for years when no other sources of information were available. 

"" 		


The Morrison model calibration involved both steady-state and transient simulations. The 

steady-state model targeted pre-development conditions based on water levels measured during 

the 1950s. The transient calibration period used extends from 1910 to 1984 and comprises 15 

periods of 5 years' duration each. The calibration process involved an iterative approach between 

the steady state and transient models, modifying transmissivity, storage coefficient, mountainfront recharge, evapotranspiration, and irrigation pumping to obtain a match between observed 

and simulated water table surfaces. The transient model used water level measurements from 44 

wells to compare against simulated conditions, with hydrographs of observed and simulated 

water levels presented for 14 wells. Adjustments were made in the transient model to better 

reflect observed drawdown near wells, and the steady-state model was then rerun using the 

revised properties. This iterative process continued until an acceptable match was obtained in 

both the steady-state and transient versions of the model. The resulting calibrated steady-state 

model has an absolute mean of the difference between observed and simulated water levels of 

14.81 feet and a standard deviation of 9.23 feet. 

The transient model represents a superposition of the historical stresses on the pre-development 

water table by simulating that pre-development water table as a flat surface of uniform elevation. 

This approach allows ready comparison of relative effects of pumping, recharge, and other 

stresses but does not provide information on absolute water level elevations that can be 

compared to observed values. For the calibrated transient model, the absolute mean of the 

difference between observed and simulated drawdown is 5.39 feet for all model cells and 10.6 

feet with a standard deviation of 7.5 feet for the 44 model cells corresponding to locations where 

water level measurements are available. 

A sensitivity analysis was conducted on four parameters: mountain-front recharge, 

transmissivity, evapotranspiration, and storage coefficient. 

" 	

" 	



The JSAI model (JSAI 2003a) uses the Morrison model as a foundation but expands the model 

grid area and layering. The MODFLOW model is also used, applying the software package 

Visual Modflow to perform pre and post processing and graphical output of model results. The 

model domain is oriented more to the north than the in Morrison model and is expanded to the 

east by approximately 10 miles and to the north by approximately 4 miles near the proposed 

Alamogordo supply wells (Figure 5.1). This expansion of the model area allows this model to 

take into account more of the Sacramento Mountains. The JSAI model uses a uniform halfsquare-mile grid of 120 rows and 52 columns. 

The model domain is partitioned into three layers of varying thickness. The upper two layers are 

coded as unconfined/confined with variable transmissivity. The lower layer is coded as a 

confined aquifer. The upper layer extends from land surface and includes the upper 200 feet of 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 61 

the basin-fill aquifer. The middle layer is approximately 500 feet thick in the basin-fill aquifer 

and ranges from 500 to 900 feet thick in the bedrock aquifer along the eastern portion of the 

model. The lower layer is 1,400 feet thick. All three model layers consist of model cells 

representative of either bedrock or alluvial basin-fill materials, with the distinction defined by the 

material properties assigned to individual model cells. 

" 	

A key feature of the JSAI model is its incorporation of bedrock aquifers. Conceptually these 

aquifers define the Sacramento Mountains and are present under the eastern portion of the basinfill aquifer. The bedrock aquifers are thought by JSAI to provide significant subsurface flow into 

the basin-fill aquifer by capturing high-elevation infiltrating water and routing it through fracture 

networks present in the bedrock formations. Some of the evidence for this additional flow is the 

reportedly high yields of some wells drilled in the upland areas, but verification was not possible 

due to lack of data. A hydraulic conductivity value of 0.1 ft/day was assigned to the bedrock 

aquifer in the Rinconada, Tularosa, and La Luz watersheds (the watersheds adjacent to the 

proposed Alamogordo well field) in layer 1. This value is reportedly similar to the one 

determined by Wasiolek (1991) for the corresponding Permian-age formations that occupy these 

drainages. Deeper bedrock formations were assigned hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 

0.01 to 0.05 ft/day. The transmissivity corresponding to these values ranges from 20 to 600 

ft2

/day. The ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity is 1:1 for the bedrock aquifers 

to simulate regional flow in fractured rock. 

The hydraulic conductivity of the basin-fill deposits decreases from east to west and with depth, 

and ranges from 15 to 0.5 ft/day. The highest value is found in a zone at the foot of the 

Sacramento Mountains that extends throughout the model domain except beneath the city of 

Alamogordo. The northern portion of these zones of high hydraulic conductivity extends from 

Alamogordo to north of the town of Three Rivers and includes the vicinity of the proposed 

Alamogordo well field. The hydraulic conductivity used in the model is based on 29 aquifer 

tests, similar to those in the Morrison model report, but with the addition of an 8-hour test and a 

5-day test run on an exploratory well drilled at the site of the proposed Alamogordo well field. 

The results from this aquifer test provided a hydraulic conductivity value of 30 ft/day. The JSAI 

model report provides a table comparing the reported value, the value used in the corresponding 

cell in the Morrison model, and the value used in the corresponding cell in the JSAI model 

(Table 5.1). As shown in the table, the values used in the JSAI model are in most cases much 

higher than those used in the Morrison model. This difference is explained in the JSAI model 

report as being due to the higher recharge value used in that model. For the region north of 

Tularosa, the estimated ranges of hydraulic conductivity from pumping test data and from the 

JSAI model input compare favorably. 

The ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity is 1:100 for the basin-fill deposits. The 

transmissivity corresponding to these values ranges from 2,000 to 15,000 ft2

/day for the basin-fill 

aquifer. The JSAI report presents the hydraulic conductivity graphically for each model layer. 

A storage coefficient of 0.08 was assigned to the basin-fill aquifer, with values 0.008 and smaller 

assigned to the bedrock aquifer. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 62 

Table 5.1. Comparison of Morrison and JSAI Models, Alamogordo Application T-3825 et al. 

Model Parameter Morrison Model JSAI Model Notes 

Model Software Modflow88 Modflow96 via Visual Modflow, version3.0 Domain and GriddingModel domain 

Approx 1,368 square miles; extends to eastern edge of basin fill; proposed well field located within 3–5 miles of eastern model edge and within 10 miles of northern model edge. 

1,560 square miles; extends 3-5 miles into eastern mountains 

see JSAI (2003a:Figure 3) for domains & grid orientation 

Model orientation Approx 10 degrees to the NW Approx 30 degrees to the NW Model grid 82 rows and 24 columns 120 rows and 52 columns Grid spacing Half-square-mile on the east to 5 square miles on the NW and SW corners Uniform half-square mile cells Grid spacing near proposed well field 

1.5–2 miles by 0.5 miles; regridded model (by HAI 2003a) has half-mile cell size in northern portion of model 

Uniform half-square mile cells 

Model layering One layer; represents alluvial basin-fill 3 layers; represents alluvial basin-fill and bedrock of adjacent mountains to the east Layer definitions Coded as confined aquifer with constant T 

Upper 2 layers coded as variably unconfined/confined, with variable T; bottom layer coded as confined with constant T 

Layer thicknesses Not applicable when using constant T 

Upper layer variable, from land surface to 200 ft below pre-development water table surface; layer 2 is 500 ft thick in the basin fill and 500–900 ft thick when representing bedrock units to the east; lower layer is 1,400 ft thick. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 63 

"  	

	
	


The JSAI model uses a combination of boundary conditions to represent conditions at the edges 

of the model domain. In the initial steady-state model, a constant head boundary condition was 

used to define evapotranspiration from the basin-fill aquifer. These cells were converted to 

head-dependent flux cells to more closely represent evapotranspiration in the final steady-state 

and transient versions of the model. The eastern boundary uses the Modflow Recharge package 

to simulate direct recharge associated with precipitation. Most of the western boundary is 

simulated using the Modflow Evapotranspiration package. The northern and southern boundaries 

are defined as no-flow. 

"! '


Aquifer stresses include bedrock recharge from direct precipitation, basin-fill recharge along the 

mountain-front, evapotranspiration, and well pumping. Bedrock recharge from direct 

precipitation was based on land surface elevation and modified during model calibration. 

Recharge values used in the model range from 1 inch per year above 9,000 feet to 0.25 inch per 

year for elevations between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Approximately 15,500 afy were applied as 

bedrock recharge in the steady-state version of the JSAI model, a value reported to be similar to 

the one provided in the Tularosa Basin 40-year Water Plan. The Modflow Recharge package 

was used to simulate direct infiltration. 

Recharge occurring at the mountain front was based on a 2001 USGS study (Waltemeyer 2001) 

for the Tularosa Basin, in which the estimated streamflow in 12 canyons totaled approximately 

39,000 afy. The JSAI model applied approximately 25,000 afy in its calibrated steady-state 

model to basin-fill recharge along the mountain front. It is unclear from the JSAI model report 

how the mountain-front recharge was determined and assigned spatially in the model. Mountainfront recharge was varied in the transient version of the model beginning in 1950 to reflect 

municipal water diversion from La Luz and Alamo Creeks, and to reflect high streamflow that 

occurred between 1975 and 1995. The mountain-front recharge into the basin-fill aquifer was 

simulated using the Modflow Well package. A table showing mountain-front recharge assigned 

to selected creeks and other areas for each of the 5-year historic periods is provided in the report. 

Evapotranspiration was simulated to occur over the western quarter of the JSAI model domain. 

Evapotranspiration rates were based on an assumed extinction depth of 25 feet and a maximum 

rate of 50 inches per year. A total discharge from the steady-state model by evapotranspiration is 

approximately 45,000 afy. In comparison, the discharge estimated by evapotranspiration in the 

Morrison steady-state model is approximately 5,300 afy. 

Pumping was input to the transient model to simulate irrigation, municipal, and private domestic 

use. The JSAI report includes an appendix with the detailed pumping schedule used as model 

input for each 5-year model stress period. However, other than a listing of irrigated acres, little 

information is provided in the report on how the numbers were developed. The total pumping 

depletions in the JSAI model are consistently higher than those used in the Morrison model, with 

pumping in the 1975–1984 periods approximately 50 percent higher in the JSAI model. 

The JSAI model extends pumping and other stresses through the year 2000 based on reported 

values, whereas the Morrison model ends its historic period in 1984. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 64 

"" 		


In the steady-state model, constant heads defined the boundary condition for evapotranspiration 

from the basin-fill aquifer. The calibration was undertaken in two stages. In the first state the 

model transmissivity and recharge were varied to obtain an acceptable match to ground-water 

levels representing pre-development conditions. In the second stage, the flux values from the 

constant head cells were converted to equivalent values using the Modflow Evapotranspiration 

package. The model was then rerun in transient mode for 1,000 years to produce the final 

steady-state equivalent results. The root mean square (RMS) error between observed and 

simulated heads for 33 wells was 36.9 feet with a standard error of 6.3 feet. The report notes that 

an RMS error divided by the range in heads should be less than 10 percent, and that for this 

model a value of 1.8 percent was obtained. The simulated water level elevation contours of 

4,300 and 4,400 feet, representing the pre-development head values beneath the proposed 

Alamogordo well field area, are low by 30–100 feet compared to observed values, although 

hydraulic gradients in the area generally match observed values. 

The historic transient calibration period in the JSAI model is from 1910 to 2000. The transient 

version of the model was calibrated to historic conditions using over 30 wells and plotting 

hydrographs of observed and simulated water levels. Pumping reduced water levels in the basinfill aquifer, thereby reducing evapotranspiration by approximately 12 percent compared to the 

steady-state rate. Mountain-front recharge was reduced by 5 percent during the transient 

calibration period to provide a better match to observed water levels. A total flux rate for the end 

of the transient calibration period of approximately 54,750 afy was obtained. No calibration 

statistics were provided for the transient calibration. 

A sensitivity analysis was conducted during modeling using as parameters hydraulic 

conductivity, mountain-front recharge, and specific yield. The result of this analysis helped lead 

to the final calibrated values. 

" 	

As part of the well permit protests, the Morrison model was revised by Hydroscience Associates, 

Inc. (HAI 2003b). The key model revisions consisted of refining the grid in the portion of the 

model corresponding to the proposed Alamogordo well field. The model cells up to 4 miles 

north of the proposed well field were regridded to one-half-mile square, resulting in conversion 

of model rows 1 to 6 in the Morrison model to model rows 1 to 20. All other inputs were 

adjusted to reflect this regridding, but no input values were changed in the Morrison model. 

"! 			

As part of well permit protests, the OSE revised the Morrison model in the vicinity of 

Alamogordo’s proposed wells (Keyes 2003). The aquifer transmissivity was revised in the 

northeastern corner of the model domain in an area extending from north of Tularosa to the 

northern edge of the model and from the model’s eastern edge to between 2 and 8 miles to the 

west. The revisions were based on the aquifer pumping test conducted at the site of the proposed 

well field and on further analysis of specific capacity data in this region. Aquifer transmissivity 

values are 500 or 1,000 ft2

/day in the Morrison model cells where the proposed wells would be 

located. These values were increased to 1,600 and 5,880 ft2

/day, respectively, in the Modified 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 65 

OSE model (Keyes 2003). An additional change was made in a zone southwest of the proposed 

wells, where transmissivity values of 1,000 ft2

/day were increased to 2,450 ft2/day. 

HAI further revised the Modified OSE model as part of the well permit protests, incorporating 

the transmissivity modifications into their regridded Morrison model to create a regridded 

Modified OSE model (HAI 2003b). The Modified OSE and regridded Modified OSE models 

were run to evaluate pumping effects of the proposed well field. 

" 
	
	

(
	

The Morrison, JSAI, and HAI models were used to simulate impacts due to future pumping. A 

summary comparing the modeling parameters and results is provided in Table 5.2. The model 

results are discussed in more detail below. 

"  		
	

The Morrison model was used to predict future ground-water withdrawals for the 40-year period 

1982–2022. Three predictive scenarios were simulated, representing a range of ground-water 

depletions from 10,200 to 436,400 afy. Since the model was constructed to examine incremental 

effects only, the difference in drawdown over the 40-year period was computed for each 

scenario. The maximum drawdown was simulated to be approximately 65, 100, and 500 feet for 

the low, medium, and high pumping scenarios, respectively. The mixing cell solute transport 

model was used to estimate changes in water quality under each scenario. Some improvement in 

water quality was observed when relatively fresh water near the canyon mouths of the 

Sacramento Mountains was drawn into the central part of the basin-fill material. Generally, 

water quality declined for the Tularosa area, with increases in TDS of up to 350 mg/l and 

increases in the La Luz well field of 96 to 227 mg/l for the low and high pumping scenarios, 

respectively. 

An external solute transport model developed by Rao and Hathaway (1989) was used in 

combination with the Morrison model to estimate changes in total dissolved solids within the 

model area. The one-layer transport model computes concentration changes that occur as solutes 

travel along a ground-water flow path, assuming the solute mixes completely within each cell 

and using a conservation-of-mass approach. The solute transport model did not simulate the 

decrease in water quality with depth reported by Morrison, but it was able to estimate changes in 

total dissolved solids concentration as ground water flowed west. Because of data limitations, no 

attempt was made to calibrate the water quality model. 

"  	

The JSAI model simulated future pumping at the proposed Alamogordo well field in four 10-

year intervals: 5,000 afy from 2000 to 2009, 6,500 afy from 2010 to 2019, 8,000 afy from 2020 

to 2019, and 10,000 afy from 2030 to 2039. The maximum rate simulated by any one well in 

this well field was 1,001 afy. The pumping was assigned to each model layer and appeared to be 

proportional to the initial aquifer transmissivity. Four of the wells (T-3825-S, -S-2, -S-5 and –S-
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 66 

Table 5.2. Comparison of Morrison and JSAI Models, Alamogordo Application T-3825 et al. 

Model Parameter Morrison Model Jsai Model Notes 

Model Software Modflow88 Modflow96 via Visual Modflow, version3.0 Domain and GriddingModel domain 

Approx 1,368 square miles; extends to eastern edge of basin fill; proposed well field located within 3–5 miles of eastern model edge and within 10 miles of northern model edge. 

1,560 square miles; extends 3-5 miles into eastern mountains 

see JSAI (2003:Figure 3) for domains & 

grid 

orientation 

Model orientation Approx 10 degrees to the NW Approx 30 degrees to the NW Model grid 82 rows and 24 columns 120 rows and 52 columns Grid spacing Half-square-mile on the east to 5 square miles on the NW and SW corners Uniform half-square mile cells Grid spacing near proposed well field 

1.5–2 miles by 0.5 miles; regridded model (by HAI 2003a) has half-mile cell size in northern portion of model 

Uniform half-square mile cells 

Model layering One layer; represents alluvial basin-fill 3 layers; represents alluvial basin-fill and bedrock of adjacent mountains to the east Layer definitions Coded as confined aquifer with constant T Upper 2 layers coded as variably unconfined/confined, with variable T; bottom layer coded as confined with constant T Layer thicknesses Not applicable when using constant T 

Upper layer variable, from land surface to 200 ft below predevelopment water table surface; layer 2 is 500 ft thick in the basin fill and 500–900 ft thick when representing bedrock units to the east; lower layer is 1,400 ft thick. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 67 

6) have their middle and bottom layers defined as bedrock based on the hydraulic conductivity 

distributions contained in the model. This results in over 99 percent of the pumping from these 

wells coming from model layer 1. For predictive purposes, mountain-front recharge was 

maintained at steady-state rates less depletions from surface water diversions. 

The JSAI model examined both the total drawdown due to all pumping wells and the incremental 

drawdown due to pumping from the proposed wells. The incremental effects were obtained by 

running two simulations, one with depletions from existing users and one with cumulative 

depletions from existing users plus the proposed well field, then subtracting the results. The 

JSAI report includes maps of total and incremental drawdown. At the end of the 40-year period, 

predicted drawdown based on existing users is approximately 10 to 20 feet in the vicinity of the 

proposed well field, , and 60 to 80 feet in the Tularosa area. Contours of simulated drawdown 

are elongated along the mountain front, corresponding to the zones of higher transmissivity 

(Figure 5.2). Cumulative drawdown exceeds 100 feet in the vicinity of the proposed well field 

and is 60 to 90 feet in the Tularosa area. The incremental drawdown due to pumping at the 

proposed well field exceeds 100 feet at the well field and is less than 5 feet at locations 

approximately 13 miles south, 8 miles west, and 12 miles north of the well field (Figure 5.3). It 

should be noted that predicted drawdown in cells where simulated pumping occurs 

underestimates actual drawdown in the pumping well itself, since the model produces a 

drawdown for each model cell that is the average value for the entire cell. 

Model-predicted drawdown was computed for wells that are registered with the OSE and listed 

in the OSE’s WATERS database of wells. Predicted drawdown for the registered wells located 

closest to the proposed well field, approximately 2 miles south, is approximately 50 feet after 40 

years. The Tularosa Basin administrative area has criteria limiting drawdown to 100 feet in 40 

years. In the Tularosa Basin Administrative Area, the administrative block nearest to the 

proposed well field is predicted to have an incremental additional drawdown of approximately 

55 feet due to operation of the proposed well field. The current drawdown calculated for that 

same block is approximately 31 feet, resulting in a cumulative drawdown of approximately 86 

feet. The JSAI report concludes that operation of the proposed well field will not prevent other 

appropriators from exercising their existing water rights, nor does the proposed well field violate 

other criteria for the Alamogordo-Tularosa Administrative Area. 

Conceptually, water quality impairment is thought to occur due to a reversal of the hydraulic 

gradient, allowing the more saline ground water that exists closer to the center of the basin to 

migrate toward the pumping wells. The JSAI solute transport simulation results indicate that no 

degradation in water quality will occur within the 40-year planning period because the cone of 

depression from the proposed well field is not extensive enough to reverse the hydraulic gradient 

and capture more saline ground water. The JSAI report presents graphical results of TDS inputs 

to the model and predicted results showing ground-water flowlines. 

"  	

The 40-year pumping schedule used in the JSAI model was input into the refined Morrison 

(HAI) model. Two criteria were used to evaluate impacts. For wells outside the Tularosa Basin 

Administrative Area, the OSE considers a well to be significantly impacted when its available 

water column is reduced to less than 70 percent of initial conditions or less than 10 feet of water 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 68 

Figure 5.2. Map showing JSAI model–predicted drawdown due to historic and projected 

future pumping (1910 to 2040) without T-3825 et al. (from JSAI 2003a). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 69 

Figure 5.3. Map showing JSAI model–predicted drawdown due to historic and projected 

future pumping (1910 to 2040) with T-3825 et al. (from JSAI 2003a). 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 70 

is in the well. Within this Administrative Area the Administrative Criteria allow for simulated 

declines of no more than 100 feet in 40 years. HAI’s simulated results indicate that after 40 years 

the proposed pumping will cause the water columns in four wells to be reduced to less than 70 

percent of the initial water column height and that another well would go dry. In addition, four 

model cells within the Tularosa Basin Administrative Area are simulated to have more than 100 

feet of drawdown in 40 years. These cells are located approximately 3 miles south of the 

proposed well field and along the eastern edge of the model area (HAI 2003a). HAI concluded 

that water quality data available for the Tularosa Basin were insufficient to begin to calibrate a 

transport model and so did not undertake any water quality modeling. HAI surmised that water 

quality in the vicinity of the proposed well field would decline over time with ongoing pumping, 

since poorer-quality ground water would be induced into the well field area from the west. 

" ! 			

The 40-year pumping schedule used in the JSAI model was input into both the Modified OSE 

and refined Modified OSE models. The higher transmissivity used in the Modified OSE model 

caused more drawdown to be simulated, resulting in nine wells having their water columns 

reduced to less than 70 percent and one well going dry (Keyes 2003). The regridded Modified 

OSE model projected that the water columns in six wells would be reduced to less than 70 

percent of initial height and two wells would go dry (HAI 2003b). 

"! 	

	

	
	


The larger drawdown predicted by the Morrison, HAI, Modified OSE, and regridded Modified 

OSE models in comparison to the JSAI model is due largely to differences in model domain, 

recharge, and transmissivity. The boundaries of the original Morrison model were not designed 

to address significant pumping 10 miles north of Tularosa, as is proposed by the City of 

Alamogordo. The eastern and northern boundaries of the Morrison and the regridded HAI 

models are too close to the proposed well field, causing simulated drawdown from the well field 

to be too large due to an effect comparable to a barrier boundary. As shown in the JSAI report, 

cumulative drawdown will extend beyond the boundaries of the Morrison and HAI model 

boundaries. 

The JSAI model provides a more sophisticated representation of the hydrogeologic system in the 

eastern portion of the Tularosa Basin than the other models and, based on model calibration 

results, appears to be a better predictive tool for evaluating effects of the proposed well field. 

The JSAI model domain is appropriate for the purposes for which it was used. Its inclusion of 

bedrock materials and multiple layers better represents conditions present in the Tularosa Basin, 

and its ability to account for decreasing transmissivity with decreasing aquifer saturated 

thickness is conceptually and numerically superior to the constant transmissivity used by the 

Morrison and HAI models. The JSAI model also has a longer period of historical calibration by 

15 years and, significantly, matches observed water levels much better than do the Morrison and 

HAI models. 

In any numerical model the recharge and transmissivity can be varied in proportion to each other 

and yield a similar calibration. The higher values used in the JSAI model compared to the other 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 71 

models discussed will tend to reduce the impact of pumping from the proposed well field. 

However, the combination of a relatively large value for direct recharge to the bedrock, the high 

hydraulic conductivity value, and the 1:1 horizontal to vertical conductivity ratio given for the 

bedrock strata adjacent to the well field are potential conceptual weaknesses in the JSAI model. 

This model has four of the proposed wells placed at least partially into bedrock strata, a factor 

that may have affected the simulation results and therefore may warrant further evaluation. 

Conducting additional aquifer pumping tests in the vicinity of the proposed well field would help 

to verify the high hydraulic conductivity value assigned by JSAI to that portion of the basin-fill 

aquifer and would provide insight into whether the JSAI model would need to be recalibrated. 

The method by which ground water is allowed to discharge from the JSAI model, other than by 

pumping, is another aspect that may warrant more review and possible revision. The western 

(downgradient) model edge is a no-flow boundary, so water can discharge from the JSAI model 

only through ground water evapotranspiration. The depth below ground surface over which 

evapotranspiration is allowed to occur, 25 feet, far exceeds the value of 15 feet used in the 

Morrison, HAI, Modified OSE, and regridded Modified OSE models and is a relatively large 

part of the water balance of the JSAI model. As a result, a relatively large proportion of the 

water to be pumped from the proposed well field under the JSAI model is effectively offset by a 

predicted reduction in ground water evapotranspiration losses (salvaged ET). The JSAI model 

predicts that evapotranspiration will decline as the water table drops near the western edge of the 

modeled area. Under this model, pumped water is largely derived from salvaged ET rather than 

from aquifer storage. More water derived from storage would equate to a larger cone of 

depression around the proposed well field and greater impacts to existing wells than is predicted 

by the JSAI model. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 72 

#


Bedinger, M.S., Sargent, K.A., and Langer, W.H. 1989. Studies of geology and hydrology in the 

Basin and Range Province, southwestern United States, for isolation of high-level 

radioactive waste – characterization of the Rio Grande Region, New Mexico and Texas: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1370-C. 42 p. 

Belzer, W.L., Miller, K.C., and Harder, S. 2002. Shallow geophysical study of the Grapevine 

Canyon area, eastern Tularosa Basin: implications for groundwater resources: New 

Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) Guidebook, 53rd Field Conference, Geology of 

White Sands, p. 79–84. 

Broadhead, R.F. 2002. Petroleum geology of the McGregor Range, Otero County, New Mexico: 

NMGS Guidebook, 53rd Field Conference, Geology of White Sands, p. 331–338. 

Garza, S., and McLean, J.S. 1977. Freshwater resources in the southeastern part of the Tularosa 

Basin: New Mexico State Engineer Office Technical Report No. 40. 67 p. 

Hydroscience Associates, Inc. (HAI). 2003a. Assessment of the impacts of permitting the City of 

Alamogordo’s applications T-3825 through T-3825-S-9, Otero County, New Mexico: 

prepared for Three Rivers Cattle Ltd. Company and HFR Corporation, March 19, 2003. 

39 p. 

HAI. 2003b. Rebuttal report of Hydroscience Associates, Inc., regarding the March 2003 JSAI 

report and model prepared for the City of Alamogordo and submitted in support of the 

City of Alamogordo’s applications T-3825 through T-3825-S-9, Otero County, New 

Mexico: prepared for HFR Corporation and High Nogal Ranch, July 7, 2003. 37 p. 

Hood, J.W., and Herrick, E.H. 1965. Water resources of the Three Rivers Area, Otero and 

Lincoln Counties, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-192. 

Huff, G.E. 2002. Apparent age of ground water near the southeastern margin of the Tularosa 

Basin, Otero County, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 53rd

Field Conference, Geology of White Sands, p. 303–307. 

John Shomaker & Associates, Inc. (JSAI). 2003a. Predicted drawdown effects and evaluation of 

potential saline encroachment due to pumping under City of Alamogordo applications T3825 through T-3825-S-9, approximately 10 miles north of Tularosa, New Mexico: 

prepared for the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico, March 2003. 41 p. 

JSAI 2003b. Methods for estimating firm yield of existing supplies for City of Alamogordo 40-

year water supply development plan: Memorandum from Steven T. Finch, JSAI, to Pat 

McCourt, City of Alamogordo, March 20, 2003. 12 p. 

Keyes, E., 2003. Analysis of induced drawdowns and salinity migration due to pumping from 

proposed City of Alamogordo well field, technical memorandum,. March 19, 2003. 3 p. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 73 

Livingston Asociates and John Shomaker & Associates, Inc. 2002. City of Alamogordo 40-Year 

water development plan 2000–2040: prepared for the City of Alamogordo, May 2002. 33 

p. 

Lueth, V.W., Lucas, S.G., Giles, K.A., Kues, B.S., and Witcher, J. 2002. Third day road log, 

from Alamogordo to White Sands, San Augustine Pass, Organ Quarry, and Tortugas 

Mountain: NMGS Guidebook, 53rd Field Conference, Geology of White Sands, p. 53–

73. 

MacDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W. 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference 

groundwater flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report No. 83-875. 

McLean, J.S. 1970. Saline ground-water resources of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Office of Saline Water Report No. 561. 128 p. 

Meinzer, O.E., and Hare, R.F. 1915. Geology and Water Resources of Tularosa Basin, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No. 343. 317 p. 

Morrison, T.D. 1989. A regional model of the basin-fill aquifer near Tularosa and Alamogordo, 

New Mexico: New Mexico State Engineer Office, Technical Division Hydrology Report 

No. 89-3. 71 p. 

Naus, C.A. 2002. Conceptual model of the bolson-fill aquifer, Soledad Canyon area, Dona Ana 

County, New Mexico: NMGS Guidebook, 53rd Field Conference, Geology of White 

Sands, p. 309–318. 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE), 2005. Declaring and extending basins (9/23), 

public handout: http://www.ose.state.nm.us./doing-business/NewBasins/handout.pdf. 2 p. 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE), 2003. Water Well data from W.A.T.E.R.S. 

converted into a GIS database . www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/gis-data 

New Mexico Office of State Engineer (OSE), 2003 Water Administration Technical 

Engineering Resource System (W.A.T.E.R.S) Informix database download 

Orr, B.R., and Myers, R.G., 1986. Water resources in basin fill deposits in the Tularosa Basin, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report No. 85-

4219. 143 p. 

Rao, B.R., and Hathaway, D.L. 1989. A three-dimensional mixing cell solute transport model 

and its application: Ground Water 27, No. 4, p. 509–516. 

Seager, W.R.1981. Geology of Organ Maountains and southern San Andres Mountains, New 

Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources (NMBMMR) Memior 36, 

97 p. 
SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2006 74 

Saeger, W.R., Hawley, J.W., Kottlowski, F.E., and Kelley, S.A., 1987. Geology of east half of 

Las Cruces and northeast El Paso 1o

 x 2o sheets (scale 1:125,000), New Mexico: 

NMBMMR Geologic Map No. 57, 3 sheets. 

South Central Mountain RC&D Council, Inc. (RC&D). 2002. Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin 

regional water plan, 2000–2040: prepared by Livingston and Associates in association 

with John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. 182 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). undated. Website for Aguirre Springs Campground: 

http://www.nm.blm.gov/recreation/las_cruces/aguirre_spring_campground.htm. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Working document for Alamogordo municipal and industrial 

water supply study, New Mexico: February 1986. 116 p. 

Waltemeyer, S.D. 1993. Methods for estimating streamflow at mountainfronts in southern New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report No. 93-4213. 17 

p. 

Waltemeyer, S.D. 2001. Estimates of mountain-front streamflow available for potential recharge 

to the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigation Report No. 01-4013. 8 p. 

Wasiolek, M.M. 1991. The hydrogeology of the Permian Yeso Formation within the upper Rio 

Hondo Basin and the eastern Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation, Lincoln and Otero 

counties, New Mexico: in NMGS Guidebook, 42nd Field Conference, Sierra Blanca, 

Sacramento, Capitan Ranges, p. 433–451. 
APPENDIX I

Hydrogeology Technical Report
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF  

PROPOSED INJECTION WELLS FOR  

ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL  

WATER‐SUPPLY PROJECT

ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO

prepared by

Steven T. Finch, Jr., CPG

Kimberly E. Samuels, MS

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Water‐Resource and Environmental Consultants

2611 Broadbent Parkway NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107

505‐345‐3407

prepared for

City of Alamogordo

New Mexico

December 29, 2009



proposed 

Desalination Plant 
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF 

PROPOSED INJECTION WELLS FOR 

ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL 

WATER-SUPPLY PROJECT 

ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO 

prepared by 

Steven T. Finch, Jr., CPG 

Kimberly E. Samuels, MS 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Water-Resource and Environmental Consultants 

2611 Broadbent Parkway NE 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107 

505-345-3407 

prepared for 

City of Alamogordo 

New Mexico 

December 29, 2009 


JSAI ii 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

CONTENTS 

page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 

2.0 DATA SOURCES................................................................................................................ 2 

3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING.......................................................................................... 2 

3.1 Tertiary-Quaternary Basin Fill......................................................................................... 6 

3.2 Permian-Age Rocks.......................................................................................................... 7 

3.3 Pennsylvanian-Age Rocks................................................................................................ 9 

3.4 Older Rocks...................................................................................................................... 9 

4.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY.......................................................................................... 10 

4.1 Basin Fill ........................................................................................................................ 10 

4.2 Permian-Age Rocks........................................................................................................ 11 

4.3 Older Paleozoic-age Rocks ............................................................................................ 11 

5.0 DEEP GROUNDWATER FLOW PATHS........................................................................ 12 

6.0 TARGET FORMATIONS ................................................................................................. 13 

6.1 Capacity Analysis........................................................................................................... 14 

6.2 Well Construction .......................................................................................................... 14 

7.0 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 15 

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 16 

9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 17 
JSAI iii 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

TABLES 

page 

Table 1. Bedrock units in the northern and eastern Tularosa Basin and Sacramento 

Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico...................................................................... 3 

Table 2. Summary of borehole lithology and water quality from TBNDRF Test 

Well T-4428 ................................................................................................................. 7 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

(follow text) 

Figure 1. Regional map showing the study area. 

Figure 2. Regional geologic map of the study area showing wells used on cross-section, 

Alamogordo Wastewater Treatment Plant, proposed Desalination Plant, and 

Alamogordo fault zone, Otero County, New Mexico. 

Figure 3. West to east cross-section A-A’ from Garton Well to the Sacramental Mountains, 

showing wells, geolologic features, and total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations 

in groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed Desalination Plant. 

Figure 4. Cross-section showing estimated injection well depths for Yeso Formation and 

Pennsylvanian-age units at the proposed Desalination Plant and the Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. 

Figure 5. Proposed well completion for City of Alamogordo deep injection well. 
JSAI 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED INJECTION WELLS FOR THE 

ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 

ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project involves development of brackish 

groundwater for municipal supply. Brackish groundwater will be pumped from the Snake 

Tank Well Field, located north of Tularosa, and piped to the proposed Desalination Plant west 

of Alamogordo (Fig. 1). Deep-well injection is one of the logical alternatives for disposal of 

brine reject from the treatment plant. John Shomaker & Associates, Inc. (JSAI) was 

contracted by the City of Alamogordo (City) to assess the potential for deep-well injection of 

brine at the proposed Desalination Plant approximately 0.5 miles southwest of Alamogordo, 

New Mexico (Fig. 1). The City of Alamogordo Wastewater Treatment Plant (Alamogordo 

WTP) has been proposed as an alternative site for deep-well injection. 

The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) has agreed to issue a water 

rights permit to the City to divert an average of 4,000 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr) from the 

Snake Tank Well Field. Of this total diversion, approximately 80 percent with a target total 

dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) will be used for 

municipal supply, and 20 percent of the total diversion (800 ac-ft/yr) remaining as brine reject 

(Livingston and JSAI, 2006). Wells in the Snake Tank Well Field yield brackish groundwater 

with an average TDS concentration of 2,500 mg/L (Finch and Shomaker, 2006). Therefore, 

injected brine reject water will have an estimated TDS concentration of 9,300 mg/L. 

Target injection zones should have TDS concentrations equal to or greater than that of 

the injected brine. Additionally, injection zones should be permeable enough to accommodate 

excess water and be separated from aquifers with fresher water by a confining layer. The 

purpose of this report is to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the City’s proposed 

Desalination Plant and at the Alamogordo WTP to determine whether or not geologic 

conditions for deep-well injection exist. 
JSAI 2 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

2.0 DATA SOURCES 

Much of the supporting data and analyses for this study were compiled during the Deep 

Well Study conducted for the City in November 2008 (Samuels and Finch, 2008). Data used 

in that study included geologic maps, oil- and gas-well logs, water-well logs, geologic reports, 

and academic literature. Reports on bedrock units in the study area by Pray (1961), McLean 

(1970), King and Harder (1985), Reynolds (1986), Finch (2005), and Finch and Shomaker 

(2006) were of particular importance. 

3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 

The study area is located in the Tularosa Basin, west of the Sacramento Mountains 

(Fig. 3). The Sacramento Mountains were uplifted during Tertiary-age Basin and Range 

extension. The same tectonic event formed the Tularosa Basin, which is separated from the 

mountains by the Alamogordo fault zone (Fig. 2). The Jarilla Fault parallels the Alamogordo 

fault zone in the center of the Tularosa Basin (Fig. 2). The Jarilla Fault lowered rocks along 

the western side and uplifted the same bedrock units along the eastern side, dividing the 

Tularosa Basin into two troughs (half grabens). 

During mountain uplift, the eastern trough of the Basin (Alamogordo sub-basin) was 

filled with eroded sediments that can be more than 3,000 ft thick (Koning et al., 2006). Test 

well drilling at the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility (TBNDRF) 

(located adjacent to the proposed injection well site) has shown the basin-fill thickness to be 

1,970 ft. The basin-fill thickness in the Alamogordo sub-basin, west of Alamogordo, is 

approximately 1,000 ft less than previous estimates by Reynolds (1986), but matches closely 

with McLean (1970). Also confirmed by drilling, older rocks that crop out on the east side of 

the Alamogordo fault zone and along the Jarilla Fault are present in the subsurface in the 

Alamogordo sub-basin. 

Several geologic units, from Quaternary-age (less than 2.6 million years old) basin fill 

to Precambrian-age (more than 542 million years old) crystalline rocks, are present at depth in 

the study area. Table 1 summarizes bedrock units in the study area. 
JSAI 3 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

Table 1. Bedrock units in the northern and eastern Tularosa Basin and 

Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico 

age symbol stratigraphic 

unit 

estimated 

thickness 

(ft) 

description water-bearing 

potential 

water 

quality 

(TDS, 

mg/L) 

TertiaryQuaternary TQal basin fill up to 

4,0001 

Pg Grayburg 1,148 

fine-grained 

quartz sandstone 

and siltstone with 

minor gypsum 

5+ gpm2 

Psg San Andres 

and Glorieta 100-1,100 limestone and dolomite 

8-2,000 gpm2

; 

principal aquifer 

of Sacramento 

Mountains4

1,100-

2,1004 

Permian 

Py Yeso 1,050-

1,246 

sandstone, 

siltstone, 

limestone, 

dolomite, shale, 

and gypsum 

< 10 to 1,000 

gpm in northern 

part of the 

Tularosa Basin; 

enhanced in 

fractured 

limestone and 

dolomite3 

1,1001; 

1,522-

6,0004

; 

260,0005 

Pa Abo 300 to 400 

reddish-brown 

mudstone and 

arkosic sandstone 

potential 

confining unit6 

Permian 

Pbm Bursum < 3 to 350 

carbonate shale 

with abrupt facies 

change to red beds 

potential yield 

unknown3 

1 Koning et al., 2006 TDS – total dissolved solids 

2 Mourant, 1963 mg/L – milligrams per liter 3 Livingston and JSAI, 2002 gpm – gallons per minute 

4 Rawling et al., 2007 

5 Melis and Peery, 2008 

6 Becker et al., 1981 

7 Trauger, 1972 

8 Pray, 1961 
JSAI 4 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

Table 1. Bedrock units in the northern and eastern Tularosa Basin and 

Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico (continued) 

age symbol stratigraphic 

unit 

estimated 

thickness 

(ft) 

description water-bearing 

potential 

water 

quality 

(TDS, 

mg/L) 

&h Holder 50-75 

limestone 

conglomerate, 

limestone, 

sandstone, shale 

good production 

in fractured 

areas; High 

Rolls wells 

average between 

35 and 50 gpm3 

&b Beeman 350-500 

thin-bedded 

argillaceous 

limestone 

interbedded with 

calcareous shale 

Pennsylvanian 

&g Gobbler 1,200-

1,600 

the lower 200-500 

ft consists of wellsorted quartz 

sandstone and 

dark limestone 

with chert masses. 

good production 

in fractured 

areas; High 

Rolls wells 

average between 

35 and 50 gpm3 

Mr Rancheria 0-300 

succession of thinbedded, silty 

limestone, 

siltstone, and thinbedded shale 

between limestone 

beds 

potential 

confining unit 

Mississippian 

Mlv Lake Valley 0-400 

limestone, minor 

calcareous 

siltstone, and 

calcareous shale 

locally waterbearing in Grant 

County, NM 

with yields up to 

150 gpm7 

1 Koning et al., 2006 TDS – total dissolved solids 

2 Mourant, 1963 mg/L – milligrams per liter 3 Livingston and JSAI, 2002 gpm – gallons per minute 

4 Rawling et al., 2007 

5 Melis and Peery, 2008 

6 Becker et al., 1981 

7 Trauger, 1972 

8 Pray, 1961 
JSAI 5 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

Table 1. Bedrock units in the northern and eastern Tularosa Basin and 

Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico (concluded) 

age symbol stratigraphic 

unit 

estimated 

thickness 

(ft) 

description 

waterbearing 

potential 

water 

quality 

(TDS, 

mg/L) 

Oñate 

silty dolomitic 

sandstone to finegrained quartz 

sandstone

 

Sly Gap <100 

gray calcareous 

shale interbedded 

with nodular 

limestone and minor 

black shale 

 

Devonian D 

Percha fissile, noncalcareous shale 

potential 

confining unit

Silurian S Fusselman 70-100 dark-weathering 

cherty limestone 

yields up to 

5 gpm in 

Grant County 

wells7 

Ov Valmont 150-190 

finely-crystalline 

dolomite with minor 

chert along the base 

 

Om Montoya 190-225 

crystalline and 

cherty dolomite; the 

base of this unit is 

marked by massive 

sandstone and sandy 

dolomite 

yields up to 

50 gpm in 

Grant County7 Ordovician 

Oe El Paso 430 

dolomite, minor 

sandy dolomite, and 

dolomitic quartz 

sandstone 

Grant County 

wells have 

yields up to 

200 gpm 

locally7 

CambroOrdovician _-Ob Bliss 

Sandstone 110 

quartz sandstone 

with minor 

dolomitic sandstone 

and sandy dolomite 

not waterbearing in 

Grant County7 

Precambrian P_ undivided igneous and 

metamorphic rocks 

1 Koning et al., 2006 TDS – total dissolved solids 

2 Mourant, 1963 mg/L – milligrams per liter 3 Livingston and JSAI, 2002 gpm – gallons per minute 

4 Rawling et al., 2007 

5 Melis and Peery, 2008 

6 Becker et al., 1981 

7 Trauger, 1972 

8 Pray, 1961 
JSAI 6 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

3.1 Tertiary-Quaternary Basin Fill 

Tertiary- to Quaternary-age basin fill is thickest west of the Alamogordo fault zone, 

where the half graben forming the Alamogordo sub-basin has been down-dropped the most 

(Fig. 3). The basin fill thins westward towards the Jarilla Fault, where bedrock has been 

uplifted. The thickness of basin fill is approximately 1,400 ft at the Wastewater Treatment 

Plant, and 1,970 ft at the proposed Desalination Plant. The basin fill typically is coarser 

grained at the mountain front, and decreases in grain size toward the basin center and with 

respect to depth (Finch and Shomaker, 2006). 

The deep basin fill is not capped by a distinct continuous layer that separates it from 

the shallower aquifer, so basin fill should not be used as a target injection zone. Although the 

basin fill is not an attractive target for injecting brines, several intervals within the lower 

sections of the basin fill are predominantly clay, which would prevent brines injected into 

formations below the basin fill from mixing with relatively fresh, shallower groundwater in the 

basin fill. 

Lithologic and geophysical logs, water-quality tests, and grain-size analysis from 

TBNDRF Test Well T-4428 provide excellent data for characterizing the basin fill beneath the 

proposed Desalination Plant on Lavelle Road. A summary of the data from Test Well T-4428 

can be referenced from Table 2. Of particular importance is the contrast in TDS between the 

basin fill and underlying fractured limestone. 
JSAI 7 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

Table 2. Summary of borehole lithology and water quality from TBNDRF Test Well T-4428 

interval description TDS 

(mg/L) 

0 to 600 sand with alternating layers of silt and clay 3,800 to 6,700 

600 to 1,060 silty clay too clayey, not sampled 

1,060 to 1,370 silty sand 1,100 

1,370 to 1,685 silty clay too clayey, not sampled 

1,685 to 1,885 sand with alternating layers of silt and clay 1,600 

1,885 to 1,970 clayey silt, very dense 1,600(?) 

1,970 to 2,085 fractured limestone 9,400 

TBNDRF – Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility 

TDS – total dissolved solids 

mg/L – milligrams per liter 

3.2 Permian-Age Rocks 

The Permian-age San Andres and Yeso Formations are the thickest and most 

productive bedrock units in the Sacramento Mountains. These units are typically found in 

outcrop in the Sacramento Mountains. Only the Yeso Formation and older rocks are reported 

to be present in the subsurface west of the Alamogordo fault zone (Fig. 3). The contact 

between the Yeso and the underlying Abo Formation is gradational, but it is distinguished by a 

lithologic shift from the Yeso’s gypsum, gray shale, and gray-to-yellowish limestone to the 

Abo’s characteristic reddish-brown shales, mudstones, calcareous siltstone, and sandstone 

(Pray, 1961). In general, the lower section of the Yeso contains more shale and gypsum, and 

the upper section contains more limestone. 
JSAI 8 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

The thickness and stratigraphy (measured type sections) of the Yeso Formation has 

been described in detail by Pray (1961). The total thickness of the Yeso Formation near 

Alamogordo is approximately 1,250 ft. The Yeso Formation consists of alternating layers, 

with varying thickness, of limestone, shale, sandstone, and gypsum. Several of the shale 

layers are red in color (“red beds”) and provide as markers in the stratigraphic column. There 

are three groups of shale packages in the Yeso Formation that could act as confining units: 

1. Shale A: 50 ft of shale and siltstone located approximately 150 ft 

below the top of the formation. 

2. Shale B: 100 ft of shale with “red beds” located approximately 

450 ft below the top of the formation. 

3. Shale C: 200 ft of shale, “red beds,” and limestone located 

approximately 750 ft below the top of the formation. 

West of Alamogordo, deep wells have been drilled though the basin fill and into the 

Permian-age rocks. The Garton Well (T18S, R8E, Section 5) was drilled through 686 ft of 

basin fill and 206 ft of shale and cavernous limestone to a total depth of 892 feet below ground 

level (ft bgl). The Garton Well was artesian, and flowed 1,100 gpm of saline groundwater 

(McLean, 1970). The test well drilled at the TBNDRF (Test Well T-4428) penetrated 1,970 ft 

of basin fill and 115 ft of fractured limestone. Both of these wells are believed to be drilled 

into the top of the Yeso Formation that is containing thick sequences of limestone, but the 

exact location in the stratigraphic column is unknown. Approximately 20 miles south of 

Alamogordo, the Plymouth No. 1 Federal oil and gas test well drilled through approximately 

600 ft of Yeso Formation, suggesting more than one half of the formation had been eroded 

prior to deposition of basin fill. 

The estimated depth to the top of the Yeso Formation at the Wastewater Treatment 

Plant is 1,400 ft (Fig. 3). 

The Abo Formation underlies the Yeso Formation, and is 200 to 300 ft of shaley red 

beds. The Abo Formation is largely considered a confining layer for the underlying 

Pennsylvanian-age rocks. 
JSAI 9 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

3.3 Pennsylvanian-Age Rocks 

Some Pennsylvanian-age rocks, found on the western side of the Sacramento 

Mountains and in the eastern Tularosa Basin (McLean, 1970; King and Harder, 1985), have 

been shown to be sufficiently permeable to transmit groundwater. Pennsylvanian-age Holder 

and Gobbler Formations are the water-bearing units for domestic wells in the High Rolls area. 

These wells yield 1 gpm (NMOSE WATERS database) to 50 gpm (Livingston Associates and 

JSAI, 2002). Water flow in these rocks is typically controlled by fractures. 

Total thickness of Pennsylvanian-age rocks can exceed 1,000 ft (Table 1). During the 

Pennsylvanian period, tectonic instability led to highly localized depositional environments, 

which are preserved in the rock record as lateral and vertical facies changes (Pray, 1961). As a 

result, upper and lower contacts between each Pennsylvanian-age rock unit may be difficult to 

distinguish based on lithology. The contacts for overlying Permian-age rocks and underlying 

Mississippian-age rocks should be easy to distinguish from well logs. 

Depth to Pennsylvanian-age rocks is estimated to be 3,300 ft at the proposed 

Desalination Plant on LaVelle Road, and 2,800 ft at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

3.4 Older Rocks 

Older Paleozoic-age rocks typically crop out along the Sacramento Mountains 

escarpment south of Alamogordo (Fig. 2), and are present in the subsurface south of Three 

Rivers and west of the Sacramento Mountains crest (King and Harder, 1985). The 

Mississippian-age Rancheria and Lake Valley Formations are made up of siltstone and shale 

layers, which are thought to be confining units. Devonian-age rocks in this area consist of 

three shales, which have a total thickness of less than 100 ft. The Silurian-age Fusselman 

Formation ranges from 70 to 100 ft thick (Table 1). This unit consists of cherty and may be 

permeable in fracture zones. South of the Sacramento Mountains (Otero Mesa and Diablo 

Plateau), oil and gas drilling into the Fusselman Formation has encountered brackish water in 

karst features. The Fusselman Formation is also the primary reservoir used by El Paso Water 

Utilities for deep-well injection of brine water from its Desalination Plant. The three 

Ordovician-age units consist of sandy dolomite to finely-crystalline dolomite. Although 

dolomite is not porous, it is brittle, and fractures may increase the permeability of these units. 

The Bliss Sandstone consists of quartz sandstone with minor amounts of dolomite. 
JSAI 10 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

4.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 

Groundwater quality in deep formations can vary significantly, depending on the 

quality of recharge water, presence of soluble salts in the formation, and flow rates through the 

rocks. Analyses of spring and well water show that groundwater quality in the western 

Sacramento Mountains varies locally, and is likely influenced by geology. Therefore, some 

inference about water quality in deep geologic formations can be made based on near-surface 

samples from the same geologic units in areas of recharge (mountains) and areas of discharge 

(basin center). 

4.1 Basin Fill 

 The lateral and vertical water-quality distribution has been extensively mapped by 

McLean (1970), and illustrated on Figure 3. In general, salinity increases from east to west 

and with respect to depth. Most wells located west and southwest of Alamogordo in Range 8 

East yield saline groundwater with TDS greater than 10,000 mg/L (McLean, 1970). 

Data from test wells drilled at TBNDRF can be used to characterize water quality in 

the basin fill near the proposed Desalination Plant. TDS concentrations in Test Well T-4428 

do not increase systematically with depth. Instead, TDS concentrations in the basin fill are 

elevated between 3,800 and 6,700 mg/L near the water table, and lower (1,100 mg/L) in a 

sandy layer at 1,200 ft depth (Table 2; Fig. 3). Water with elevated TDS concentrations 

(9,400 mg/L) was identified in the Yeso Formation, near the basin fill - bedrock contact. 

Shallow groundwater at the Wastewater Treatment Plant has a TDS range of 12,000 to 

38,000 mg/L (Finch, 2000). Very little is known about the change in TDS with respect to 

depth at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although, according to McLean (1970), TDS 

concentrations in this area increase with depth, ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 mg/L from the 

water table to an approximate depth of 900 ft, and from 10,000 to 35,000 mg/L at depth below 

900 ft. 
JSAI 11 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

4.2 Permian-Age Rocks 

In the Yeso Formation, water quality varies between 1,000 mg/L TDS at the point of 

recharge in the Sacramento Mountains, to 10,000 mg/L TDS at the point of discharge in the 

Tularosa Basin along the Jarilla Fault (Fig. 2). In Test Well T-4428, the top portion of the 

Yeso Formation produced water with TDS concentrations of 9,400 mg/L (Fig. 3). 

A deep well drilled near Cloudcroft (well PN-409-S-6) encountered a pocket of highlysaline groundwater (260,000 mg/L) in the lower section of the Yeso Formation (Street and 

Peery, 2007). 

4.3 Older Paleozoic-age Rocks 

 No water samples are available for older Paleozoic-age rocks (Pennsylvanian to 

Precambrian) at depth in the Sacramento Mountains or Tularosa Basin. (McLean (1970) has 

inferred from geophysical logs from oil and gas test wells, which the TDS content in these 

older rocks may exceed 35,000 mg/L, where soluble salts are present in geologic units. The 

groundwater quality probably improves near outcrops and along the Alamogordo fault zone 

where deep percolation of recharge may occur. 
JSAI 12 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

5.0 DEEP GROUNDWATER FLOW PATHS 

 Groundwater in Paleozoic-age bedrock deep in the Alamogordo sub-basin is part of a 

large, deep, flow system rather than an isolated storage reservoir. In the case of the isolated 

storage reservoir, the groundwater storage volume is limited and salinity can be extreme. In 

the study area, groundwater follows a deep flow path through bedrock units from the 

Sacramento Mountains to the Jarilla Fault zone along the center of the Tularosa Basin. This 

was first identified by Meinzer and Hare (1915), and explained by Reynolds (1986) where he 

stated: 

“Examination of the records of the oil tests drilled along the Jarilla block shows 

that many of them had large flows of water during drillstem tests of pre-Tertiary 

rocks. .....There is also a considerable group of mound springs, both active and 

extinct, in T10S, R6E, New Mexico, in line with the north end of the Jarilla 

block. Meinzer and Hare (1915, p. 53) concluded that the spring water is under 

artesian pressure and comes from a comparatively deep source. .....there may be 

three separate hydrologic systems in the Tularosa basin: (1) normal groundwater 

conditions in the Upper Unit of the QT, (2) under-pressured formation water in 

the Lower Unit of the QT and (3) artesian water, probable moving through 

fracture systems, in the pre-Tertiary rocks. For these to be separate hydrologic 

systems, it would seem to be necessary that both the Middle Unit and the 

postulated basal unit of the QT be membranes or aquitards.” 

A fraction of the precipitation that falls on the Sacramento Mountains west of 

Cloudcroft becomes groundwater recharge and flows west across bedding planes and the 

Alamogordo fault zone, recharging Alamogordo-area groundwater resources (Finch and 

Shomaker, 2006; Rawling et al., 2008). Groundwater that originates in the Sacramento 

Mountains and recharges the basin fill, flows toward the basin center, and evaporates along the 

Jarilla Fault where basin fill thins and the water table intersects the land surface (Finch and 

Shomaker, 2006). The presence of artesian conditions in the Yeso Formation at the Garton 

Well suggests upward flow from a deep regional groundwater-flow path originating in the 

Sacramento Mountains. It is likely that this flow path discharges on the west side of the Jarilla 

Fault into the western half of the Tularosa Basin (Fig. 2). Shallow groundwater along the 

Jarilla Fault, and west of, is typically saline, with TDS content greater than 10,000 mg/L. 
JSAI 13 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

6.0 TARGET FORMATIONS 

The suitability of target geologic formations for a deep injection well depends on four 

main factors: 

1) water quality (TDS > 10,000 mg/L) 

2) favorable hydraulic properties (transmissivity and storage capacity) 

of the target formation 

3) the presence of a confining layer above the target formation 

4) reasonable depth to target formation 

The proposed wells will likely be classified by the New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED) as Class I non-hazardous waste injection wells. The NMED may allow 

Class I non-hazardous waste injection wells to be completed in formations (injection zone) 

containing TDS concentration between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L, provided that 1) it is not 

currently used as a domestic or agricultural water supply, and 2) there is no reasonable 

relationship between the economic and social costs of failure to designate its use as a domestic 

or agricultural water supply. 

TDS concentrations in the target injection zone must be elevated so injected brine does 

not degrade the existing groundwater resource. Confining layers (e.g., shale) that separate the 

target injection zone from shallower aquifers also serve to protect relatively fresh groundwater 

resources. Existing data support the possibility of achieving the factors mentioned above at 

the proposed Desalination Plant on LaVelle Road or the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

As observed at the TBNDRF, the 85-ft-thick silty-clay layer at the bottom of the basin 

fill acts as a confining layer overlying the Yeso Formation. Drilling into the Yeso and using a 

sequence of shale layers as the primary confining zone, and the 85-ft-thick silty-clay layer as a 

secondary confining zone, would be the most protective of groundwater (Fig. 4). A borehole 

would need to be drilled through the entire Yeso Formation to determine if the Yeso 

Formation contains a confining unit with a viable underlying permeable zone for injection of 

brine reject water. Drilling to a depth of 3,000 ft would be required at the proposed 

Desalination Plant, and to a depth of 2,500 ft at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Test 

borehole depths of approximately 4,000 ft or greater would be required to examine the Abo 

and Pennsylvanian-age Formations for confining layers and injection zones (Fig. 4). 
JSAI 14 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

6.1 Capacity Analysis 

 The capacity of proposed injection wells would depend on the hydraulic conductivity 

and thickness of the formation tapped by the well. Average hydraulic conductivity of the Yeso 

Formation in the Sacramento Mountains ranges from 0.007 to 7.0 ft/day (Finch and Shomaker, 

2006), but hydraulic conductivity values could be an order of magnitude higher in fracture and 

karsts zones, such as observed at the Garton Well. 

 Required injection well capacity would be near 300 gpm, assuming two injection wells 

and a maximum average rate of 800 ac-ft/yr of brine reject. An average hydraulic conductivity 

greater than 1.0 ft/day would be required for a 300-gpm injection well with a 500-ft-thick 

target formation. This required average hydraulic conductivity is within the range of known 

values for the Yeso Formation. 

6.2 Well Construction 

 The NMED regulations for a Class I non-hazardous injection well require the well to 

be constructed with annular seals and casing, similar to that shown on Figure 5. Considering 

the target injection rate of 300 to 600 gpm, the well will need to be large enough diameter to 

accommodate a 6-inch educator pipe. 
JSAI 15 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

7.0 FINDINGS 

 As confirmed by drilling in the region, suitable bedrock confining units and injection 

zones are found at depth at both the proposed Desalination Plant and the Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. At the proposed Desalination Plant, these units are found approximately 

2,000 to 4,000 ft bgl and are overlain by approximately 1,970 ft of basin fill (Fig. 4). Logs 

from Test Well T-4428 document 75 ft of clay directly overlying the Yeso Formation at this 

site (Finch, 2005). 

 The basin fill is approximately 1,400 ft thick at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Fig. 

3), and the changes in lithology with respect to depth are largely unknown but expected to be 

fine grained. It is possible that deeper formations at the Wastewater Treatment Plant site may 

be slightly artesian, as observed at the Garton Well farther west. 

 There appears to be a deep groundwater-flow path in the Yeso Formation that 

originates at the Sacramento Mountains and discharges along the center of the basin near the 

Jarilla Fault. The results from the Garton Well suggest the deep groundwater system has a 

good permeability, and contains saline groundwater. 

The City of El Paso has successfully drilled, constructed, and operated deep injection 

wells for brine disposal produced during the desalination process at its facility located on the 

southern end of the Tularosa Basin approximately 60 miles south of Alamogordo on the New 

Mexico-Texas state line (Kelsch et al., 2007). The subsurface geology near Alamogordo 

appears to be as favorable as that found at the El Paso site, making it likely that injecting brine 

west of the City could be as successful in southern New Mexico as it is on the Texas side of 

the state line. 

 In summary, the hydrogeologic assessment resulted in the following conclusions: 

 The proposed Desalination Plant and the Wastewater Treatment Plant sites 

have hydrogeologic conditions suitable for construction of successful brine 

reject injection well(s). 

 A test well is required to confirm the thickness and characteristics of the 

target formations at both sites. 

 Injection wells at the Wastewater Treatment Plant site would likely be 

shallower than at the proposed Desalination Plant site. 

 The potential for receptors of fugitive injected brine is greater at the 

proposed Desalination Plant than at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 
JSAI 16 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 

The hydrogeologic assessment presented above only confirms there are potential 

formations for deep well injection of brine reject, and the hydrogeologic conditions are 

favorable for deep well injection. Additional testing and analysis would be required to 

determine the actual feasibility of installing injection well(s). At a minimum, the 

recommended additional analyses would include the following: 

 Drill a 4,000-ft test well at the Wastewater Treatment Plant site or a 4,000-ft 

test well at the proposed Desalination Plant to characterize lithology and 

salinity of basin fill and underlying bedrock formations. The information 

from the test well could be used to determine which of the two sites is most 

favorable for deep well injection of brine reject from the Desalination Plant. 

 Existing information from the TBNDRF and new data from the proposed 

WTP test well could be used to make a final determination for permitting 

and construction of deep well injection wells. 

 A detailed hydraulic analysis, such as groundwater-flow modeling of 

confining layers and injection zones, will likely be required for permitting 

injection wells with the NMED. 
JSAI 17 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

9.0 REFERENCES 

Becker, N.D., Purtyman, W.D., and Ballance, and W.C., 1981, Aquifer evaluation at Fenton 

Hill, October and November, 1980: Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8964-MS, 

15 p. 

Eastoe, C., 2005, What isotopes can tell us about ground water in the Alamogordo region: 

University of Arizona, unpublished presentation. 

Finch, S.T., 2000, Hydrogeologic evaluation related to land application of effluent for City of 

Alamogordo’s Discharge Plan DP-220: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. 

consultant’s report prepared for the City of Alamogordo, 16 p. 

Finch, S.T., 2005, Proposed amendments to NMOSE applications T-4428 et al. and evaluation 

of potential drawdown effects: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. consultant’s report 

prepared for the City of Alamogordo. 

Finch, S.T., Jr., and Shomaker, J.W., 2006, Predicted drawdown effects and evaluation of 

potential saline encroachment due to pumping under City of Alamogordo application 

Nos. T-3825 through T-3825-9, approximately 10 miles north of Tularosa, Otero 

County, New Mexico: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. consultant’s report prepared 

for the City of Alamogordo. 

Kelsch, J., Moore, J., and Peery, R.L., 2007, Well Report, El Paso Water Utilities joint 

desalination Plant well No. 2: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. consultant’s report 

prepared for El Paso Water Utilities and LBG-Guyton Associates. 

King, W.E., and Harder, V.M., 1985, Oil and gas potential of the Tularosa Basin-Otero 

platform-Salt Basin graben area, New Mexico and Texas: New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, Circular 198, 36 p. 

Koning, D., Hallett, B., and Aby, S., 2006, Hydrogeologic and subsurface sedimentologic, 

structural, and stratigraphic studies in the Tularosa and Española Basins, New Mexico: 

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Professional Services 

Contract No. 06-550-P551-0061. 

Livingston Associates and [JSAI] John Shomaker & Associates, 2002, Tularosa Basin and Salt 

Basin regional water plan 2000-2040: South Central Mountain RC & D Council, Inc., 

Carrizozo, New Mexico. 

Livingston Associates and [JSAI] John Shomaker & Associates, Inc., 2006, City of 

Alamogordo 40-year water development plan 2005-2045: consultant’s report prepared 

for the City of Alamogordo, November 2006. 
JSAI 18 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

McLean, J.S., 1970, Saline ground-water resources of the Tularosa Basin: United States 

Department of the Interior Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress 

Report No. 561. 

Meinzer, O.E., and Hare, R.F., 1915, Geology and water resources of the Tularosa Basin, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 343, 317 p. 

Melis, E.A., and Peery, R.L., 2008, Assessment of deep well site areas for completing 72-12-

25 wells, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. 

consultant’s report prepared for the Village of Ruidoso. 

Mourant, W.A., 1963, Water resources and geology of the Rio Hondo drainage basin: Chaves, 

Lincoln, and Otero Counties, New Mexico: New Mexico State Engineer Technical 

Report 28, 85 p. 

Pray, L.C., 1961, Geology of the Sacramento Mountain escarpment, Otero County, New 

Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 35, 144 p. 

plus maps. 

Rawling, G., 2007, Preliminary geologic maps of Angus, Fort Stanton, Ruidoso, and Ruidoso 

Downs quadrangles: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources OpenFile Report OF-GM-96/95/93/94, several sheets and cross-sections. 

Rawling, G., Timmons, S., Johnson, P., Walsh, P., Land, L., Timmons, M., and Felix, B., 

2007, Sacramento Mountains hydrogeology progress report: New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources Aquifer Mapping Program, 26 p. 

Rawling, G., Timmons, S., Newton, T., Walsh, P., Land, L., Kludt, T., Timmons, M., Johnson, 

P., and Felix, B., 2008, Sacramento Mountains hydrogeology progress report: New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Aquifer Mapping Program, 57 p. 

Reynolds, C.B., 1986, Structure and stratigraphy of the Quaternary and Tertiary Tularosa 

Valley, New Mexico and Hueco Basin, Texas: Geologic and Drafting Services, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 17 p. 

Samuels, K.E., and Finch, S.T., 2008, Hydrogeologic assessment of deep aquifers suitable for 

completing 72-12-25 wells in the vicinity of City of Alamogordo lands, Otero and 

Lincoln Counties, New Mexico: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. consultant’s 

report prepared for the City of Alamogordo. 

Street, J.B., and Peery, R., 2007, Well report: Village of Cloudcroft, Apache replacement well 

PN-409-S-6, Cloudcroft, New Mexico: John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. well report 

prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation and Village of Cloudcroft, 19 p. 

Trauger, F.D., 1972, Water resources and general geology of Grant County, New Mexico: 

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Report 2, 211 p. 
JSAI 

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

WATER-RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

ILLUSTRATIONS 
JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Figure 1. Regional map showing the study area. 
:

:

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!! !!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

Alamogordo Wastewater

Treatment Plant

proposed Desalination Plant

A

A'

J

arilla

Fault

Alamogordo fault zone

T-4428

T-2588

T-3703

T-5084

T-32-S7

T-32-S8

T-32-S9

T-32-S3

T-32-S-6

JR Simpson Water Well

Garton Well

T15S

T17S

T16S

T14S

T18S

R07E R08E R09E R10E R11E

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES,

3

0 2.5 5 10

E Miles xplanation

!!! well

:

:line of section

Figure 2. Regional geologic map of the study area showing wells used on cross-section, Alamogordo

Wastewater Treatment Plant, proposed Desalination Plant, and Alamogordo fault zone,

Otero County, New Mexico.

Geologic map source: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 2003,

Geologic Map of New Mexico, 1:500,000.

For explanation of map units, see Table 1.
Permian

dtw = 492 ft

T-5084 (TD = 580 ft)

T-3703 (TD = 560 ft)

T-2588 (TD = 825 ft)

Garton Well

(TD = 892 ft bgl)

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Tularosa Basin National

 Desalination Research Facility

T-4428 (TD = 2,092 ft)

Yeso Formation

Pennsylvanian units

Cambrian through Ordovician units

Silurian units

Abo Formation

Precambrian rocks

Precamb

Mississippian & Devonian units

Cam

0

200040006000

-6000-4000-2000

0 2

Sources: McLean, 1970; King and Harder, 1985; Finch, 2005; Koning et al., 2006. 4x vertica

4 miles

West 

Figure 3. West-to-east cross-section A-A’ from Garton Well to the Sacramento Mountains, showing wells, geolo concentrations in groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed Desalination Plant.

elevation, feet above mean sea level

horizontal scale

A 

Alamogordo

fault zone

proposed 

Desalination Plant Sa

M

TDS = 3,000-10,000 mg/L

TDS = 1,000-3,000 mg/L

TDS = 10,000-35,000 mg/L

basin fill TDS = 10,240 mg/L

TDS = 9,400 mg/L

TDS = 6,700 mg/L

TDS = 5,200 mg/L

TDS = 1,100 mg/L

TDS = 1,600 mg/L

dtw = 88 ft
n

40 mg/L

Wastewater Treatment Plant

proposed Desalination Plant

TDS = 10,000-35,000 mg/L

TDS = 3,000-10,000 mg/L

TDS = 1,000-3,000 mg/L

Sources: McLean, 1970 4x vertical exaggeration

 King and Harder, 1985

 Finch, 2005

 

 

West East

Figure 4. Cross-section showing estimated injection well depths for Yeso Formation 

 and Pennsylvanian-age units at the proposed Desalination Plant and the 

 Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

 elevation, feet above mean sea level

0 2 4 miles

horizontal scale

2000

0

4000

6000

-6000

-4000

-2000

-6000

0

2000

4000

6000

-4000

-2000

Yeso Formation

Pennsylvanian units

Cambrian through Ordovician units

Silurian units

Abo Formation

Precambrian rocks

Mississippian & Devonian units

possible confining layer

JOHN SHOMAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

APPENDIX J

Affected Environment by Resource
APPENDIX J1

Soil Descriptions








APPENDIX J2

Vegetation, Land Cover, Species 

Observed, TES, and Special Status















APPENDIX J3

Wildlife, Species Observed, TES, 

and Special Status





















APPENDIX K

BLM Letter to USFWS


APPENDIX L

Government to Government Letters










APPENDIX M

Military Consultation Letters


APPENDIX N

Tularosa Underground Water Basin 

Administrative Criteria for the 

Alamogordo-Tularosa Area
TULAROSA UNDERGROUND WATER BASIN 

ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA 

FOR THE ALAMOGORDO-TULAROSA AREA

PREPARED BY 

NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER OFFICE

THOMAS C. TURNEY 

STATE ENGINEER 

MAY 1997
CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction................................................................................. 3 

Administrative Objectives............................................................... 4 

Administrative Standards............................................................... 5 

Administrative Criteria.................................................................. 7 

References.................................................................................

...

16 

Standard Conditions of Approval...................................................... 17 

FIGURES 

1. Map showing Alamogordo - Tularosa Administrative Area.................. 2 

2. Diagrams showing recoverable portion of the aquifer........................ 6 

3. Map showing model grid............................................................ 8 

4. Map showing thickness of the freshwater zone................................. 10 
Page 3 

NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER OFFICE

TULAROSA UNDERGROUND WATER BASIN 

ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA

FOR THE ALAMOGORDO-TULAROSA AREA

May 19, 1997 

INTRODUCTION

The Tularosa Basin was declared by State Engineer Special 

Order No. 131 on July 7, 1982 and encompasses an area of approximately 6,070 square miles (Figure 1). Due to the size of the basin 

and the geologic diversity of the region, criteria for water rights 

administration should be developed for specified sub-areas within 

the basin. This process will enable criteria to meet the specific 

conditions for unique areas. As of this date,the majority of 

pending well applications are located in the region near Alamogordo 

and Tularosa, within Townships 13 thru 18 South and Ranges 8 thru 

10 East (Figure 1). The purpose of this document is to provide 

criteria for processing water rights applications for this subarea. 

Criteria for water rights administration for the AlamogordoTularosa administrative area will be used in decision making on 

pending and future applications (new appropriations, applications 

for supplemental wells, and applications to change point of 

diversion,or place or purpose of use). Applications for wells 

outside of this sub-area will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. Criteria for these other areas will be developed as deemed 

necessary. 
Page 4 

The state engineer has adopted the administrative criteria 

below in order to assure orderly development of groundwater 

resources within the Tularosa basin,while meeting statutory 

obligations regarding non-impairment to existing water rights, 

availability of unappropriated water, conservation of water within 

the state and public welfare of the state. This policy development 

process begins with the formulation of administrative objectives or 

water resource goals to be achieved. This is followed by the 

selection of administrative standards which quantify allowable 

levels of water level declines and water quality degradation. 

Criteria outlining the evaluation procedure are presented in the 

final section. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OBJECTIVES

The state engineer has identified the following administrative 

objectives: 

A. The Tularosa Basin is recognized as a mined basin and is 

administered to allow use of groundwater to a specified amount 

of de-watering during a forty-year planning period. A "mined 

basin" is defined as a groundwater basin in which well withdrawals 

are in excess of natural recharge or induced recharge from streams. 

B. Water level decline rates should only occur at an acceptable rate. 

C. The application of water shall not be contrary to the 

public welfare of the state. Water quality suitable for domestic, 

municipal, agricultural and industrial purposes shall be maintained. 
Page 5 

D. Existing surface water and groundwater rights shall not be 

impaired by new appropriations. 

E. A groundwater appropriation shall only be granted to the 

extent that unappropriated water is available to the well from the 

aquifer at the proposed point of diversion and other statutory 

requirements are met. 

F. A major portion of the freshwater saturated thickness 

shall be reserved for uses beyond the 40-year planning period which 

extends from 1982 through 2022. The planning period is assumed to 

start at the beginning of 1982, the year the basin was declared. 

G. The application of water shall not be contrary to 

conservation of water within the state. 

ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS

To achieve the above objectives, quantitative standards as 

deemed reasonable by the state engineer must be selected which 

define allowable impacts from existing and proposed wells within 

the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area. These standards, and 

their basis, where applicable, are as follows: 

A. The average annual water level decline rate of 2.50 feet 

per year or less due to the exercise of existing water rights will 

be considered acceptable. This level of mining has been selected 

for other mined basins in the state and was deemed reasonable for 

the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area. In areas where the 

freshwater thickness is less than 400 feet, acceptable average 

annual decline rates will be controlled by paragraph C below to 

extend the life of the freshwater zone. 
Page 6 

B. Total dissolved solids (TDS) in groundwater is adopted as 

a measure of groundwater quality. Freshwater is defined as 

containing less than 1,000 mg/l TDS (Orr and Myers, 1986). 

Degradation of water quality from less than 1,000 mg/l TDS to 1,000 

mg/l TDS or greater will be considered unacceptable. Two different 

methods will be used to provide protection to the freshwater zone. 

 These are 1) a volumetric approach to allow a certain portion of 

the aquifer to be de-watered and 2) the use of a solute transport 

model to predict which areas will degrade to TDS concentrations of 

1,000 mg/l or greater. Based on studies for the Hueco Basin 

(Papadopulos, 1987), it is assumed that water quality in the 

freshwater zone will remain fresh if drawdowns do not exceed onehalf of the freshwater thickness estimated for the aquifer of the 

1980s. The SEO has also developed a two-dimensional finite 

difference flow and solute transport model to simulate the effects 

of pumping on water levels and TDS concentration (Morrison, 1989). 

 Future pumping by existing wells were simulated with a low, medium 

and high scenario. Unless the results of the solute transport 

simulations indicate that the water quality conditions will degrade 

to TDS levels of 1,000 mg/l or greater, it will be assumed that 

recoverable freshwater is one-half of the initial freshwater 

thickness estimated for the aquifer of the 1980s (Figure 2). 

C. At least one-half of the recoverable freshwater will be 

reserved for use beyond the 40-year planning period for areas in 

which it is anticipated to remain fresh (Figure 2). 

ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA
Page 7 

Criteria are developed to serve as agency guidelines on how to 

process and evaluate pending applications for groundwater appropriations. To quantify well impacts for this process, a twodimensional finite difference groundwater flow model (Morrison, 

1989) will be used to simulate the effects of pumping on water 

levels due to existing and proposed wells. A two-dimensional 

solute transport model has been developed to estimate changes in 

TDS due to existing wells and may be used if necessary to estimate 

impacts due to proposed wells. Administrative criteria are as 

follows: 

1. The Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area will be 

administered using blocks one-half mile square using the grid 

utilized by the groundwater model (Figure 3). If a proposed well 

field location is within more than one block, calculations should 

be performed with the well field located in the block which 

provides the most conservative analysis with respect to protecting 

existing water rights. 

2. Water level declines and TDS changes due to existing wells 

will be considered along with water level declines due to a 

proposed well. TDS changes due to the use of proposed wells may 

also be considered if it is deemed necessary. Impacts will be 

computed to the beginning of 2022 for existing and proposed wells, 

and to provide a conservative analysis to protect existing water 

rights, the assumption will be that the proposed well would start 

pumping January of 1982. 

3. It is assumed that a reasonable estimate of future water 
Page 8 

use will be between the amounts estimated for the medium and high 

water use projections presented in Morrison ground water flow 

model. Impacts are assumed to be proportional to water use. Water 

level declines and changes in TDS will be computed by taking 20 

percent of the absolute difference between the medium and high 

scenario results and adding the resultant to the medium scenario 

estimates. IMPACTS = Medium + 0.20(High - Medium) 

4. The average annual water level decline rate due to 

existing uses will be calculated for each block by dividing the 

impacts computed in item 3 and dividing by 40 years. In an 

administrative block in which the average annual water level 

decline exceeds 2.50 feet, that block will be termed "critical." 

No new groundwater appropriation will be granted in a "critical" 

block, except as provided for in item 9. 

5. In an administrative block where the 1980s freshwater 

thickness is less than 400 feet and the calculated average annual 

water level decline rate exceeds the value FW/4t 

 where, FW = estimated freshwater thickness (ft.) in the 

 block in the 1980s 

 t = 40 years 

that block will be termed "critical." No new groundwater appropriations will be granted in that block, except as provided for in 

item 9. This rate is the maximum decline which will allow for the 

reservation of one-half of the recoverable freshwater (Figure 2, 

Example 3). Freshwater thicknesses may be obtained from Figure 4, 

or from site specific data. 
Page 9 

6. A groundwater appropriation will not be granted if it will 

cause the calculated average annual water level decline rate due to 

existing and proposed uses to exceed 2.50 feet, or the value 

determined in item 5 whichever is less, except to the extent as 

provided for in item 9. 

7. For blocks containing freshwater in the 1980s, the 

estimated increase in TDS due to the use of existing water rights 

will be estimated using the procedure in item 3 and will be added 

to the estimated TDS for each block using data compiled in Appendix 

I of the groundwater flow model documentation (Morrison, 1989). 

Any freshwater block which has a resultant TDS of 1,000 mg/l or 

greater at the beginning of 2022 will be termed "critical." No new 

groundwater appropriations will be granted in a "critical" block, 

except as provided for in item 9. 

8. For blocks which did not contain freshwater in the 1980s, 

 increases in TDS due to existing and proposed wells will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

9. A groundwater appropriation may be granted provided that 

the proposed appropriation will not produce an average annual 

decline rate of greater than 0.05 feet on any "critical" block. 

Calculated water level declines for each new appropriation will be 

accounted to the nearest 0.01 foot. Applications to appropriate 

underground waters in accordance with Section 72-12-1 of the New 

Mexico Statutes will be granted within critical blocks with 

conditions of approval as deemed necessary to protect existing 

water rights. 
Page 10 

10. Wells may not be completed to a depth of more than 50 

percent of the freshwater thickness of the 1980s. Freshwater 

thickness may be obtained from Figure 4, or from site specific 

data. 

 11. Local effects due to a proposed appropriation will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that impacts on the 

nearest wells of other ownership are not unreasonable. Available 

water columns, impacts from existing and proposed uses, and the 

ability to deepen wells to sustain a freshwater supply will be 

considered as deemed necessary. Calculations shall be performed in 

a manner to maximize the estimated impact to existing wells. For 

existing wells located 500 feet or less from a proposed well, 

drawdown calculations may be performed using the method presented 

by Prickett and Lonnquist, 1971 (page 61); or by using the Theis 

equation. Aquifer parameters used for local effect determinations 

may be obtained from the groundwater flow model or from site 

specific information as deemed reasonable. For existing wells 

located more than 500 feet from a proposed well, the groundwater 

flow model or any other method as deemed reasonable may be used to 

evaluate impacts to the nearest wells. 

12. For the purpose of determining the annual water level 

decline due to existing rights, when a permit is granted for a new 

groundwater appropriation, the computed average annual water level 

declines from the approved permit over a 40-year period will be 

added to the declines computed in item 4. The well to be drilled 

under an approved permit becomes an existing well in considering 
Page 11 

subsequent applications. 

13. For modeling purposes only, a groundwater appropriation 

for irrigation purposes will be assumed to require a diversion 

requirement of 4.17 acre-feet per acre per annum. This is an 

estimated maximum diversion rate for irrigation in the basin based 

on an average consumptive irrigation requirement of 2.50 acre-feet 

per acre and an on farm irrigation efficiency of 0.60 (Wilson, 

1993). Other diversion requirements, consumptive irrigation 

requirements, and irrigation efficiencies may be used as deemed 

reasonable (i.e. other information supplied by applicant may be 

considered). For the purpose of calculating conservative drawdown 

effects due to the use of new irrigation wells, it will be assumed 

that irrigation wells withdraw and deplete the total diversion 

requirement. For groundwater appropriations other than irrigation 

purposes groundwater depletions will be assumed to be equal to the 

diversion rate unless return flow credit has been approved by the 

State Engineer. Applications requesting return flow credit will 

not be granted unless the timing and quantification of flows back 

to the aquifer have been demonstrated. 

14. As per item 13 above, a groundwater appropriation for 

irrigation purposes will be assumed to require a maximum diversion 

of 4.17 acre-feet per acre per annum. Requests to increase the 

diversion above this amount (stacking of water rights) will be 

prohibited unless the request has been deemed necessary by the 

state engineer. Stacking of water rights, if deemed necessary, 

will only be approved after proper application is made, advertising 
Page 12 

has occurred, and the application has been deemed acceptable 

relative to the issues of impairment, conservation, and public 

welfare. 

15. For applications to change point of diversion, or place 

or purpose of use; the maximum quantity of water continually 

consumptively used for beneficial use during the historical 

application shall be used as the amount which is available for 

consumptive use by the proposed transaction. For applications to 

transfer rights used for irrigation purposes, the average historical consumptive irrigation requirement will be maximum quantity 

available for transfer. If this transfer is to be applied for 

irrigation use, the diversion requirement will be established in 

accordance with criterion 13 above. If the transfer is from 

irrigation purposes to purposes other than irrigation, the 

diversion requirement for the move-to site will be the average 

historical consumptive irrigation requirement. Transfers within a 

critical block to the same block may be granted if other applicable 

criteria have been met. 

16. Application for supplemental well(s) may be granted if 

applicable criteria have been met. Well(s) within a critical block 

may be supplemented by well(s) within the same block as allowed as 

follows: a) applications for supplemental well(s) for a declared 

water right may be approved, but only up to the amount historically 

beneficially used; b) application for supplemental well(s) for 

permitted water rights in good standing, may be approved for the 

total permitted water right. 
Page 13 

17. The state engineer shall determine whether an application 

is contrary to the conservation of water in the state. Water 

conservation issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

Applications shall be reviewed to ensure the highest and best 

technology practically available will be utilized to ensure 

conservation of water to the maximum extent possible. 

18. The state engineer shall determine whether an application 

is detrimental to the public welfare of the state. The state water 

planning process, statewide issues of concern, water quality 

issues, and information submitted by parties in a protested 

application, will be considered by the state engineer in making the 

public welfare determination. 

 19. Each application will be reviewed to determine whether the 

well may reasonably obtain the quantity of water sought. A 

determination of the availability of water from a particular point 

in the aquifer will be based on the transmissivity of the aquifer 

at that location, the proposed well casing diameter, the water 

column in the well and the freshwater thickness. In addition, it 

will be assumed that a well capacity of at least 6 gallons per 

minute will be required per irrigated acre and that an appropriation for other than irrigation purposes will be approved for a 

quantity not to exceed 60 percent of the well capacity, unless 

demonstrated by the applicant that a higher diversion percentage is 

appropriate.20. As new data become available, or as conditions 

warrant, the above criteria and model may be revised by the state 

engineer 
Page 14 

to best achieve the administrative objectives. 

 

APPROVED: Thomas C. Turney Date 

 State Engineer 
Page 15 

References

Morrison, Thomas D., 1989. A Regional Model of the Basin Fill 

Aquifer near Tularosa and Alamogordo, New Mexico. New Mexico State 

Engineer Office Technical Division Hydrology Report 89-3. 

Orr, Brennon R. and Myers, Robert G., 1986. Water Resources in the 

Basin-Fill Deposits in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4219. 

Papadopulos, S. S. & Associates Inc., 1987. Hydrogeologic 

Evaluation of Proposed Appropriation of Ground Water from the Hueco 

Underground Water Basin by the City of El Paso. Main report 

prepared for the State of New Mexico. 

Prickett, T. A. and Lonnquist, C.G., 1971. Selected Digital 

Computer Techniques for Groundwater Resource Evaluation. State of 

Illinois, Water Survey Division. 

 

Wilson, Brian C., 1993. Tularosa Groundwater Basin in Otero County, 

New Mexico; Quantification of Irrigation Water Requirements for the 

Administration of Water Rights. State Engineer Office Water Use 

Section report. 
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

FOR 

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE 

IN THE TULAROSA UNDERGROUND WATER BASIN 

NOTE: These are minimum conditions of approval. Other conditions 

may be added as necessary to protect the impairment of existing 

rights, ensure that the permit is not contrary to conservation of 

waters within the State, nor is against the public welfare of the 

state. 

1. This permit shall not be exercised to the detriment of valid existing water rights, shall not 

be contrary to conservation of water within the state of New Mexico, and shall not be 

detrimental to the public welfare of the state of New Mexico. 

2. The diversion of water from well no(s).________shall not exceed________acre-feet per 

annum for ________purposes. The consumptive use of the water diverted shall not 

exceed________acre-feet per annum. 

3. Well no(s).________shall (each) be equipped with a totalizing meter(s) of a type and at a 

location approved by, and installed in a manner, acceptable to the State Engineer. The 

permittee shall provide in writing, the make, model, serial number, date of installation, 

initial reading, units, and dates of recalibration, of each meter, and any replacement meter, 

used to measure the diversion of water. No water shall be diverted from any well unless 

equipped with a functional totalizing meter. 

4. Records of the amount of water diverted from well no(s)._________shall be submitted, in 

writing, to the State Engineer on or before the 10th day of the month for the preceding 

calendar month (or, on or before the 10th day of April, July, October, and January of each 

year for the three preceding calendar months; or, on or before the 10th day of January for 

the preceding calendar year). 

5. A well record for well no(s). shall be filed with the State engineer within ten (10) days of 

drilling the well(s). 

6. Proof of Completion of Well(s) shall be filed with the State Engineer on or 

before_________. 

7. Proof of Application of Water to Beneficial Use shall be filed with the State Engineer on or 

before________. 

8. Old well no(s).________shall be plugged or capped in accordance with Article 4-14 of the 

Rules and Regulations Governing Drilling of Wells and Appropriation and Use of Ground 

Water in New Mexico. A written record of the plugging or capping shall be filed with the 

State Engineer within ten (10) days of the plugging or capping. 

9. The water used under this permit shall utilize the highest and best technology practically 

available to ensure conservation of water to the maximum extent possible.

Page 16