Santa Fe Basin Study
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes in 

Water Supply and Demand 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

U.S. Department of the Interior City of Santa Fe Santa Fe County

Bureau of Reclamation Water Division Utilities Division 

Upper Colorado Region Water Resources and 

Albuquerque Area Office Conservation Section 

August 2015 
 

 

 

 

Mission Statements 

Department of Interior 

Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering our Future. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and
 

heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to 

power our future.
 

Bureau of Reclamation 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect 

water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public. 

City of Santa Fe, Water Division 

Our mission is to provide a reliable, safe and sustainable water supply to meet the 

needs of our customers and our community. 

Santa Fe County Utilities 

The mission of Santa Fe County Utilities is to provide fully sustainable, reliable 

water services, in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and 

industry standards, for a full spectrum of use by all residents of Santa Fe County. 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study: 

Adaptations to Projected Changes in Water Supply and Demand 

Report partners 

Bureau of Reclamation City of Santa Fe Santa Fe County 

Report prepared by: 

Dagmar Llewellyn, Hydrologist 

Program Management Group, Water Management Division 

Albuquerque Area Office, Upper Colorado Region 

William Schneider, Water Resources Coordinator 

P. Andrew Erdmann, Water Resources Coordinator 

Rick Carpenter, Water Resources and Conservation Manager 

City of Santa Fe 

Claudia Borchert, Director, Santa Fe County Utilities Division 

Santa Fe County 

Kelly Collins, PG, BCES, Principal 

Lauren Starosta, P.E., Water Resources Engineer 

CDM Smith 

Jesse Roach, PhD, Hydrologist, Earth Systems Analysis 

Sandia National Laboratories 

August 2015
	

 

 

 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAO Albuquerque Area Office 

AF acre-feet 

AFY acre-feet per year 

amsl above mean sea level 

ASR aquifer storage and recovery 

BCSD Bias Correction and Spatial Disaggregation 

CIP Capital Improvement Plan 

City City of Santa Fe 

County Santa Fe County 

CMIP3 Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 3 

DOI United States Department of Interior 

ET evapotranspiration 

GCM General Circulation Models 

GDD growing degree days 

GHG greenhouse gas 

gpcd gallons per capita per day 

HD(e) Hybrid-Delta Ensemble Unit 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MRGCD Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

NMED New Mexico Environment Department 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OSE New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

RWRP City of Santa Fe Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan 

STELLA Systems Thinking Experimental Learning Laboratory with Animation 

SURFS Stream Unit Response Function Solver 

TSC Technical Services Center 

URGWOM Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model 

URGSiM Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model 

VIC Variable Infiltration Capacity 

WCRP World Climate Research Programme 

WaterMAPS Water Management and Planning Simulation 

WaterSMART Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow 

Contents 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... ES-1
 

Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 1
 

1.1. Study Purpose, Authorization, and Funding............................................................1
 

1.3. Location and Description of the Study Area ............................................................3
 

1.4. Coordination and Participants .................................................................................5
 

1.5. Collaboration and Outreach.....................................................................................6
 

1.6. Summary of Previous and Current Studies .............................................................8
 

1.7. Identification of Interrelated Activities ....................................................................12
 

Chapter 2. Problems and Needs....................................................................................... 13
 

2.1. Future Challenges and Considerations .................................................................14
 

2.2. Characterization of Future Conditions ...................................................................15
 

2.3. Present Water Supply............................................................................................21
 

2.4. Approach to Overall Water Supply Analysis..........................................................28
 

2.5. Water Availability ...................................................................................................30
 

2.6. Water Demands.....................................................................................................36
 

2.7. System Reliability and Impact Assessment...........................................................42
 

Chapter 3. Adaptive Strategies ......................................................................................... 49
 

3.1. Formulation of Adaptive Strategies .......................................................................50
 

3.2. Evaluation and Comparison of Adaptive Strategies ..............................................68
 

Chapter 4. Findings........................................................................................................... 71
 

4.1. Scoring and Ranking of Water Supply Portfolios ..................................................71
 

4.2. Current and Ongoing Activities..............................................................................74
 

4.3. Next Steps and Future Considerations..................................................................75
 

Chapter 5. Disclaimers...................................................................................................... 75
 

Chapter 6. References Cited ............................................................................................ 76
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Climate Change and the Santa Fe Basin: A Preliminary 

Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Alternatives 

Appendix B: Technical Memo on Development of Climate Change 

Hydrographs for WaterMAPS 

Appendix C: Modeling 

C1. Temperature and Precipitation Data for Santa Fe Basin Study 

C2. Evapotranspiration Calculations in the Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model (URGSiM)
 

Appendix D: Projected Water Supply for Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama 

Project 

i 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Appendix E: Technical Memorandum Summarizing Task 3: Update and 

Enhance WaterMAPS 

Appendix F: Technical Memorandum Summarizing Task 4: Assessment of 

Adequacy of Current Water Supplies in Meeting Future Demand and 

Projected Climate-change-induced Conditions 

Appendix G: Technical Memorandum Summarizing Task 5a: Develop and 

Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Tables 

Table 1-1: Adaptation Strategies from the Preliminary Assessment
 

Incorporated in Adaptation Portfolios .............................................................. 7
 

Table 3-7 Performance of Portfolios 4 and 5 Relative to Reliability
 

Table 3-9. Performance of Portfolios 7 and 8 Relative to Reliability
 

Table 3-10. Performance Criteria, Performance Measures, and 

Table 2-1: Management Targets for Santa Fe Area Water Supply .................................. 21
 

Table 3-1. Adaptation Strategies for the Santa Fe Basin study area ............................... 51
 

Table 3-2. Santa Fe Basin Projected 2055 Water Supply Gap ........................................ 52
 

Table 3-3. Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios and Simulated Supply.................................. 56
 

Table 3-4. Performance of Portfolio 1 Relative to Reliability Criteria................................ 58
 

Table 3-5 Performance of Portfolio 2 Relative to Reliability Criteria................................. 60
 

Table 3-6 Performance of Portfolio 3 Relative to Reliability Criteria................................. 62
 

Criteria ........................................................................................................... 64
 

Table 3-8. Performance of Portfolio 6 Relative to Reliability Criteria................................ 65
 

Criteria ........................................................................................................... 67
 

Criteria Weigh................................................................................................ 71
 

Table 4-1. Scoring of Adaptation Portfolios ...................................................................... 73
 

Figures 

Figure E-1. Map of Santa Fe County .............................................................................. E-1
 

Figure E-2 The Santa Fe watershed............................................................................... E-5
 

Figure E-3. Ranking of Santa Fe Portfolios .................................................................. E-16
 

Figure 1-1. Location of Santa Fe City and Sante Fe County, New
 

Mexico. ............................................................................................................ 1
 

Figure 1-2. The Santa Fe watershed .................................................................................. 4
 

Figure 1-3 Map of the Jemez y Sangre Region ............................................................... 10
 

Figure 2-1. Carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations
 

for some emission scenarios......................................................................... 17
 

Figure 2-2. Climate change scenarios. ............................................................................. 19
 

Figure 2-3. Population projections .................................................................................... 20
 

Figure 2-4. Santa Fe water supply system. ...................................................................... 22
 

Figure 2-5 Map of the San Juan- Chama Project ............................................................. 24
 

Figure 2-6. Location and capacities in cfs of San Juan-Chama Project
 

diversions and tunnels................................................................................... 26
 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Figure 2-7. Santa Fe River target flow allocation as a function of
 

annual yield . ................................................................................................ 31
 

Figure 2-8. Hydrographs used to model Santa Fe River target flows............................... 31
 

Figure 2-9. Future availability of water predicted by WaterMAPS .................................... 32
 

Figure 2-10. Santa Fe River projected average annual yield as a 

percent of normal (4,909 afy) by climate change
 

scenario. ........................................................................................................ 34
 

Figure 2-11. Frequency of years below and above normal (4,909 

AFY) Santa Fe River flow conditions, for each climate 

change scenario. ........................................................................................... 34
 

Figure 2-12. San Juan-Chama Project water loss by evaporation in 

the Abiquiu Reservoir under different climate change 

scenarios. ...................................................................................................... 35
 

Figure 2-13. Monthly observed gpcd and average maximum daily
 

temperatures for the City of Santa Fe. .......................................................... 39
 

Figure 2-14. Monthly observed gpcd and precipitation for the City of
 

Santa Fe. ....................................................................................................... 39
 

Figure 2-15. Comparison of predicted water use to observed water
 

use for the City of Santa Fe.......................................................................... 40
 

Figure 2-16. Average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated.......................................... 41
 

Figure 2-17. Cumulative probability curves for the annual deficit for
 

each climate change scenario....................................................................... 43
 

Figure 2-18. Probability curves for the monthly deficit for each climate 

change scenario ............................................................................................ 44
 

Figure 2-19. Probability curves for the summer monthly deficit for
 

each climate change scenario....................................................................... 45
 

Figure 2-20. Probability curves for the winter monthly deficit for each 

climate change scenario................................................................................ 46
 

Figure 3-1. Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 1 annual deficit probability curve 

under central tendency climate scenario....................................................... 58
 

Figure 3-2. Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only annual
 

deficit probability curve under central tendency climate 

scenario. ........................................................................................................ 60
 

Figure 3-3. Santa Fe Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only annual
 

deficit probability curve under central tendency climate 

scenario. ........................................................................................................ 61
 

Figure 3-4. Santa Fe Portfolios 4 and 5: More Conservation and 

Water Rights (Reuse to Potable) annual deficit probability
 

curve under central tendency climate scenario............................................. 63
 

Figure 3-5 Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 6: More ASR annual deficit
 

probability curve ............................................................................................ 65
 

Figure 3-6. Santa Fe Basin Portfolios 7 and 8: More Direct Reuse
 

annual deficit probability curve ...................................................................... 67
 

Figure 4-1. Ranking of Santa Fe Basin Study portfolios................................................... 72
 

iii 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Executive Summary 

Study Purpose 

Climate change, in concert with human development and other changes, promises 

to alter many aspects of life in the Santa Fe basin, including the availability of 

water to the City of Santa Fe (City) and Santa Fe County (County), and the 

resources that depend on the Santa Fe watershed (Figure E-1). The health of 

forests, fish and wildlife, and other ecosystems as well as human development, 

food security, and quality of life are likely to be affected. This Basin Study has 

been undertaken by the City and County along with the United States Department 

of Interior (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to evaluate these 

projected changes and to develop potential strategies for adaptation that can be 

used for planning. 

Figure E-1. Map of Santa Fe County. 

WaterSMART: Authorization and Program 

This Basin Study was performed under the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) Basin 

Study Program. The Federal SECURE Water Act of 2009 and Secretarial Order 

3297 established the WaterSMART Program, which authorizes Federal water and 

science agencies to work with State and local water managers to pursue and 

protect sustainable water supplies and plan for future climate change by providing 

leadership and technical assistance on the efficient use of water. WaterSMART 

allows all bureaus of the Department to collaboratively work with States, Tribes, 

local governments, and non-governmental organizations to pursue a sustainable 

water supply for the Nation, and integrate water and energy policies to support the 

sustainable use of all natural resources. 

ES-1 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Basin studies, one of WaterSMART’s tools, are basin-wide efforts to evaluate and 

address the impacts of increased competition for limited water supplies, climate 

change, and other stressors, and to define options for meeting future water 

demands in river basins in the Western United States where imbalances in water 

supply and demand exist or are projected. This Basin Study is consistent with 

Reclamation’s Basin Study Framework and Section 9503 of the SECURE Water 

Act (Subtitle F of Title IX of P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009). 

Cost Share and Funding 

The cost-share partners for this study are the City, County, and Reclamation, 

which performed the study in partnership under a Memorandum of Agreement 

(Reclamation et al., 2011 [MOA]). The Santa Fe Basin Study analyses, modeling, 

evaluations, and reporting have been developed through the combined efforts of 

the City and County working in consultation with Reclamation’s Albuquerque 

Area Office (AAO), with technical support from Reclamation’s Technical Service 

Center (TSC), Sandia National Laboratories, and CDM Smith, an engineering 

firm. 

Scope and Objectives 

The opportunities for adaptation to future water supply shortages identified 

through this Basin Study are based on a better understanding of the future effects 

of, and associated risks from, climate change and population growth on the City 

and County’s combined water supply portfolio. Through the Santa Fe Basin 

Study, the study partners seek to improve the resilience of the Santa Fe watershed 

and the communities the watershed supports, as well as the municipal water 

systems for the City and County, in the face of projected changes in population, 

human development, and climate. This Basin Study consisted of the following 

actions: 

•	 Identify the vulnerabilities of systems in the Santa Fe watershed to climate 

change. A preliminary assessment qualitatively evaluated climate-change 

impacts on water supply sources, ecosystems, quality of life, agriculture 

and local food production, landscapes, land use, and water demand. This 

assessment was based on input obtained during a March 6, 2012 workshop 

and from research conducted by the authors and is summarized in this 

report and presented in full in Appendix A. 

•	 Assess Santa Fe’s changing water supply and demand, including native 

surface-water supplies from the Santa Fe Watershed, the Upper Rio 

Grande, and the San Juan Basin (imported water of the San Juan-Chama 

Project), as well as groundwater supplies to the city and county’s well 

fields. This portion of the study includes an assessment of the likely water 

supply and demand conditions in 2050 for the City and County’s 

combined water supply. There is a small amount of agricultural land (as of 

2005, OSE estimated 590 acres irrigated with surface water and 130 acres 

ES-2 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

irrigated with groundwater) in the Santa Fe Watershed. However, the 

quantitative analyses in this study focused on municipal supply, demand, 

and adaptation measures, since municipal use represents the largest 

portion of water use within the basin, and is the primary area of interest of 

Reclamation's study partners. This assessment included: 

o	 Developing climate and hydrology projections for use in this Basin 

Study. This work by Reclamation and Sandia National Laboratories is 

described in Appendices B, C1, and C2. 

o	 Developing an independent transient analysis of the projected changes 

over the course of the 21st century of the reliability of Reclamation’s 

San Juan-Chama Project. This work by Reclamation and Sandia 

National Laboratories is presented in full in Appendix D. 

o	 Updating the City’s Water Management and Planning Simulation 

(WaterMAPS) model to include the County as a partnering entity and 

to enhance the model to include functionality to assess projected 

climate impacts. This work by CDM-Smith is discussed in detail in 

Appendix E. 

o	 Using the updated WaterMAPS model, running simulations to 

determine the impacts to the City and County’s combined water supply 

under future demand and projected climate conditions. These 

simulations by CDM-Smith are described in detail in Appendix F. 

•	 Identify and analyze potential adaptation strategies for the combined City 

and County water supply. This portion of the study included: 

o	 Assessing the vulnerability and possible shortcomings of the current 

long-range water supply strategies.

o	 Identifying management or infrastructure changes that might 

strengthen the entire basin, its component systems, and its inhabitants 

to provide more flexibility in the face of an uncertain future. 

o	 Combining these adaptation strategies into portfolios that would 

provide adequate water supply in the 2050s, considering projected 

population growth and climatic changes. Since it is likely that no 

single adaptation strategy will suffice to fill the gap between supply 

and demand, these combined portfolios helped the City and County 

select adaptive strategies that best meet the regional water supply 

needs. Appendix G describes the adaptation strategies and alternative 

climate mitigation portfolios evaluated. 

Location and Description of the Study Area 

This Basin study focuses on the Santa Fe River watershed, a sub-basin to the Rio 

Grande watershed. The Santa Fe watershed is in the high-elevation desert of 

northern New Mexico (Figure E-1). It spans the Sangre de Cristo Mountains on 

the east and the Rio Grande on the west. The City of Santa Fe is the main 

municipality in the watershed and within the northern portion of Santa Fe County 

ES-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

(Figure E-2). The Santa Fe Basin includes the City and the portion of the County 

that has the highest population density and the highest growth rate, as well as the 

part that has historically depended on the City of Santa Fe for its water supply. 

For water-supply assessment purposes, the study area also encompasses: 

•	 The upper Rio Grande watershed (upstream of Otowi stream gage) 

•	 Tributaries within the San Juan River watershed, a portion of which are 

delivered to Santa Fe through Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project 

•	 Groundwater from the aquifers of the Santa Fe Group 

Each of these sub-basins is a source of surface-water for the combined municipal 

water supply for the City and County. The first two sub-basins are within the Rio 

Grande basin; the third lies within the Upper Colorado River Basin (Figure E-2). 

Santa Fe averages over 300 days of sunshine a year, with a temperate climate and 

four distinct seasons. The summer months in Santa Fe, from May to September, 

feature typically hot, sunny weather, with fairly low humidity and cooler 

evenings. Daily summer temperatures in Santa Fe peak at around 93°F during 

July and August. Thunderstorms typically occur in the early evening during this 

season. Rainfall in the Santa Fe area is spread throughout the year, although the 

highest frequency and intensity of rain occurs as part of the summer monsoons, 

which occur primarily during the months of July and August. The average annual 

precipitation in Santa Fe is about 14 inches. 

Problems, Needs, and Opportunities 

The City and County water supply systems are interconnected, with the County 

system surrounding the City system to the north, south, and east of the City 

boundary and service area. The two water utilities also co-own one of the region’s 

sources of supply (Figure E-2). The City and County water utilities have a diverse 

water supply portfolio, providing water to their customers with surface water from 

the three sub-basins and groundwater from two well fields. Because of this shared 

resource and infrastructure, cooperation between the City and County is essential 

for planning. The City and County are concerned about potential decreases in the 

availability and reliability of their joint surface water supply, as well as the quality 

of the water. The water utilities recognized the need for long-range planning 

efforts to identify future water supply deficiencies, identify strategies for meeting 

those shortfalls, and implement those strategies. 

ES-4 
Executive Summary 

Figure ES-2. The Santa Fe watershed (shaded green) receives water supply from the Santa Fe sub-basin, the upper 

Rio Grande sub-basin (green stipple) and the San Juan-Chama River sub-basin (all green stipple). 

ES-5
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The population continues to grow and the needs of the community continue to 

expand. Like many surface waters in the arid Southwest, however, supplies from 

the Santa Fe River, the Upper Rio Grande and the tributaries to the San Juan 

River are all limited, highly variable, and. dependent on seasonal snowpack and 

runoff conditions, They are also all vulnerable to climate-change-induced 

impacts. The groundwater is pumped from aquifers that are slow to recharge. In 

response to these conditions, the City and the County have been working for a 

more resilient, sustainable, diverse, and innovative water supply system for many 

years. To increase the sustainability of their water supply, the City and County 

water utilities have developed new surface-water sources. However, they also 

recognize that additional increases in supply and/or decreases in demand will be 

required to meet the challenges ahead. This Basin Study is the latest in a series of 

efforts to understand and strengthen water supply management in the Santa Fe 

area. 

Characterization of Future Conditions 

Future water supply conditions, water availability, and water demands were 

projected based on climate scenarios and population increases. The climateprojections used for this study were developed from The World Climate Research 

Programme (WCRP) Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) 

(Meehl et al. 2007), and Reclamation’s Bias-Corrected and Spatially Downscaled 

Surface Water Projections (Reclamation 2011[BCSD]). 

Imported San Juan-Chama Project Reliability Analysis 

To assess the reliability of Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project. Reclamation 

and Sandia National Laboratories provided an independent, separate transient 

analysis of the projected changes over the course of the 21st century. The methods 

used for this analysis are described in Llewellyn, et. al. (2013) and results are 

more fully described in Appendix D. Projected changes to the water supply and 

project operations are:. 

•	 Flows would decrease by one-quarter overall 

•	 Flows would decrease in summer and increase in spring. 

•	 Storage in Heron Reservoir would be reduced. 

•	 Sufficient water for a full allocation to contractors will be available less 

frequently. 

Even if sufficient water is available in tributaries to the San Juan River for 

diversions to the San Juan-Chama Project, shortages within the Colorado River 

Basin could lead to priority calls or shortage sharing agreements that would result 

in decreased supply to New Mexico under the Colorado River Compact. Such 

ES-6 
 

 

Executive Summary 

shortages could result in decreases in Reclamation’s authorization to divert water 

to the San Juan-Chama Project, even if sufficient water is available locally. 

Santa Fe Municipal Supply Analysis (WaterMAPS) 

As the 2050s are the period consistent with the study’s 40-year planning cycle, the 

model generated five climate scenarios representing the range of variability 

expected in basin hydrology in the 2050s (Reclamation 2010). 

Three of these five climate scenarios were deemed to represent the range of 

temperature and precipitation changes that are expected due to climate change: 

Warm-Wet, Hot-Dry, and Central Tendency groups. Therefore, these three 

scenarios were simulated by Sandia National Laboratories in the monthlytimestep operations model, Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM). 

Analysis is in Llewellyn et. al. 2013 and results are discussed in Appendix E. The 

output from these URGSiM simulations were used as input to Santa Fe’s 

municipal supply operations model, Water Management and Planning Simulation 

(WaterMAPS), to generate the projections and alternatives evaluated in this Basin 

Study. A baseline scenario, referred to as “simulated historic” was used for 

comparison to climate-change impacted hydrologies. The simulated historic 

scenario combines current infrastructure and operations with synthetic, spatially 

distributed historic climate and inflows (Maurer et. al. 2002). The components of 

total demand, as modeled in WaterMAPS, are: 

•	 Population. Population projections for the 2055 populations used for 

developing water demand are 125,019 and 44,673 persons for the City and 

County water service areas, respectively. The City’s Long-Range Water 

Supply Plan completed in 2008 did not directly include the adjacent 

County population. The combined population leads to much greater 

demand without a commensurate increase in supply, so the gap between 

supply and demand reported in this study is not similar to previous City or 

County documents. 

•	 Per-capita water demand. The current average annual per-capita water 

demand of 114 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was derived from 

monthly water production data provided by the City and the City 

population data from 2002 to 2010. For the demand projections, the unit 

demand representing the annual average is assumed to be fixed at 114 

gpcd (e.g., no conservation efforts assumed for future conditions). This 

average annual unit demand represents the baseline demand that is 

compared to the projected 2055 demands to identify the potential water 

supply gap. Demand values for reclaimed water used in this analysis were 

obtained from the City of Santa Fe Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan 

(Borchert, 2013), which outlines specific allocations for reclaimed water 

use. Demand for reclaimed water was based on the allocations and was not 

modified to account for climate change. 

ES-7 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

•	 Seasonal variations. In the water supply assessment portion of this study, 

projected changes to temperature and precipitation were input into a local 

dynamic systems water operations model (WaterMAPS) to assess 

potential changes to water supply. The simulated supply conditions were 

then compared with demand projections to evaluate deficits and needs in 

the future water supply for the Santa Fe area. Seasonal variability of 

demand and impacts on that variability due to climate change are also 

predicted as part of this study and included in the analysis. Other water 

demands include court ordered provision of water for irrigation systems 

(i.e., Acequia Madre, Acequia Cerro Gordo). 

Water Supply and Demand 

The analysis of water supply in the Santa Fe Basin uses the City’s WaterMAPS 

model. WaterMAPS is a multi-criteria dynamic systems simulation model that 

was built on the Systems Thinking Experimental Learning Laboratory with 

Animation (STELLA) programming environment. STELLA, developed by Isee 

Systems, Inc. is a systems modeling industry standard. The results produced from 

WaterMAPS are used to evaluate how well the City and County will be able to 

meet future water supply objectives under the four climate scenarios. 

The total present supply for the City and County is about 19,000 acre-feet per 

year (AFY), based on water rights, current water usage, administrative 

requirements, and current management targets. Although more water is currently 

available from groundwater sources, management targets for groundwater 

pumping are used in this analysis because these targets are considered to be 

sustainable and they add resilience to the overall water supply. The primary water 

supplies available are: 

Surface Water Sources:	 Groundwater Sources: 

 Rio Grande - San Juan-Chama Project water 

and Rio Grande Native Water diverted 

through the Buckman Direct Diversion roughly 

 City Well Field (along the Santa Fe 

River): This supply includes the Osage, 

Northwest, St. Michael’s wells, and “Other 

10 miles west of the City limits. The City’s City wells” all located within the City limits 

contract for San Juan-Chama Project Water is (Agua Fria, Torreon, Alto, Ferguson, Santa 

for 5,230 AFY. The County owns 1,325 AFY Fe, and Hickox). The City has the right to 

and plans to acquire an additional 590 AFY produce roughly 4,865 AFY from this well 

acre-feet/year (AFY) of native Rio Grande field. 

surface-water rights. 

 Santa Fe River Watershed - The Santa Fe 

River originates in the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains above downtown Santa Fe. The 

water from this watershed is stored in two 

reservoirs: McClure and Nichols, both owned 

and operated by the City, and treated at the 

 Buckman Well Field (near the Rio 

Grande): This source consists of 13 wells 

outside of the City limits and near the Rio 

Grande. Capacity 10,000 AFY, but 

management restrictions for sustainable 

yield limit pumping to 3,000 AFY. 

Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant. The 

City has 5,040 AFY of water rights from the 

Santa Fe Watershed. 

ES-8 
 

 

 

 

- - 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Note: Under New Mexico water administration rules, use of groundwater results 

in depletion of rivers and the depletions must be offset (paid back to the river) by 

replenishing river flow. Offsets are part of the administrative requirements and are 

included in the water accounting in WaterMAPS. 

The average annual per capita demand for the City of Santa Fe (114 gpcd) was 

used with future population for the City and the County to derive estimates of 

average future per-capita water demand. The effect of climate change on demand 

was estimated using the relationship between water use, temperature and 

precipitation from City data. The same relationship between water use, 

temperature and precipitation was applied to temperature and precipitation data 

for the climate change and simulated historic scenarios. 

The gaps between water supply and demand under the climate change scenarios if 

no adaptation strategies are implemented are summarized in Table E-1. As can be 

seen on this table, a 2055 water supply gap of just over 5,000 AFY is projected to 

occur under simulated historic climate conditions (assuming climate similar to 

historic), due to population increases. However, the magnitude of the water 

supply gap is larger when we consider projected population growth under any of 

the three climate change scenarios. 

Table E-1. Santa Fe Basin Projected Average 2055 Water Supply Gap 

Climate Change Scenario 

Simulated 

Historic (no 

climate change) 

Central 

Tendency 

Warm 

Wet Hot Dry 

Total Demand - Average Annual 

(AFY) 21,643 22,925 22,646 23,299 

Total Supply - Average Annual 

(AFY) 16,488 15,550 16,304 13,976 

Water Supply Gap –

Difference between Demand 

and Supply Average Annual 

(AFY) 

(5,155) (7,375) (6,342) (9,323) 

The Hot-Dry scenario has the highest maximum annual deficit, about 14,000 AF while the WarmWet scenario has the lowest maximum annual deficit falling just below 9,000 AF.
 

System Reliability and Risk Assessment 

This Basin Study is intended to assess adaptation strategies that may help reduce a 

projected gap between supply and demand for the City and County. This study 

has identified where vulnerabilities exist in the supply and has pinpointed 

adaption strategies and portfolios to address these system weaknesses to ensure a 

more resilient water supply to meet 40-year water demand projections. 

ES-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

On an annual basis, the predicted deficit ranges from 3,500 acre-feet (AF), the 

minimum projected deficit for the baseline scenario (i.e., considering population 

growth without climate change) to almost 14,000 AF, the maximum projected 

deficit for the Hot-Dry scenario. On a monthly basis, there is a 68 to 95 percent 

chance that there will be a water supply shortage in any given month in one of the 

scenarios by the year 2055, based on current supplies and management targets. 

Predicted deficits are more frequent and severe in the summer months (when 

demands and ecological needs are higher) than in the winter. 

These deficits are expected to impact the Santa Fe area in the following ways: 

•	 Ability to Deliver Water: All modeled scenarios, including the baseline 

as well as the three climate-change impacted scenarios, show an annual 

deficit ranging between 3,500 AF and 14,000 AF. Without adaptation 

actions, such shortages would severely impact the ability of the City and 

County to deliver enough water to meet demands. 

•	 Recreation: Decreased flow in the Rio Grande during the summer months 

will likely impact water-based recreation. 

•	 Flow and Water Dependent Ecological Resiliency: Decreased flow in 

the Rio Grande during the summer months will likely impact the habitat of 

aquatic and riparian species, including threatened and endangered species, 

and decrease the resilience of riverine and riparian ecosystems. 

The potential impact to other key water resources categories identified in the 

SECURE Water Act, including hydroelectric power generation facilities, water 

quality issues (including salinity levels), and flood control management, were not 

directly evaluated in this study, although the impacts to these water-related 

components are discussed in Appendix A. 

Consequences of Taking No Action 

If no adaptation actions are taken to offset the growing gap between supply and 

demand in the Santa Fe Basin, deficits discussed above would severely impact the 

ability to deliver enough water to meet demands, leading to grave regional 

economic impacts. Additionally, water-based recreation and flow and water 

dependent ecological resiliency are likely to be impacted by decreased flow in the 

Rio Grande and the Santa Fe River, especially in summer months. 

Adaptation Strategies 

Developing Adapation Strategies 

Representatives of the City and County identified adaptation strategies 

appropriate for the arid climate and landscape of the Santa Fe region that could 

meet future water demands (summarized in Table E-2). 

ES-10 
 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Table E-2. Adaptation Strategies for the Santa Fe Basin study area 

Adaptation Strategy Description Infrastructure Components 

Direct/Indirect 

Reclaimed Water Reuse 

Use reclaimed water from the City 

wastewater treatment plant to meet 

contract obligations; remaining 

reclaimed water for potable reuse or 

return flow credits for pumping 

New conveyance for reclaimed water 

from wastewater treatment plant to 

existing Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility and distribution 

system or new conveyance to the 

Rio Grande for return flow credits 

Water Conservation Reduce water use on a per person per 

day basis 

None 

Direct Injection for 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Inject treated water into the aquifer in 

wet and normal years for use in dry 

years 

Construction and operation of 

injection well(s); withdrawal using 

existing wells and distribution system 

Infiltration for Aquifer 

Storage and Recovery in 

the Santa Fe River 

Maintain flow in the Santa Fe River to 

induce infiltration into the aquifer for use 

in dry years 

Withdrawal using existing wells and 

distribution system. 

Additional Surface Water 

Rights 

Additional surface water would be 

diverted at the Buckman Direct 

Diversion and treated at the Buckman 

Regional Water Treatment Facility. 

Existing diversion, conveyance, 

treatment, and distribution systems 

Formulating Adaptation Portfolios 

These adaptation strategies were combined in different proportions to create 

adaptation portfolios (see Appendix G). These portfolios were modeled to 

evaluate which combination of adaptation strategies is most likely to meet the 

water supply needs of Santa Fe under projected conditions in the 2050s. Some of 

the evaluations performed using the local water operations model were to: 

•	 Identify trends in water use, such as more pronounced spikes in use rates 

during drier and hotter summers, which could be preemptively addressed 

by increased conservation education. 

•	 Identify likely water supply gaps (i.e., the difference between projected 

supply and projected demand) during the planning period (through 2055), 

under projected management, population, development, and climatic 

conditions. 

•	 Evaluate a range of adaptation portfolios for addressing the projected 

supply gap in terms of cost, technical feasibility, public acceptance, 

permitting considerations, and the likely availability of funding assistance 

for individual alternatives. 

•	 Evaluate the limits of individual adaptation strategies such as conservation 

or water rights acquisition to better understand potential limitations of 

existing practices in the future. 

ES-11 
 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Evaluating and Comparing Adaptation Portfolios 

The adaptation portfolios were evaluated to select the adaptation portfolio that 

best meets the needs of the Santa Fe Basin under projected population growth and 

climatic changes. (See Appendix G). 

The initial step in evaluating the adaptation strategies and portfolios was to screen 

them against reliability criteria: 

1.	 Average Buckman Well Field pumping does not exceed the management 

target by more than 500 AFY on average. 

2.	 Total deficit does not exceed 2,000 AFY in any year in the simulations. 

3.	 No more than 10 percent probability of deficits over 100 AFY (meaning 

that in 90% of the years, the deficit is less than 100 AFY) 

Table E-3 summarizes the adaptation portfolios and the supply based on 

WaterMAPS simulations. Table E-4 provides the results of the reliability 

screening. Only those portfolios that provide a reliable water supply in 2055 were 

then evaluated against performance criteria. Portfolios 1 through 3 presented 

single adaptation strategies, and the results presented confirm that no single 

adaptation strategy will suffice to fill the gap between supply and demand. The 

solution for the Santa Fe Basin area must be a portfolio of adaptation strategies. 

Findings 

The five combination portfolios (Portfolios 4 through 8) that met the threshold of 

the reliability criteria were then evaluated using performance criteria. The 

performance criteria address multiple aspects of the water supply system and are 

both quantitative and qualitative. For each criterion, there is a corresponding 

performance measure that describes the metric that will be used to evaluate that 

criterion. All criteria are not of equal importance. Each criterion was assigned a 

weight to indicate its relative importance. The weights were developed on a 

consensus basis by the City, County, and Reclamation. The criteria, performance 

measures, and weights are shown in Table E-5. 

The ranking process for the Santa Fe Basin Study was based on scoring each 

adaptation portfolio with respect to each of the performance criteria shown in 

Table E-5. The higher the score, the better the portfolio meets the criteria. 

The ranking of the portfolios, based on the consensus scoring and the criteria 

weighting, is in Figure E-3. The ranking of the portfolios clearly shows that 

Portfolio 5, with an overall score of 3.8 out of 4.0, meets the performance criteria 

better than the other portfolios (Figure E-3). One common element of the three 

highest ranked portfolios is increased use of reclaimed water. This suggests that 

the City and County focus efforts to use reclaimed water from both the City 

ES-12 
Executive Summary 

wastewater treatment plant and the County’s Quill wastewater treatment plant. 

The three highest ranked portfolios also use the maximum number of adaptive 

strategies, demonstrating the value of a multi-faceted approach to meet future 

water demands in the Santa Fe region. 

Table E-3. Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios and Simulated Supply 

Simulated Supply from Adaptation Strategy (AFY) 

Direct 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Reuse 

Conservation 

Direct 

Injection 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Infiltration 

Santa Fe 

River 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Additional 

Water 

Rights 

Portfolio 

Simulated 

Supply 

Portfolio 1: Conservation 

Only 4,005 4,005 

Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse 

Only 4,024 4,024 

Portfolio 3: Additional 

Water Rights Only 1,400 1,400 

Portfolio 4: More 

Conservation & Water 

Rights (Reuse to Potable) 

2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 5: More 

Conservation & Water 

Rights (Reuse to Offsets) 

2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 6: More 

Infiltration ASR 3,003 0 2,841 1,400 7,244 

Portfolio 7: More Direct 

Reuse (to Potable) 3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

Portfolio 8: More Direct 

Reuse (to Return flow 

credits) 

3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

ES-13 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

The three highest ranked portfolios also use the maximum number of adaptive 

strategies, demonstrating the value of a multi-faceted approach to meet future 

water demands in the Santa Fe region. 

Table E-3. Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios and Simulated Supply 

Simulated Supply from Adaptation Strategy (AFY) 

Direct 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Reuse 

Conservation 

Direct 

Injection 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Infiltration 

Santa Fe 

River 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Additional 

Water 

Rights 

Portfolio 

Simulated 

Supply 

Portfolio 1: Conservation 

Only 4,005 4,005 

Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse 

Only 4,024 4,024 

Portfolio 3: Additional 

Water Rights Only 1,400 1,400 

Portfolio 4: More 

Conservation & Water 

Rights (Reuse to Potable) 

2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 5: More 

Conservation & Water 

Rights (Reuse to Offsets) 

2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 6: More 

Infiltration ASR 3,003 0 2,841 1,400 7,244 

Portfolio 7: More Direct 

Reuse (to Potable) 3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

Portfolio 8: More Direct 

Reuse (to Return flow 

credits) 

3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

ES-14 
Executive Summary 

Table E-4. Performance of Adaptation Portfolios Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman Pumping in 

Excess of Target 

<500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

<2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

> 100 AFY 

Portfolio 1: 

Conservation Only 

NO 

(Exceeds by 2,674 AFY) 

YES 

(1,372 AFY) 

NO 

(391 AFY) 

Portfolio 2: Direct 

Reuse Only 

NO 

(Exceeds by 2,225 AFY) 

YES 

(1,159 AFY) 

NO 

(378 AFY) 

Portfolio 3: Additional 

Water Rights Only 

NO 

(Exceeds by 4,451 AFY) 

NO 

(3,978 AFY) 

NO 

(2,363 AFY) 

Portfolios 4 and 5:* 

More Conservation and 

Water Rights 

YES 

(Does not exceed) 

YES 

(57 AFY) 

YES 

(0 AFY) 

Portfolio 6: More ASR YES 

(Exceeds by 291 AFY) 

YES 

(553 AFY) 

ALMOST (Keep) 

(161 AFY) 

Portfolios 7 and 8:** 

More Direct Reuse 

YES 

(Exceeds by 323 AFY) 

YES 

(211 AFY) 

YES 

(32 AFY) 

*Portfolios 4 and 5 have the same water-supply reliability rating, so are grouped together in this table. The differences between them
 

show up in terms of Performance Measures.
 

**Portfolio 8 is the same as Portfolio 7 except the treated water is returned to the Rio Grande for return flow credits.
 

Table E-5. Performance Criteria, Performance Measures, and Criteria Weight 

Performance Criteria Performance Measure Criteria Weight 

Cost Considerations 15% 

Capital Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

O&M Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

Potential for Cost Share Qualitative 20% 

Reliability and Sustainability 25% 

Drought Supply Quantitative: assessment of annual deficit 

probability curves 50% 

Groundwater Use Quantitative: average and maximum 

pumping compared to management target 50% 

Acceptance 10% 

Regulatory Compliance Complexity Qualitative 50% 

Public Acceptance Qualitative 50% 

Environmental /Cultural 30% 

SF River Flows Quantitative: flow in Santa Fe River 50% 

Wetland Preservation Qualitative 50% 

Technical Implementability 20% 

Technology Viability Qualitative 100% 

ES-15 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure E-3. Ranking of Santa Fe Portfolios. 

Next Steps and Future Considerations 

The highest ranked portfolio, Portfolio 5, includes over 2,200 AFY of direct water 

reuse, approximately 4,000 AFY of additional conservation, nearly 600 AFY of 

direct aquifer storage and recovery, nearly 150 AFY of indirect aquifer storage 

through infiltration below the Santa Fe River, and the acquisition of 

approximately 1,400 AFY of additional native Rio Grande water rights. 

One of the primary adaption alternatives identified in this study is to “augment 

potable water supplies with reclaimed wastewater” as described in the report, 

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Basin: A Preliminary Assessment of 

Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Alternatives Bureau of Reclamation 

WaterSMART Program Initiative (February, 2013; Appendix A) and the City of 

Santa Fe Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan (RWRP) for the City (City of 

Santa Fe 2013) which identified potential alternatives to using reclaimed water as 

a supply source. City Council Resolution 2013-55 was enacted and approved and 

directs City Staff to pursue opportunities to evaluate and implement engineering 

and cost analysis of using reclaimed water alternatives to supplement water 

supplies. In June, 2014, the City and County were also awarded a grant through 

Reclamation’s Title XVI Program to conduct a water reuse feasibility study. The 

water reuse feasibility study will evaluate alternatives for both potable and nonpotable applications of reclaimed water to augment water supplies. The feasibility 

study will evaluate ways to cost-effectively use reclaimed wastewater in a more 

ES-16 
 

Executive Summary 

efficient manner and will consider both potable and non-potable alternatives to 

meet water demand requirements while better balancing environmental conditions 

in the watershed. 

Disclaimers 

The Santa Fe Basin Study was funded jointly by Reclamation, the City of Santa 

Fe and Santa Fe County, and is a collaborative product of the study participants 

as identified in Section 1.4. Coordination and Participants of this report. The 

purpose of the study is to assess current and future water supply and demand in 

the Santa Fe Basin and other basins providing water to the City and County, and 

to identify a range of potential strategies to address any projected imbalances. 

The study is a technical assessment and does not provide recommendations or 

represent a statement of policy or position of Reclamation, DOI, or the funding 

partners. The study does not propose or address the feasibility of any specific 

project, program or plan. Nothing in the study is intended, nor shall the study be 

construed, to interpret, diminish, or modify the rights of any participant under 

applicable law. Nothing in the study represents a commitment for provision of 

Federal funds. All cost estimates included in this study are preliminary and 

intended only for comparative purposes. 

While the best available information and consistent methodology was used in 

developing this Basin Study, projections into the future require many assumptions 

and result in inherent uncertainty. While this is necessary and appropriate for 

planning-level analyses, more detailed feasibility- and design-level studies would 

be needed when implementing some of the adaptation strategies identified. The 

purpose of this study is to provide a reasonable path forward based on the best 

information available. Some specific items to note are discussed below: 

•	 Climate change impacts on groundwater supply were not explored for this 

Basin Study. The analysis accounted for likely reductions in groundwater 

supply through the use of management targets, which are significantly less 

than actual water rights. 

•	 Water rights, management targets, and capacity constraints are changing 

annually and must be verified before using in future studies or planning 

projects. 

•	 The predicted water supply gap is sensitive to population projections, 

which were not closely studied as part of this Basin Study. The future 

water service area for the County is not well known. Previous studies and 

input from the project team members were relied upon for this 

information. 

ES-17 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

1.1. Study Purpose, Authorization, and Funding 

Climate change, in concert with 

human development and other 

changes, promises to alter many 

aspects of life in the Santa Fe basin, 

including the availability of water to 

the City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe 

County, and the resources that depend 

on the Santa Fe Watershed. The health 

of forests, fish and wildlife, and other 

ecosystems as well as human 

development, food security, and 

quality of life are likely to be affected. 

This Basin Study has been undertaken 

by the City and County along with 

Reclamation to evaluate these 

projected changes and to develop 

potential strategies for adaptation that 

can be used for planning. Figure 1-1 

shows the general location of the City 

and County. 

1.1.1. Authorization and Funding 

This Basin Study was performed under the DOI’s WaterSMART Basin Study 

Program. The Federal SECURE Water Act of 2009 and Secretarial Order 3297 

established the WaterSMART Program, which authorizes Federal water and 

science agencies to work with State and local water managers to pursue and 

protect sustainable water supplies and plan for future climate change by providing 

leadership and technical assistance on the efficient use of water. WaterSMART 

allows DOI bureaus to collaboratively work with States, Tribes, local 

governments, and non-governmental organizations to pursue a sustainable water 

supply for the Nation, and integrate water and energy policies to support the 

sustainable use of all natural resources. Basin Studies, one of the tools of this 

program, are basin-wide efforts to evaluate and address the impacts of increased 

competition for limited water supplies, climate change, and other stressors, and to 

define options for meeting future water demands in river basins in the Western 

United States where imbalances in water supply and demand exist or are 

projected. The study is consistent with Reclamation’s Basin Study Framework 

and Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act (Subtitle F of Title IX of P.L. 111­

11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009). 

Figure 1-1. Location of Santa Fe City and
 

Sante Fe County, New Mexico.
 

1 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

1.1.2. Cost-Share Partners 

The cost-share partners for this study are the City, County, and Reclamation, 

which performed the study in partnership under a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). 

1.2. Scope and Objectives 

Through the Santa Fe Basin Study, the study partners seek to improve the 

resilience of the Santa Fe watershed and the communities that it supports, as well 

as of the municipal water systems for the City and County, in the face of projected 

changes in population, human development, and climate. This Basin Study 

consisted of the following actions: 

•	 Identify the vulnerabilities of systems in the Santa Fe watershed to climate 

change. A preliminary assessment qualitatively evaluated climate-change 

impacts on water supply sources, ecosystems, quality of life, agriculture 

and local food production, landscapes, and land use and water demand. 

This assessment was based on input obtained during a March 6, 2012 

workshop and from research conducted by the authors and is summarized 

in this report and presented in full in Appendix A. 

•	 Assess Santa Fe’s changing water supply and demand, including native 

surface-water supplies from the Santa Fe Watershed, the Upper Rio 

Grande, and the San Juan Basin (imported water of the San Juan-Chama 

Project), as well as groundwater supplies to the city and county’s well 

fields. This portion of the study includes an assessment of the likely water 

supply and demand conditions in 2050 for the City and County’s 

combined water supply. There is a small amount of agricultural land (as of 

2005, OSE estimated 590 acres irrigated with surface water and 130 acres 

irrigated with groundwater) in the Santa Fe Watershed. However, the 

quantitative analyses in this study focused on municipal supply, demand, 

and adaptation measures, since municipal use represents the largest 

portion of water use within the basin, and is the primary area of interest of 

Reclamation's study partners. This assessment included: 

o	 Developing climate and hydrology projections for use in this Basin 

Study. This work by Reclamation and Sandia National Laboratories is 

described in Appendices B, C1, and C2. 

o	 Developing an independent transient analysis of the projected changes 

over the course of the 21st century of the reliability of Reclamation’s 

San Juan-Chama Project. This work by Reclamation and Sandia 

National Laboratories is presented in full in Appendix D. 

o	 Updating the City’s Water Management and Planning Simulation 

(WaterMAPS) model to include the County as a partnering entity and 

2 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

to enhance the model to include functionality to assess projected 

climate impacts. This work by CDM-Smith is discussed in detail in 

Appendix E. 

o	 Using the updated WaterMAPS model, running simulations to 

determine the impacts to the City and County’s combined water supply 

under future demand and projected climate conditions. These 

simulations by CDM-Smith are described in detail in Appendix F. 

•	 Identify and analyze potential adaptation strategies for the combined City 

and County water supply. This portion of the study included: 

o	 Assessing the vulnerability and possible shortcomings of the current 

long-range water supply strategies. 

o	 Identifying management or infrastructure changes that might 

strengthen the entire basin, its component systems, and its inhabitants 

to provide more flexibility in the face of an uncertain future. 

o	 Combining these adaptation strategies into portfolios that would 

provide adequate water supply in the 2050s, considering projected 

population growth and climatic changes. Since it is likely that no 

single adaptation strategy will suffice to fill the gap between supply 

and demand, these combined portfolios helped the City and County 

select adaptive strategies that best meet the regional water supply 

needs. Appendix G describes the adaptation strategies and alternative 

climate mitigation portfolios evaluated. 

1.3. Location and Description of the Study 

Area 

The focus area for this Basin Study is the Santa Fe River watershed, which is a 

sub-basin to the Rio Grande watershed. The study also includes, for water-supply 

assessment purposes, the upper Rio Grande watershed (upstream of Otowi stream 

gage), tributaries within the San Juan River watershed, a portion of which are 

delivered to Santa Fe through Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project, and 

groundwater from the aquifers of the Santa Fe Group. Each of these sub-basins is 

a source of surface-water for the combined municipal water supply for the City 

and County. The first two sub-basins are within the Rio Grande basin; the third 

lies within the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Santa Fe watershed is located in 

the high-elevation desert of northern New Mexico (Figure 1-2). It spans the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains on the east and the Rio Grande on the west. The City 

of Santa Fe is the main municipality in the watershed and within the northern 

portion of Santa Fe County (Figure 1-2). The Santa Fe Basin includes the City 

and the portion of the County that has the highest population density and the 

highest growth rate, as well as the part that has historically depended on the City 

of Santa Fe for water supply. 

3 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 1-2. The Santa Fe watershed (shaded green) receives water supply from the Santa Fe sub-basin, the upper Rio
 

Grande sub-basin (green stipple) and the San Juan-Chama River sub-basin (all green stipple).
 

4 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Santa Fe has a temperate climate with four distinct seasons. Santa Fe averages 

over 300 days of sunshine a year. The summer months in Santa Fe, from May to 

September, feature typically hot, sunny weather with fairly low humidity and 

cooler evenings. Daily summer temperatures in Santa Fe peak at around 93°F 

during July and August. Thunderstorms typically occur in the early evening 

during this season. Rainfall in the Santa Fe area is spread throughout the year, 

although the highest frequency and intensity of rain occurs as part of the summer 

monsoons, which occur primarily during the months of July and August. The 

average annual precipitation in Santa Fe is about 14 inches. 

1.4. Coordination and Participants 

The City and County water supply systems are interconnected with the County 

system surrounding the City system to the north, south, and east of the City 

boundary and service area. The two water utilities also co-own one of the region’s 

sources of supply. Recognizing the shared resource and infrastructure, 

cooperation between the City and County is essential for planning. Reclamation 

provided technical analyses of climate scenarios and resultant hydrology as well 

as guidance throughout the Basin Study process. 

Other participants in for this Basin Study are: 

1.	 Stakeholders: The stakeholders are the residents of the Santa Fe Basin 

and other regional interests. These stakeholders participated in the 

Santa Fe Basin Study through the Preliminary Assessment Workshop 

described in Appendix A. 

2.	 State: Representatives of State agencies participated in the Preliminary 

Assessment workshop.

3.	 Local: Representatives of local agencies and nonprofit organizations 

participated in the Preliminary Assessment workshop.

4.	 Tribes: Representatives of Tribal agencies participated in the
 

Preliminary Assessment workshop.
 

5.	 Irrigation Districts: Members of acequias and representatives of the 

Acequia Commission participated in the Preliminary Assessment 

workshop.

The Santa Fe Basin Study analyses, modeling, evaluations, and reporting have 

been developed through the combined efforts of the City and County working in 

consultation with Reclamation’s Albuquerque Area Office (AAO), with technical 

support from. Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC), Sandia National 

Laboratories, and CDM Smith, an engineering firm. 

5 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

1.5. Collaboration and Outreach 

The project partners sponsored an interactive workshop on March 6, 2012 in 

Santa Fe to introduce climate change and its potential impacts in the Santa Fe 

Basin area to a broad group of local stakeholders and community members. Over 

100 workshop participants eagerly shared their thoughts and ideas on actions that 

local governments and citizens could take to create a more resilient water supply 

within the Santa Fe Basin in response to likely climate change impacts. 

Climate change experts provided the foundation for the workshop by giving a 

summary of climate change projections for the Santa Fe Basin area, the 

southwestern forest response to drought, and the historical and sociological 

impacts of climate change. 

Through facilitated breakout groups, participants from Federal, State, local, 

private, and non-profit groups as well as the public provided input on a range of 

climate change impacts on various physical, biological, and socioeconomic 

systems within the Santa Fe Basin area. The breakout groups were asked to 

identify how climate change may threaten a system of concern, prioritize how 

those risks should be responded to, and to brainstorm adaptation strategies that 

can be taken at the City and County level to build resilience into those systems in 

the face of those impacts. 

The Preliminary Assessment Report (Appendix A) provides the list of potential 

solutions to the projected impacts of climate change and summarizes what is 

being done or has been done and what remains to be implemented. Table 1-1 

shows the adaptation strategies that were identified by the Preliminary 

Assessment and which were used to build the adaptation portfolios evaluated in 

the subsequent project phase. Some strategies were not included because they 

were beyond the scope of the Basin Study. 

6 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Table 1-1. Adaptation Strategies from the Preliminary Assessment Incorporated in 

Adaptation Portfolios 

Adaptation Strategies from Preliminary 

Assessment (Appendix A) 

Included in 

Adaptation 

Portfolio? 

Notes 

Demand Adaptation Strategies 

Incorporate urban agriculture in water and 

land use planning 

No Unable to quantify water demands 

Cultivate climate appropriate crops No Unable to quantify water conserved 

Provide incentives and programs to reduce 

water use, especially during drought 

Yes Water conservation included in all 

adaptation portfolios 

Increase solar panel installation to reflect heat 

and produce energy 

No Unable to quantify impact on water 

supply 

Expand water harvesting techniques Yes Water conservation included in all 

adaptation portfolios 

Availability Adaptation Strategies 

Encourage limited term urban lease of 

agricultural water rights during drought 

Yes Water rights acquisition included in 

all adaptation portfolios 

Adjudicate Santa Fe Basin water rights No Unable to quantify water availability; 

not a City or County function 

Augment potable supplies with reclaimed 

wastewater 

Yes Reclaimed water reuse included in 

all adaptation portfolios 

Increase above and below groundwater 

storage capacity 

Yes Aquifer storage and recovery 

included in all adaptation strategies 

Require pervious pavement where appropriate No Unable to quantify water availability 

Improve soils and watershed resiliency No Unable to quantify water availability 

Design of modify bridges and culverts to 

handle higher intensity runoff events 

No Unable to quantify storm flow 

intensity 

Combined Adaptation Strategies 

Manage and plan restoration holistically No Unable to quantify water availability 

or conservation 

Improve ecosystem biodiversity No Unable to quantify water availability 

or conservation 

Decentralize energy infrastructure No Unable to quantify water availability 

or conservation 

Establish a climate change targeted 

monitoring system 

No May be included in future 

adaptation programs 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

1.6. Summary of Previous and Current 

Studies 

A summary of previous and current studies are presented below. Studies that are 

included as one of the appendices of this report are not summarized. 

1.6.1. Sustainable Santa Fe Plan 

The Sustainable Santa Fe Plan (City of Santa Fe 2008 [Sustainable]) was drafted 

to assess options for reducing Santa Fe’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a 

manner that is consistent with evolving social values, traditional New Mexican 

practices, and existing economic realities. The plan draws from a diverse range of 

documents which address spanning a range from public transportation to 

watershed health to economic development. Detailed consideration of issues in 

the report is given to: GHG Emissions Inventory, City Operations, Green 

Building Code, Development and Zoning Code, Clean Renewable Energy, 

Transportation, Ecological Adaptation, Water Conservation, Solid Waste 

Reduction, Food Systems, Education and Outreach, and Implementation 

strategies. Of these topics, the most directly relevant to this study is the section on 

Water Conservation, summarized here. 

The Sustainable Santa Fe Plan addresses water conservation as an important issue 

both because of the need to conserve water for its own sake and also because 

water conveyance is a substantial user of power and power generation is a 

significant consumer of water. For these reasons, water consumption is a 

significant contributor to GHG emissions. The goal of the Water Conservation 

Committee is “to define and develop and integrated strategy to accomplish longrange water policies.” Specific steps to accomplish this goal include: 

•	 Develop a Water Conservation Strategic Plan which recognizes the need 

for commercial, residential, and industrial users to share in conservation 

efforts. This can better integrate related functions in city government 

including: water conservation, long range water supply planning, land use 

planning, and billing. The plan can also address complex issues of water 

conservation with a focus on interconnections. 

•	 Adopt new technologies to better track water use and to help customers 

conserve water include improvements to measurement and infrastructure 

in order to quantify the effects of conservation measures. 

•	 Proactively plan and run tests to identify leaks, including expedient repair 

of leaks and expansion of leak identification processes beyond residential 

and into other water customer sections. 

•	 Expand public outreach and education. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

•	 Initiate a program to maximize water harvesting. 

•	 Initiate a program to process and use water for multiple purposes. 

•	 Continue and increase the use of treated effluent. 

•	 Consider the energy requirements of any potential new water sources and 

seek opportunities to use clean, renewable energy sources for the energy 

requirements of both existing and new water sources. 

1.6.2. Santa Fe County Sustainable Growth 

Management Plan 

New and challenging issues today require Santa Fe County to be proactive about 

how growth is addressed within our communities. The Sustainable Growth 

Management Plan (Santa Fe County 2010) is a guiding document that 

incorporates local community values, goals, and strategies on how to best manage 

and sustainably use the County's limited natural, economic, and cultural 

resources. The plan is also a tool that addresses the existing and future needs of 

communities in Santa Fe County and serves as a guide for planning, land use, 

housing, resource and environmental protection, public and facility service, 

renewable and green development, fiscal responsibility, and administrative 

regulation. The plan serves as the framework for the County’s Sustainable Land 

Development Code and replaces the 1999 Santa Fe County Growth Management 

Plan. 

1.6.3. Santa Fe County Sustainable Land Development 

Code 

The Santa Fe County’s Sustainable Land Development Code (Santa Fe County 

2013) provides a legal framework for implementing land development and growth 

management policies of the Sustainable Growth Management Plan. The code will 

be implemented once the County zoning map has been approved. 

1.6.4. City of Santa Fe Long Range Water Supply Plan 

The City of Santa Fe’s Long Range Water Supply Plan (City of Santa Fe 2008 

[Water]) is the result of a process that began in 2004 and did not conclude until 

2008. The Long Range Water Supply Plan was conceived as a road map for 

optimizing existing water supplies and for providing new supplies to address a 

supply gap projected to begin in 2021 and to reach 2,700 AF by 2045 despite the 

construction of the Buckman Direct Diversion and the availability of that water 

for municipal supply. This project is where the WaterMAPS water systems 

operation model was initially developed. WaterMAPS is described in Appendix E 

and discussed later in this report (Section 2.3.2). 

The Long Range Water Supply Plan considered over 30 different water supply 

and demand management options and ultimately compared 11 different supply 

9 
 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

portfolios to address the projected supply gap. These portfolios were compared on 

the basis of six objectives designed to assess the feasibility, sustainability, cost, 

and practicality of each approach. Following the assessment of these portfolios, 

eight major policies were developed by which the City would seek to meet future 

water supply needs. The scenarios evaluated in this Basin Study report are 

consistent with these policies. The policies are: 

•	 The City will continue and improve its aggressive water conservation 

program. 

•	 The City will acquire the necessary water and environmental permits to 

meet the City’s future demands. 

•	 The City will use groundwater sustainably. 

•	 The City will optimize its use of treated effluent. 

•	 The City will optimize its use of existing water rights and infrastructure to 

stretch existing water supplies. 

•	 The City will seek to minimize or eliminate the use of emergency drought 

restrictions. 

•	 The City will provide water to maintain a living Santa Fe River, except 

under drought or emergency conditions. 

•	 The City will monitor system performance and revisit its water needs, and 

adjust its actions as necessary to 

fully meet its demand sustainable, 

and cooperate in securing a reliable 

water supply for the region. 

1.6.5. State Water Plan, 

Jemez Y Sangre Regional 

Water Plan 

The Jemez y Sangre region is one of 

16 regions in the state, each of which has its 

own plan. The Jemez y Sangre region, in 

particular, includes Espanola, Los Alamos, 

Santa Fe, and the surrounding areas as 

shown in Figure 1-3. The Jemez y Sangre 

Regional Water Plan (Jemez y Sangre Water 

Planning Council 2003) is part of the State 

of New Mexico’s State Water Planning 

process. The document is wide ranging and 

addresses many aspects of the regional water 

picture including evaluation of conflicting 

values and priorities between municipalities 

and between urban and rural portions of the 

Figure 1-3 Map of the 

Jemez y Sangre Region. 10 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

region. As is stated in the Jemez y Sangre Regional Water Plan, “Some 

stakeholders will argue that economic development can occur without growth and 

others will claim that a significant portion of the agricultural water rights are not 

being used anyway, and that the regional character is already changing due to the 

low profitability of farming.” 

The Jemez y Sangre Regional Water Plan has six components of a successful 

plan: 

•	 Rural and Wildlands Character 

•	 Water Sustainability 

•	 Economic Sustainability 

•	 Water Quality 

•	 Acknowledgement of Rights and Responsibilities associated with
 

responsible use of the resource
 

•	 Collaborative Decision making emphasizing open, inclusive dialogue and 

decision making 

The Jemez y Sangre Regional Water Plan anticipates an increased regional 

demand of 31,500 AFY by 2060, with the bulk of that growth in demand centered 

in the Santa Fe, North Galisteo, Tesuque, Santa Cruz, and Nambe-Pojaque subbasins. Vulnerabilities to water supply identified in the plan include: 

•	 Groundwater mining 

•	 Variability in surface water supply based on drought 

•	 Watershed health 

•	 Catastrophic wildfire 

•	 Water quality risks 

•	 Limitations on the understanding of groundwater resources within the 

region, including the need for an improved understanding of regional 

hydrogeology and a regional numerical groundwater and surface water 

model acceptable to all parties 

•	 Lack of a comprehensive adjudication as well as the secondary absence of 

metering to determine that users are exercising their rights within their 

adjudicated constraints 

•	 Scale of domestic well use (which is assumed in the Jemez y Sangre 

Regional Water Plan to divert an estimated 7,700 AFY, representing 

35 percent of the total demand in the area). 

One anticipated outcome of this convergence of factors is a projected supply gap. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

1.7. Identification of Interrelated Activities 

1.7.1. International 

The water in the Rio Grande and Santa Fe River is subject to the Rio Grande 

Compact. This Basin Study involves articles of the Rio Grande Compact, and to 

that extent, there is an international nexus with Mexico in that international water 

delivery obligations exist on the rivers. 

1.7.2. Federal 

The City and County were awarded a grant in June 2014, from Reclamation 

through the Title XVI Program to conduct a water reuse feasibility study. The 

water reuse feasibility study will evaluate alternatives for both potable and nonpotable applications of reclaimed water to augment water supplies. 

1.7.3. Interstate 

The Santa Fe watershed is subsidiary to the Rio Grande watershed. All waters in 

the Rio Grande watershed are subject to the 1938 Interstate Rio Grande Compact, 

which is managed by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission within New 

Mexico. The water diverted by the City through the Buckman Direct Diversion 

facility originates in the San Juan Basin and is diverted from the San Juan Basin 

via a series of tunnels. This diversion is subject to the Colorado River Basin 

Compacts. The continued allocation of this water and its use are subject to 

scrutiny by the partners both in New Mexico and in the other Colorado River 

Basin states. 

1.7.4. State 

1.7.4.1. Water Rights Management 

Water quantity and water rights in New Mexico are managed by a state agency, 

the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE). Water quality, which is an 

essential aspect of reclaimed water use and aquifer storage and recovery adaptive 

strategies, will also involve the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 

Continuing compliance with regulatory standards remains a priority for the Santa 

Fe area water utilities. 

1.7.4.2. Relationship to State Law including State Water Plan 

Compliance with State laws, as described above, is a priority for the Santa Fe area 

water utilities. The New Mexico State Water Plan is built up of plans from 16 

water planning regions. The Santa Fe Basin is in the Jemez y Sangre Regional 

Planning area. The information from this Basin Study will be incorporated as part 

of the Jemez y Sangre Regional Water Plan (summarized in Section 1.6.5) as 

future updates are made. 

12 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

1.7.5. Local 

Within the Santa Fe Basin, the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, Agua Fria 

Community Water Association, La Cienega Mutual Domestic Association, and La 

Bajada Mutual Domestic Water Association provide water utility services to local 

residents. However, the City of Santa Fe and the surrounding area also have a 

number of local non-profit entities that are active in water matters and have 

interrelated activities. Examples include: 

•	 The Santa Fe Watershed Association that focuses on restoration of the 

upper watershed and educational outreach 

•	 The Nature Conservancy working to protect the Rio Grande watershed 

•	 WildEarth Guardians, who have re-vegetated significant portions of the 

Santa Fe River 

Chapter 2. Problems and Needs 

The City and County are concerned about potential decreases in the availability 

and reliability of their joint surface water supply, as well as water quality. The 

water utilities recognized the need for long-range planning efforts to identify 

future water supply deficiencies, develop strategies for meeting those shortfalls, 

and implement those strategies. 

The City and County water utilities have a diverse water supply portfolio, 

providing water to their customers with surface water from the three sub-basins 

and groundwater from two well fields. Additionally, thousands of single- and 

multiple-household domestic wells provide water to users within the Santa Fe 

study area and outside the utility service area. 

To increase the sustainability of their water supply, the City and County water 

utilities have developed new surface-water sources. Like many surface waters in 

the arid Southwest, however, supplies from the Santa Fe River, the Upper Rio 

Grande, and the tributaries to the San Juan River are all limited, highly variable, 

and dependent on seasonal snowpack and runoff conditions. They are also all 

vulnerable to climate-change-induced impacts. The groundwater is pumped from 

aquifers that are slow to recharge. Overreliance on, and inadequate regulation of, 

groundwater has led to significant declines in aquifer water levels resulting in 

depletions of water from nearby streams, rivers, and springs connected and 

supported by the aquifers. The population continues to grow and the needs of the 

community continue to expand. In response to these conditions, the City and the 

County have been working for a more resilient, sustainable, diverse, and 

innovative water supply system for many years. 

The City and County recognize looming threats to the water supply and have 

addressed them in multiple ways. Together, the water utilities have embarked on 

long-range planning efforts to identify future water supply deficiencies, identify 

13 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

strategies for meeting those shortfalls, and implement those strategies. 

Aggressive water conservation programs have reduced per capita utility customer 

demand by 42 percent since 1995, which has brought the current average demand 

down to about 114 gcpd. The City and County have reduced their reliance on 

groundwater extraction by constructing the Buckman Direct Diversion to divert 

surface water, through which the utilities’ customers receive water from the 

imported San Juan-Chama Project and native Rio Grande surface water. This 

surface water supply is renewable. 

This Basin Study is the latest in a series of efforts to understand and strengthen 

water supply management in the Santa Fe area. The opportunities for adapting to 

future water supply shortages identified through this Basin Study are based on a 

better understanding of the future effects of, and associated risks from, climate 

change and population growth on the City and County’s combined water supply 

portfolio. The adaptive strategies for the identified risks are grouped into 

portfolios so that the City and County can select the portfolio of adaptive 

strategies that best meets the regional water supply needs. Through this Basin 

Study, the City, County, Reclamation, and their consultants have developed a 

better understanding of the future effects of and associated risks from climate 

change on its water supply portfolio. 

2.1. Future Challenges and Considerations 

Water managers in the Southwest face a myriad of threats, including long-range 

climate change impacts and short-term drought conditions, both of which cause 

reductions in surface water supplies. Of greatest concern for the City and County 

are potential decreased San Juan-Chama Project water apportionments and the risk 

of Buckman Direct Diversion and Canyon Road Water Treatment Plants'

shutdowns due to low flows and/or poor water quality. Diversions at the Buckman 

Direct Diversion are curtailed by low flows in the Rio Grande in compliance with 

the Record of Decision (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

2007) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management 2006) for the Buckman Water Diversion Project. 

Surface water resources in the Southwest depend on seasonal snowpack and 

runoff conditions, which are prone to fluctuation and which will, in the long term, 

be impacted by global climate change. Regional groundwater resources are also 

threatened—well yields have decreased and groundwater levels near the City’s 

two well fields have declined substantially. The cone of depression that developed 

in the vicinity of the Buckman Well Field was a result of prolonged well use in 

the area. From 1995 to 2001, an average of 5,200 AFY of water was pumped from 

the Buckman Well Field. In 2001, the depth-to-groundwater at the center of the 

cone of depression for the Buckman Well Field was approximately 260 feet, as 

measured in a City observation well located near the center of the well field. 

Furthermore, decreases of surface water could trigger onerous administrative 

conditions (i.e., increased offsets) to groundwater pumping. 

14 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Significant reduction in groundwater use in recent years has resulted in some 

recovery of the aquifer. Since the Buckman Direct Diversion project has come 

online, the average pumping has been 2,000 AFY (2010-2012), with only 1,050 

acre-feet (AF) pumped in 2012. With increasing demand and decreasing surface 

supplies, these achievements in increasing groundwater levels could be reversed. 

These threats to water supply are compounded by other factors, such as: 

•	 Reductions in groundwater recharge when flows in the river are
 

diminished
 

•	 The advanced age of large portions of both the City and Buckman well 

fields 

•	 The City’s Living River Ordinance, which allocates up to 1,000 AFY to 

sustaining flow in the Santa Fe River 

The overall impact of these factors is uncertainty in the resiliency of the water 

supply system. 

In addition to variations in supply, population growth is expected to increase the 

demand for water in the region. 2050 projections suggest an 80 percent population 

increase, resulting in an additional water demand of about 23,000 AFY (see 

Appendix E, Section 4.2.3). The current combined water rights portfolio for the 

City and County is about 26,000 AFY. However, when considering current 

management targets for groundwater use and the City’s Living River Ordinance, 

the available supply decreases significantly to about 18,900 AFY, as discussed in 

Section 2.3 Present Water Supply Portfolio. 

2.2. Characterization of Future Conditions 

Future water supply and demand will be affected by climatic conditions and 

population. This study is built on previous water planning efforts to incorporate 

predicted climate change impacts into 40-year water availability estimates and 

water demand projections. The City and County use these projections to identify 

adaptation strategies that will maintain a continuing supply to customers under the 

projected conditions and to protect the resource to ensure available supply beyond 

that time. This study provides water managers and decision makers with a tool to 

evaluate multiple criteria in evaluating the ability of various adaptation strategies 

individually and in combination (adaptation portfolios) to best meet and manage 

the Partner’s future demand. 

2.2.1. Climate Change Modeling and Analysis 

Climate is defined by the statistical characteristics of meteorological conditions 

including temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, wind, atmospheric pressure 

and humidity in a given region over a period of decades. In contrast, weather is 

characterized by the condition of these factors over periods of time extending 

15 
 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

from days to weeks. Although significant advancements in weather forecasting 

have occurred, the nonlinear nature of atmospheric processes makes skillful 

forecasting of even seasonal and annual weather extremely difficult. However, 

over most of human history, the non-linear dynamics that characterize weather 

systems have tended to average out with some consistency over a period of a few 

decades. Therefore, although we could not predict weather conditions at any 

given time, we had an understanding of long-term average conditions, and could 

characterize the extremes likely to be encountered. 

Because of the past climate stability over many decades, climate has been 

characterized using the concept of stationarity. Stationarity assumes that the 

future climate will be the same as the past. Under that assumption, longer-term 

average weather conditions were used as a basis for water supply and 

infrastructure planning and engineering design. Paleo-climate based surrogate 

data from studies of tree rings, pollen, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, stable 

and radioisotopes, and other long-term climatic records have been used to capture 

the natural variability of climate. This information has also been used with 

stochastic methods to characterize the uncertainties in climatic conditions. 

Climate change, however, imposes future trends on both the magnitude and 

variability of climate parameters such as temperature and precipitation. Therefore, 

although much insight can be gained from the analysis of retrospective climate 

data, stationarity no longer characterizes average conditions, and water planning 

and engineering designs in the future will need to also rely on new methods and 

information sources. 

Projections of future climate changes are currently being made through the use of 

global climate models referred to as General Circulation Models (GCM), which 

have been steadily increasing in sophistication and complexity over the past 

several decades. The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Coupled 

Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) (Meehl et al. 2007) produced 

multiple 20th - 21st century climate projections for the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). These climate 

projections are based on an assemblage of GCM simulations of coupled 

atmospheric and ocean conditions, with a variety of initial conditions of global 

ocean – atmosphere system and four distinct “storylines” about how future 

demographics, technology and socioeconomic conditions might affect the 

emissions of greenhouse gases. The four families of emissions scenarios (A1, A2, 

B1, and B2) are described in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 

which states that “the scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. 

They are neither predictions nor forecasts” (IPCC 2000). Corresponding carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions and atmospheric concentrations for some of the 

emissions scenarios are shown in Figure 2-1. 

16 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Figure 2-1. Carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations for some emission scenarios. 

17 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The spatial resolution of the GCM climate projections is typically on the order of 

one degree of latitude/longitude (about 110 kilometers x 110 kilometers), which is 

too coarse for use in regional and project-scale planning. Additionally, local 

climates are likely to differ from the average climatic conditions across an entire 

degree of latitude or longitude, due to elevation differences and other local 

conditions within that grid cell. Therefore, projections of local conditions require 

a method of downscaling GCM projections to regional and local scales. Statistical 

methods have been widely applied to produce spatially-continuous fields of 

temperature and precipitation at fine scales (< 10 miles or <16 kilometers) 

covering the entire United States. These statistical methods are typically coupled 

with bias corrections of coarse global data to more representative regional and 

local conditions. 

Reclamation and several partner organizations, including: Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, Santa Clara University, Climate Central, and the Institute for 

Climate Change and its Societal Impacts have applied the Bias Correction and 

Spatial Disaggregation (BCSD) technique of Wood et al (2004) to create an 

archive of 112 downscaled CMIP3 monthly temperature and precipitation 

projections covering the entire United States on a 1

/8 degree (o) grid 

(12 kilometers) for the period from 1950 to 2099. These projections were 

produced from results of 16 different CMIP3 GCMs simulating 3 different 

emissions scenarios (A2 [higher], A1B [middle], and B1 [lower]) along with 

various assumptions about initial ocean – atmosphere conditions. A more detailed 

description of BCSD method is contained in Reclamation’s Bias-Corrected and 

Spatially Downscaled Surface Water Projections report (Reclamation 2011 

[BCSD]). 

The climate-change conditions used for the Santa Fe Basin Study were developed 

from the CMIP3 project set (Meehl et al. 2007), and Reclamation’s BiasCorrected and Spatially Downscaled Surface Water Projections (Reclamation 

2011 [BCSD] and [Act Report]). From these projections, five sets of scenarios 

were generated, representing the range of variability expected in Basin hydrology 

in the 1950s, through the Hybrid Delta ensemble method (Reclamation 2010). 

Three of these five scenarios were deemed to represent the extremes of predicted 

temperature and precipitation changes that are expected due to climate change: 

Warm-Wet, Hot-Dry, and Central Tendency groups. Therefore, these three 

scenarios were used as input to Santa Fe’s municipal supply operations model, 

WaterMAPS, to generate the projections and alternatives evaluated in this Basin 

Study. A baseline scenario, referred to as “simulated historic” was used for 

comparison to climate-change impacted hydrologies. The simulated historic 

scenario combines current infrastructure and operations with synthetic, spatially 

distributed historic climate and inflows (Maurer et. al. 2002). See Appendix B for 

further information on developing the climate change hydrographs for 

WaterMAPS. 

18 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

The development of these five projection sets is shown in Figure 2-2 and 

described as follows: 

•	 Hot-Wet: above the 50th percentile for both precipitation and 

temperature changes
 

•	 Warm-Wet: above the 50th percentile for precipitation change and below 

the 50th percentile for temperature change 

•	 Hot-Dry: below the 50th percentile for precipitation change and above the 

50th percentile for temperature change 

•	 Warm-Dry: below the 50th percentile for both precipitation and 

temperature changes
 

•	 Central Tendency: An overlapping group was defined as being between 

the 25th and 75th percentile for both the change in precipitation and change 

in temperature 

Figure 2-2. Climate change scenarios. 

2.2.2. Population Projections 

Population projections analyses are described in Appendix E. The City water 

service, County water service, total water service (i.e., City plus County), and 

total County population projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are shown in 

Figure 2-3. The difference between the total County population and the total 

19 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

water service population represents the population that is not served water by 

either the County or City water systems. The ultimate 2055 populations used for 

the climate change analysis and for development of the water supply plan are: 

• City water service area: 125,019 

• County water service area: 44,673 

Figure 2-3. Population projections
 

(labeled values are for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050).
 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

2.3. Present Water Supply 

The water supply currently available to the City and to the County in the study 

area consists of surface water sources and groundwater sources that are used 

conjunctively, as shown in Figure 2-4. In an average year and given current 

management of water supplies, surface water provides about 70 percent of the 

City and County water supply and groundwater provides the remaining 30 

percent. Each of the water supply sources are subject to regulatory limitations 

(water rights), sustainable management targets (management targets), and water 

utility constraints (capacity constraints). Water rights and system infrastructure 

capacity are physical constraints, but the management targets are subjective 

administrative objectives for water use that are always less than the water rights. 

For this study, supplies were restricted by the management targets (Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1. Management Targets for 

Santa Fe Area Water Supply 

Source Management Target (AFY) 

County City 

Buckman Wells - 3,000 

City Wells (including Northwest 

and Osage Wells) - 3,500 

Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant 

(including St. Michael’s Well)1 - 4,040 

St. Michael’s Well - 241 

County Wells2 153 -

Native Rio Grande Rights3 1,915 590 

San Juan Chama Project Water 375 5,230 

TOTAL 2,290 16,601 

1. Assumed based on subtracting the desired Living River Ordinance target flow 

of 1,000 AFY from 5,040 AFY (water right). Actual availability based on 

modeling conducted as part of this project. 

2. Santa Fe basin, in-basin groundwater rights is 153 AFY. Wells do not currently 

exist for this right, but it is assumed that they will be used in the future and 

possibly through the City Well Field. 

3. Rights include 590 AFY each for County and City that are expected to be 

obtained in the near future. 

21 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 2-4. Santa Fe water supply system. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

2.3.1. Native Groundwater 

In New Mexico, the right to use surface water and groundwater are linked. The 

basis of that linkage is the understanding that pumping groundwater will 

eventually deplete the surface water where there is a surface-groundwater 

connection. Therefore ,some groundwater pumping must offset the impact to 

surface water either by returning water to the river (return flow) or acquiring 

groundwater rights that will not be pumped (offsets) to “pay back” the river. 

The groundwater supply comes from the aquifers within the Santa Fe Group, 

which underlies the study area. 

2.3.1.1. Buckman Well Field (near the Rio Grande) 

This supply includes 13 wells outside of the City limits and near the Rio Grande 

and along the Buckman Well Field water transmission lines. These Buckman 

wells are permitted to produce up to 10,000 AFY, but they have strict offset 

requirements from state regulators, high transmission costs, and some arsenic and 

uranium exceedence issues, which limits their use. Historically, pumping of the 

Buckman Well Field has been as high as 5,900 AFY. Since the Buckman Direct 

Diversion has come online, pumping has reduced significantly. 

Use of the Buckman Well Field results in depletions from the Rio Grande and 

tributaries to the Rio Grande: Rio Pojoaque, Rio Tesuque and La Cienega (labeled 

as “NPT Tribs” in Figure 2-4). On the Rio Grande, these river depletions are repaid with Rio Grande surface water rights acquired by the City and dedicated to 

Buckman Well depletion offsets, native Rio Grande water rights permitted for 

both diversion and offset (e.g. “dual use”), or San Juan-Chama Project water, if 

necessary. Depletions to the Rio Tesuque and Rio Pojoaque are replenished with 

retired tributary surface water rights. Depletions in the La Cienega area are 

predominantly repaid by flows from the City’s wastewater treatment plant. 

Offsets for depletions are also required for the Northwest and Osage wells, but the 

depletions are minimal in comparison. 

2.3.1.2. City Well Field (along the Santa Fe River): 

This is a series of 11 wells, 8 of which are currently producing water, located 

within City limits and generally along the Santa Fe River to which the City has 

the right to produce roughly 4,865 AFY. These wells include the Osage, 

Northwest, St. Michael’s wells, and “Other City wells”—all located within the 

City limits. The Osage, Northwest, and St. Michael’s wells are modeled 

individually, whereas the “Other City wells” (Agua Fria, Torreon, Alto, Ferguson, 

Santa Fe, and Hickox) are combined as a single supply source (due to permitting 

requirements). 

2.3.1.3. County Wells 

The County owns a series of small wells in the area surrounding Santa Fe city 

limits that are currently equipped for utility production. 

23 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

2.3.2. Native Surface Water 

2.3.2.1. Santa Fe River Watershed 

The Santa Fe River originates in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains above downtown 

Santa Fe (Figure 2-5). The upper watershed is located on U.S. Forest Service land 

and is protected from public access and development. The water from this 

watershed is stored in two reservoirs - McClure and Nichols, both owned and 

operated by the City, in the mountains above downtown Santa Fe, and treated at 

the Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant. 

The City of Santa Fe owns 5,040 acre-feet of Santa Fe River water rights. The 

water from this watershed is stored in McClure and Nichols. Both reservoirs are 

owned and operated by the City and together hold roughly 4,000 acre-feet of 

water. The water from the reservoirs treated at the Canyon Road Water Treatment 

plant and is distributed to customers through the City distribution system. The 

Santa Fe River watershed has provided up to 40 percent of the City and County 

water supply in recent years up to 2011. Water from this source is also used to 

meet Acequia requirements. 

2.3.2.2. Native Rio Grande 

The County owns 1,325 AFY and 

plans to acquire an additional 

590 AFY of native Rio Grande 

surface-water rights. These water 

rights have been purchased and 

transferred from the middle Rio 

Grande Basin (below Cochiti 

Reservoir) to the Buckman area. 

2.3.2.3. Future Rio Grande 

(Pojoaque Basin Regional 

Water System) 

By 2024, some portions of the 

County near the northern edge of 

Santa Fe’s City Limits may be 

served by the Pojoaque Basin 

regional water system, which will 

divert water from the Rio Grande, 

in a manner similar to the 

Buckman Direct Diversion. This 

water system will be built to 

comply with the Aamodt 

Figure 2-5. Map of the San Juan-Chama 

Project.
 

Settlement Agreement to provide 

water for four Pueblos and 

northern Sante Fe County 

residents. 

24 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

2.3.3. Imported Water: Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama 

Project 

2.3.3.1. Project Description 

Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project consists of facilities that divert water 

from the San Juan Basin (Colorado River Basin) in southern Colorado and feeds 

that water by gravity through 26 miles of tunnels beneath the Continental Divide 

to the Rio Chama in the Rio Grande Basin in New Mexico (Figure 2-5). The San 

Juan-Chama Project was authorized by Congress in 1962 and has a firm yield of 

96,200 AFY, based on a hydrologic analysis originally performed by Reclamation 

and updated in 1989. The City and County have a contract with Reclamation for 

5,605 AFY of San Juan-Chama Project water. 

The Buckman Direct Diversion facility is used to divert San Juan-Chama Project 

water and native Rio Grande water from the Rio Grande River roughly 10 miles 

west of the City limits. The City and County partnered to design and construct 

this project in 2011. It diverts water and pumps it about 11 miles to the Buckman 

Regional Water Treatment Facility. Treated water is delivered to City and County 

customers. 

Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project brings a portion of New Mexico’s 

allocation under the Colorado River Compact into the Rio Grande system. The 

system, shown in Figure 2-6, diverts water from tributaries to the San Juan River, 

through the Azotea Tunnel and stores that water in Heron Reservoir, from where 

it is distributed. The San Juan-Chama Project supply depends on flows in three 

tributaries to the San Juan River: the Rio Blanco, the Little Navajo River, and the 

Navajo River. The project allocates its current firm yield of 96,200 AFY. The 

City of Santa Fe contracts for 5,200 AFY of this water. 

2.3.3.2. San Juan-Chama Project Supply Projections 

As an independent analysis from the Water MAPS (described in Section 2.4, 

Approach to Overall Water Supply Analysis), Reclamation, with support from 

Sandia National Laboratories, performed a monthly-timestep analysis of the 

projected future reliability of Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project over the 

course of the 21st century. The methods used for this analysis are described in 

Llewellyn et. al. (2013). The following summarizes the projected changes to the 

water supply and operation of the Project. 

•	 Flows would decrease by one-quarter overall. The ensemble average 

trans-basin diversion decreases steadily from around 90,000 acre-feet per 

year during the historic simulation period (1950 through 1999) to between 

70,000 and 80,000 acre-feet per year during the 2050 through 2099 period. 

25 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 2-6. Location and capacities in cfs of San Juan-Chama Project
 

diversions and tunnels.
 

•	 Flows would decrease in summer and increase in spring. Overall, 

Project flows are projected to decrease, with a larger portion of the flows 

occurring earlier in the year. The overall reduction in tunnel flows would 

come from large decreases in divertible flows from May through October, 

even while divertible flows increase in March and April. 

•	 Storage in Heron Reservoir would be reduced. A projected reduction in 

storage in Heron Reservoir in Northwestern New Mexico, the storage 

reservoir for the San Juan-Chama Project could be caused by a 

combination of the decreases in supply noted above and increases in use of 

San Juan-Chama allocations by contractors as temperature-driven demands 

in the Rio Grande basin (especially agricultural demands) rise as the 

simulations progress. 

26 
 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

•	 Sufficient water for a full allocation to contractors will be available 

less frequently. San Juan-Chama contractors are projected to receive a 

full allocation in 99 percent of simulated years from 1950 through 1999, 

94 percent during the 2020s, 72 percent during the 2050s, and only 

61 percent in the 2090s. 

The analyses on the availability of flows to the San Juan-Chama Project diversion 

tunnels were performed on a monthly basis. Therefore, these analyses do not 

capture potential changes to the volume or duration of snowmelt runoff at less 

than a monthly scale. Since snowmelt runoff is projected to occur earlier, and at 

potentially higher flow rates for a shorter period of time, the impacts on the 

San Juan-Chama Project’s ability to divert could be larger than shown in this 

analysis. However, infrastructure changes might be made to allow for a greater 

capture of short, high-discharge runoffs, so that these changes in runoff flows and 

timing do not significantly affect the San Juan-Chama Project’s ability to divert 

sufficient water. 

Also, it is important to note that, even if sufficient water is available in tributaries 

to the San Juan River for diversions to the San Juan-Chama Project, shortages 

within the Colorado River Basin could lead to priority calls or shortage-sharing 

agreements that would result in decreased supply to New Mexico under the 

Colorado River Compact. Such shortages could result in decreases in 

Reclamation’s authorization to divert water to the San Juan-Chama Project, 

even if sufficient water is available locally. Results from this analysis are 

presented in more detail in Appendix D. 

2.3.4. Water Use Constraints 

The use of these surface-water and groundwater sources is subject to a number of 

constraints. 

•	 The Rio Grande Compact between New Mexico and Texas limits the 

amount of water that can be stored in New Mexico reservoirs. Article VI 

determines if New Mexico is in debit or credit status with regards to water 

storage, and restricts water storage amounts when in debit status. Article 

VII restricts storage if storage in Elephant Butte reservoir (the reservoir 

from which water is released to Texas) is below 400,000 AF. 

•	 In New Mexico, surface water and groundwater are used conjunctively, 

under a legal structure that recognizes that the pumping of groundwater 

will eventually deplete the surface water. Therefore post-1956 

groundwater pumping impacts to surface water must be offset, either 

through returning water to the river (return flow) or through dedicating a 

portion of groundwater rights that will not be pumped to “pay back” the 

river. This mostly applies to the Buckman Well Field, as the connection of 

that well field to surface water is more pronounced. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

•	 Diversions at the Buckman Direct Diversion are constrained by the Record 

of Decision for the Buckman Direct Diversion Environmental Impact 

Statement (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 2007.). 

Under this Record of Decision, diversions can be curtailed by low flows or 

poor water quality in the Rio Grande. Large portions of both the City and 

Buckman Wells Fields are of advanced age, which can limit their ability to 

provide water. 

The City has made a commitment to a “Living River,” which sustains flows in the 

Santa Fe River as it passes through the city. Although these flows provide some 

groundwater recharge, they also constrain other uses. 

2.4. Approach to Overall Water Supply 

Analysis 

Analysis of water supply in the Santa Fe Basin uses the City’s WaterMAPS 

model. The Water MAPS models all of the water sources listed in Section 2.3. 

Present Water Supply. 

WaterMAPS was originally developed for the City as part of the long-range 

planning process in 2008, and was updated for this Basin Study to include the 

County and to simulate changes in water availability due climate variability. 

WaterMAPS is a multi-criteria dynamic systems simulation model that was built 

on the STELLA programming environment. STELLA (Systems Thinking 

Experimental Learning Laboratory with Animation), developed by Isee Systems, 

Inc. is a systems modeling industry standard. The results produced from 

WaterMAPS are used to evaluate how well the City and County will be able to 

meet future water supply objectives under the four climate change scenarios. 

Other models were used to develop data used as input to the WaterMAPS model. 

Those models are discussed in this section. The data that was produced are 

discussed in Section 2.5). Water Availability, where the impacts of climate 

change are discussed. Other data used directly in WaterMAPS related to this 

Basin Study are also discussed in this section, while details of all updates made to 

the model are presented in Appendix E. Additional information regarding 

WaterMAPS can be found in the City of Santa Fe Long-Range Water Supply Plan 

(2008). 

Note that all Santa Fe Basin water sources, both groundwater and surface water, 

are conjunctively managed and, for this reason, are evaluated together in the 

WaterMAPS model. Data and separate models used for groundwater and surface 

water are presented separately in the next sub-sections. 

2.4.1. Data and Models Used—Groundwater 

The WaterMAPS simulation used pumping and groundwater level data for the 

Buckman Well Field (Section 2.3.1.1) and the City Well Field (Section 2.3.1.2). 

28 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

The impacts of groundwater pumping on aquifer drawdown, reservoir storage, 

offsets, and stream depletions over time are projected using forty-year hydrology 

sequences that were selected from the historical hydrology data. 

An important element of the Santa Fe system is the groundwater-surface water 

interaction and the surface water depletions caused by pumping of some wells. To 

estimate the effects of pumping in groundwater and surface water, an additional 

model, the Stream Unit Response Function Solver (SURFS) was used. SURFS 

works in tandem with WaterMAPS but can also be used as a stand-alone tool to 

solve simple groundwater pumping scenarios for depletions and drawdown. 

2.4.2. Data and Models Used—Surface Water 

The climate change modeling described in Section 2.2.1 Climate Change 

Modeling and Analysis provides temperature and precipitation estimates. To 

translate temperature and precipitation into stream flow, a land surface model 

known as the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model was used. The VIC 

model generates runoff hydrographs that can then be routed through a known 

river network. As discussed in Appendix B, it was necessary to correct biases in 

the VIC model for use in the Upper Rio Grande Basin modeling. 

Hydrologic inflows at 21 locations were generated by the bias-corrected VIC 

model output for use in the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) 

(Llewellyn, et. al. 2013). URGSiM is a monthly timestep mass balance model that 

uses hydrologic and climatic inputs to simulate the movement of surface water 

and groundwater through the Upper Rio Grande system from the San Luis Valley 

in Colorado to Caballo Reservoir in southern New Mexico, including the Rio 

Chama and Jemez River tributary systems, and the Española, Albuquerque, and 

Socorro regional groundwater basins (see Appendix B). URGSIM also simulates 

reservoir operations, interbasin transfers, and agricultural diversions and 

depletions. 

The climate-change-projected stream flow hydrographs from the URGSiM model 

are used in WaterMAPS. These hydrographs and other UGSiM output related to 

projected climate change are discussed in Section 2.4.3. 

Other data used to update WaterMAPS for this Basin Study that is not directly 

related to future climate change impacts include the following: 

• Water rights, management targets, and capacity constraints 

• Water use priorities 

• Santa Fe’s Living River Ordinance (or Santa Fe River Target Flow) 

Water rights, management targets, and capacity constraints were updated 

according to the information presented previously in Table 2-2. This was updated 

to include County supplies as well as any changes to the City’s quantities. It is 

29 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

important to note that these values may change annually; the City and County are 

continually acquiring water rights or adjusting management targets to meet the 

needs of the water service area. These values must be verified at any time when 

performing any future analysis of water supply for this basin. 

The order in which water supplies were used in the WaterMAPS model changed 

since it was first developed. When the Buckman Direct Diversion was completed 

in 2011, San Juan-Chama project water became the first priority of water used. 

Water released from the McClure and Nichols reservoirs flows down the Santa Fe 

River. Flow that is not diverted and treated at the Canyon Road Water Treatment 

Plant continues down the Santa Fe River, through the City. An ordinance and 

associated administrative procedure (City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, Ordinance 

No. 2012-10 and City of Santa Fe, Administrative Procedures for Santa Fe River 

Target Flows and City of Santa Fe) was adopted in February of 2012 to provide 

1,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to the Santa Fe River. The purpose of the Santa Fe 

River Target Flow is to increase water flow in the river below the City’s 

reservoirs in order to maintain a “living river,” except under emergency 

conditions. The administrative procedure outlines specific hydrographs for daily 

releases throughout the year based on the expected annual yield (Figure 2-7). For 

normal and wet years, the annual target is 1,000 AFY. This target decreases in dry 

and critical years according to the percent of normal annual yield expected. 

The hydrographs representing releases required to meet the desired target flow are 

shown in Figure 2-8. Each hydrograph is based on the percent of normal expected 

annual yield (e.g., “Dry – 70%” means the expected annual yield is 70 percent 

less than normal). If the expected annual yield is 30 percent or less of normal, the 

“Critical-Dry” hydrograph is used. This means that even under drought 

conditions, the City plans to release at least 300 AFY to support in-stream flows 

in the Santa Fe River. 

2.5. Water Availability 

2.5.1. Present Availability 

The present availability of water was not directly modeled for this Basin Study. 

Previous reports, current water usage, and current management targets were used 

to understand the state of present supplies. Surface water and groundwater 

supplies were discussed in Section 2.3 Present Water Supply. The total present 

supply for the City and County is about 18,900 AFY. Although more water is 

currently available from groundwater sources, previous analysis and historical 

data have shown that use of these supplies above the management targets 

threatens to deplete the supply. 

30 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Figure 2-7. Santa Fe River target flow allocation as a function of annual yield 

(Adapted from City of Santa Fe 2012). 

250 

Monthly Release (AFM) 200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Month 

8 9 10 11 12 

Normal (1000 AFY) 

Dry - 50% (500 AFY) 

Dry - 70% (700 AFY) 

Dry - 40% (400 AFY) 

Dry - 60% (600 AFY) 

Critical-Dry (300 AFY) 

Figure 2-8. Hydrographs used to model Santa Fe River target flows. 

31 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

2.5.2. Future Availability—Projected Changes in Water 

Supply for the City and County 

The updated WaterMAPS model was used to simulate the availability of City and 

County water supplies given climate change impacts. The four climate change 

scenarios were discussed in Section 2.2.1 Climate Change Modeling and 

Analysis: 

•	 Simulated Historic (baseline without climate change; based on historic 

flow conditions projected through the planning period) 

•	 Warm-Wet 

•	 Central Tendency 

•	 Hot-Dry 

The future availability of water predicted by WaterMAPS under the modeled 

climate scenarios is shown in Figure 2-9. The climate-impacted inputs to 

WaterMAPS that relate to the projected supply are discussed in the following 

sections. 

Figure 2-9. Future availability of water predicted by WaterMAPS. 

32 
 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

2.5.2.1.1. Changes in Snowpack 

The impact of changes in snowpack due to predicted changes in the magnitude 

and timing of temperature was translated into the hydrographs of stream flow that 

were developed for this Basin Study, which focused on water supply availability. 

This was accomplished using the VIC model. 

2.5.2.1.2. Changes in Timing and Quantity of Runoff 

The URGSiM model was used to develop stream flow hydrographs for input to 

WaterMAPS. These hydrographs reflect the predicted changes in timing and 

quantity of runoff based on projected climate-change impacts. Hydrographs 

included flow into the Santa Fe Basin above McClure Reservoir (Santa Fe River 

flow) and flow in the Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge. The resulting hydrographs 

developed for each climate change scenario are in Appendix B. 

An interesting way to view the hydrographs for the Santa Fe River flow is as a 

percentage of the historic normal flow. The average annual yield of stream flow in 

the Santa Fe River according to gage data from 1914 to 2007 is 4,909 AFY. This 

value represents “normal” conditions. The average annual yield for each year 

simulated and each climate change scenario was developed from the projected 

stream flow hydrographs and are presented as a percentage of this normal 

condition (4,909 AFY) in Figure 2-10. The frequency of flow above or below 

normal over the entire time series for each climate change scenario is shown in 

Figure 2-11, which illustrates the significant increase in the predicted frequency 

of below normal flows for the hot-dry climate change scenario. 

2.5.2.1.3. Changes in Evaporation and Precipitation 

Evaporation rates for Santa Fe Reservoirs were developed for the climate change 

scenarios for simulation in WaterMAPS. Appendix C discusses the development 

of the temperature and precipitation data used to calculate reference 

evapotranspiration. Additional detail on the evapotranspiration calculations is 

presented in a report on the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) is 

also in Appendix C. 

Evaporative losses from Abiquiu Reservoir are applied to any San Juan-Chama 

Project water stored there. Evaporative losses as simulated by URGSiM are based 

on the entire reservoir volume to which a percent loss was applied specifically to 

the San Juan-Chama Project water for the City and County. Because WaterMAPS 

uses a percent loss to simulate evaporative losses out of Abiquiu Reservoir, 

percent losses were developed for each of the climate change scenarios as part of 

the Basin Study. The annual average percent loss due to evaporation out of 

Abiquiu Reservoir for each of the climate change scenarios is shown in 

Figure 2-12. As expected, the Hot-Dry scenario results in the greatest percent loss 

to evaporation. 

33 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 2-10. Santa Fe River projected average annual yield as a percent of normal 

(4,909 AFY) by climate change scenario. 

Figure 2-11. Frequency of years below and above normal (4,909 AFY)
 

Santa Fe River flow conditions, for each climate change scenario.
 

34 
 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Figure 2-12. San Juan-Chama Project water loss by evaporation in the Abiquiu
 

Reservoir under different climate change scenarios.
 

2.5.2.1.4. Changes in groundwater recharge and discharge 

In the WaterMAPS modeling performed for this study, surface water supplies 

were modified to account for climate change while groundwater supplies were 

not. Groundwater supplies are constrained by management targets (rather than 

water rights, which are greater than management targets) determined by the City 

and County (Table 2-1). While climate change conditions do affect groundwater 

recharge and discharge in reality, these changes have not been as well 

characterized and are smaller than the surface-water impacts. For these reasons, 

groundwater storage changes due to climate change were not modeled in the 

study. The management targets are used to represent possible depletions in the 

availability of groundwater in the future. 

2.5.2.1.5. Other Impacts 

Other projected climate-change impacts that affect the availability of supply 

include: 

• San Juan-Chama Project water percent allocation 

• Rio Grande Compact Article VI status 

• Rio Grande Compact Article VII status 

Until 2014, Reclamation had consistently been able to provide a full supply of 

San Juan-Chama Project water to its contractors in New Mexico. In 2014, less 

than a full supply was allocated, and projections (in Appendix D) indicate that the 

frequency of full supply for this project will decrease over the course of the 

century. Using URGSiM percent allocation of San Juan-Chama Project water was 

35 
 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

simulated for each climate change scenario. Appendix B shows the reduced 

percent allocation predicted under the Hot-Dry and Central Tendency climate 

change scenarios. 

URGSiM also predicted Article VI and VII status of the Rio Grande Compact, 

which determines whether storage in McClure and Nichols Reservoirs is 

authorized at any given time. These inputs were needed to simulate the water pool 

accounting logic in WaterMAPS, which determines where and when water can be 

stored. Appendix B shows when Article VII is in effect (i.e., Elephant Butte 

Reservoir storage is below 400,000 AF), and under Article VI (New Mexico’s Rio 

Grande Compact Balance). When the Compact balance is greater than 0, New 

Mexico is in “credit” status, and when the balance is less than 0, New Mexico is 

in “debit” status. 

2.6. Water Demands 

Groundwater and surface water are an integrated supply and the demand is also 

integrated demand. Surface water is used first in the Santa Fe water system 

because it is considered a more sustainable resource. Note that the WaterMAPS 

modeling analysis includes only the municipal supply for the City and County. 

While there are non-utility demands for groundwater and surface water for 

agriculture in the Santa Fe Basin study area, especially along the lower Santa Fe 

River, these water demands are not included in the WaterMAPS modeling. 

However, their demands are described qualitatively in this section. 

Water demands for this Basin Study are based on the population projections 

described in Appendix E and current per-capita demand values. This Basin Study 

is the first to combine the population projections both the City and the County. 

The combined population leads to much greater demand without a commensurate 

increase in supply, so the gap between supply and demand reported in this study 

is not similar to previous City or County documents. 

More recent information could be considered in future analyses. In October 2014 

the County completed a population projection study under a contract with the 

University of New Mexico’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research and 

Geospatial and Population Studies: Population Estimates and Forecasts for 

Growth Management Areas, Sustainable Development Area, and the 

Water/Wastewater Service Area of Santa Fe County. Future efforts could use 

these projections and compare them with the data used in this Basin Study to 

update the region’s projected water demand. 

36 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

2.6.1. Description of Groundwater and Surface Water 

Demand 

The City strives to manage its water supply in a sustainable manner and, for that 

reason, prioritizes the use of surface water. Because the supplies are integrated 

there are not separate demands for groundwater and surface water. Modeled 

demand on both supply types are described in the following sections. 

2.6.2. Approach to Water Demand Analysis 

The components of demand that are used in the WaterMAPS model include 

population projections, annual unit demands, and seasonal variability factors. As 

noted above, the WaterMAPS model was revised to add County demands. 

2.6.2.1. Population 

Population projections were discussed under the characterization of future 

conditions (Section 2.2.2 Population Projections). The ultimate 2055 populations 

used for developing water demand are 125,019 and 44,673 persons for the City 

and County water service areas, respectively. 

2.6.2.2. Use 

For the demand projections, the unit demand representing the annual average is 

assumed to be fixed at 114 gpcd. As population increases, total water demand 

increases, but the unit demand remains the same. This average annual unit 

demand represents the baseline demand that is used to identify the potential water 

supply gap. Seasonal variability of demand and impacts on that variability due to 

climate change are also predicted as part of this study and included in the analysis 

as discussed in Section 2.5.2. Future Availability—Projected Changes in Water 

Supply for the City and County. 

Other water demands include irrigation for local agriculture along the Acequia 

Madre, Acequia Cerro Gordo, and Las Campanas (an independent water 

system). The Acequia Madre and Acequia Cerro Gordo water demand is 

assumed to remain constant at the court-ordered right of 70 and 25.4 AFY, 

respectively. Las Campanas is a wholesale customer of the County, and so the 

demand is assumed to be included as part of the calculated County water 

demand. 

2.6.2.3. Reclaimed Water 

Demand on reclaimed water is incorporated in this Basin Study analysis in 

accordance with the values delineated in the City of Santa Fe Reclaimed 

Wastewater Resource Plan, which outlines specific allocations for reclaimed 

water use (City of Santa Fe 2013). The total annual reclaimed water demand 

modeled in WaterMAPS is 3,489 AFY. Although the demand for reclaimed 

water varies monthly, for this Basin Study, it was not necessary to vary the 

demand for reclaimed water based on the climate change scenarios. The currently 

allocated amounts were assumed to be used in all scenarios. 

37 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The RWRP discusses the anticipated supply of reclaimed water that will be 

available. WaterMAPS calculates this dynamically, and the supply will adjust 

according to the demand scenario simulated. The supply available is based on 

indoor water use, which does not change significantly in any given month, nor is 

it expected to change significantly with climate change. Therefore, the supply is 

based on the demand multiplied by a return factor. The return factor is the 

expected return of water to the wastewater treatment plant given the amount of 

water produced. The return factor reported in the RWRP and used in WaterMAPS 

is 62 percent (i.e., 62 percent of water produced returns to the wastewater 

treatment plant; 38 percent is consumed). See Section 3.1.4.1 Direct Reclaimed 

Water Reuse for how water discharged from the wastewater treatment plant that is 

not used by one of the contracts is considered as an additional supply. 

2.6.2.4. Data and Models Used 

The demands based on population projections were used in WaterMAPS to 

estimate the adequacy of the water sources in meeting water utility demands. 

2.6.2.5. Present Uses and Demands 

Both groundwater and surface water in the Santa Fe Basin study area are used 

primarily for municipal distribution, and the demands are based on population 

projections. The amount of water used to meet demands is tied to the management 

targets, regulatory limitations, and capacity constraints. 

2.6.3. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on 

Demand 

The effect of climate variability on demands is included in the WaterMAPS 

model. It provides a means of varying future water demand estimates for the City 

and County of Santa Fe given future weather conditions projected under the 

climate change scenarios. 

2.6.3.1. Calculating Variations in Water Use (gcpd) 

Monthly water production, monthly average maximum daily temperature, and 

monthly total precipitation were obtained for January 2002 through December 

2010 for the City of Santa Fe. The variation in monthly gpcd is strongly 

correlated with the average of maximum daily temperatures in the month (max. 

temp.) as shown in Figure 2-13. The relationship between monthly gpcd and 

monthly precipitation is not as clearly defined as shown in Figure 2-13. Also 

notable in Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14 is that the gpcd data for the year 2004 are 

abnormal. This may be due to reporting or data formatting errors. Therefore, 

observations for the year 2004 were not used in this analysis. 

38 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Figure 2-13. Monthly observed gpcd and average maximum daily temperatures for 

the City of Santa Fe. 

Figure 2-14. Monthly observed gpcd and precipitation for the City of Santa Fe. 

39 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

To develop the relationship of temperature and precipitation to water use, a 

number of regression models were tested. Figure 2-15 shows the results of using 

the selected regression formula developed to estimate historical monthly gpcd 

from the historical monthly weather values relative to the observed historical gpcd 

(see Appendix E). 

Figure 2-15. Comparison of predicted water use to observed water use 

for the City of Santa Fe. 

The average annual per capita demand for the City of Santa Fe from 2002 to 2010 

(excluding 2004) is about 113.8 gpcd. This value can be used in conjunction with 

projections of future population for the City and the County to derive estimates of 

average future water demand. The average value for monthly average maximum 

daily temperature for this time period is 65.66 °F and the average value for 

monthly precipitation is 1.04 inches. These values may be considered as 

representative of “normal” conditions. Deviation from these “normal” values can 

be calculated and used to adjust the average gpcd for the month. 

2.6.3.2. Projecting Future Water Use 

The formula discussed in Section 2.6.3.1 Calculating Variations in Water Use can 

be used to assess the impacts of alternative climate change scenarios on future 

water demand for the City and County. Reclamation has provided temperature 

and precipitation data for the climate change and simulated historic scenarios. 

40 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

The above formula is used with temperature and precipitation time series in the 

climate change scenarios to predict water demand in WaterMAPS simulations. 

The average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated for each climate change 

scenario is shown in Figure 2-16. The labels in Figure 2-16 indicate the unit 

demand value for Synthetic Historic and the percent increase from the Synthetic 

Historic unit demand for each of the climate change scenarios. Figure 2-16 shows 

there is a predicted increase in demand as a result of increasing temperatures and 

decreased precipitation. 

Figure 2-16. Average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated. Labels indicate the 

unit demand value for Synthetic Historic and the percent increase from the 

Synthetic Historic unit demand for each of the climate change scenarios. 

41 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

2.7. System Reliability and Impact 

Assessment 

This Basin Study is intended to assess viable options to fill the projected future 

gap between water supply and water demand for the City and County given 

climate change impacts by: 

•	 Identifying where vulnerabilities exist in the supply 

•	 Pinpointing adaption strategies and portfolios to address these system 

weaknesses to ensure a more resilient water supply to meet 40 year water 

demand projections 

Additional information on impacts to water supply as analyzed using WaterMAPS 

can be found in Appendix F. The overall impacts assessment that looked at 

climate change impacts beyond water supply can be found in Appendix A. 

2.7.1. Water System Reliability 

The impact of climate change and future 2055 water demands was simulated 

using WaterMAPS. WaterMAPS provides the probability of deficits (or water 

shortages) on an annual basis and on a monthly basis. The output graphs show the 

percent likelihood of a deficit of a particular amount in any given year based on 

the simulation results. 

Figure 2-17 shows the annual deficit probability for each climate change scenario 

as a separate line. An example of how to interpret the graph is shown in 

Figure 2-17 is shown in a box explaining that there is a 10 percent probability that 

there will be an annual deficit of 12,200 AF or more under the Hot-Dry climate 

condition. For the baseline condition (Simulated Historic), the WaterMAPS 

model predicts a 100 percent probability of an annual deficit of about 3,500 AFY 

or more, assuming that all management targets and administrative obligations are 

met. Thus the Santa Fe water supply is not adequate to meet demands even 

without the influence of climate change unless management targets are adjusted. 

All modeled scenarios, including the baseline as well as the three climate-change 

impacted scenarios, show an annual deficit ranging between 3,500 acre-feet (AF) 

and 14,000 AF (Figure 2-17). To compare the climate change scenarios, the HotDry scenario has the highest maximum annual deficit, about 14,000 AF while the 

Warm-Wet scenario has the lowest maximum annual deficit falling just below 

9,000 AF. The annual deficit probability curve for the Central Tendency climate 

change scenario falls in between the Hot-Dry and Warm-Wet probability curves. 

It is important to understand that these results do not solely reflect climate change 

impacts, but also the combination of City and County supply and demand, which 

has not been studied previously. The combined result is much greater demand 

42 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

without a commensurate increase in supply. Also, groundwater pumping is being 

restricted by the management targets. The most restrictive is the Buckman Well 

Field limitation of 3,000 AFY, which is based on a goal of sustainable 

management despite the significantly higher permitted pumping level of 

10,000 AFY. 

Figure 2-17. Cumulative probability curves for the annual deficit for
 

each climate change scenario.
 

Reliability results from WaterMAPS are also produced in terms of monthly 

deficits. Figure 2-18 shows the monthly deficit probability for each climate 

change scenario. Similar to Figure 2-17, each line represents a climate change 

scenario and the range of deficits predicted. An example of how to interpret the 

graph is shown in a box explaining that there is a 10 percent probability that there 

will be a monthly deficit of 1,300 AF in any given month of 2055 under the HotDry climate condition. 

A monthly deficit ranging from zero to 1,900 AF is likely for all climate change 

scenarios including the baseline (Figure 2-18). The Hot-Dry climate change 

scenario has the highest maximum monthly deficit of approximately 1,900 AF 

43 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

while the Warm-Wet scenario has the lowest maximum monthly deficit of about 

1,500 AF. These graphs represent the probability of deficits of a particular 

magnitude and not the probability of no deficits. For example, under the 

Simulated Historic climate conditions, the information on the graph indicates that 

that there is a 68 percent chance of deficits between 0 and 1,350 AF (not that 

there is a 68 percent chance of no deficits). To state the probability of any deficit, 

the cumulative probability should be inverted (i.e., the probability of no deficits 

for Simulated Historic in 2055 is 32 percent). 

Figure 2-18. Probability curves for the monthly deficit for 

each climate change scenario. 

As with the annual deficit, the monthly deficit probability curve for the Central 

Tendency scenario falls in between the Hot-Dry and Warm-Wet probability 

curves. Based on these results for monthly deficit, there is a 68 to 95 percent 

chance that there will be a water supply shortage in any given month by year 

2055. 

To better understand the seasonality of deficits, the summer and winter monthly 

probability curves for each climate change scenario were developed 

44 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

(Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20). The summer months were designated as June, 

July, and August while the winter months are December, January, and February. 

Predicted deficits are more frequent and severe in the summer months than in the 

winter. Within the summer months, the largest deficit occurs in the Hot-Dry 

scenario as compared to the Central Tendency and Warm-Wet scenarios. The 

summer monthly deficit ranges from zero to 1,900 AF over all climate change 

scenarios. Comparing the climate change scenarios to the baseline in Figure 2-19 

indicates the change in water availability: the difference between baseline and the 

climate change scenarios at 10 percent probability ranges from 200 to 350 AF. 

Figure 2-19. Probability curves for the summer monthly deficit 

for each climate change scenario. 

45 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 2-20. Probability curves for the winter monthly deficit 

for each climate change scenario. 

During the winter months, the largest deficit occurs in the Hot-Dry scenario and is 

approximately 1,000 AF, considerably less than the summer maximum monthly 

deficit (Figure 2-20). The Central Tendency and Warm-Wet scenarios have a 

maximum deficit in the winter months of about 850 AF and 800 AF, respectively. 

The difference between the maximum deficits for each climate change scenario in 

the winter months is minimal. The significant difference in probability occurs 

when deficits of less than 400 AF occur. The monthly deficits predicted to occur 

during the winter are low in comparison to the summer months and annual 

deficits. 

2.7.2. Analysis of Impacts by Key Water Resources 

Categories 

The deficits in water supply are shown in the cumulative probability graphs 

presented in Section 2.7.2. These deficits are expected to impact the Santa Fe area 

in the following ways: 

•	 Water Delivery: The predicted annual deficits under climate change 

scenarios (Figure 2-16) indicate a likely deficit of 4,000 AFY or more in 

any given year. The ability to deliver enough water under these scenarios 

46 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

would be severely limited. Additionally, there are other communities not 

included in this Basin Study that will be affected by the decrease in 

downstream flows. Impacts to water supply that were identified are 

discussed further in Appendix A, Section 4.1. Water supply reduction 

impacts on agriculture and food security are discussed in Appendix A, 

Section 4.3. 

•	 Hydropower: There are no hydroelectric power generation facilities in 

the study area. There are requirements for water in production of electrical 

power sources. The impacts of a reduced water supply on power 

generation, energy consumption, and power transmission are discussed in 

Appendix A, Section 4.5. 

•	 Recreation: Water-based recreation is likely to be impacted by decreased 

flow in the Rio Grande, as indicated by deficits in summer months (Figure 

2-19). Impacts with regard to land use and quality of life are also discussed 

in Appendix A, Section 4.4. 

•	 Flood Control Management: Flows in the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe 

River are controlled by upstream reservoirs. Decreased flows that are 

expected under climate change conditions are unlikely to impact flood 

control management. If local runoff (downstream of the reservoirs) is 

significant, changes in the intensity of rainfall may impact transportation 

(e.g. culverts and bridges designed based on historical rainfall patterns). 

Other impacts to transportation are discussed in Appendix A, Section 4.6. 

•	 Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Fish and wildlife habitat is likely to be 

impacted by decreased flow in the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe River, as 

indicated by deficits in summer months (Figure 2-19). Beyond decreases 

in water quantity, impacts to the ecosystem are discussed in more detail in 

Appendix A, Section 4.2. 

•	 Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species under ESA: Aquatic 

and riparian species are likely to be impacted by decreased flow in the Rio 

Grande and the Santa Fe River, as indicated by deficits in summer months 

(Figure 2-19). Beyond decreases in water quantity, impacts to the 

ecosystem are discussed in more detail in Appendix A, Section 4.2. 

•	 Water Quality Issues (including salinity levels): Water quality impacts 

were not evaluated in this Basin Study. 

•	 Flow and Water Dependent Ecological Resiliency: Aquatic and riparian 

species are likely to be impacted by decreased flow in the Rio Grande and 

the Santa Fe River, as indicated by deficits in summer months (Figure 

2-19). Beyond decreases in water quantity, impacts to the ecosystem are 

discussed in more detail in Appendix A, Section 4.2. 

47 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Other climate change impacts that have been identified that are not only related to 

water supply are discussed further in Appendix A, Section 4. 

2.7.3. Vulnerabilities Identified By the Community 

Through an interactive, public workshop, the community and climate-change 

adaptation experts identified the vulnerabilities of water supply, ecosystems, 

agriculture, land use and quality of life, energy, transportation, and economic and 

sociological systems. The value of identifying vulnerabilities lies in finding 

adaptation actions that will address vulnerabilities and thereby increase the 

watershed’s resiliency. A summary of the vulnerabilities are briefly described 

below: 

Water supply: Decreased surface-water availability; 

increased water use; unsustainable groundwater use; 

insufficient storage to capture storm events; loss of storage 

capacity due to debris flows triggered by catastrophic-fire; 

degradation of water quality; more frequent restrictions 

under the Rio Grande Compact; increased competition over 

resource; less groundwater recharge. 

Ecosystems: Vulnerability of forests to insects, fire, and 

desiccation; less available water; higher water needs; 

incursion of invasive species; habitat degradation from 

storms, flooding, erosion, and lack of water; loss of 

fisheries, upland forests, and grasslands. 

Agriculture: Reduction in available water supply; increased 

crop water demand; greater divergence between timing of 

highest stream flows and greatest water need for irrigation; 

increased damage to crop from pestilence, high winds, 

violent rain storms, and flooding; rural/urban conflicts over 

water and water rights; failure of genetically engineered 

crops; reduction in viable grasslands for cattle; livestock 

mortality from extreme weather conditions. 

Land Use and Quality of Life: Increased water needs for 

green spaces; increase of urban flooding; reduction in 

quality fishing opportunities; reduction in length of skiing 

and rafting seasons; diminished hiking, biking, and hunting 

opportunities due to fire; poorer air quality; increased heat 

stress in elderly, infirm, and infants from higher summer 

daytime and nighttime temperatures. 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Energy: Increased competition for water with energy 

production; less hydropower production; reduction in solar 

production for increased temperature and air particulates; 

increased energy consumption during the summer and 

extreme cold weather events; reduced power and gas 

reliability during extreme conditions. 

Transportation: Increased interruptions from dust storms, 

intense rains, and smoke; failure of infrastructure (paved 

roads, bridges, culverts, rails) designed for less extreme 

conditions; more difficult flying conditions under higher 

temperatures; decrease in fuel efficiency from increased 

heat and adverse conditions. 

Economy: Tourism and population growth may decrease if 

climate conditions are unfavorable (e.g., too hot, not enough 

snow, smoky); insurance premiums may rise for services 

impacted by natural hazards; cost of energy and water may 

increase as each becomes more expensive to acquire and 

transmit. 

Sociological Conditions: Limited local and regional 

governmental resources to provide emergency services for 

increased severe weather events; institutions inflexible 

maladaptive to rapidly changing conditions; disruption in 

cultural identities and traditions. 

Chapter 3. Adaptive Strategies 

A methodical decision process was used to compare and evaluate the alternatives 

for adapting to projected climate scenarios. The overall process has four steps: 

•	 Identify adaptation strategies appropriate for the Santa Fe area water 

utilities 

• Combine the adaptation strategies into adaptation portfolios 

•	 Develop evaluation criteria and weight each criterion based on the relative 

importance of the criterion 

•	 Rank the climate mitigation portfolios based how well they meet the 

criteria 

This section presents the results of each step in the decision process and the 

selection of the climate mitigation portfolio that best meets water needs of the 

City and County of Santa Fe under projected climate change scenarios. More 

information on this process can be found in Appendix G. 

49 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.1. Formulation of Adaptive Strategies 

3.1.1. Community Suggested Adaptation Activities 

An interactive workshop in March 2012 was hosted by Amy C. Lewis Consulting 

and the Institute for Social and Environmental Transition and informed the 

Preliminary Assessment. The Preliminary Assessment investigates how projected 

climate change impacts may influence some of the key natural and human 

systems in the Santa Fe Watershed. The assessment also explored the adaptive 

actions that stakeholders in the Santa Fe Watershed may consider implementing 

and details many of the ongoing activities that will increase the resiliency of the 

watershed and the community that it supports. 

Participants in the Preliminary Assessment workshop were informed that, 

although uncertainty surrounds climate-change science, the experts in the field are 

confident in projecting, at a minimum, the following impacts to the Santa Fe 

watershed: 

•	 Increased temperatures 

•	 Diminished snowpack and earlier spring melt of existing snowpack 

•	 Reduced stream flow due to greater evaporation rates and water use by 

plants 

•	 Earlier stream flow peak (from earlier snowmelt) and dampened peak 

flows 

•	 Drier mid- to late-summers 

•	 More severe and frequent droughts 

•	 Increased fire activity and risk of catastrophic fire 

•	 More intense precipitation events resulting in increases to peak storm 

flows, greater magnitude and frequency of flooding, higher erosion rates, 

and more sediment transport by storm flows 

Stakeholders at the Preliminary Assessment Workshop identified the following 

adaptation actions to increase the resilience of the Santa Fe Watershed and the 

communities that it supports to the impacts of a changing climate. 

•	 Provide incentives and programs to reduce water use 

•	 Allow limited-term transfers of water from agriculture to urban use during 

drought 

•	 Adjudicate Santa Fe basin water rights 

•	 Augment potable water supplies with reclaimed wastewater 

•	 Improve ecosystem biodiversity 

50 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

•	 Manage and plan restoration holistically 

•	 Design or modify bridges and culverts to handle higher-intensity runoff 

events 

•	 Incorporate urban agriculture in water and land use planning 

•	 Cultivate climate-appropriate crops 

•	 Require pervious pavement, where appropriate 

•	 Decentralize energy infrastructure 

•	 Municipalize energy system 

•	 Install solar panels over parking lots to reflect heat and produce energy 

•	 Establish a climate-change target monitoring system 

•	 Appoint an artist-in residence dedicated to the Santa Fe River 

3.1.2. City and County Adaptation Strategies 

Representatives of the City and County identified adaptation strategies for 

meeting water demands under climate change scenarios. The adaptation strategies 

identified are appropriate for the arid climate and landscape of the Santa Fe 

region. For example, water storage is an important strategy that is still being 

considered by the City and County, but building additional storage reservoirs was 

not considered an appropriate adaption strategy for this study because of the high 

evaporation losses from reservoirs and the limited areas available for constructing 

storage reservoirs. Instead, underground storage of water through an aquifer 

storage and recovery system is included for this study because evaporation losses 

are negligible and the surface land area required is small compared to a traditional 

surface reservoir. The adaptation strategies selected for the Santa Fe Basin Study 

are summarized in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Adaptation Strategies for the Santa Fe Basin Study Area 

Adaptation Strategy Description Infrastructure Components 

Direct/Indirect 

Reclaimed Water 

Reuse 

Use reclaimed water from the City wastewater 

treatment plant to meet contract obligations; 

remaining reclaimed water for potable reuse or 

return flow credits for pumping. 

New conveyance for reclaimed water from 

wastewater treatment plant to existing 

Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility and distribution system or new 

conveyance to the Rio Grande for return 

flow credits. 

Water Conservation Reduce water use on a per person per day basis. None 

Direct Injection for 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Inject treated water into the aquifer in wet and 

normal years for use in dry years. 

Construction and operation of injection 

well(s); withdrawal using existing wells and 

distribution system. 

Infiltration for ASR in 

the Santa Fe River 

Maintain flow in the Santa Fe River to induce 

infiltration into the aquifer for use in dry 

Withdrawal using existing wells and 

distribution system. 

Additional Surface 

Water Rights 

Additional surface water would be diverted at the 

Buckman Direct Diversion and treated at the 

Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility. 

Existing diversion, conveyance, treatment, 

and distribution systems 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

- - 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.1.3. Objectives and Constraints 

The primary objective of this Basin Study is to identify adaptation strategies and 

portfolios that will provide adequate water supply under climate change 

conditions, hence the primary requirement of the adaptation strategies is that they 

provide a reliable water supply to a growing population. Reliability criteria were 

developed and the adaptation portfolios were screened against these reliability 

criteria. Only those portfolios that provide a reliable water supply in 2055 were 

evaluated further against performance criteria. 

The gaps between water supply and demand under the climate change scenarios if 

no adaptation strategies are implemented are summarized in Table 3-2. A water 

supply gap of about 5,000 AFY in the year 2055 is projected to occur under 

simulated historic climate conditions (stationarity assuming that climate similar to 

historic), but the magnitude of the water supply gap increases under any of the 

three climate change scenarios. 

Table 3-2. Santa Fe Basin Projected 2055 Water Supply Gap 

Climate Change Scenario 

Simulated 

Historic (no 

climate change) 

Central 

Tendency 

Warm 

Wet Hot Dry 

Total Demand - Average Annual (AFY) 21,643 22,925 22,646 23,299 

Total Supply - Average Annual (AFY) 16,488 15,550 16,304 13,976 

Water Supply Gap – Difference between 

Demand and Supply (AFY) (5,155) (7,375) (6,342) (9,323) 

The reliability criteria are: 

1.	 Average Buckman Well Field pumping does not exceed the 

management target by more than 500 AFY on average: The current 

management target for the Buckman Well Field is 3,000 AFY but water 

rights equal 10,000 AFY. It was determined that a 500 AFY increase in 

average pumping was acceptable for this planning-level analysis. 

2.	 Deficit in any year does not exceed 2,000 AFY: Based on the 

assumption that in emergency situations conservation of 10 gpcd is 

realistic and would fill a temporary gap of 2,000 AFY in 2055. 

3.	 No more than 10 percent probability of deficits over 100 AFY: Based 

on the assumption that the system can accommodate small deficits that 

cannot be reliably simulated with the model. To account for model noise, 

over 10 percent probability of deficits are accepted if they are less than 

100 AFY. 

52 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Each of these criteria were assessed for the Central Tendency climate change 

scenario as it is considered to be the most appropriate for planning purposes. 

Reliability results were then analyzed for all the climate scenarios when further 

assessing performance. 

3.1.4. Approach to Adaptive Strategy Identification 

The adaptive strategies developed and included in adaptive portfolios were 

summarized in Table 3-2 above and described below. Even though the planning 

horizon target is the 2050s, all the adaptive portfolios use current conditions and 

constraints as the starting point. 

3.1.4.1. Direct Reclaimed Water Reuse 

Reclaimed water is currently used in the City as described in the RWRP (City of 

Santa Fe 2013), which outlines specific allocations for reclaimed water use. 

Simulated reclaimed water supply (including seasonal demands and infrastructure 

constraints) from the City of Santa Fe wastewater treatment plant that is not used 

by one of the reclaimed water contracts is considered as new beneficial uses for 

reclaimed water as follows: 

•	 Treatment at the Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility for potable 

supply 

•	 Return flow credits for discharges to the Rio Grande 

Discharge from the Quill wastewater treatment plant, owned and operated by 

Santa Fe County, was not included in the Santa Fe Basin Study but will represent 

an additional source of reclaimed water in the study area. 

3.1.4.2. Water Conservation 

The City began a Water Conservation Program in 1997, building a comprehensive 

and effective program which has resulted in Santa Feans reducing per capita water 

consumption by more than 39 percent since consistent tracking began in 1995. 

Reducing the water use is one measure of success for any water conservation 

program, and Santa Fe is a leader in the Southwest. For the purposes of this study, 

the annual unit water demand used is 114 gpcd gallons per capita per day (gpcd), 

as determined from monthly 2002-2010 City water production data. This gpcd 

does not include the reuse of reclaimed wastewater. For this adaptation strategy, 

the maximum conservation realistically achievable was considered to be a 

decrease of 20 gpcd. 

3.1.4.3. Direct Injection for Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

This adaptation strategy would inject and store treated excess water from one of 

the City or County’s other sources into an aquifer that has been developed by the 

Partners for water supply (e.g., Buckman Well Field) and later use the water in a 

process commonly referred to as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). The ASR 

process uses water from above ground to recharge groundwater. ASR can be 

53 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

achieved by active means, usually direct injection, or through passive methods, 

primarily infiltration. 

Large scale implementation of ASR through direct injection wells is not currently 

in widespread use in New Mexico. However, it has the advantage that most of the 

water injected into the aquifer can be recovered under a permit from the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE). Also, direct injection minimizes the 

amount of land required for implementation. This adaptation strategy would use 

surface water rights in excess of current demand or require acquisition of 

additional surface water rights, treat the water at the Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility to drinking water standards, and directly inject the water in the 

aquifer at or near existing water supply wells. It is assumed that the water rights 

used for this strategy can be permitted by the OSE with dual purposes: they can 

be used as needed for meeting groundwater pumping offsets or can be recovered 

for direct use. 

Withdrawal of water through existing water supply wells and conveyance through 

the existing distribution system is assumed under this adaptation strategy. Water 

would be injected in normal to wet years or if acquired water rights are in excess 

of demand and would build up over time. The water could be withdrawn and used 

in normal to dry years. A maximum cap of 5,000 AFY of accumulated storage is 

assumed for this adaptation strategy. 

3.1.4.4. Infiltration in the Santa Fe River Channel for Aquifer Storage 

and Recovery 

ASR using passive methods through natural or engineered infiltration systems 

have been implemented on large scales at numerous locations in the United 

States, including two in New Mexico. This adaptation strategy takes advantage of 

flow in the Santa Fe River as a natural infiltration system that recharges the 

aquifer. This process occurs whenever water is flowing in the Santa Fe River, but 

this adaptation strategy would entail satisfying the requirements of both the 

Ground Water Storage and Recovery Act, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, 

§72-5A-2 and the New Mexico Underground Storage and Recovery Regulations 

to be able to withdraw the water that has infiltrated. 

Permits to pursue ASR through infiltration in the Santa Fe River could be sought 

for two areas: the upper Santa Fe River where releases from upstream reservoirs 

maintain flow in the river and the lower Santa Fe River where flow in the river is 

maintained by discharge from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

The “infiltration rate” is that portion of stream flow that is assumed to infiltrate 

the upper Santa Fe River stream bottom and recharge the aquifer. For this 

adaptation strategy, the infiltration rate was assumed to be up to 70 percent of 

stream flow (similar to an estimate for the City of Albuquerque). Withdrawal of 

water under this adaptation strategy would be realized via existing water supply 

wells and conveyed through the existing distribution system. There is projected to 

54 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

be sufficient water for flow in the Santa Fe River in wet to normal years and the 

stored water from infiltration is projected to accumulate during wet years so that it 

could be withdrawn and used in normal to dry years. A maximum cap of 2,000 

AFY of accumulated storage was assumed for this adaptation strategy. 

For the lower Santa Fe River, the flow of water released from the City’s 

wastewater treatment plant to the Santa Fe River is presumed to be available for 

the ASR project. The amount of flow in this portion of the Santa Fe River is 

constrained by the amount of reclaimed water used to supply reclaimed water 

contracts or for direct use. The maximum infiltration rate (70 percent) and cap of 

accumulated water storage (2,000 AFY) are modeled in the same way as for the 

upper Santa Fe River infiltration adaptive management strategy. 

3.1.4.5. Acquisition of Additional Surface Water Rights 

This adaptation strategy requires acquiring additional surface water rights and 

using the Buckman Direct Diversion infrastructure to divert, convey, and treat the 

water. The treated water could be directly distributed through the water 

distribution system or could be injected for ASR. 

The City and County link new development to water. In the City, development 

projects with new water demand are required to either purchase water conserved 

by customers (for example through the water conservation rebate program) or to 

transfer existing (or newly acquired) water rights to the City. In the County, 

development projects either acquire water rights or pay a water right acquisition 

fee. The amount of additional surface water rights expected to be available 

through the City’s Water Right Transfer Program is expected to be a maximum of 

about 35 AFY each year, based on historical trends in the program. 

The adaptations considered included both non-structural and structural changes. 

The non-structural adaptation strategies identified are conservation and acquiring 

additional water rights within the Buckman Direct Diversion current diversionary 

capacity. The remaining adaptation strategies require upgrading or building new 

infrastructure to implement as described in Section 3.1.5. 

3.1.5. Adaptive Strategies Considered 

The portfolios are summarized in Table 3-3. The systems model WaterMAPS was 

used to simulate each portfolio to determine if they could meet demands under 

climate-change conditions. Portfolios 1, 2, and 3 use a single adaptive strategy, 

but they will not reliably provide sufficient water supply under conditions 

projected for 2055. Portfolios 4 through 8 combined adaptive strategies to create 

portfolios with different emphases to compare and contrast the impacts of varying 

levels of each adaptation strategy in order to provide clear direction for the City 

and County long-range water supply planning. 

55 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 3-3. Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios and Simulated Supply 

Simulated Supply from Adaptation Strategy (AFY) 

Direct 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Reuse 

Conservation 

Direct 

Injection 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Infiltration 

Santa Fe 

River 

Aquifer 

Storage 

and 

Recovery 

Additional 

Water 

Rights 

Portfolio 

Simulated 

Supply 

Portfolio 1: Conservation 

Only 4,005 4,005 

Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only 4,024 4,024 

Portfolio 3: Additional Water 

Rights Only 1,400 1,400 

Portfolio 4: More 

Conservation & Water Rights 

(Reuse to Potable) 2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 5: More 

Conservation & Water Rights 

(Reuse to Offsets) 2,224 4,005 559 149 1,400 8,337 

Portfolio 6: More Infiltration 

ASR 3,003 0 2,841 1,400 7,244 

Portfolio 7: More Direct Reuse 

(to Potable) 3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

Portfolio 8: More Direct Reuse 

(to Return flow credits) 3,243 2,002 148 920 6,313 

It is important to understand that WaterMAPS employs several constraints that 

may reduce the supply available for a particular adaptation strategy within a 

portfolio. These include capacity, water rights, and available wet water during 

the water year or season in question, and conditions based on season or 

hydrology 

(wet, dry, normal year) constraints. Additional constraints are then applied based 

on individual adaptation strategies as indicated in the following sections. Note 

that some of the gap for these portfolios is met with Buckman pumping in excess 

of the management target (See Appendix G, Section 3 for more information). 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

The following sections describe how the portfolios were modeled and the 

reliability results compared to the criteria used for screening each portfolio. If the 

portfolio did not meet the reliability criteria for Central Tendency, it was not 

further analyzed for other climate scenarios. Therefore, portfolios that do not meet 

the reliability criteria only show the annual deficit probability for Central 

Tendency. 

3.1.5.1. Portfolio 1: Conservation Only 

Portfolio 1 consisted solely of conservation and tests whether the projected effects 

of climate change could be ameliorated by conservation alone. This portfolio is 

based on a 20 gpcd decrease in water use. This portfolio could be implemented 

with an increase in water conservation education, on-site plumbing changes, and 

enforcement of restrictions. No new infrastructure would be required. The 

simulated supply created by this level of conservation is 4,005 AFY. The supply 

from Buckman pumping in excess of the management target is 2,674 AFY. In the 

absence of climate change, Portfolio 1 would close the gap between supply and 

demand, but significantly more groundwater pumping would be needed. The 

cumulative probability of annual deficits under the Central Tendency climate 

change scenario for Portfolio 1 is shown in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1 shows that the 

maximum annual deficit is 1,372 AFY and at that an annual deficit of 391 AFY is 

expected to be exceeded 10 percent of the time. 

Portfolio 1 does not meet two of the three reliability criteria as shown in 

Table 3-4. Additional analysis of this portfolio shows that conserving 40 gpcd 

would result in a portfolio that would meet the reliability criteria. However, the 

ability of the City and County to consistently reduce demand by 40 gpcd is too 

uncertain to use this conservation goal in water supply planning. The goal itself 

remains as part of utility management efforts and conservation outreach. 

57 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 3-1. Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 1 annual deficit probability curve 

under central tendency climate scenario. 

Table 3-4. Performance of Portfolio 1 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Portfolio 1: 

Conservation 

Only 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman Maximum Annual Annual Deficit at Pumping in Excess Deficit 10% probability of Target <2000 AFY > 100 AFY <500 AFY 

YES NO NO (1,372 AFY (391 AFY annual (exceeds by 2,674 maximum annual deficit at 10% AFY) deficit) probability) 

58 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

3.1.5.2. Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only 

Portfolio 2 consists solely of the direct reuse of reclaimed water. Similar to 

Portfolio 1, the purpose of Portfolio 2 is to assess if the projected 2055 water 

supply gap could be filled by reuse of reclaimed water alone. The portfolio 

assumes that effluent from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant is conveyed by 

new infrastructure to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility. The 

reclaimed water would be treated to drinking water standards and delivered for 

potable use through the existing distribution system. Alternatively, new piping 

could be installed to deliver the treated water to the Rio Grande for return flow 

credits. 

Portfolio 2 assumes that 1,734 AFY of the 3,489 AFY of existing non-potable 

reclaimed water contracts is delivered (about 50 percent; the portion allocated to 

public projects). The remainder is returned to the Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility and treated for potable reuse. The simulated average annual 

supply for Portfolio 2 is 4,024 AFY. Supply from Buckman pumping in excess of 

the management target is 2,225 AFY. In the absence of climate change, Portfolio 

2 can close the gap between supply and demand, but significantly more 

groundwater pumping would be required. Figure 3-2 illustrates that the maximum 

annual deficit is 1,159 AFY and the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 

378 AFY. 

Portfolio 2 does not meet two of the three reliability criteria as shown in 

Table 3-5. Additional analysis of this portfolio showed that if the reuse was 

assumed to be 6,696 AFY, the resulting portfolio that would meet the reliability 

criteria. However, this would mean that most of the existing reclaimed water 

contracts would not be honored and there would be no discharge to the Santa Fe 

River. Considering the reliance on reclaimed water by downstream users (both 

human and ecological), this level of direct reuse was considered unacceptable. 

59 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 3-2. Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only annual deficit probability 

curve under central tendency climate scenario. 

Table 3-5. Performance of Portfolio 2 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in 

Excess of Target 

<500 AFY 

Reliability Criteria 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

<2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 

10% probability 

>100 AFY 

Portfolio 2: 

Direct Reuse 

Only 

NO 

(exceeds by 2,225 

AFY) 

YES 

(Maximum deficit is 

1,159 AFY) 

NO 

(Annual deficit at 10% 

is 378 AFY) 

3.1.5.3. Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only 

Portfolio 3 consists solely of acquiring additional Rio Grande surface water rights 

from within the Middle Rio Grande valley between Otowi Gage and Elephant 

Butte Reservoir. Similar to Portfolios 1 and 2, the purpose of Portfolio 3 was to 

assess if the projected 2055 water supply gap could be filled by obtaining 

additional surface water rights alone. The portfolio assumes that the Water Rights 

Transfer Program acquires 35 AFY each year of new surface water rights or a 

total of 1,400 AFY over the 40-year planning period. The simulated average 

annual supply for Portfolio 3 is 1,400 AFY. Supply from Buckman pumping in 

60 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

excess of the management target is 4,451 AFY. In the absence of climate change, 

Portfolio 3 can close the gap between supply and demand, but significantly more 

groundwater pumping above the management target would be required. The 

additional surface water obtained for this portfolio would be diverted, conveyed, 

treated and delivered through the existing Buckman Direct Diversion Project, and 

it is assumed that no new infrastructure would be required for 1,400 AFY. Figure 

3-3 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 3,978 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is 2,363 AFY. 

Portfolio 3 does not meet any of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 3­

6. Additional analysis of this portfolio showed that over 7,000 AFY in new 

surface water rights would be required to meet the reliability criteria. Acquiring 

this amount of new water rights is unrealistic considering the relative scarcity of 

water rights for purchase and the impact to Middle Rio Grande valley of such an 

acquisition. 

Figure 3-3. Santa Fe Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only annual deficit probability 

curve under central tendency climate scenario. 

61 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 3-6. Performance of Portfolio 3 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in 

Excess of Target 

<500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

<2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 

10% probability 

>100 AFY 

Portfolio 3: 

Additional Water 

Rights Only 

NO 

(exceeds by 4,451 

AFY) 

NO 

(Maximum deficit is 

3,978 AFY) 

NO 

(Annual deficit at 10% 

is 2,363 AFY) 

3.1.5.4. Portfolio 4: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to 

Potable) 

Portfolio 4 and the remaining four portfolios combine supply and demand 

strategies to meet the reliability criteria. 

Portfolio 4 has the following components: 

•	 Direct Reuse: Deliver 2,250 AFY to reclaimed water contracts, 1,239 

AFY to potable use 

•	 Conservation: Reduce demand by 20 gpcd 

•	 Direct Injection ASR: 640 AFY up to a maximum of 5,000 AF of storage 

•	 Infiltration ASR in Santa Fe River: infiltration in upper Santa Fe River 

(30 percent of river flow) 

• Additional Water Rights: 1,400 AFY 

This portfolio would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new infrastructure required) 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility and distribute to customers (use existing infrastructure) 

•	 Construct injection well(s) or modification of wells to act as injection well 

(new infrastructure required) 

•	 Convey water from Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility to 

injection well (new infrastructure required) 

62 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

•	 Withdraw water from wells and distribution to customers (use existing 

infrastructure) 

Buckman pumping is reduced to below management targets for this portfolio. 

Figure 3-4 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 57 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is zero. Portfolio 4 meets all of the three 

reliability criteria as shown in Table 3-7. Further, Portfolio 4 meets the reliability 

criteria under all 3 climate scenarios, with the exception of the hot-dry scenario 

where the annual deficit at 10% probability is greater than 100 AFY (Figure 3-4). 

Portfolio 4 was carried on for evaluation with respect to the performance criteria. 

Figure 3-4. Santa Fe Portfolios 4 and 5: More Conservation and Water Rights 

(Reuse to Potable) annual deficit probability curve under central tendency climate 

scenario. 

63 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 3-7. Performance of Portfolios 4 and 5 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Portfolios 4 and 5: More 

Conservation and Water 

Rights 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in 

Excess of Target 

<500 AFY 

YES
 

(does not exceed)
 

Maximum Annual
 

Deficit
 

<2000 AFY
 

YES
 

(Maximum deficit is
 

57 AFY)
 

Annual Deficit at 

10% probability 

>100 AFY 

YES
 

(Annual deficit at
 

10% is 0 AFY)
 

3.1.5.5. Portfolio 5: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to 

Return Flow Credits) 

Portfolio 5 is exactly the same as Portfolio 4 except the treated water is returned 

to the Rio Grande for return flow credits rather than for potable use. Therefore, 

the reliability results (Figure 3-4 and Table 3-7) are the same for these two 

portfolios. 

Portfolio 5 meets all of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 3-7. Further, 

Portfolio 5 meets the reliability criteria under all 3 climate scenarios, with the 

exception of the Hot-Dry scenario where the annual deficit at 10 percent 

probability is greater than 100 AFY (Figure 3-4). Portfolio 5 was carried on for 

evaluation with respect to the performance criteria. 

3.1.5.6. Portfolio 6: More Infiltration Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

Portfolio 6 emphasizes infiltration ASR, with moderate conservation and less 

acquisition of water rights. Portfolio 6 has the following components: 

•	 Conservation: Medium reduction in demand (15 gpcd) 

•	 Direct Injection ASR: 640 AFY to a maximum of 3,500 AF of storage 

•	 Infiltration ASR: infiltration in both upper and lower Santa Fe River 

(70 percent of flow) 

•	 Additional Water Rights: 1,400 AFY 

This portfolio would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey water from Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility to 

injection well (new infrastructure required) 

•	 Withdraw water from wells and distribution to customers (use existing 

infrastructure) 

Buckman groundwater pumping exceeds the management target by 291 AFY. 

One notable result of this portfolio is in regards to the direct injection ASR. The 

64 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

model uses water first to fulfill required offsets for groundwater pumping, and 

any remaining water is used for direct injection. Portfolio 6 does not include 

direct reuse, so there is only enough water to meet offset requirements, and there 

is not enough to inject for ASR. Figure 3-5 illustrates that the maximum annual 

deficit is 553 AFY and the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 161 AFY. 

Portfolio 6 meets two of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 3-8, 

although the portfolio is very close to meeting all the criteria. Portfolio 6 was 

carried on for the performance criteria evaluation. 

Figure 3-5. Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 6: More ASR annual deficit probability curve 

under central tendency climate scenario. 

Table 3-8. Performance of Portfolio 6 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Portfolio 6: More 

ASR 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman Maximum Annual Annual Deficit at Pumping in Deficit 10% probability Excess of Target <2000 AFY >100 AFY <500 AFY 

YES YES NO 

(exceeds by 291 (Maximum deficit is (Annual deficit at 

AFY) 553 AFY) 10% is 161 AFY) 

65 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.1.5.7. Portfolio 7: More Direct Reuse (Potable Use) 

Portfolio 7 emphasizes direct reuse with the smallest decrease in conservation. 

Portfolio 7 has the following components: 

•	 Direct Reuse: Meet 1,734 AFY of reclaimed water contracts, remainder 

to potable use 

•	 Conservation: Small reduction in demand (10 gpcd) 

•	 Infiltration ASR in Santa Fe River: infiltration in upper Santa Fe River 

(30 percent of river flow) 

•	 Additional Water Rights: 920 AFY (assuming less water rights are 

available) 

This portfolio would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new infrastructure required) 

•	 Treat water to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility and distribute to customers (use existing infrastructure) 

•	 Withdraw water from wells and distribute to customers (use existing 

infrastructure) 

Buckman groundwater pumping exceeds the management target by 323 AFY. 

Figure 3-6 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 211 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is 32 AFY. Portfolio 7 meets two of the three 

reliability criteria as shown in Table 3-9, although the portfolio is very close to 

meeting the remaining criteria. Portfolio 7 was carried on for evaluation with 

respect to the performance criteria. 

66 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Figure 3-6. Santa Fe Basin Portfolios 7 and 8: More Direct Reuse annual 

deficit probability curve under central tendency climate scenario. 

Table 3-9. Performance of Portfolios 7 and 8 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman Pumping 

in Excess of Target 

<500 AFY 

Reliability Criteria 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

<2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

>100 AFY 

Portfolios 7 and 8: More 

Direct Reuse 

YES 

(exceeds by 323 AFY) 

YES 

(Maximum deficit is 211 

AFY) 

YES 

(32 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.1.5.8. Portfolio 8: More Direct Reuse (Return Flow Credits) 

Portfolio 8 is the same as Portfolio 7 except the treated water is returned to the 

Rio Grande for return flow credits. Therefore, the reliability results (Figure 3-4 

and Table 3-7) are the same for these two portfolios. 

Portfolio 8 meets all three of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 3-9. 

Portfolio 8 was carried on for evaluation with respect to the performance criteria. 

67 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.2. Evaluation and Comparison of Adaptive 

Strategies 

The five combination portfolios (Portfolios 4 through 8) that meet or nearly meet 

the threshold of the reliability criteria were moved through the next step of the 

assessment process: evaluation with respect to the performance criteria. For 

consistency, the overall performance criteria are largely the same as those used 

for the Santa Fe Long-Range Water Supply Plan (City of Santa Fe 2008 

[Water]), although they have been simplified for this Basin Study. 

The performance criteria address multiple aspects of the water supply system and 

are both quantitative and qualitative. For each criterion, there is a corresponding 

performance measure that describes the metric that will be used to evaluate that 

criterion. Further, all criteria are not of equal importance. The method used to 

indicate the relative importance of the criteria is by assigning each a weight, as 

discussed in Section 3.2.6. Criteria Weighting. 

3.2.1. Cost Considerations 

This criterion addresses the cost of each portfolio. Developing cost estimates was 

not part of this Basin Study, so the cost considerations are qualitative estimates 

based on the amount of new infrastructure that would be required to implement 

the portfolio and the complexity of the operations for the portfolio. This criterion 

is the sum of three sub-criteria: 

•	 Capital costs, which are the cost of construction and must be accounted 

for in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Estimated based on number 

and type of new infrastructure required. 

•	 Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are an indication of the 

long-term costs of a portfolio, estimated based on complexity of the 

infrastructure components. 

•	 Potential for Cost Share evaluates the degree to which the portfolio 

would be eligible for state or federal funding. Estimated based on features 

such as reuse and regionalization. 

3.2.2. Reliability and Sustainability 

This criterion applies to how well the portfolio performs with respect to providing 

water supply under different climate conditions and impact to groundwater 

supplies. Portfolios 4 through 8 met (or nearly met) the initial reliability criteria 

because of their performance under the Central Tendency climate scenario. This 

criterion looks at the performance of each portfolio under the Hot-Dry climate 

scenario to identify the portfolio that provides water supply under the range of 

projected climate conditions. 

68 
 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

•	 Drought Supply measures the ability of a portfolio to supply adequate 

water under the Hot-Dry climate scenario. This is determined from the 

annual deficit probability curves produced by WaterMAPS. 

•	 Groundwater Use assesses the impact of pumping groundwater. 

WaterMAPS provides the amount of water pumped from the Buckman 

Well Field, which is presented as the percentage above the management 

target and maximum pumping constraint. 

3.2.3. Acceptance 

This criterion is an expectation of the public acceptance of each portfolio. Two 

aspects of acceptance are provided: regulatory complexity and willingness of the 

public to accept the portfolio. Risk to human health is often correlated to 

regulatory complexity: low risk activities (e.g., pumping water) have simpler 

regulatory requirements than do high risk activities (e.g., treating reclaimed water 

for potable use). Public acceptance is broader, because it includes health and 

safety concerns (e.g., reclaimed water on athletic fields) as well as quality of life 

concerns (e.g., conservation at a 20 gpcd reduction). 

•	 Regulatory Compliance Complexity assesses the effort, cost, and time to 

achieve and maintain regulatory compliance for a portfolio. This is a 

qualitative estimate based on the number of activities requiring regulatory 

permits in each portfolio. 

•	 Public Acceptance assesses the perception of the public regarding the 

different components of each portfolio. This is a qualitative estimate based 

on national, regional, and local trends. 

3.2.4. Environmental/Cultural 

This criterion considers the impacts to the environment and cultural properties or 

practices associated with each portfolio. The criterion is made up of two subcriteria: flow in the Santa Fe River and in the Rio Grande. The discharge from the 

City of Santa Fe wastewater treatment plant has provided flow in the Santa Fe 

River. Irrigators downstream of the plant depend on flow in the river. The riparian 

habitat is also supported by flow in the river. The Rio Grande has special species 

considerations so the impact of the portfolios on flow in the Rio Grande is 

included as a sub-criterion. 

•	 Flow in the Santa Fe River is a measure of the extent to which a 

portfolio accommodates maintaining flow in the river below the 

wastewater treatment plant. WaterMAPs provides the projected flow after 

all modeled inflows and outflows. 

•	 Flow in the Rio Grande assesses whether the flow in the Rio Grande is 

affected by the portfolio. This is a qualitative appraisal based on the 

inflows and outflows directly to the Rio Grande. 

69 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.2.5. Technical Implementability 

This criterion considers the extent to which the portfolios include commonly used 

technologies that are well understood, reliable, have accepted designs, and proven 

operational track records. Technologies that meet these standards are easier and 

less expensive to implement. For example, potable reuse scores lower than return 

flow credits for technical implementability because new or better technology may 

be needed to treat wastewater effluent to drinking water standards, and this 

technology will likely be more difficult to implement. This criterion is also 

intended to consider the appropriateness of the technologies for the climate and 

landscape of the Santa Fe area. Extent of infrastructure requirements and aging 

infrastructure were not considered as part of this criterion as these are mostly 

considered as part of the cost. 

•	 Technology Viability is a measure of the robustness of the technologies 

incorporated in each portfolio. It is based on the qualitative assessment of 

the balance of established (easier to implement) versus newer (more 

difficult to implement) technologies in each portfolio. 

3.2.6. Criteria Weighting 

In any decision-making process, evaluation criteria are not all equally important 

and some criteria may be more relevant for a decision-maker than others. As an 

example, for a given individual, costs may be more important than the 

environmental/cultural considerations of an alternative. These relative weightings 

vary from person to person and community to community, reflecting different 

values, experiences, and opinions. Thus, weighted criteria representing the 

perspectives of a cross-section of the effected population are valuable as they 

reflect the range of values and preferences present in the community and 

customize the decision-making process for that community. 

The weights were developed on a consensus basis by the City, County, and 

Reclamation. The criteria, performance measures, and weights are shown in Table 

3-10. 

70 
 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Table 3-10. Performance Criteria, Performance Measures, and Criteria Weight 

Performance Criteria Performance Measure Criteria Weight 

Cost Considerations 15% 

Capital Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

O&M Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

Potential for Cost Share Qualitative 20% 

Reliability and Sustainability 25% 

Drought Supply Quantitative: assessment of annual deficit 

probability curves 50% 

Groundwater Use Quantitative: average and maximum pumping 

compared to management target 50% 

Acceptance 10% 

Regulatory Compliance 

Complexity Qualitative 50% 

Public Acceptance Qualitative 50% 

Environmental/Cultural 30% 

SF River Flows Quantitative: flow in Santa Fe River 50% 

Wetland Preservation Qualitative 50% 

Technical Implementability 20% 

Technology Viability Qualitative 100% 

Chapter 4. Findings 

Findings include the ultimate result of the analysis conducted for this Basin 

Study: a preferred adaptation portfolio to be used as a guide for working toward 

for addressing water supply deficits due to an increase in demand and impacts due 

to predicted climate change. This was accomplished by scoring and ranking the 

different water supply portfolios according to the criteria presented in Section 3.2. 

The scoring and ranking result is discussed in this next section followed by next 

steps and future considerations. 

4.1. Scoring and Ranking of Water Supply 

Portfolios 

The ranking process for the Santa Fe Basin Study was based on scoring each 

climate adaptation portfolio with respect to each of the performance criteria. A 

team composed of City and County staff, Reclamation, and CDM Smith 

completed scoring at a workshop and each score represents the consensus of the 

team. 

71 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

All of the criteria were scored from 1 to 5: 

• “1” equals worst, virtually impossible, infeasible, undesirable, highest cost 

• “5” equals best, most easily implemented, most desirable, lowest cost 

The weighted sum of the criteria was compared for each portfolio. The higher the 

score, the better the portfolio meets the cumulative criteria. The ranking of the 

portfolios, based on the consensus scoring and the criteria weighting, is displayed 

in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. 

Figure 4-1. Ranking of Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios. 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Table 4-1. Scoring of Adaptation Portfolios 

Criteria Criteria 

Weights 

4 

More Conservation &Water Rights (Reuseto Potable)

5 

More Conservation &Water Rights (Reuseto Offsets)

6 More Infiltration ASR7 More Direct Reuse 

(to Potable)

8 

More Direct Reuse (to Return flowcredits) 

Cost Considerations 15% 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 

Capital Cost 40% 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.5 

O&M Cost 40% 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.1 

Potential for Cost Share 20% 2 1 4 4 1 

Reliability and 

Sustainability 25% 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Drought Supply 50% 5 5 1 2 2 

Groundwater Use 50% 5 5 3 2 2 

Acceptance 10% 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 

Regulatory Compliance 

Complexity 50% 1 5 2 1 5 

Public Acceptance 50% 2 5 4 2 5 

Environmental/Cultural 30% 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 

Santa Fe River Flow 50% 2 2 4 2 2 

Rio Grande Flow 50% 2 2 2 3 3 

Technical 

Implementability 20% 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 

Technology Viability 100% 2 5 3 2 5 

Results 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.4 3.2 

A relatively simple sensitivity analysis for the criteria weights was conducted 

because there was concern that costs were not weighted heavily enough compared 

to the other criteria. Portfolio 5 is the most highly ranked, and this analysis 

showed that the weight of the cost criterion does not change that outcome. This is 

true even when the cost criterion is increased to 50 percent or reduced to zero. 

This result provides confidence that Portfolio 5 best meets the criteria, whether 

costs are considered or not.

The ranking of the portfolios clearly shows that Portfolio 5, with an overall score 

of 3.8, meets the performance criteria better than the other alternatives 

(Figure 4-1). Portfolios 4 and 5 scored highly in Reliability and Sustainability 

because they provide an adequate water supply under the Hot-Dry climate 

73 
 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

scenario while maintaining groundwater pumping near the management target. 

However, Portfolio 5 scored higher for Acceptance and Technical 

Implementability because the reclaimed water is used for return flow credits 

rather than potable use as in Portfolio 4. The second ranked portfolio, Portfolio 8, 

did not perform well in Reliability and Sustainability, but it scored higher in 

Environmental/Cultural and Acceptance because it includes use of reclaimed 

water for return flow credits, which would augment the flow in the Rio Grande in 

the short-term while allowing for additional groundwater pumping. 

One common element of the three highest ranked portfolios is increased use of 

reclaimed water. This suggests that the City and County focus efforts to use 

reclaimed water from both the City wastewater treatment plant and the County’s 

Quill wastewater treatment plant. The three highest ranked portfolios also use the 

maximum number of adaptive strategies, demonstrating the value of a multifaceted approach to achieving climate change mitigation goals for the Santa Fe 

region. 

4.2. Current and Ongoing Activities 

The Santa Fe community is collectively engaging in a number of actions that have 

already increased the ability of the collective watershed- humans included- to 

respond and adapt to projected changes. These current or ongoing actions include: 

Water Management 

Reclaimed water use 

Storm-water management 

Emergency response 

capacity 

Conjunctive use of water 

Water for ecosystems 

Improved water quality 

Domestic well restrictions 

Storm water retention 

Education and Planning 

Water supply planning 

Education and outreach 

Public involvement 

Regional cooperation 

Water conservation 

Monitoring 

Art-inspired actions 

Aquifer storage / recovery 

Drought management plans 

Energy-wise building codes 

Local and renewable 

energy 

Land and Agriculture 

Forest thinning 

Riparian restoration 

Seed sovereignty 

Small-scale land shaping 

Urban forests 

Land preservation 

Irrigation efficiency 

Locally-sourced food 

Urban gardening 

Arroyo stabilization 

Preservation of green 

spaces 

Rangeland improvements 

74 
 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

4.3. Next Steps and Future Considerations 

The City and County will continue to work together to develop future water 

supplies to fill the water supply gap identified as part of this study. Reliability 

results from the modeling and the performance assessment indicate that Portfolio 

5 should be further investigated and potentially pursued. Portfolio 5 includes the 

following adaptation strategies: 

•	 Use of reclaimed water (potentially in the form of return flow credits) 

•	 Water conservation 

•	 Direct injection and infiltration ASR 

•	 Obtain additional water rights 

One of the primary adaption alternatives is to “augment potable water supplies 

with reclaimed wastewater” as described in the report, Climate Change and the 

Santa Fe Basin: A Preliminary Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptation 

Alternatives Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Program Initiative (February, 

2013) and the RWRP for the City (April, 2013) which identified potential 

alternatives to using reclaimed water as a supply source. City Council Resolution 

2013-55 was enacted and approved and directs City Staff to pursue opportunities 

to evaluate and implement engineering and cost analysis of using reclaimed water 

alternatives to supplement water supplies. 

In addition, the City and County were awarded a grant through Reclamation’s 

Title XVI Program to conduct a water reuse feasibility study in June, 2014. The 

water reuse feasibility study will evaluate ways to cost-effectively use its 

reclaimed wastewater in a more efficient manner and will consider both potable 

and non-potable alternatives to meet water demand requirements while better 

balancing environmental conditions in the watershed This is the next necessary 

step to accomplish City and County water management goals of diversifying its 

supply portfolio and build in greater system resiliency. 

Chapter 5. Disclaimers 

While the best available information and consistent methodology was used in 

developing this Basin Study, projections into the future require many assumptions 

and result in inherent uncertainty. While this is necessary and appropriate for 

planning-level analyses, additional, more detailed feasibility- and design-level 

studies are required when implementing some of the adaptation strategies 

identified. The purpose of this study is to provide a reasonable path forward based 

on the best information available. Some specific items to note are discussed 

below: 

•	 Climate change impacts on groundwater supply were not explored for this 

Basin Study. The analysis accounted for likely reductions in groundwater 

75 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

supply through the use of management targets, which are significantly less 

than actual water rights. 

•	 Water rights, management targets, and capacity constraints are changing 

annually and must be verified before utilizing in future studies or planning 

of projects. 

•	 The predicted water supply gap is sensitive to population projections, 

which were not closely studied as part of this Basin Study. The future 

water service area for the County is not well known. Previous studies and 

input from the project team members was relied upon for this information. 

The Santa Fe Basin Study was funded jointly by Reclamation, the City of Santa 

Fe and Santa Fe County, and is a collaborative product of the study participants as 

identified in Section 1.4. Coordination and Participants. The purpose of the study 

is to assess current and future water supply and demand in the Santa Fe Basin and 

other basins providing water to the City and County, and to identify a range of 

potential strategies to address any projected imbalances. The study is a technical 

assessment and does not provide recommendations or represent a statement of 

policy or position of Reclamation, DOI, or the funding partners. The study does 

not propose or address the feasibility of any specific project, program or plan. 

Nothing in the study is intended, nor shall the study be construed, to interpret, 

diminish, or modify the rights of any participant under applicable law. Nothing in 

the study represents a commitment for provision of Federal funds. All cost 

estimates included in this study are preliminary and intended only for comparative 

purposes. 

Chapter 6. References Cited 

Borchert, Claudia. 2013. Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan (RWRP), City of 

Santa Fe. 

Brown and Caldwell, 2009. Water Transmission and Storage System Master Plan, 

City of Santa Fe. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2008 (Water). Long-Range Water Supply Plan. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/document_center/document/772. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2008 (Sustainable). Sustainable Santa Fe Plan. 

Adopted on October 29, 2008. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/sustainable_santa_fe_plan 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2013. Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/document_center/document/794 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2014. Feasibility Study Proposal. 

76 
Adaptations to Projected Changes 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Special Report on 

Emissions Scenarios. Page 599 in N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart, 

editors. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/. 

IPCC. 2007. The Physical Basis of Climate Change Science. 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 

Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council, 2003. Jemez y Sangre Regional Water 

Plan. Prepared by Daniel B. Stephens and Associates in association 

with Amy C. Lewis, Water Planning Coordinator, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. Accepted by the Interstate Stream Commission, April 23, 

2003. 

http://www.ose.state.nm.us/Planning/RWP/Regions/jemezysangre/jys_s 

ec1-5.pdf 

Llewellyn, Dagmar, Seshu Vaddey, Jesse Roach, and Ariane Pinson, 2013. Upper 

Rio Grande Impacts Assessment: An Activity of the West Wide 

Climate Risk Assessment. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

Maurer, E. P., A. W. Wood, J. C. Adam, D.P. Lettenmaier, and Bart Nijssen, 

2002. "A Long-Term Hydrologically Based Dataset of Land Surface 

Fluxes and States for the Conterminous United States." Journal of 

Climate 15: 3237-3251. 

Meehl, G.A., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. Mcavaney, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. 

Stouffer, and K.E. Taylor, 2007. “The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel 

Dataset—A New Era in Climate Change Research,” Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society, 88(9), 1383–1394. 

Roach, Jesse, 2013; The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM). 

published as Appendix E of Llewellyn, et. al., 2013. 

Santa Fe County, 2010. The Santa Fe County Sustainable Growth Management 

Plan. Santa Fe County General Plan. Adopted by the Board of County 

Commissioners by Resolutions 2010-210 and 2010-225. 

http://www.santafecountynm.gov/growth_management/sgmp 

Santa Fe County, 2013. Sustainable Land Development Code. Adopted by 

Ordinance 2013-6.December 10, 2013. 

http://www.santafecountynm.gov/userfiles/SLDC/ClickableSLDCwith 

Ordinance.pdf 

Reclamation and City of Albuquerque Public Works Department, 2004. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement City of Albuquerque Drinking Water 

Project. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Reclamation, City of Santa Fe, and Santa Fe County, 2011. Memorandum of 

Agreement between the Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation 

and the City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County, New Mexico, Santa Fe 

Basin Study; Santa Fe, Upper Rio Grande, and San Juan watersheds. 

WaterSMART Basin Study. December 13, 2011. 

Reclamation, City of Sante Fe, Sante Fe County, 2013. Climate Change and the 

Santa Fe Basin: A Preliminary Assessment of Vulnerabilities and 

Adaptation Alternatives. Prepared by Amy C. Lewis, Hydrology and 

Water Planning and Karen MacClune and Kari Tyler, Institute for 

Social and Environmental Transition. February 2013. (Appendix A). 

Reclamation, 2010. Climate Change and Hydrology Scenarios for Oklahoma 

Yield Studies, Technical Memorandum 86-68210-2010-01. 

Reclamation, 2011 (BCSD). West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments: BiasCorrected and Spatially Downscaled Surface Water Projections. U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical 

Memorandum No. 86-68210-2011-01, Denver, Colorado. 

Reclamation, 2011 (Act Report). SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) ­

Reclamation Climate Change and Water Report to Congress. 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of 

Policy and Administration, Denver, Colorado. 

University of New Mexico, 2014. Population Estimates and Forecasts for Growth 

Management Areas, Sustainable Development Area, and the 

Water/Wastewater Service Area of Santa Fe County. Prepared for the 

County of Santa Fe. Prepared by University of New Mexico’s Bureau 

of Business and Economic Research and Geospatial and Population 

Studies. 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 2007. Record of Decision 

for the Buckman Water Diversion Project. Lead Agencies: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of 

the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Cooperating Agencies: 

Bureau of Reclamation, City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and County of 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. http://bddproject.org/archive/ROD.pdf 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 2006. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project. Lead 

Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Cooperating 

Agencies: Bureau of Reclamation, City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and 

County of Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

http://bddproject.org/archive/Buckman_FEIS.pdf 

78 
 

Adaptations to Projected Changes 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007. Biological Opinion on the Effects of Action 

Associated with the Biological Assessment for the Buckman Water 

Diversion Project, Santa Fe National Forest. 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/documents/BO/2006­

0045_Buckman_Diversion_BO.pdf 

Wood, A. W., L. R. Leung, V. Sridhar, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2004. Hydrologic 

Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling 

Climate Model Outputs. Climatic Change 15: 189-216. 

79 

i

July 11, 2012

Preliminary Assessment Report:   

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed

Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Program Initiative

Prepared for:  

Bureau of Reclamation City of Santa Fe Santa Fe County
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

ii

Prepared by:

Amy C. Lewis, Hydrology and Water Planning 

And

Karen MacClune and Kari Tyler

Institute for Social and Environmental Transition

In cooperation with

Claudia Borchert1, Dagmar Llewellyn2, Karen Torres3,

1 City of Santa Fe, 2 Bureau of Reclamation, 3Santa Fe County

   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

iii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers of the document who, in part, provided information

on existing actions in the Santa Fe Watershed: Jan‐Willem Jansen of Ecotone, and Craig O’Hare and

Duncan Sill of Santa Fe County, Brian Drypolcher and Katherine Mortimer with the City of Santa Fe

and Jonne Hower, Amanda Erath and Dave Truman, with the Bureau of Reclamation.    We would

also like to thank the City of Santa Fe for providing the venue for the workshop and for the 120

members of the community that participated and offered their insights on the vulnerabilities of their

systems.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

iv

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1

1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................2

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts........................................................................... 5

2 Climate Change: What the Science Says......................................................................7

2.1 Climate Change Projections for Santa Fe Basin .............................................................. 7

2.2 Climate Change Impacts to Santa Fe Basin Hydrology .................................................... 9

2.3 Case Study: Southwestern US Forest ........................................................................... 12

2.4 So What Next?............................................................................................................. 14

3 Public Participation...................................................................................................16

3.1 Engagement & Small‐Group Discussion ....................................................................... 16

3.2 Generation and Prioritization of Solutions................................................................... 18

3.3 Workshop Follow‐up ................................................................................................... 19

4 Systems and their Vulnerabilities..............................................................................20

4.1 Water Supply Systems................................................................................................. 20

4.2 Ecosystems.................................................................................................................. 23

4.3 Agriculture and Food Security...................................................................................... 27

4.4 Land Use and Quality of Life ........................................................................................ 28

4.5 Energy Systems ........................................................................................................... 30

4.6 Transportation Systems............................................................................................... 31

4.7 Economic Systems....................................................................................................... 32

4.8 Sociological (body politic/community)......................................................................... 32

5 Potential Solutions and Current Actions ...................................................................34

5.1 Water Supply Systems................................................................................................. 35

5.2 Ecosystems.................................................................................................................. 39

5.3 Agriculture and Food Security...................................................................................... 45

5.4 Land Use and Quality of Life/Parks and Urban Landscaping ......................................... 48

5.5 Energy Systems/Production and Consumption ............................................................ 50

5.6 Sociological Systems/Public Engagement & Policy Change........................................... 52

5.7 Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 52

5.8 Education .................................................................................................................... 53

5.9 Visionary ..................................................................................................................... 55

5.10 Implementation .......................................................................................................... 55

6 Next Steps ................................................................................................................56

7 References................................................................................................................58
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

v

Appendices

Appendix A. Workshop agenda   

Appendix B. Workshop participants

Appendix C. Summary of climate science presentations

Appendix D. Proposed actions

List of Figures

Figure 1. Aerial view of the Santa Fe Watershed. ...............................................................4

Figure 2. Temperature for winter and summer seasons, 1900 to 2100. ..............................8

Figure 3. Annual precipitation for winter and summer seasons, 1900‐2100........................9

Figure 4. Correlation between summer vegetation greenness index (NDVI) and the Forest

Drought‐Stress Index (FDSI) (Williams, 2012)....................................................................12

Figure 5. Projected and historic FDSI derived from measured data (black). ......................14

Figure 6. Habitats in the Santa Fe Watershed (TNC, 2012)................................................23

Figure 7. Santa Fe River Watershed Impaired Reaches Section 319(h) Projects (Franklin,

2012)................................................................................................................................43
1

Executive Summary

Under a Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) WaterSMART Program Initiative, the City and

County of Santa Fe have collaborated with Reclamation to conduct a preliminary

assessment of system vulnerabilities to climate change in the Santa Fe Watershed and

consider alternatives for creating a more resilient watershed. To understand the systems

that are relevant in the Santa Fe watershed, members of the community were invited to

learn about the impacts from climate change that are predicted for the area and to provide

their insight into how the predicted changes may affect the systems that they are most

concerned with. This report captures the expertise of the authors and presenters, as well as

the information gathered at a one‐day workshop held in Santa Fe on March 6, 2012 with

120 participants.   

Predicted impacts for the watershed include:

 Reduced stream flow due to greater evapotranspiration and thus less runoff;

 Diminished snowpack, and earlier spring melt of existing snowpack;

 Earlier peak snowmelt runoff and lower peak flows;

 Drier mid‐ to late‐summers;

 More severe and more frequent droughts; and

 More intense precipitation events that increase peak storm flows, with an

accompanying potential for more sediment transport and erosion and further

degradation of the Santa Fe River.

Participants worked in small groups to describe physical, biological and socio‐economic

systems within the Santa Fe Watershed, particular vulnerabilities of those systems, and

solutions for creating more resilient systems, and ultimately, a more resilient watershed.

The systems range from forest ecosystems to farms to transportation and energy systems.

The vulnerabilities are numerous, including the increased risk of catastrophic fire, flooding,

and erosion.   

Fortunately, the Santa Fe Watershed has benefited from numerous projects that will

enhance the system resilience under climate change.    These projects, such as forest

thinning, riparian restoration, and storm water management, could be mapped in order to

highlight and prioritize the areas needing additional restoration or treatment.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

2

1 Purpose   

The purpose of this report is to preliminarily assess the vulnerabilities of systems in the

Santa Fe watershed to climate change based on input obtained during a March 6, 2012

workshop and from research conducted by the authors. This Preliminary Assessment Report

identifies “qualitative climate‐change impacts on water supply sources, ecosystems, quality

of life, agriculture and local food production, landscapes, land use and water demand” as

directed by a Memorandum of Agreement between the partners (Reclamation et al.,

2011).   It is part of a larger Basin Study under Reclamation’s WaterSMART Program, and as

such evaluates the extent to which changes in the water supply will impact fish and wildlife

habitat, listed endangered species, water quality, and flow‐ and water‐dependent ecological

resiliency, in partial fulfillment of the requirements in Element 2 of Reclamation’s Basin

Study Framework.

1.1 Introduction

Climate change may alter many aspects of life in the Santa Fe basin, including the

availability of water to the city and county, as well as the health of forests and other

ecosystems. To prepare for these changes, the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County and the

Bureau Reclamation are partnering on a Basin Study through the US Department of Interior

Bureau of Reclamation Water SMART Initiative Basin Studies Program (Reclamation, 2011).

Through the Santa Fe Basin Study, of which this report is one component, the partners seek

to:   

1. assess the projected impacts of climate change on the Santa Fe watershed and on

the City and County’s water supplies;   

2. quantify the potential impact of climate change on the potentially available water

supply from each of the three sub‐basins that supply surface water to the City and

the County (the Santa Fe River Basin, the Upper Rio Grande, and several tributaries

to the San Juan); and   

“Deep, crushing cycles of drought are part of the natural history of the Southwest and, for

all practical purposes, they always have been. Building resilience against drought into the

region’s water systems and cultural practices would be a wise course, irrespective of the

cause or timing of the next emergency. Perhaps the dangers now arising from

anthropogenic climate change will goad us into doing the things we should have been

doing all along... to strive for resilience,‐‐the capacity of an ecosystem to experience

disturbance without losing its essential character and becoming something else.”

Bill deBuys, 2011
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

3

3. assess the vulnerability and possible shortcomings of the current long‐range water

supply strategies; and   

4. evaluate new mitigation and adaption strategies and integrate them into the

region’s water supply plan as necessary.   

The results of this study will be presented to the Public Utilities Commission in the hope

that the information gathered can inform efforts to create a more resilient community.   

The initial part of this study calls for public input and the preparation of a preliminary

assessment report of qualitative climate change impacts on water supply sources,

ecosystems, quality of life, agriculture and

local food production, landscapes and land

use, and water demand.

To seek stakeholder input, the project

partners sponsored an interactive workshop,

held on March 6, 2012 in Santa Fe, in which

federal, state, local, private, and non‐profit

groups and individuals were invited to

contribute to and gather information for this preliminary assessment report.    Workshop

goals were to identify vulnerabilities in human and non‐human systems and to assess how

climate change may affect these systems. . The focus of the workshop was primarily on

system resilience and adaptation, versus mitigation measures. The Santa Fe River watershed

was specified as the system boundary, which allows for a more holistic approach to the

analysis of system impacts and the development of potential solutions. The use of a systems

approach to the analysis of vulnerabilities and adaptations allowed consideration of impacts

and solutions in smaller units and scales; although it was recognized that interconnections

and overlap between systems may not be completely captured. Climate‐change experts

provided the foundation for the workshop by giving a summary of climate‐change

projections for the Santa Fe Watershed, the southwestern forest response to drought and

the historical and sociology impacts of climate change.   

Breakout groups provided input on a range of climate‐change impacts of various physical,

biological and socio‐economic systems within the Santa Fe Watershed. Groups were asked

to identify how climate change may threaten a system of concern, begin prioritizing how

those risks should be responded to, and brainstorm initial adaptation actions that can be

taken at the city and county‐level to build resilience to those systems in the face of those

impacts.   

“It stands to reason that a grassland

with a diversity of grasses‐‐some that

flourish with fourteen inches of rain,

some that prosper with just eight‐‐will

fare better through fluctuating

conditions than will a monoculture of

a single species.”   

Bill deBuys, 2011
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

4

This report also summarizes the many present and past activities in the watershed that are

already building resilience in our watershed.    It is our hope that this report will also serve

as an educational tool for decision makers and the public of the ways that a community

might prepare for climate change.

1.2 Background

The Santa Fe River originates near Lake Peak at an elevation of 12,408 ft. in the Sangre de

Cristo Mountains and flows to the west through the City of Santa Fe and down to the Rio

Grande at 5,220 ft. elevation (Figure 1).    The Santa Fe Watershed is approximately 256

square miles and includes many ephemeral channels such as the tributaries of Arroyo

Hondo, Arroyo de los Chamisos and Arroyo Mascaras.

Figure 1. Aerial view of the Santa Fe Watershed.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

5

1.3 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts

This assessment is intended to complement numerous other planning efforts in the Santa Fe

community that seek to enhance sustainability or resilience.    In the city and county of

Santa Fe, such efforts include the City’s Sustainable Santa Fe Commission and the County’s

Sustainable Growth Management Plan.

The City adopted a Sustainable Santa Fe Plan (SSFC, 2008) in 2008, which is associated with

the U.S. Mayors Conference on Climate Change, and identifies ways that community could

prepare for the effects of global warming.    While the focus of the Sustainable Santa Fe

Plan is on community and municipal actions to reduce carbon emissions (mitigation), the

Plan has an insightful list of potential adaptation actions, including local food production.   

The Annual report of 2010 Activities highlights progress in establishing more local food

production, in part through new community gardens, and increased education and

outreach.

The Santa Fe County Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SFCO, 2010) was developed to

provide direction for future growth and sustainable development through the adoption of

goals and policies. One of the key issues identified is the environmental impacts and

resource scarcity that is likely to result from shifting climate patterns. With limited acreage

(about 15,000 acres) of irrigated land within Santa Fe County, several strategies were

developed to enhance food security, protection of water resources and greenhouse gas

management were adopted to improve the potential for local and economic sustainability.   

Efforts and other incentives that promote efficient water uses and farming techniques and

protection of indigenous food sources which are resilient to drought are key strategies

adopted by Santa Fe County.   

Santa Fe County established the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in the

spring of 2011 (http://www.santafecountynm.gov/public_works/energy). Through

investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency education and technical assistance,

Santa Fe County proposes to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally,

an energy‐efficient green building code will promote energy efficiency, water conservation

and renewable energy improvements to existing and proposed developments.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

6

Definitions

Systems – include both infrastructure (e.g. food supply, water supply,

transportation, energy, shelter, communication, health, education, finance)

and ecosystems (e.g. agricultural land, parks, wetlands, rivers, range land,

forests) that provide services or functions for humanity.

Vulnerability – the underlying fragility or weakness in a system that leaves it

open to harm or damage; for example, a drinking water system serviced only

by surface water supplied from one small river is highly vulnerable to drought.

Resilience – the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances, and still have the

same basic structure and ways of functioning OR to elegantly anticipate and

move to a new a way of functioning. A resilient system is flexible and modular

(e.g. a forest can be made more resilient through thinning and/or prescribed

burns which reduce the stressors that could cause it to fail during a wildfire). In

people, resilience is the ability to cope with stress and adversity.

Adaptation – taking action to minimize the impact of, take advantage of, or

cope with changes that are occurring or are expected to occur.

Mitigation ‐ an act that lessens the intensity or force of something unpleasant;

the act of making a condition or consequence less severe.    In relation to

climate change, mitigation usually refers to actions to decrease greenhouse

gas emissions.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

7

2 Climate Change: What the Science Says

Human activities are increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide

and methane in the atmosphere, and these gases are trapping increasing heat near the

Earth’s surface.    In response, global average air

temperatures near the Earth's surface are rising,

oceans are warming and expanding, land‐based

ice is melting, sea ice is thinning and permafrost

is melting, precipitation patterns are shifting, and plants and animals are growing,

migrating, and responding in different ways, places and times.    The evidence for climate

change that is being documented in the world around us is concordant with the climate

science and physics captured in global modeling; there is no longer any doubt that our

climate is changing.    A detailed description of the climate science is provided in Appendix

C.

The greenhouses gasses that have been released

to date commit us to a certain degree of climate

change, regardless of future emissions; and,

currently, global emissions are accelerating rather

than decreasing, and therefore we are committing

ourselves to increasing warming.    This means

that, in addition to working to limit future emissions and associated warming, we will need

to adapt to existing and at least near‐future climate changes.

The goal of the Preliminary Assessment Workshop was to introduce climate change and its

potential impacts in the Santa Fe Basin to a broad group of local stakeholders, and to solicit

from those stakeholders their primary areas of concern and their initial thoughts about how

to take action. This section discusses the impacts climate change is likely to have on the

Santa Fe Basin.   

2.1 Climate Change Projections for Santa Fe Basin

Climate change is already occurring in the Santa Fe Basin, as evidenced by measured

temperature increases.    Average temperatures in the watershed have risen about 2 o

F

since 1900.    Continuing CO2 emissions around the world will trap additional heat near the

Earth's surface, so that temperatures will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, in the

Santa Fe watershed and elsewhere.    Global climate models (called General Circulation

Models, or GCMs) project that air temperatures in the Santa Fe Basin could increase an

There is no longer any doubt that

our climate is changing.

The releases of greenhouse gasses

that have occurred to date commit

us to a certain degree of climate

change, regardless of future

emissions.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Temperature 20th Century obs + A1B trend

NM Climate Division 2 (Northern Mtns)

DJF temperature [C]

JJA temperature [C]

year

(b)

additional 5.5 to 6.5 oF by 2100 (Figure 2).

Increasing temperatures impact the circulation of

moisture in the atmosphere, which it turn impacts

precipitation patterns.    Though models suggest

that the amount of precipitation that falls in the

Santa Fe watershed may remain relatively

unchanged, when and how it falls is likely to shift.   

The combination of increasing temperatures and

changes in precipitation patterns will significantly

impact Santa Fe and surrounding communities,

lands and ecosystems.

These changes are not going to be smooth, steady changes over time.    Instead, climate

change is expected to increase the variability of our already extremely variable climate.   

Currently, record wet spells can be followed by record droughts; record hot‐summers

followed by record winter cold‐spells.    Climate change is likely to bring even more

variability, with even higher high temperatures and with more variability within and

between seasons and from year to year.    Spring and fall weather may become even more

mercurial, with implications for plant survival and growth.    Individual precipitation events

may become more intense, while dry periods become longer and hotter.    These impacts

will exacerbate the

already formidable

water‐management

challenges in the Santa Fe

basin, and may also

create new water

challenges.

Figure 2. Temperature for

winter and summer

seasons, 1900 to 2100.

   

There are three primary elements of

climate change that will have direct

impacts on, and associated

implications for, water resources in

the Santa Fe Basin: 1) rising

temperatures, 2) changes in

precipitation patterns, and 3)

increases in climate variability.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

9

2.2 Climate Change Impacts to Santa Fe Basin Hydrology

Projected changes in temperature and precipitation will have implications for summer

aridity, for winter precipitation (increasingly

falling as rain rather than snow), and for spring

snowmelt runoff timing and volume (Figure 3).   

Global climate models project a transition to a

much more arid climate in the Southwest by the

mid‐21st Century, primarily due to increasing

rates of evaporation and increasing water use by

plants, which will result from the projected higher temperatures.    Evaporation and plant

water use are directly related to surface temperature; warmer air holds more moisture.    If

precipitation remains relatively constant and evaporation and plant water use increase,

then surface runoff and groundwater recharge will decrease.    Irrigation water demand and

riparian water consumption will increase, and non‐irrigated vegetation will likely become

water stressed.

Higher temperatures will also impact winter snowpack depth and spring snowmelt timing

and volume. Climate models project decreases in snowpack throughout the western

mountains because, as temperatures increase, more winter precipitation is expected to fall

as rain rather than snow.    By mid‐century, the Southern Rocky Mountains are projected to

experience a 20 to 70% reduction in snowpack.

Figure 3. Annual precipitation for winter and summer seasons, 1900‐2100.

All systems that depend on

water are vulnerability to

water availability, changes in

the timing of water

availability, sensitivity to high

or highly variable

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Precipitation 20th Century obs + A1B trend

NM Climate Division 2 (Northern Mtns)

DJF precipitation [mm/mo]

JJA precipitation [mm/mo]

year

(d)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

10

What snow does fall will melt earlier, due to higher spring temperatures, rain falling on

snow, or intense spring windstorms blowing dust onto the snow, making it absorb more

sunlight and melt faster.    By 2050, spring runoff could be 15 to 35 days earlier than it was

under pre‐development conditions.    This much‐earlier peak runoff date, driven by warmer

temperatures, may also have lower peak flows, due to less snow.    This earlier runoff may

fill McClure and Nichols reservoirs over a relatively brief period and then overflow the

reservoirs and continue downstream. Therefore, even if the total runoff were comparable

to average historic supply, much of this water may become unavailable, and therefore may

cause the Santa Fe water supply to be short more often.   

Snowpack currently feeds a late‐spring flood pulse on the upper Rio Grande and its

tributaries.    In their 2008 paper, Hurd and Coonrod found that in the warmer climate

projected for New Mexico; there would be an earlier and smaller snow‐fed flood pulse, and

a reduced total stream‐flow volume, especially in the late spring to early summer.    Their

projected reductions in flow for the Middle Rio Grande are (Hurd and Coonrod, 2008):

 2030:    4 ‐ 14% reduction

 2080:    8 ‐ 29% reduction

Santa Fe River stream‐flow projections are similar to those for the Middle Rio Grande. Cox

et al., in their 2011 modeling analysis, project an annual decrease in stream flow above

McClure Reservoir of 11‐18% by 2060 compared to the historic record from 1950 to 1999.

These temperature and precipitation projections, and their associated impacts to snowpack,

snowmelt, stream flow, evaporation and plant water use, have significant implications for

virtually all water‐related systems in New Mexico.    Reservoir storage and river operations

will be impacted by changes in volume and timing; these in turn will impact water

availability for urban, agricultural and ecosystem use.    Changes in precipitation intensity

and snowpack may further impact groundwater recharge.    As a result, all systems that

depend on water will need to be evaluated for their vulnerability to reduced water

availability and changes in the timing of water availability, and for their sensitivity to high or

highly variable temperatures, aridity, and drought.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

11

“Potential Effects of Climate Change on New Mexico”, Technical State Agency Working

Group, State of NM, 2005

The projections of future New Mexico climate presented below rely heavily on the evaluation

of climatologists with expertise in southwestern climate (Gutzler 2005, Overpeck 2005). These

projections are for the late 21st century and are based on the assumption that global

anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase in a "business as usual"

fashion, with no measures undertaken to reduce emissions globally:

Temperature

 Average New Mexico air temperature substantially warmer

 Greater warming of winter temperatures, nighttime minimum temperatures, and   

higher‐elevation temperatures

 More episodes of extreme heat

 Fewer episodes of extreme cold

 Longer annual frost‐free periods

Precipitation

 A higher proportion of winter precipitation falling as rain; earlier snowmelt where

snow still accumulates

 More extreme events (torrential rain, severe droughts)

 Potential exacerbation of historical patterns of wet and dry cycles, including likely

recurrence of multiyear drought (like the 1950s)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

12

2.3 Case Study: Southwestern US Forest   

A particularly arresting example of the potential

for cascading impacts of climate change is the

predicted effect of increasing temperatures on

Southwestern forests.    Dr. Park Williams, who

spoke at the workshop, has been studying how

forest fires correlate with rates of water use by

plants, winter snowpack, drought indices, and

pine beetle outbreaks.    He has found that all of

these factors are strongly correlated; dry winters coupled with dry, hot summer conditions

stress the trees, making them more susceptible to pine beetles and more prone to forest

fires.   

Figure 4. Correlation between summer vegetation greenness index (NDVI) and the Forest

Drought‐Stress Index (FDSI) (Williams, 2012).

Dr. Williams used this information, combined with historical data from tree rings, to develop

a “forest drought stress index” (Figure 4).    Low index values indicates conditions prime for

forest fires.    The index was particularly low in northern New Mexico in 2002, 2006, and

2011, all years with particularly high fire damage in this region.    New Mexico experienced

the worst fire season on record in 2011, when the Los Conchas fire burned 150,000 acres in

the Jemez Mountains.    The Pacheco fire burned about 10,000 acres in June 2011 and came

within two miles of the Santa Fe Watershed.

“By 2050, average summer

temperatures may equal those of

the worst drought years that the

Southwestern U.S. has experienced

in the past 1,000 years.”   

Dr. Park Williams   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

13

Drought‐induced forest fires are normal in New

Mexico.    For example, tree‐ring data suggest that

regionally extensive droughts in the late 1200s

and late 1500s caused increased forest fires

throughout the Southwestern U.S., also periods

for which Dr. Williams’ calculated the forest

drought severity index to be low.    However,

climate projections suggest index values will become more negative in the future.    By

about 2050, Dr. Williams predicts that forest drought stress index values for even the

wettest, coolest years will equal or exceed the values experienced during the 1200 and 1500

“mega‐droughts”, the 1950s drought, and the recent 2002, 2006 and 2011 summers.    By

2050, average conditions will equal that of the worst drought years that the Southwestern

U.S. has experienced in the past 1000 years (Figure 5).   

In the near future, forest fires are likely to become more frequent, and possibly larger

(depending on how we manage our forests).    These forest fires in turn affect the stability

of the landscape.    The more intense rainstorms that are expected are likely to increase

erosion, and cause the accumulation of ash and sediment in our rivers.    As we saw in 2011

with the severe erosion following the Los Conchas fire, these changes can prevent the use

of surface water for drinking by communities such as Santa Fe for many months.   

If climate models are correct, by

the 2050s average drought stress

will equal that of the worst

drought years that the

Southwestern U.S. has experienced

in the past 1000 years.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

14

Figure 5. Projected and historic FDSI derived from measured data (black).

Within a few decades, maintaining ecosystems as forests, rather than allowing conversion

to scrublands or grasslands, may only be possible in wetter or otherwise milder climatic

niches. Other areas will convert to non‐forest vegetation types.   

2.4 So What Next?

The projected impacts of climate change include:   

 Lower stream flows due to both less runoff and greater water use by plants;

 Diminished snowpack, and earlier snowmelt of existing snowpack;

 Drier spring seasons, with earlier peak runoff and lower peak flows;

 Drier mid‐ to late‐summers;

 More severe droughts;   

 More intense precipitation events, with an accompanying potential for more

sediment transport and erosion and for declining aquifer recharge; and

 Loss of ponderosa and mixed‐conifer forest ecosystems.

All of these impacts are primarily temperature driven, and are expected to occur even if

there are no significant changes in annual precipitation.    These impacts are virtually

certain; however, because climate modeling provides us with projections, not predictions,

we are not able to specifically predict the impacts or their timing.   

Global circulation models are mathematical representations of our best understanding of

the critical processes that drive our climate. The models are run for a series of
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

15

greenhouse‐gas emissions scenarios that we think are plausible potential futures. The result

is a range of model outputs that we hope capture the conditions we are likely to experience

in the future.    However, since the future greenhouse‐gas emissions will be determined by

human and societal behavior, we cannot say with certainty where, within that range we will

fall.    Nor can we say whether we have captured the full range of possible futures.

So, we are left with irresolvable uncertainty.    And, because much of this uncertainty is

dependent on which future pathway humanity chooses, we will be unable to fully resolve it.   

However, the level of uncertainty around climate is no greater than uncertainty around

population projections, economic forecasts, and technological changes, and yet we regularly

conduct planning dependent on those variables.    We have enough information about

future climate to begin planning for and addressing it.

Bill deBuys describes the temptation to sink into despair when faced with the reality of

climate change in the Southwest.    In deBuys’ book A Great Aridness (deBuys, 2011) he

describes the work of numerous researchers and their study of the impacts of climate

change that are already being felt in the Southwest. He says that we may already be in a

mega drought, and can only know after several decades have passed, and:

“In a way, our decisions for the future should be the same, no matter whether we are a few

years inside a mega drought or lucky enough to have decades of relative abundance ahead

of us. Deep, crushing

cycles of drought are

part of the natural

history of the

Southwest and, for all

practical purposes,

they always have

been. Building

resilience against

drought into the

region’s water

systems and cultural

practices would be a

wise course,

irrespective of the

cause or timing of the next emergency. Perhaps the dangers now arising from
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

16

anthropogenic climate change will goad us into doing the things we should have been doing

all along... to strive for resilience,‐‐the capacity of an ecosystem to experience disturbance

without losing its essential character and becoming something else.    It stands to reason

that a grassland with a diversity of grasses‐‐some that flourish with fourteen inches of rain,

some that prosper with just eight‐‐will fare better through fluctuating conditions than will a

monoculture of a single species.”

“There is only the age‐old duty to extend kindness to other beings, to work together and

with discipline on common challenges, and to learn to live in the marvelous aridlands

without further spoiling them.”

3 Public Participation   

The daylong workshop generated an inspiring amount of interest and engagement from a

broad cross‐section of community members. Within 24 hours of the workshop

announcement, registration was half‐full, and it was full, with a waiting list, a week before

the event.    Event attendance was capped at 120 participants, to ensure that all attendees

could be engaged in and actively contribute to small‐group breakout discussions and

large‐group conversations. Participants were from a wide range of backgrounds, with 40

percent from state, tribal, federal and local governments, 26 percent from non‐profit

organizations, and the remainder private citizens or environmental consultants.    The

participant list is included as Appendix B.   

3.1 Engagement & Small‐Group Discussion

The community in Santa Fe has thought extensively about both water and climate change.

Most attendees came to the workshop with at least some background knowledge about

climate change, potential climate change impacts, and possible responses.    They also came

with prior knowledge and concerns about water, water demands, and potential solutions

for current water issues.    Workshop organizers capitalized on this expertise and

experience, setting an ambitious agenda for the day.

The workshop asked a lot of participants: to learn new technical information; to work in

small groups along with people they did not know; to break water basin management down

into components that were unfamiliar; and then, to collaborate to identify and prioritize

possible solutions. Attendees’ ongoing engagement throughout the day indicated

commitment, interest and concern about the issues of water management and climate

change.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

17

The day began with a

series of presentations

about climate change,

ranging from the

big‐picture projections of

impacts to Santa Fe, to a

fairly technical picture of

how climate change could

impact local forest

ecosystems that illustrated

how climate science is

conducted, to a broad

overview of the social

ramifications and ways

that we, as individuals,

might choose to engage with what is perhaps humanity’s greatest challenge.

Following the early‐morning plenary presentations, participants chose themed breakout

groups in which to participate. There were two sessions of small group conversation: in the

first, participants chose between breakout groups themed around water or ecology; in the

second, participants chose between land use; quality of life and agriculture; and food

security. Themes were intentionally broad to allow participants to explore the issues they

found most relevant.    Within the breakout groups, participants were further divided into

tables of about 10.    Table groups were asked to work together to identify key systems of

interest, current vulnerabilities of those systems, how vulnerabilities would be intensified or

change in response to climate change, and key thresholds at which, under the strain of

climate change, those systems would be stressed to a point of lasting damage.    Because

attendees came from diverse professional and personal backgrounds, they came with a

variety of interests, agendas and expectations of the event. The small‐group conversation

offered an opportunity for participants to speak to what their own interests were, and to

listen to the particular interests that others brought to the table. Through the opportunities

in small‐group conversation, participants quickly identified that there were many, and

diverse, competing interests and agendas for water management. The comprehensive

experience of the small groups exposed the challenges inherent in reducing complex

systems to their component parts.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

18

The breakout groups demonstrated an impressive capacity to engage in high‐level mapping

of water management as a complex, adaptive system.    Conversations in break‐out groups

repeatedly highlighted that important systems are interrelated and that a reductionist

approach, identifying singular points of action without taking into account holistic

interactions, would be doomed to fail.    The groups expressed an expectation that resilient

water management be holistic, and indicated the capacity of the community to collaborate

and learn.   

Two themes came clearly through

the reflection on systems: that

comprehensive, holistic

approaches to watershed

management are essential; and

that social, cultural and political

change is critical to achieving the

physical system changes that are

needed.    Workshop participants

were clearly comfortable with the

idea that change will need to be facilitated at individual, group, and community scales and

encompass both behavioral changes and learning.    Participants were enthusiastic and

supportive of suggested solutions that hinged on innovative learning, the growth of Santa

Fe as a community, and a change in the community's relationship to water.   

3.2 Generation and Prioritization of Solutions

Following two rounds of themed breakout sessions, the workshop closed with a plenary

session in which participants were asked to discuss solutions and identify priority actions.   

Attendees enthusiastically offered a wide and creative range of approaches to diverse

problems associated with water management.    The more readily actionable solutions are

presented and discussed in Section 5; the full list of proposed activities is included as

Appendix D.   

During this brainstorming and prioritization of solutions, it became clear that there is a lot

of work already underway at different levels in the community around climate change,

sustainability, resilience and water.    Much could be accomplished through collaboration

and communication between these efforts, and any that grow out of the workshop, to

develop and share emerging solutions.    Chapter 5 describes potential solutions that were

suggested in the workshop, along with efforts that are already underway.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

19

Overall, the workshop demonstrated that there is great energy and potential for sustainable

change in the Santa Fe community.    A common interest was expressed in working toward

a future that reflects that sustainability, along with an understanding that getting there will

require collaboration, education, and ongoing engagement.   

3.3 Workshop Follow‐up

Responses from one‐on‐one conversations during the workshop, from workshop evaluation

forms, and from emailed feedback from participants paints a picture of a community with

core capacities for managing change and a willingness to engage the challenges of the

future. Throughout the workshop, participants willingly learned from each other. Many

participants offered feedback that they had a better understanding of the complexity

involved in engaging different perspectives and managing competing agendas than they did

at the beginning of the day.    From the presentations in the morning, participants shared

that they enhanced their understanding of the urgency, and imminent reality of the drastic

changes in the environment that are likely to result from changing climate. Though the day

was challenging, by the end of the day people also expressed the strength of their

convictions and commitment to continue to work towards greater resilience for the

watershed, and shared the sense that everyone was in it together.    Participants wanted to

learn what others were doing, what projects are underway or planned for implementation,

and what opportunities for engagement and learning are being generated.

   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

20

4 Systems and their Vulnerabilities

The Santa Fe Watershed consists of multiple small, basin‐scale systems embedded within a

larger, regional system.    In the workshop, we asked participants to share and explore

systems of interest and/or concern to them.    This section summarizes and expands on the

systems explored at the workshop.

While this discussion segregates the various

physical, biological and socio‐economic systems

within the Santa Fe Watershed these systems are

interconnected and are part of a complex whole.   

This disaggregation allows for examination of the

aspects of climate change that will prove

challenging or threatening to each system.    This,

in turn, allows for better anticipation of the timing

and nature of the impacts that will need to be addressed.    Re‐aggregation then allows us

to combine activities that can benefit multiple systems simultaneously, reducing the

vulnerability of one system by reducing the

vulnerabilities of associated systems.   

Vulnerability to climate change is defined by

the IPCC as “the degree to which geophysical,

biological and socio‐economic systems are susceptible to and unable to cope with, adverse

impacts of climate change” (Pg. 783 of IPCC, chapter 19, Schneider et al., 2007).    The

purpose of defining the vulnerabilities is to assess how to make each system less vulnerable

and thus, more resilient.   

The following discussion of systems, though extensive, is not comprehensive.

4.1 Water Supply Systems

Water supply systems include surface and groundwater sources and the human demand for

water.    There are also water supply implications for ecosystems; these are discussed in

section 4.2.

4.1.1 Surface Water

The Santa Fe River, which supplies surface water for Santa Fe and Santa Fe Basin acequias, is

Systems Include:   

Infrastructure: food supply, water

supply, transportation, energy,

shelter, communication, health,

education, finance   

Ecosystems: agricultural land,

parks, wetlands, rivers, range land,

forests.

Vulnerability – the underlying

fragility or weakness in a system that

leaves it open to harm or damage   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

21

vulnerable to several aspects of climate change.    First, the availability of water could be

greatly compromised if the forest in the upper watershed experienced a high‐intensity fire;

as explained by Park Williams at the workshop, the risk of catastrophic fire increases with

the projected drier climate.    As observed in other parts of the Rocky Mountains and Jemez

Mountains, a severe thunderstorm following a catastrophic fire could result in debris flows;

sediment accumulation in the municipal reservoirs, and flooding of the downstream valley

(e.g. downtown Santa Fe). Sediment and ash in the runoff could compromise the operation

of the water treatment plant.   

Second, increasing temperatures will decrease the amount of available water because of

increasing evaporation and increasing water use by plants, which will result in decreasing

runoff and decreasing groundwater recharge.    Cox et al. (2011) estimates that the average

yield of the Santa Fe River into McClure reservoir will decrease by 11 to 18 percent by 2060

below the historic average from 1950‐1999.

Third, also as a result of increasing temperatures, an increasing percentage of winter

precipitation is projected to fall as rain, rather than snow, reducing snowpack water

volume.    Remaining snowpack is projected to melt earlier, potentially impairing Santa Fe's

capacity to store the runoff for use at a later time, if inflow comes off too fast and exceeds

the capacity of the reservoirs.    Santa Fe's water rights are greater than the storage

capacity of the reservoirs and the ability to divert the city's water right is dependent on

both stored water and inflowing water.    If more of the annual runoff occurs over a shorter

time period (i.e. a few weeks) the reservoirs could fill and spill. This could be followed by

very little inflow to the reservoirs from the Santa Fe River the remainder of the year.   

Like the Santa Fe River, the Rio Grande and Reclamation’s San Juan‐Chama Project water

systems are vulnerable to fire, reduced flow, reduced snowpack, and earlier snow melt.   

They are susceptible to water‐quality degradation from intense thunderstorms that carry

nutrients, sediments, pathogens and toxins into the Rio Grande from Los Alamos National

Laboratories and other communities upstream. Increased temperatures will affect the

self‐purification capacity of these rivers by reducing the amount of oxygen that can be

dissolved and used for biodegradation, also impacting aquatic life. Increased precipitation

event intensity can trigger flash flood events and escalate erosion.

All of the city and county's surface water sources, including the Santa Fe River, the Rio

Grande and Reclamation's San Juan‐Cham project, are subject to interstate compacts.    In

particular, Santa Fe’s right to store water is limited when New Mexico is under Article VII

restrictions under the Rio Grande Compact, which occurs when supplies for Reclamation’s
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

22

Rio Grande Project (the irrigation project downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir) falls

below specified thresholds.    Under the Compact terms, the City can divert water at a rate

equal to the inflow to McClure Reservoir until reservoir storage reaches the pre‐compact

rights of 1,061 ac‐ft.    Subsequent stream flow must either be diverted by the City of Santa

Fe, by‐passed or “purchased” by exchange.    Climate Change projections suggest that

Article VII of the Compact will be in effect much more frequently under future, drier

conditions.    Theoretically, Santa Fe County's rights to native water of the Rio Grande could

be curtailed to support deliveries under the Rio Grande Compact, although this has not yet

happened.    San Juan Chama waters supply can be curtailed if the supply is insufficient, or if

the supply is constrained under the Colorado River Compact.

4.1.2 Groundwater Supply

The vulnerability of groundwater supply is less well understood than surface water

vulnerabilities because the mechanisms and timing of recharge are more difficult to

quantify.    Climate change projections suggest future precipitation may be delivered in

fewer, more intense events giving the above‐ground flow less time to infiltrate into the

aquifer.    Groundwater recharge generated from snowmelt will also likely be reduced as a

result of a smaller snowpack area and shorter melt season.    Both factors would contribute

to a lowering of the water table and a reduction of water storage in the aquifers in the

Santa Fe watershed.   

4.1.3 Water Use

Water use for all human sectors is expected to increase with higher temperatures – from a

greater need for irrigation (unless different crop types and irrigation techniques are

implemented) to greater demand for domestic and commercial, urban and rural uses.   

Outdoor watering and use of swamp coolers will likely increase with higher temperatures.   

Cooling demands for power plants, industry, and businesses will increase.    Parks and green

spaces within the city will require more water, unless vegetation types are transitioned or

replaced.    Even artificial turf, which has been installed for over a decade in many city parks

and schools, may require water to reduce the heat of the surface.

   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

23

4.2 Ecosystems

Climate change will pose increased or new stresses for virtually all Santa Fe Basin

ecosystems (Figure 6).    The Santa Fe Watershed ecosystems and habitat are controlled

most significantly by elevation and water availability. From the alpine conditions above tree

line at 12,400 ft. elevation to the wetlands where the Santa Fe River discharges to the Rio

Grande (5200 ft.) all systems are predicted to be subjected to the predicted climate

changes.    Further detail is provided in the following subsections on possible impacts on

specific ecosystems, including forest habitat, grassland habitat, riparian habitat, aquatic

habitat, and wildlife habitat.    The Nature Conservancy (Robles and Enquist, 2011) rated the

Middle Rio Grande Watershed, which includes the Santa Fe Watershed, as “most

vulnerable” based on the predicted temperature increase and the number of species of

concern.

Figure 6. Habitats in the Santa Fe Watershed (TNC, 2012)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

24

4.2.1 Forest Habitat

The Santa Fe watershed forests at the higher elevations are composed of Douglas fir and

aspen, mixed‐conifer zones, which progress to ponderosa pine and Gambles oak at about

10,000 feet, and then to piñon pine and juniper at the elevations below about 7,500 feet    .

Forest habitat is vulnerable to both decreases in cold‐season precipitation and increases in

warm‐season vapor pressure deficit (Williams, 2012; see section 2.2.1).    Stress from either

of these factors leave forests increasingly susceptible to insects and forest fires.    At the

same time, increased minimum temperatures increase insect survivability and increased

maximum temperatures increase fire risk.    Even relatively healthy sections of forest may

be impacted or lost to catastrophic fires started in other areas.    Conifer woodlands are

projected to decrease from a total area of 10 percent to 1 percent in the Middle Rio Grande

Valley by 2030 (Click et al., 2011).

4.2.2 Grassland habitat

At elevations below about 6,500 feet, the non‐developed land transitions from

piñon‐juniper savanna to native grasslands with nutrient‐rich grasses of blue gramma and

ring muhly.    Increased temperatures will favor grassland habitat pests and invasive

species, which have a high

germination rate and start growing

before native grasses. These

non‐native grasses will quickly

out‐compete native perennial

vegetation, which will put native

grasslands at higher risk.    Decreases

in soil moisture and increases in

plant water use will stress grasses,

leading to subsequent die‐off and

contributing to erosion. The resulting

topsoil losses may lead to further grassland degradation, creating a negative feedback loop.   

Grassland degradation would result in a transition from native, nutrient‐rich grasses to

invasive species such as cheat grass and buffel grass, which lack the nutrients needed by

native wildlife.    Semi‐desert grasslands are predicted to decline from 38 percent to 25

percent with a complete loss of plains grasslands by 2030 (Glick et al., 2011).

4.2.3 Riparian Habitat

Riparian habitats occur along streams and areas beyond the channel confines where
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

25

flooding occurs, and includes perennial and ephemeral reaches. The riparian habitats thrive

in the perennial reaches of the Santa Fe River above Nichols reservoir and below the

wastewater treatment plant, and in Arroyo Hondo upstream of the intersection with I‐25

(Figure 1).    The riparian habitat is vital to many species, including beaver, migratory birds,

the listed endangered species southwestern willow flycatcher, and the northern leopard

frog, which is designated as a sensitive species under the Endangered Species Act.   

Riparian habitat along intermittent reaches of streams is vulnerable to vegetation loss from

droughts and longer‐term reduction in overall stream flow.    Intense runoff events may

rework the riparian channel, leading to down‐cutting and incision and/or deposition of

sediment.    The riparian habitat around the springs at La Cienega could be impacted by a

reduction in groundwater recharge, which, along with continued pumping of the aquifer,

could reduce the flow into and the area of wetlands.

The riparian habitat along ephemeral reaches is vulnerable to climate change. Increased

runoff volumes will have a scouring effect on ephemeral streams, leading to increased bank

erosion and channel degradation. The increasing frequency and force of bank erosion and

overbank flows will threaten adjacent property and infrastructure, undermining trails, wells,

roads, bridges, fences, and buildings. Intermittent dry spells will lead to the die back of

plants along ephemeral streams, causing soils on banks and terraces to be more susceptible

to erosion. As a result, heavy flows will transport more sediment and deposit sediment in

flat and wide channel section or upstream from bridges and other obstacles in the channels.

Altered sedimentation patterns will most likely exacerbate bank erosion and undermining of

structures adjacent to sediment plugs. There will be an increasing need to update FEMA

maps that indicate flood prone areas and flood risks to structures, even for ephemeral

streams.    

4.2.4 Aquatic Habitat

The aquatic habitat in the Santa Fe watershed includes the cold‐water fishery in the reach

above Nichols reservoir, where Rio Grande cutthroat trout and rainbow trout enjoy a nearly

pristine habitat. The 12.7‐mile reach below the wastewater treatment plant is designated as

a marginal cold‐water fishery and warm‐water fishery, which provides habitat for the Rio

Grande sucker, a listed sensitive species (BLM, 2010). Aquatic habitat is highly sensitive to

water supply and quality, but also to temperature.    The thresholds for aquatic habitat are

defined as “warm water fisheries” or “cold water fisheries” because of the species

supported by these habitats.    Water temperatures above 20 o

C (68 oF) impair the quality of
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

26

a cold‐water fishery, making it unsuitable for many of the native trout; thus aquatic habitat

will be directly impacted by increased temperatures.

4.2.5 Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife, such as bears, mountain lions, elk, deer, beaver, squirrels, rabbits, hares, foxes,

bobcats, antelope and a wide variety of birds, are abundant in the Santa Fe watershed.

Wildlife habitat, which includes the forest, riparian, and aquatic habitats, will become

increasingly stressed as water and food supplies diminish. As temperatures rise, the number

of hours in a day when a species may be active will likely be reduced, thereby reducing their

ability to forage and hunt.    If habitat area diminishes due to vegetation loss and ecosystem

degradation as a result of warmer temperatures and human activities, migration pathways

(i.e. the connections between habitats) become smaller, placing an additional burden on

animals already stressed by development and highways.    Piñon Jays nest mainly in stands

of piñon‐juniper and their population trend in the Santa Fe National Forest is downward

due to the wide‐scale loss of piñon associated with drought and Ips beetle infestation (BLM,

2010). Some animals, such as the Abert’s squirrel in the upper Santa Fe Watershed, live in

forests with ponderosa pine trees, which serve as their sole source of food; a drastic

reduction of ponderosa forests would therefore have a big impact on the Abert’s squirrel.   

Species reliant on non‐forest ecosystems may prosper, however.    For instance, reduced

snow pack could allow elk to forage at elevations they were previously unable to reach,

though because elk eat woody plants; their access to new areas could cut into nesting

habitat for birds that rely on deciduous environments (Hagner, 2012).   

An assessment of the Middle Rio Grande valley found that five out of nine of the amphibian

species are vulnerable to climate change (Glick et al., 2011).    They also identified the

southwestern willow flycatcher, the western yellow‐billed cuckoo and the common

yellowthroat, birds that depend on riparian habitat, to be among the most vulnerable to

climate change. Of the 36 mammals assessed, they found that five are the most vulnerable:

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, beaver, woodrat, hoary bat and black bear because

of their reliance on riparian areas, dense vegetation or specific vegetation.    The jackrabbit

and desert shrew populations are expected to increase due to expansion of their habitats.

Clearly, there are opportunities for some wildlife species and drawbacks for others.   

Whether any particular species thrives or declines will depend on the specific habitat needs

of the species and the impact of climate change on the habitat, food chain or ecosystem

upon which the species depends.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

27

4.3 Agriculture and Food Security   

Agriculture in the Santa Fe watershed includes 720 acres (Longworth et al., 2008) most of

which are in the La Cienega area, with a few small farms located throughout the urban area.   

The vast majority of food is imported rendering high food security vulnerability. There is a

growing regional emphasis on shifting the community's dependence on the global food

market to more local supplies.    Impacts to local agriculture and food security are growing

concerns as climate change is projected to reduce water supply and effect additional

stresses (environmental and economic) to the crops and livestock.   

4.3.1 Acequias and Farming

Acequias and farming in the Santa Fe watershed are vulnerable to many aspects of

projected climate change.    First, climate change is expected to increase water stress on

crops.    The projected earlier snowmelt may result in the majority of runoff occurring

before peak growing season. Then, during the peak growing season, when less water is

available, increased temperatures will increase crop water demand.    Currently, most of

the agriculture within the Santa Fe River Watershed is spring fed or supplied by treated City

of Santa Fe effluent from the municipal wastewater plant.    Agriculture that is currently

spring fed may not be adequately supplied if groundwater recharge rates are reduced due

to changes in precipitation and temperature. The four acequias in the urban area benefit

from the storage capacity of the city’s two reservoirs.

Second, increased weather variability during the growing season will stress crops.   

Projected increased thunderstorm intensity, amplify the risk of higher winds, larger hail, and

more flooding to crop production. The projected larger diurnal temperature fluctuations

may make growing crops more difficult.   

Third, the growing urban demand for water has already resulted in the transfer of water

rights from agriculture to other uses in the Santa Fe watershed. The increased difficulty of

crop viability described above will likely place additional pressure on farmers to sell their

water rights. This transfer of additional water rights to urban or domestic use may threaten

the long‐term viability of small scale, acequia agriculture.

And fourth, genetically engineered crops, now prevalent in the basin, may be maladaptive.

“Genetic engineering and biotechnology have developed strains of crops with improved

yield and/or pest and weed resistance under current climatic conditions, but it is unclear

whether they will prove as resilient as native seeds to climatic extremes the future may

bring.    Cross‐pollination of the genetically engineered crops with native crops is

threatening seed sovereignty for farmers in the region, who believe native seeds can
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

28

tolerate drought much better (Ralph Vigil, personal communication at workshop).   

Additionally, pesticide‐resistant "super bugs” and herbicide‐resistant “super weeds”, which

have evolved in response to the genetically engineered crops, will place additional stress on

the crops.

It is possible climate change will benefit some crops in the short term.    Increased

temperatures could improve growing conditions for crops at the cold‐limit of their range,

and increased CO2 could increase growth rates for some crop types.    However, if “business

as usual” climate change progresses beyond the next few decades, most studies suggest

these short‐term benefits will be overwhelmed by new or intensified existing stressors

discussed above.   

4.3.2 Ranching

In the Santa Fe watershed, ranching is primarily focused on the high desert plains of the

Caja del Rio mesa and in the grasslands northwest of the City. Ranching will likely

experience reduced grassland quality due to increased water use by the plants on which the

livestock depends, and increased frequency and severity of drought.    This will reduce the

carrying capacity of the land.    Longer, drier summers will also limit natural filling of stock

ponds and speed stock‐pond drying.    More extreme winter and spring weather could

increase calf mortality.    Hotter, drier summers may increase cattle heat stress, which could

increase mortality and/or reduce growth rates.

4.3.3 Food Security

Currently, and at first glance, Santa Fe’s overall food supply is not particularly vulnerable to

local climate change due to its very limited local production.    Only a small percentage of

the food consumed in Santa Fe is grown within a 200‐mile radius.    Without a detailed

mapping of the origins of the majority of locally‐consumed food, it is difficult to identify the

food security risk climate change poses for the Santa Fe Basin.    An increased commitment

to local food production may increase the basin’s overall water demand, thus shifting a

benefit in the food system to vulnerability in the water supply system.

4.4 Land Use and Quality of Life   

Human activities and enjoyment of living in the Santa Fe Watershed are at risk of

impairment by climate change.    Thoughtful decisions and actions will need to be taken to

maintain and improve quality of life.

4.4.1 Recreation

Recreational activities dependent on the lands and waters in and around the Santa Fe
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

29

watershed will be impacted by climate change.    The ski season will be reduced, and

eventually may be too short for ski resorts to be viable.    Rafting on rivers near our basin

will be impacted in part depending on how reservoir operation and storage are handled in

the future; rafting during peak‐flow season will shift earlier in the year, and potentially for

shorter periods of time. Changes to water quality and water temperatures will impact

aquatic species mortality and morbidity, potentially impacting recreational fishing

opportunities. The hunting season will be impacted as species shift and are stressed by

changes to forest ecosystems. Wildfires or the threat of fires may increasingly impact hiking

trails and campgrounds.

However, the projected changes may have some recreational benefits.    For example,

warmer winter temperatures may increase winter visits to parks, improve winter camping

conditions, and expand the opportunity for cool‐season rafting.   

4.4.2 Landscaping and Parks

Landscaping and parks will be vulnerable to increased temperatures and will require more

water.    Water shortages may result in limits to outdoor watering. With warming

temperatures, the parks may be used for more days of the year.    Perhaps Santa Fe is less

vulnerable because of its leadership in low‐water intensity parks and green spaces; this may

prove to be a skill‐set that can be exported to other communities both in‐ and out‐of‐state.   

4.4.3 Air Quality

Air quality may be impaired by wildfire, drought, and higher winds associated with more

intense storms, which accelerate the distribution of smoke, dust, pollen and other

particulates.    Heat also tends to intensify the impacts of urban air quality contamination

(Patricia Romero‐Lankao, NCAR).    Reduced air quality may result in increased allergic and

respiratory issues for local citizens.   

4.4.4 Streetscapes and Urban Habitat

Streetscapes and urban habitat are vulnerable to the projected increase in storm intensity

and higher temperatures.    More intense storms may result in short‐term urban flooding,

with impacts to commons areas, homes, businesses and transportation routes.    Higher

temperatures, particularly summer heat waves and increases in nighttime high

temperatures, may place increased stress on urban dwellers, particularly the elderly, infirm,

and infants, and on urban vegetation.    Increased temperatures will also place greater

stress on streets and pavement, resulting in the buckling and cracking of concrete and/or

blacktop surfaces during heat waves. Decreases in urban vegetation in response to potential
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

30

water limitations may increase the city heat‐island effect.    The effect could be mitigated,

to some degree, through the planting of shade trees.    But if these are not low‐water‐use

trees, this planting may increase overall water use.   

4.5 Energy Systems

Santa Fe is powered primarily by electrical power and natural gas, and in rural parts of the

County, propane and rural electric cooperatives.    New Mexico Gas Company provides the

natural gas.    Electrical power is primarily supplied by the Public Service Company of NM

(PNM), who generates and purchases power from a mix of sources (EPA, 2012)   

 Coal‐fired power plants ‐ 38.6 percent;

 Natural gas powered plants – 35.7 percent,   

 Nuclear power ‐ 16.5 percent;

 Hydropower ‐ 6.1 percent; and   

 Renewables (solar and wind) ‐ 3.1 percent.

4.5.1 Power Generation

With the exception of wind and solar power, the electrical power sources listed above

requires some amount of water for their functioning, either for cooling or turbine driving.   

Water demands for thermal power plants (e.g. coal and natural gas‐fired) increase with

increasing air and water temperatures.    Increases in ash or sediment in water supplies may

also impact generation capacity and potentially lead to increasing energy costs.   

Hydropower generation is particularly susceptible to climate impacts to water availability.   

In particular, the City’s 93 kW turbine‐generator unit powers the treated water distribution.

Power generation will be reduced if less surface water is available. Local solar power

production could be impacted by smoke and dust accumulation on panels during forest fires

and drought. Solar power generation efficiency is reduced as temperature increases. Local

power production and energy availability will also be impacted by climate events distant

from New Mexico. For example, coastal storms coupled with sea level rise will increasingly

disrupt offshore extraction and coastal refining of fuel, reducing power plant and

automotive fuel availability and increasing prices.

4.5.2 Energy Consumption

Consumption of energy is affected by temperature changes.    Across the U.S., projected

temperature increases will increase warm‐season cooling demand (from 8 to 35%) and

decrease cool‐season heating demand (5 to 35%) (U.S. Climate Change Science Program,

2008).    In the Santa Fe Basin, where a majority of warm‐season cooling is via evaporative
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

31

coolers or non‐existent, increased cooling demand will increase both household water and

electricity consumption.

4.5.3 Power Transmission

Power transmission can be impacted by extreme low‐temperature events, intense

precipitation, and wildfires.    In February 2011, very low temperatures (‐20 o

F) dramatically

increased gas and electrical demand in New Mexico and Texas.    Simultaneously, the

increased electrical demand exceeded supply, triggering rolling brown‐outs that shut down

natural gas compressor stations, disrupting gas transmission (Aaboe, 2012).    In summer

2011, a Lubbock, Texas gas well‐field lost power for two weeks when a wildfire burned the

power lines.

High temperatures can impact pipelines handling supercritical fluids, and electrical reliability

can be affected by high soil temperatures and soil dryness (U.S. Climate Change Science

Program, 2008).    Infrastructure, particularly pipelines, can be impacted by intense

precipitation events, cold‐extremes causing unexpected freezing, and heat and drought

extremes causing cracking and buckling of soil and pipes. While Santa Fe basin may not

contain all of the impacted infrastructure, effects elsewhere will likely propagate into the

power‐supply grid within the region.

4.6 Transportation Systems

Climate change will impact ground and air transportation through increased temperatures,

high winds, intense rains, smoke and dust, resulting from increased droughts, dust storms

and wildfires.    Bridges and culverts are generally designed for threshold flood events; flood

events exceeding those design specifications will result in flooding and possible

infrastructure damage.    Similarly, thermal expansion of expansion joints in bridges, paved

surfaces, runways and railroad and light rail rails may exceed design specifications with

increased warming, causing buckling.    Increasing dust storms during droughts and/or with

high wind events, and smoke due to wildfires, may dramatically impair visibility.    Fuel

usage in cars is also increased, by 12% at highway speeds, with the use of air‐conditioners.

Increasing temperatures also impact air transportation uniquely: warmer air is less dense,

requiring longer runways, more speed, and more fuel to lift planes off the ground (TRB,

2008).    For some airports, this could eventually require longer runways or limit the usage

of larger planes to cooler seasons.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

32

4.7 Economic Systems

Climate change will pose interesting new demands on existing economic systems.   

Whether these demands are vulnerabilities or opportunities will depend on how we

respond to them, and will vary for different economic sectors.    For example, sectors that

will see new challenges include insurance and tourism.    The insurance sector has been

very proactive to date around the changing risk‐frequencies of damaging events.    This has

led to increases in premiums as well as refusals to provide insurance in areas where risks

are increasing, such as for homes in areas of increased wildfire risk or in floodplains.    Such

limitations to insurance coverage may become even more widespread in the future.

Tourism will be heavily influenced by global and national economics and by local

recreational opportunities (see Section 4.4.1).    Global and national economics, and

consequently tourist travel and spending, will be impacted by politics as well as climate

change, and are therefore even more uncertain that climate change alone.    The tourism

sector is probably best advised to broaden its client base, tourism activities, and seasons to

build resilience.

More broadly, local businesses may see increasing energy and cooling costs, and may be

impacted by flooding and air quality concerns.    Local households will also see these

impacts, as well as increased food costs as both global and national agriculture will be

impacted by changing climate coupled with increasing global energy costs and growing

global population.    Local households and businesses could also be impacted if climate

change and water scarcity leads to reduced property values due to reduction in quality of

life, though increases in growth management to address limited water supply could just as

likely boost property values.

4.8 Sociological (body politic/community)

Government, community, and cultural institutions may become stressed while facing the

challenges posed by climate change. Some institutions will be able to evolve to deal with

fluctuating climate conditions and societal expectations around climate; others will not.

Citizens expect their governments, whether local or national, to provide certain services,

serve particular functions, create and modify laws, and enforce particular visions of

“society”. Within much of the U.S., local governments are expected to maintain critical

infrastructure like road networks or parks, and to provide the framework within which

utilities or other companies can provide services. As described earlier, increased

temperatures and greater precipitation variability will stress Santa Fe’s infrastructure. If the
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

33

frequency of infrastructure disruption and destruction increases, the local government

might find its ability to repair infrastructure in a timely manner greatly compromised.   

Additionally, local governments are expected to make land use decisions and develop and

enforce building codes. Santa Fe’s local governments may need to grapple with balancing

resource supply with increasing urban development. How the policy makers handle growth

in the next 10‐20 years will greatly influence how vulnerable the watershed might be to

various aspects of climate change.

Governments are also in charge of managing and adjudicating property rights – in the

Southwest, water is one of the most highly contested types of property. As climate

variability and change alter the Santa Fe Basin hydrology, and economic preferences shift

between agriculture, ranching, and urban demands, existing water rights systems may no

longer be appropriate. Water rights and associated supporting legal structures will become

more contentious in the future, challenging the ability of governments to adjudicate and

balance demands.   

Beyond water rights and land use/ infrastructure decisions, many local and state

governments are also charged with emergency management and response during and after

disasters. Wildfires, such as the 2011 Las Conchas fire, or extreme weather events can

quickly overwhelm the capacity of local governments to respond and deal with the

aftermath. National governments are increasingly being called upon to provide monetary,

personnel, and equipment resources to local and state governments during and

post‐disaster. As discussed earlier, climate change is likely to increase both the frequency

and intensity of certain types of hazards for New Mexico, particularly wildfires and drought.   

Cultural and community institutions may also be impacted by the projected increases in

temperature and precipitation variability. New Mexico and Santa Fe are home to varied

communities with many rich cultural traditions, – from the traditional acequia‐grounded

agricultural communities, to the diverse Pueblos. The identities and cultural traditions of

such communities have historically been linked to water, seasons, and associated cropping

cycles. Reductions in water supply and changes in crop viability associated with climate

change will alter cultural identities and community institutions throughout the Southwest,

potentially leading to the collapse of small farming communities. Many communities’

identities and traditions are evolving already due to changing economic and demographic

conditions; climate change has the potential to exacerbate changes to such institutions.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

34

5 Potential Solutions and Current Actions   

Santa Fe Watershed stakeholders have been very active in efforts to create a more resilient

community and watershed for many years.    Under the historical climate, the watershed

has periodically faced drought, water quality impairment, erosion and down‐cutting of the

river from urban development, and massive piñon pine die‐offs (in 1950 and again in 2002),

all of which are projected to increase in frequency and/or severity with climate change   

(Williams, et al., 2010).    Likewise, the risk of

wildfire has become very clear as residents

of the Santa Fe Watershed have witnessed

catastrophic fires to the west in 1996 (Dome

Fire), 2000 (Cerro Grande Fire) and the

Conchas Fire, which burned over 150,000 acres in 2011.    Because of this history and

experience of dealing with drought, pests and catastrophic forest fires, Santa Feans have

been working to make the watershed more resilient.   

Workshop participants eagerly shared their thoughts and ideas on actions that local

governments and citizens could take to create a more resilient Santa Fe watershed.    A long

list of potential solutions to the projected of impacts of climate changes was identified from

the workshop (Appendix D), as well as a long list of actions that is already well underway.

We have sifted through those ideas to consolidate the suggestions and summarize what is

being or has been done and what remains to be implemented.    In this way we can provide

clear guidance for the next steps for improving the resilience of the various systems.   

We use “resilience” to mean the ability to absorb disturbances (including climate variability

and extremes), to change or adjust, and then to re‐organize and still have the same basic

structure and ways of functioning OR to anticipate and elegantly move to a new way of

functioning. Resilient systems are flexible, modular, and, if they fail, can fail safely.    Thus,

our goal is not simply to predict specific effects of climate change and address them one by

one, but to strengthen the entire watershed, its component systems, and its inhabitants in

ways that provide more flexibility in the face of an uncertain future. Further, we want to do

this in ways that build on current efforts and concerns, so that the Santa Fe Basin continues

to build more resilient systems in ways that respond to today’s climate, but that will also be

resilient in the future.

In people, resilience also includes

responsiveness, resourcefulness,

and the capacity to learn.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

35

The following proposed solutions are organized in the order of the systems discussed in

Section 4, where appropriate.    However, no solutions were proposed for the

transportation or economic systems (perhaps because climate change is not predicted to

have a significant impact on these sectors) and some of the proposed solutions either

overlap with multiple systems (i.e. education) and we have presented those at the end of

this section.    We present the proposed solutions (represented with an arrow) followed

with a summary of the current actions that are already underway (represented with an

open bullet or discussion).

5.1 Water Supply Systems

Actions proposed for water supply systems were focused on water management strategies

and demand reduction.

5.1.1 Water Management

Water management is a top priority for addressing the impacts of climate change. Here is

what the workshop participants stressed:

 Negotiate agriculture‐to‐urban water transfers of limited term, to be implemented

in times of drought or other emergency.

 Limit domestic well use and permits for residential and commercial groundwater

pumping.

 Complete Santa Fe River Adjudication of water rights.

 Promote aquifer recharge/develop infrastructure and programs for aquifer storage

and recovery: using excess surface water rights‐or runoff that cannot be captured in

the upstream reservoirs.

 Create task force to preserve/protect water freed up by conservation.

Conjunctive use strategies, which optimize the balance between groundwater and

surface‐water use, have been adopted by Santa Fe County and the City of Santa Fe. These

strategies seek to maximize the use of renewable surface water when it is available, and

save groundwater resources for use in times of drought. The Santa Fe County Conjunctive

Management Plan for the Santa Fe Basin, adopted in 2009 (Ross, et al, 2009), created a

policy with the benefits of 1) protecting local water resources, 2) enhancing the reliability of

supply, 3) protects acequia water rights, 4) optimizes public asset through a multi‐year

Conjunctive Use Plans in Place:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

36

rolling average for groundwater use, that reduce the number of local groundwater rights

needed by the County, 5) reduced impact to other water rights holders by shifting the

predominant source of supply from local groundwater to Rio Grande surface supplies, and

6) reducing depletions to springs and the Santa Fe River.

To address potential contamination from storm water entering the Rio Grande, an early

warning system for contaminants has been coupled to an auto shutoff of Buckman Direct

Diversion. The City and County have the Buckman wellfield as a backup supply to use when

the surface water is not available due to drought or contamination.   

The City of Santa Fe passed an ordinance to prohibit new domestic wells within 300 feet of

an existing water line and the State of New Mexico regulations limit the installation of new

domestic wells within 200 feet of an existing water system. Residents meeting these criteria

are instead required to connect to the municipal supply.

The City of Santa Fe currently has a comprehensive drought preparation and management

approach, including:

o emergency water regulations (i.e., demand management),   

o conjunctive use of surface and groundwater,

o long‐term sustainability of the groundwater resources and

o a long‐term water supply plan to meet future drought (City of Santa Fe, 2010).   

The Office of the State Engineer is responsible for adjudicating water rights in the State of

New Mexico. The Santa Fe River adjudication (Anaya v. Public Service Company of New

Mexico, Santa Fe County Cause No. 43, 347) was filed in 1971. The Office of the State

Engineer intervened in 1975 and completed a Hydrographic Survey in 1978.    Most of the

subfiles recognizing individual rights have been completed, but the inter‐se period, in which

Existing Limits on Individual wells:

Existing Drought Plans:

Adjudication of Water Rights:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

37

parties to the settlement can object, will not begin until the Office of the State Engineer has

sufficient resources to commit to the adjudication (Singer, 2012).

While no official aquifer storage and recovery projects have been implemented in the Santa

Fe watershed, the City’s in‐stream flow program for the Santa Fe River will help to replenish

the aquifer.

The City of Santa Fe has reused wastewater since 1940s, and today 28% of municipal

wastewater is reclaimed and used for irrigation of parkland, playing fields, golf courses, as

well as for dust control and wildlife/livestock watering. The City of Santa Fe is in the process

of updating the 1998 Treated Effluent Management Plan with the Reclaimed wastewater

use plan which explores the best approaches to maximizing the use of wastewater.

5.1.2 Demand Reduction

Water conservation is one way to reduce the stress on water resources and build resilience

to predicted reductions in water supply.    However, as Bill deBuys pointed out in his

presentation at the workshop, if water saved from reductions in per capita water use is

used to support housing development and local population growth, it can lead to demand

hardening, in which a higher proportion of the water supply is used for essential uses, and

there is less flexibility during drought.    Water management plans (discussed under 5.10)

can be used to establish policies that avoid demand hardening. Workshop participants

stressed the need for public recognition that water is a scarce resource and that our

community should continue to promote water conservation through:

 Tiered water rate structure ‐ cheaper rates for those who use less.

 Incentives for addressing water leaks.

 Strengthen programs for water reclamation and reuse.

 Use municipal wastewater to augment water supply.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery:

Use of Reclaimed Wastewater:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

38

The City and County both have tiered municipal‐water rate structures that promote water

conservation. The City of Santa Fe adopted a water conservation ordinance in 1996 to

reduce per capita demand through a tiered rate structure. Its water conservation programs

include:

o a toilet retrofit program

(see photo),   

o rebate programs for water

efficient appliances,   

o a pre‐rinse spray nozzle

program for dishwashers,   

o moisture sensors and

evaporation controllers

for landscape watering

systems,   

o a gray‐water code that promotes use of some household wastewater for landscape

watering, and

o Free water audits to check for leaks.

Through these programs, and a leak detection and repair program for the water distribution

system, the City has reduced per‐capita demand from 168 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)

in 1995 to 104 gpcd in 2010 (www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=168).   

Santa Fe County has a strong policy on water conservation which is implemented by

ordinance to require water conservation measures for all new residential and commercial

development within Santa Fe County. Additionally, property owners seeking to subdivide

land or zoning changes are required to have water restrictive covenants limiting the amount

of water a residence or development may use. Santa Fe County is exploring options for

improving water conservation within existing small public water systems through a survey

of these systems and their water use.    This project is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation

and includes multiple partners. The City of Santa Fe has adopted a water‐harvesting

element in its green building code. Santa Fe County has a code requiring rooftop harvesting

for roof areas greater than 2,500 ft2

.

Santa Fe is a Leader in Water Conservation:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

39

5.2 Ecosystems

Ecosystem strategies were primarily focused on forests and rangeland health and riparian

restoration.

5.2.1 Forests and Rangeland Health   

Foremost on the minds of workshop participants was the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the

upper watershed and in the urban‐forest interface. The Santa Fe River has provided the City

of Santa Fe with a significant portion of its water supply, averaging about 40%.    The source

of this supply is the 17,000 acres of forest above Nichols and McClure reservoirs.    The

awareness of the risk of fire has developed over the past 15 years as Santa Fe residents

have seen the great plumes of smoke from catastrophic fires in neighboring forests.    The

understanding of this risk was only heightened by Dr. Park Williams’ presentation about the

predicted decline of forests in the southwest (Appendix C).    Here’s what the participants

recommended:

 Continue to treat the Santa Fe River upper watershed forests with prescribed fire,

when conditions are favorable, to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires.

 Develop contingency plans and budgets for responding to large‐scale fires in the

Santa Fe watershed, with consideration for flood protection, recovery of water

systems, and rehabilitation of reservoirs.

 Improve biodiversity in the watershed: convert the forests of the upper watershed

from a near monoculture of ponderosa pine to a more diversion forest; promote a

greater variety of ground cover throughout the basin; and protect grasslands.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

40

In 2000, the City of Santa Fe and the USFS began thinning the Upper Santa Fe Watershed in

the vicinity of the reservoirs. This work was initiated due to a growing recognition that the

forest ecosystem was out of balance, with a high density of small diameter trees and a low

density of desirable grasses, and thus vulnerable to a high severity fire.    To date, 7,270

acres have been treated and an additional 2,900 acres are proposed for treatment to

reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. The treatments have increased the biodiversity

and resilience of the forest to drought and fire.

The City of Santa Fe’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) program provides information and

assistance to homeowners about proper landscaping and methods to reduce the risk of fire

in areas near the surrounding forests.    The Santa Fe Fire Department has a full‐time

position dedicated to WUI

issues.    The City of Santa

Fe’s Fire department adopted

the International Fire Code

and the Wild Land Urban

Interface Code that requires

indoor sprinkler systems for

homes built where access is

limited and fire hydrants are

not available.

New Mexico State Forestry, a

division of the Energy

Minerals and Natural

Resources Department, joined with leadership from the City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe

County as well as the State Cooperative Extension Service, to develop and implement a

coordinated response to the bark beetle crisis and its impact on the community

(www.emnrd.state.nm.us/fd/santafetrees/background.html).

The Santa Fe Piñon Initiative Steering Group has taken action to help educate the public

about forest health and management of dead piñon trees. This group has produced a fact

sheet for homeowners on how to reduce the risk of fire on their property

(www.emnrd.state.nm.us/fd/santafetrees/pdf/firefacts.pdf.) 

Completed and Pending Forest Treatments:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

41

The US Forest Service has a BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) team in place to

quickly evaluate the severity of a fire and propose treatments.    The City is fortunate to

have two reservoirs to help protect the city from flood and debris flows that often follow a

catastrophic fire, but the storage capacity may not be sufficient to retain debris and

sediment from a high‐severity fire.   

The following Initiatives are underway to Improve Biodiversity of Rangelands:

o Santa Fe Conservation

Trust works with

landowners to retire

development rights and

keep land in its natural

state.   

o The Caja del Rio project

was funded in 1999

through the New Mexico

Environment

Department's "319

Program" (a program to address non‐point source pollution under Section 319 of the

Clean Water Act) to restore grasslands, manage livestock, build water tanks, improve

fences, and manage the watershed through controlled burns.

5.2.2 Riparian Restoration

The Santa Fe Watershed Association was established in 1997 and the Santa Fe River

Commission was established in 1984 and reformed in 2007 as a standing committee of the

City (resolution 2007‐14).    Due largely to the actions of these groups, the Santa Fe River

has received a great deal of care over the past 15 years, from the headwaters in the Sangre

de Cristo Mountains down to the Rio Grande.    Some of these efforts are described here.

The following are additional recommendations made at the workshop:

Forest Fire Emergency Response Plan:

Initiatives to Improve Biodiversity of Rangelands:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

42

 Continue efforts to restore riparian areas; consider the impacts of restoration on the

rest of the watershed (for example, on availability of water downstream, flood risk,

and risk of debris plugging infrastructure)   

 Employ best management practices to manage runoff, especially runoff from dirt

roads, prevent erosion and gullying, and reduce runoff turbidity.

 Modify/design bridges and culverts to handle higher intensity runoff events,

consider installing bottomless culverts.

The City of Santa Fe recently dedicated up to 1000 acre‐feet per year from its Santa Fe River

water supply to support in‐stream flows in the urban reach of the Santa Fe River.    The

water will be released from Nichols Reservoir in pulses. One of the stated goals of the pulses

is to “irrigate the trees and other vegetation along the river corridor to support the typical

spring time activities within tree/plant (and faunal) annual life cycles as plants are beginning

to draw water, beginning to produce buds and leaves” (Administrative Procedures for Santa

Fe River Target Flows).

Many projects (Figure 7) have been funded through the NMED 319 Program (a program to

address non‐point source pollution under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act), which have

included riparian restoration and other projects, all of which have help improve the

resilience of the watershed.

The Canyon Preservation Trust, Randal Davey Audubon Center and US Fish & Wildlife

Service have partnered with private landowners to address the riparian health between the

old Two‐mile dam site and the Acequia Madre head gate.    The project, which began in

1996, involved mapping and restoring degraded areas (Grant, 2002).

The Santa Fe Watershed Association obtained a grant from NMED's Surface‐Water Quality

Bureau (SWQB) River Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (RERI) for Habitat Restoration along

the Upper Santa Fe River.    The project involved re‐routing the river to its natural channel

in the reach below Nichols Dam.    Native vegetation was planted along the reach, and a

river drop/fish ladder structure was constructed at Stone Dam.    A second grant was

provided by NMED SWQB RERI to construct erosion control structures; remove exotic

species, thin vegetation to reduce fire hazard and plant native species at Aztec Springs and

the Santa Fe River below Nichols Dam.

Water for Ephemeral Reaches of the Santa Fe River:

Riparian Restoration:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

43

The Santa Fe River Corridor Master Plan was adopted in 1995, and included channel

stabilization and trail system development between Patrick Smith Park and Frenchy's Park.   

The City of Santa Fe obtained a NMED SWQB RERI grant in 2009 for restoring riparian

vegetative cover, improving infiltration and sinuosity, and stabilizing the channel and banks

of the Santa Fe River along the 3.1 mile reach from Camino Alire to Frenchy’s Park

(Drypolcher, 2012).    The grant also includes the re‐design of the San Jose Road storm drain

and planting of the area with native vegetation to stabilize river channel, improve

hydrologic function, and provide wildlife habitat.

The City of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Watershed Association are completing an assessment

of the status of ephemeral stream (arroyos) in Santa Fe with a view to the needs for future

repair, management, and stewardship. The City has developed a priority list for arroyo

repair and maintenance, which was part of the adopted 2011 Bond Issue for public works

projects.

The City of Santa Fe Public Works Department has undertaken a number of projects to keep

traffic out of the river and prevent erosion and further down‐cutting of the channel.    These

Figure 7. Santa Fe River Watershed Impaired Reaches Section 319(h) Projects (Franklin, 2012).
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

44

actions include:

o Construction in 2009 of a bridge at Siler Road that will keep traffic out of the

river channel.   

o Closure to traffic in 2009 of the crossing at Camino de Carlos Rael.

Santa Fe County Public Works built an improved crossing at San Ysidro in 2003 that protects

the river from erosion and further down cutting.    The County also installed a bank

stabilization structure at Lopez Lane Bridge.   

The State Land Office conducted river restoration on a reach 1 mile upstream of the State

Road 599 crossing on State lands.    This project was funded by NMED 319 Project funds.

The restoration of La Bajada Uranium Mine by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management between La Cienega and the Village of La Bajada has also helped to restore

the riparian habitat.

The Santa Fe River water quality downstream of the wastewater treatment plant has

improved significantly over the past decade due to concentrated efforts of WildEarth

Guardians, the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, the Santa Fe Botanical Gardens, private

landowners, the Santa Fe Soil and Water Conservation District and the Surface Water

Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department (Guevara, 2011).    The 12.7

mile‐long reach was not meeting standards for pH, sediment and dissolved oxygen.    Stock

ponds have been built on the Caja del Rio to remove cattle from the stream, levees have

been removed to enhance floodplain connection, wetlands have been constructed and

cottonwoods have been planted.    Water quality has improved and the stream is now

meeting the water quality standards.   

While the water quality has improved, the projects described above are not without

controversy.    This reach of the river is an artificial wetland created by the discharge of

wastewater effluent. Some do not consider this reach to be “restored”, but instead to be an

artificially created habitat that does not reflect historic conditions.

Comprehensive Wetland Restoration and Protection has been undertaken in Arroyo Hondo,

Santa Fe County, with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the

New Mexico Environment Department – Surface Water Quality Bureau, Wetlands Program.   

Water Quality Improvements on the Santa Fe River:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

45

The grant provided funding to prepare a wetlands action plan and improve the wetlands in

Arroyo Hondo downstream of I‐25 near an old dam site.    In 2012, this same program

funded a project that will produce a Wetlands Action Plan for the Santa Fe County area, a

geo‐hydrological analysis of surface and ground water flows into the wetlands in La Cienega,

a technical field guide on wetland management, a series of pilot wetland restoration

projects in the Cañada de los Alamos, Arroyo Hondo reservoir, San Marcos Arroyo, and

Escalante Arroyo (Cerrillos Hills), and wetland planning and policy recommendations for

local government agencies and landowners.

5.3 Agriculture and Food Security

To address additional stresses on the agricultural sector and food security from reduced

water supply, earlier runoff, increased pests and more severe storms events participants at

the workshop recommended the following:   

 Incorporate urban agriculture in planning; encourage small farms in the city and

county and food‐scapes in commons areas to respond to the significant interest in

increasing locally sourced food (less than 100 miles) that does not require shipping

and supports local ecosystems and community members.   

 Encourage cultivation of climate‐appropriate crops by developing guarantees for

seed sovereignty through buffer zones for genetically engineered crops.

 Improve irrigation infrastructure efficiency where such actions would not impair

ecosystems and senior water rights.

o The Farm to Table is a non‐profit organization dedicated to promoting locally based

agriculture through education,

community outreach and

networking

(www.farmtotablenm.org). Farm to

Table enhances marketing opportunities for farmers; encourages family farming,

farmers’ markets and the preservation of agricultural traditions; influences public

policy; and, furthers understanding of the links between farming, food, health and

local economies.

Abundant Interest in Locally Sourced Food:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

46

o Earth Care launched a Youth Food Cadre

Program with nonprofit, school, and government

partners leveraging federal funds to create

AmeriCorps positions for young adults working to

develop school and community gardens that

provide food and health education, and support

local producers and food organizations   

o The Southwest Grass‐fed Livestock Alliance

SWGLA is an alliance of producers, consumers, land

managers, conservationists, and researchers that

seek to improve human, ecological and animal

health, and strengthen local agricultural

communities by educating producers, and the public

about grass fed livestock products.

o Two new community gardens were opened

in City Parks (SSFP Update, 2011).

o Farmers markets are held 7 days a week‐ Rail yard and Santa Fe Place in Santa Fe, El

Dorado, La Cienega, and at the Flea Market.   

o Further support the growing school garden program in Santa Fe and the integration

of locally grown and school‐grown food in school lunch programs. Schools with

gardens include: SF High, Eldorado Community School, Monte del Sol Charter School,

Acequia Madre Elementary, Salazar Elementary, Amy Biehl Community School, and

others.   

The New Mexico Food & Seed Sovereignty Alliance, with core members from the Traditional

Native American Farmers’ Association (TNAFA) and the New Mexico Acequia Association

(NMAA) have a joint mission to “continue, revive, and protect our native seeds, crops,

heritage fruits, animals, wild plants, traditions, and knowledge of our indigenous, land‐ and

acequia‐ based communities in New Mexico for the purpose of maintaining and continuing

our culture and resisting the global, industrialized food system that can corrupt our health,

freedom, and culture through inappropriate food production and genetic

engineering”(NMAA, 2012). The Alliance was successful in passing Senate Joint Memorial 38

and House Memorial 84 in the 2007 State of New Mexico Legislature, a Memorial that

recognizes the importance of indigenous agricultural and native seeds to the food security

Current Actions to Protect Seed Sovereignty:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

47

of New Mexico as well as farmers’ rights to keep their seeds free from GE contamination.   

Santa Fe County Resolution No 2006‐150 was adopted to commit the County to work

towards the cultivation and preservation of “Chimayo Chile”.

Santa Fe County, with funding from the Bureau of Reclamation, is currently assessing

agricultural lands in the region to assess irrigation efficiency and whether an increase in

efficiency would be beneficial to the system overall.    Decreases in the consumptive use of

irrigation or evaporation losses from the field that do not also result in negative impacts on

crop yields can stretch the available surface‐water supply so that it is available for more

uses.    However, decreases in water delivery that simply decrease the losses to the

groundwater system can decrease the availability of water to wells or drains, which other

users might rely on, and can negatively impact riparian habitat.   

Because the agricultural sector has

already been subjected to the

stress of economic hardship and

the expansion of urban areas, local

have implemented measures to

preserve agricultural lands and the

food security that they can provide

to the community.    In 2006, Santa

Fe County passed Resolution No

2006‐184, which committed the

County to protection of agricultural

lands in production and the attendant water rights.    In 2010, Santa Fe County passed

Resolution No 2010‐23, which committed the County to encourage and assist landowners

who choose to voluntarily protect the open space character of their agricultural land in

perpetuity. This resolution recognizes the benefits of conservation easements, the state

income tax credits and the federal income tax deductions for those landowners that

voluntarily decide to protect and support these agricultural lands.   

Various land trust organizations, such as Santa Fe Conservation Trust, New Mexico Land

Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, and The Nature Conservancy are active in Santa Fe to

offer advice and broker conservation easements for the preservation of agricultural land.

Efforts to Improve Irrigation Efficiency:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

48

Additionally, Santa Fe County’s Open Lands, Trails, and Parks program has a mandate to

protect and when desirable, purchase agricultural lands of conservation value for the

community and has done so in the past, and may do so again if/when funds are made

available.

The State of New Mexico has existing policies that support the protection of agricultural

land, including:

o The New Mexico Land Use Easement Act (NMSA §§ 47‐12‐1 through 47‐12‐6), which

aids landowners who wishes to donate a land use easement that specifies

agricultural use in perpetuity.

o The New Mexico Property Tax Code (NMSA § 7‐36‐20 and 3.6.5.27) provides for tax

relief for agricultural properties.

o The US government has policies that support the protection of agricultural land

including:

 The Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program which provides matching

funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and

ranchland in agriculture.

 The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act which commits the federal

government to the goal of conserving farmland in carrying out its public works

and other development projects.

 The Federal Internal Revenue Code that provides significant tax breaks for

preservation of farmland.   

5.4 Land Use and Quality of Life/Parks and Urban Landscaping

Parks and residential landscaping provide opportunities to address multiple climate change

vulnerabilities on a small, but significant scale.    Workshop participants stressed:

 Mulch, soil preservation, and other permaculture actions, such as landscape

contouring to enhance storm water capture, slow down runoff, improve moisture

retention, improve soils, and reduce water demand.

 Improve urban forests: Plant and maintain healthy trees within city limits to “cool”

cities.   

 Incorporate edible vegetation or “food scapes” in public landscaping.   

 Provide tax incentives for green properties (infrastructure that is cooler, captures

runoff, increases infiltration, is energy efficient, incorporates passive or active

renewable energy, etc.).
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

49

 Require pervious pavement.

 Provide green‐waste bins to residents and city/county composting.

 Allow limited, appropriate development in hazard‐prone areas, such as the

urban‐forest interface, in balance with economic diversity and the availability of

water supply

Numerous projects have been funded through the New Mexico Environment Department's

(NMED's) "319 Program" (a program to address non‐point source pollution under Section

319 of the Clean Water Act) to reduce impacts from storm water runoff.    These include:

o Contour swales, gabion check dams, splash pads, and tree and shrub planting at EJ

Martinez Elementary School.

o Contour swales at numerous private residences.

o Contour swales and check dams at Alta Vista and 2nd street by Santa Fe Southern

Railway.

o Contour swales, gabion check dams and splash pads at Calle Lorca Park.

o Erosion control structures and storm water filter structures in Arroyo de los

Chamisos between Camino Carlos Rey and Avenida de las Campanas (with additional

funding from the Santa Fe Community Foundation and the City of Santa Fe and

in‐kind support from local businesses ).(picture from the Santa Fe New Mexican,

May 18, 2010).

o Restoration of the Arroyo de los Piños at Museum Hill, which involved installing

permeable pavement to reduce urban runoff and increase groundwater recharge,

and channel restoration work in the headwaters of the Arroyo de los Piños at

Museum Hill (with additional funding from Santa Fe Botanical Garden).

o Erosion control structures in Arroyo Saiz (Grant, 2002) by private land owners

o A gabion check dam, splash pad and French drains at the Llano St Pool/La Farge

Library.   

o Large scale, well‐designed rock cascade structures at stormwater outflows in Arroyo

Mascaras along north Paseo de Peralto, and into SF River along Santa Fe River Street.

The City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County and the Cerro Gordo Ditch Association have adopted

storm water ordinances.    The City of Santa Fe’s Storm Water Management ordinance

works with the EPA regulations to reduce pollutants from storm water by requiring best

management practices (BMPs) at construction sites.    The City also provides guidance for

landscape design and methods to harvest runoff and reduce erosion through swales and

check dams.    Specific storm water related projects funded by the city include:

Small‐scale storm water management activities:   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

50

o El Parque del Rio (2012): a project that will capture stormwater along the Santa Fe

River from St. Francis to Palace Avenue and redirects it to river corridor vegetation.   

Prior to this project, storm water bypassed the vegetation through traditional drop

inlets, which over time lowered the water table and increased the channelization of

the river. The El Parque del Rio project is utilizing Oxbow swales to allow water to

infiltrate and in large rain events exit and continue to another swale or traditional

storm water outlet. The project also utilizes the existing stone curbing near Old

Santa Fe Trail to intentionally allow “leaking” under the sidewalk and hydrate the

cottonwood canopy downtown.   

o Various stormwater infiltration garden, rock run‐downs, and spill pads along the

Arroyo de los Chamisos between Santa Fe High School and Richards Avenue (by

Earth Works Institute 2007‐2011)

o Stormwater management in the Arroyo de los Pinos for the establishment of the

Santa Fe Botanical Garden (funded by City of Santa Fe, managed by SF Botanical

Garden; implemented by Earth Works Institute 2006‐2010)

o Restructuring of existing storm‐water drain exits to increase infiltration capacity on

river benches, and   

o Replacing asphalt parking areas near the river with permeable pavestones.   

The Santa Fe Residential Green Building Code encourages planting of trees that are native

or appropriate for local growing conditions and for species and locations that will, when the

trees are mature, provide summer shading of streets, parking areas, and buildings to

moderate temperatures.

Santa Fe Botanical Garden (www.santafebotanicalgarden.org) manages the Leonora Curtin

Wetland Preserve and the Ortiz Mountains Educational Preserve and will soon begin

construction of Santa Fe Botanical Garden at Museum Hill, which will join the two preserves

as a lovely and serene space to experience nature.   Santa Fe Botanical Garden celebrates,

cultivates and conserves the rich botanical heritage and biodiversity of our region, and

provides education and community service.

5.5 Energy Systems/Production and Consumption

While this report does not address ways to reduce CO2 emissions, reducing energy

production and use helps make our community more resilient.    Workshop participants had

many of the same recommendations for energy as they did for food security, basically to

Improve Urban Forests
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

51

create more energy locally and reduce the expenses and vulnerabilities in transportation.   

Specific recommendations included:

 Decentralize energy infrastructure and produce more renewable energy locally.

 Introduce greater incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy conversion

(including incentives for such actions as improving insulation and installing solar

panels and keeping them clean).

 Require more energy efficient buildings with passive cooling features.

 Municipalize city energy system.

 Install solar panels over parking lots to reflect heat and generate energy.

Santa Fe City and County have both invested in renewable energy infrastructure for the

community.    Renewable energy projects in the Santa Fe watershed include:

o The City of Santa Fe has a small hydropower plant (93 kW turbine‐generator)

powered by gravity‐fed pressure in treated water pipes.   

o The City of Santa Fe has a 1 Megawatt solar facility at the wastewater treatment

plant

o The City and County have a1 Megawatt solar facility at Buckman Direct Diversion

(BDD), and are planning another 1 Mw solar facility along the BDD raw water pipeline

Residents currently receive incentives for installing solar photovoltaic and solar thermal

systems.    PNM has a Solar Energy Customer Program that allows customers to receive

payment for renewable energy credit.    Under this program, PNM pays the customer for

the energy produced by their system, regardless of whether the customer consumed all of

the energy produced.    The costs of the systems receive a Federal income tax credit of 30%

and a state tax credit of 10%.   

The City of Santa Fe adopted a residential green building code on March 11, 2009 (Ord.

2009‐09) with revisions dated January 11, 2012.   

(http://www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=9873).    The green building code

Current Local Production of Renewable Energy:

Current Incentives for Local Energy Production

Existing Building Codes for Energy Efficiency
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

52

requires that all new homes meet stringent standards specified in the Home Energy Rating

System (HERS) according to the size of the home.    The City’s energy efficiency standard for

new construction is one of the most aggressive in the country. Santa Fe County is also in the

process of adopting a green building code.

5.6 Sociological Systems/Public Engagement & Policy Change

Workshop participants were very passionate about the need for our community to be ready

to respond to the cumulative impacts of climate change on the various systems. Suggestions

included:

 Increase incentives for actions that address climate change.

 Highlight models of successful projects happening now.

 Foster inclusive discussions incorporating all components of community (including

discussion of uncomfortable topics such as population growth and appropriate

development).

 Enhance regional governance – connect government agencies across watershed.

 Build capacities of local governments for handling weather‐related hazards.

The Sustainable Santa Fe Commission is dedicated to creating a strong,

resilient Santa Fe for current and future generations

(http://sustainablesantafenm.ning.com). The Sustainable Santa Fe

Commission is comprised of citizen volunteers with expertise in a

variety of areas that advise the City Council on issues of sustainability

5.7 Monitoring

Monitoring of vulnerable systems to collect appropriate data is critical to furthering our

understanding and their response to changes.    In order to develop the appropriate

adaptive management, monitoring should be established to evaluate the effectiveness of

management activities.    It is important to examine existing historic data to assess how

local species and systems have already responded to climate change.   

 Develop a monitoring plan that defines the appropriate location, timing, parameters,   

equipment and responsible party

 Monitoring equipment should be established before impacts occur

What’s Happening Now?
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

53

Stream flow monitoring in the Santa Fe River began in 1913 with a USGS stream gage in the

upper watershed.    In 1998, the City of Santa Fe established more monitoring on the Santa

Fe River (Lewis and Borchert, 2009).    A series of monitor wells were historically monitored

by the USGS and that monitoring is currently being conducted by contractors to the Office

of the State Engineer.    Monitoring of water quality is performed routinely by the New

Mexico Environment Department Drinking Water Bureau on public water systems.   

A monitoring plan was developed as part of the EIS for the forest treatments in the Santa Fe

Watershed (USDA, 2001).    This plan involved monitoring the impact of forest treatments

on bird population, tracking the actual changes in vegetation density (overstory, ground

cover and litter cover) and impacts to turbidity during the treatments. The Interstate Stream

Commission is monitoring the impact of forest treatments on the water budgets in a paired

basin study in the Santa Fe Watershed.

Santa Fe County has received grant funding to install surface and groundwater monitoring

equipment in the La Cienega and La Cienguilla areas of the lower watershed. The goal is to

monitor changes in spring and stream discharge along with groundwater levels to create a

baseline of current hydrological conditions.

5.8 Education

Education can be used to increase awareness of the sensitivity of various systems to climate

change and to provide information on actions individuals can take to improve the resilience

of systems.    Workshop participants suggested:

 City/county classes and public school curricula and demonstration on growing food,

composting, conservation, xeric gardening, and rainwater harvesting.

 Tours of the water (Buckman Direct Diversion) and waste‐water treatment plants, to

educate residents and school children on the need for water conservation and the

life cycle of municipal water.

 A Central clearinghouse for the community of water conservation information.

Numerous non‐profit organizations in the Santa Fe area have dedicated many volunteer

hours educating the public and involving school children.    The principal non‐profit

Educational Opportunities Abound:

Current and future monitoring
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

54

organization addressing climate change in the Santa Fe watershed is the Sustainable Santa

Fe Commission, which is devoted to educating Santa Fe on and ways to reduce the

community’s carbon footprint and improve the resilience of our ecosystems

(www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=685).    Other organizations devoted to

implementation of many of the educational outreach efforts include the Forest Guardians,

the Santa Fe Conservation Trust, the Santa Fe Watershed Association, the Randall Davey

Audubon Center and the NM Chapter of the Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy,

Quivera Coalition, and until recently, Earth Works Institute.

The City of Santa Fe works with the Santa Fe Watershed Association on an extensive

education and outreach effort to provide education on forest and riparian ecology, water

issues and ecosystems services.    This outreach effort has included the development of an

educational video, public hikes in the watershed, and environmental monitoring programs

with middle and high school students. The city and the Santa Fe Watershed Association are

also collaborating on the Climate Masters’ program, a 10‐week training program on climate

mitigation and adaptation (www.santafewatersehd.org). The Santa Fe Watershed

Association and Southwest Urban Hydrology collaborate to provide educational events in

the community.    For example, in May 2012, these organizations sponsored: 1) Urban

Watershed and Green Infrastructure, a presentation on the impacts of a growing urban

landscape on watershed functions, and 2) Bio‐retention Basin Workshop, a hands‐on

workshop to implement bio‐retention basins. .   Both events provided instruction on the

benefits of Green Infrastructure as a means to prevent local flooding, storm water pollution,

urban heat‐island effects, and habitat loss in urban watersheds.

The City of Santa Fe’s Water Conservation Division of the Water Utility has a xeric

demonstration garden, and several programs for education.    These education programs

include the Children’s Poster Contest, Water Fiesta, and the River Xchange program

(coordinated with Santa Fe County), in which 5th graders explore key water resource

concepts through a year‐long curriculum which includes focused field trips and hands‐on

activities . The City of Santa Fe, in 2002, also developed a handbook: “Storm Water as a

Resource, how to Harvest and protect a dryland treasure in 2002.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) developed a handbook for restoring

riparian areas called “Healthy Streamside Wetlands, A guide to good stewardship for

southwestern bosque and riparian wetlands”

(www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/Wetlands/HSW/index.html).

The Quivera Coalition has an annual workshop and numerous publications to educate
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

55

ranchers and the public about rangeland management (www.quiviracoalition.org).    The

Quivera Coalition’s publications include:    Let the Water Do the Work: Induced Meandering,

an Evolving Method for Restoring Incised Channels (Zeedyk and Clothier, 2012).

5.9 Visionary

Santa Fe residents understand the power of visual and artistic expression of ideas to create

change.    Here are a few visionary ideas suggested by the workshop participants:   

 Appoint an Artist in Residence dedicated to the Santa Fe River to create images that

foster respect for the resource

 Create sacred space around water, including a physical reminder, such as a table or

alter, at meetings to remind people that water sustains life for all and should not be

considered a commodity   

Mayor David Coss named 2012 “Love Your River Year” and environmental artists Bobbe

Besold and Dominique Mazeaud along with Santa Fe poet laureate Valerie Martinez have

initiated a project called “River Runs through Us”.    The project engages the community to

walk the 46‐mile length of the river, and along the way to plant native species, listen to

music and poetry and other activities to celebrate the river. The four‐day journey in May

2012, was an exploration of the Santa Fe Watershed and is designed to create art, promote

awareness, engage community, and illuminate our relationship with river systems, earth

and water (http://riversrunthroughus.net).

5.10 Implementation

Initial steps that could enhance the effective implementation of the recommendations

presented in this report include:   

 More regional governance

 More communication and collaboration across government levels, beginning with

the city and county

 Long‐term ,rather than short‐term, thinking

 Planning, including

o Tools to optimize    decision‐making (which will be needed because climate

change will leave us with less room for error)   

o Prioritization of actions

One example of a visionary action:
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

56

o Integrated implementation of plans

 A diversity of decision‐makers, coupled with deep community engagement

6 Next Steps

This preliminary assessment captures many of the vulnerabilities that the Santa Fe

watershed may face under projected climate changes, as well as potential adaptation

strategies to address these vulnerabilities and create a more resilient watershed.    It also

describes numerous projects that are ongoing in the watershed to enhance sustainability

and resilience. Under the second phase of the Santa Fe Basin Study, the partners will

quantify the potential impact of climate change on the available water supply from the

watersheds that provide water to the City and County (the Santa Fe River Basin, the Upper

Rio Grande and several tributaries in the San Juan), assess the vulnerability and possible

shortcomings of the existing water plans, and develop strategies to address the concerns.

Below are additional strategies that local, regional or state governmental organizations and

concerned citizens may consider as next steps to begin to adapt to the impacts that climate

change will have in our region.

 Develop a GIS‐based watershed‐wide map for tracking of existing action in all sectors

or systems. The map may be helpful in identifying the areas where further action is a

priority.   

 Develop and/or coordinate community‐based, watershed‐wide, technical advisory

committees that focus on specific sectors or systems.    These committees may

develop more detailed visions, strategies and recommendations, implement activities,

and/or track progress.    To increase communication and coordination, we recommend

that these advisory committees work closely within existing ‘umbrella’ organizations

like the Sustainable Santa Fe Commission, and other existing planning and emergency

groups.

 Increase communication and coordination among existing efforts to enhance

effectiveness.

 Monitor key climate‐change impacted parameters (temperature, precipitation,

temperature extremes, and storm events) so that the picture of impacts and emerging

trends can be identified.

 Implement the water‐related recommendations from Phase 2 of the Santa Fe Basin

Study.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

57

 Enhance interagency and intergovernmental communication, planning and emergency

preparedness coordination.   

 Develop comprehensive public education program to teach the community, agency

staff, and elected officials about the potential impacts of climate change and provide

opportunity for collaborative citizen engagement.

 Seek funding opportunities to implement recommendations made in this report.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

58

7 References

Aaboe, Eric, 2012.    Personal communication with Amy Lewis regarding the natural gas

shortage in February of 2011.

Borchert, Claudia, 2011. Santa Fe Basin Study proposal submitted to the Bureau of

Reclamation available at:www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=9690.   

BLM, 2010. Santa Fe River Canyon Riparian Forest Restoration Project.    Proposed Action,

Alternatives, and Preliminary Effects Analysis. DOI‐BLM‐NM‐F020‐2010‐0007‐EA

Chapman, David S. and Michael G. Davis, 2010.    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future.

Eos, Vol. 91, No. 37, 14 September 2010, pp. 325‐332.   

City of Santa Fe, 2010.    City of Santa Fe Water Conservation and Drought Management

Plan, Sangre de Cristo Water Division. Nov 2010.

http://www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=9834

City of Santa Fe Sustainable Santa Fe Commission, 2008. Sustainable Santa Fe Plan, Building a

More Sustainable Future by Looking to the Past. Adopted Oct 29, 2008. Available at

http://sustainablesantafenm.ning.com/

City of Santa Fe Sustainable Santa Fe Commission, 2011.    Sustainable Santa Fe Annual

Report of 2010 Activities.

City of Santa Fe Fire Department, Undated. Ready, Set, Go, Your Personal Wildfire Action

Plan. (http://nm‐santafe.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=359)

Cox, T. J., E. Lopez Calva, A.P. Navato, 2011. Quantifying Climate Change in Water Supply

Planning for a Snowpack‐Driven Watershed, AWRA 2011 SPRING SPECIALTY

CONFERENCE Baltimore, MD.

deBuys, William. A great Aridness, Climate Change and the Future of the American

Southwest. Oxford University Press 2011.

EPA, 2012. Website accessed on May 14, 2012:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy‐and‐you/how‐clean.html

Franklin, Abe. 2012. Email communication to Amy Lewis with map of NMED 319 projects.   

April 2, 2012.

Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edleson, editors. 2011 Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A

Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, D.C.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

59

Grant, Paige, 2002. Santa Fe River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. Prepared

pursuant to the Clean Water Action Plan and Unified Assessment of New Mexico

Watersheds. Santa Fe Watershed Association.

Guevara, Daniel, 2011.    Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success Story: Restoration

Efforts Revive Riparian Vegetation and Improve Water Quality. EPA 841‐F‐11‐001DD.

July 2011.

Gutzler, David S. and Tessia O. Robbins, 2010.    Climate variability and projected change in

the western United States: regional downscaling and drought statistics.    Climate

Dynamics, 34:10.1007/s00382‐010‐0838‐7.

Hagner, Charles J, 2012.    Climate change alters birds’ migration habits, nesting areas in

Bird Watching. April 2012

Hurd, B.H. and J. Coonrod. 2008. Climate Change and Its Implications for New Mexico’s

Water Resources and Economic Opportunities, New Mexico State University,

Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Report 45, Las Cruces, NM. 28 p.

Lewis, Amy C. and Claudia Borchert. 2009. Santa Fe River Studies: Stream Flow.    One of a

series of reports produced by the City of Santa Fe. August 2009.   

Longworth, J.W., J.M. Valdez, M.L. Magnuson, E. Sims Albury, and J. Keller. 2008. New

Mexico water use by categories, 2005. Technical Report 52, New Mexico Office of the

State Engineer.    June 2008.Resolution 2011‐17 LRWSP and Climate Change.

NAST, 2000.    Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of

Climate Variability and Change. National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global

Change Research Program. http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment.

NMAA. 2012.    New Mexico Acequia Association website.

http://www.lasacequias.org/food‐and‐agriculture/seed‐alliance/ accessed on May 27,

2012.

Reclamation, City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County, 2011. Memorandum of

Agreement#11‐1167 between City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, and Bureau of

Reclamation available at www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=9691

Resolution 2006‐54 – US Mayors Conference Agreement on Climate Change

Robles, Marcos and Carolyn Enquist, 2011.    Managing Changing Landscapes in the

Southwestern United States.    The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ.

Ross, Stephen C. Esq., Sayre, Doug, Torres, Karen M., 2009, Santa Fe County Conjunctive
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

60

Management Plan for the Santa Fe Basin. Adopted by the Santa Fe Board of County

Commissioners January 13th 2009.

(http://www.co.santa‐fe.nm.us/userfiles/SFC_final_CMP.pdf

Santa Fe County, 2010. Santa Fe County Sustainable Management Plan.

(http://www.santafecounty.org/growth_management/sgmp).

Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer,

A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin, 2007.    Assessing key

vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change.    Climate Change 2007: Impact,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry,

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 779‐810.

Seager, Richard, M.F. Ting, I.M. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H.‐P. Huang, N. Harnik, A.

Leetmaa, N.‐C. Lau, C. Li, J. Velez, and N. Naik, 2007.    Model Projections of an

Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America.   

Science, Vol. 316. No. 5828, pp. 1181 ‐ 1184 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139601.

Shaffer, Mark, Roger Griffis, and Gerry Barnhart, 2012.    National Fish, Wildlife and Plants

Climate Adaptation Strategy Public Review Draft. January 2012.

(www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov)

Singer, Arian. 2012. Personal Communication with Amy Lewis and Arian Singer of the OSE.

May 23, 2012.

Stewart, Iris T., Daniel R. Cayan and Michael D. Dettinger, 2004.    Changes in Snowmelt

Runoff Timing in Western North America Under a ‘Business as Usual’ Climate Change

Scenario, Climatic Change 62: 217–232.

Sun, Ying, Susan Solomon, Aiguo Dai and Robert W. Portmann, 2007. How Often Will It

Rain? Journal of Climate, Vol. 20, pp. 4801‐4818.

TNC, 2012. The Nature Conservancy Southwest Climate Initiative GIS Coverage:

TNCAZ_SW_Biotic_Communities_GIS\sw_biotic_communities.shp

TRB, 2008.    Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. Committee on

Climate Change and the U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board Division

on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 290.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008.    Effects of Climate Change on Energy

Production and Use in the United States.    Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.5.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

61

February 2008.

(http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4‐5/final‐report/sap4‐5‐final‐all.pdf)

U.S.D.A., 2001.    Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project Draft Environmental Impact

Statement.    Santa Fe National Forest. March 2001.

Williams, A. Park, C. D. Allen, C. Millar, T. Swetnam, J. Michaelsen, C. J. Still, and S. W.

Leavitt, 2010. Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in southwestern

North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107(50):

21289‐21294.

Zeedyk, Bill and Van Clothier. 2012. Let the Water Do the Work: Induced Meandering, an

Evolving Method for Restoring Incised Channels. Prepared for the Quivera Coalition.

February 2012.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

62

Appendix A. Workshop agenda 

Santa Fe Watershed Climate Change Workshop 

Santa Fe Community Convention Center, March 6, 2012

Agenda 

Time Activity Location

8:00-8:30 Sign-in Sweeny F

8:30-8:45 Introduction

Councilor Bushee/Claudia Borchert City of Santa Fe 

Dagmar Llewellyn, Bureau of Reclamation 

Commissioner Vigil/Karen Torres Santa Fe County 

Sweeny F

8:45-10:30 Setting the Stage

David Gutzler, UNM climate change expert – 

Summary of climate change projections for the 

Santa Fe Watershed and the Southwest

Park Williams, Los Alamos National Lab ecologist – 

Southwestern forest response to drought

Bill deBuys, author and conservationist – 

Historical/sociology impacts of climate change

Sweeny F

10:30-10:45 Break Sweeny F

10:45 – 11:30 What can we do with this information?

Karen MacClune, Institute for Social and Environmental Transition 

Sweeny F

11:30-12:30 Parallel Breakout Session 1

Water Milagro

Ecology Peralta

12:30-1:15 Working Lunch Sweeny F

1:15-1:45 Parallel Breakout Session 1 continued Return to group

1:45-3:15 Parallel Breakout Session 2

Land Use/Quality of Life Milagro

Agriculture and Food Security Peralta

3:15-3:30 Break Sweeny F

3:30-5:00 Break out session results and Next Steps Sweeny F

David Gutzler Ph.D., University of New Mexico: Dr. Gutzler’s interests include interactions 
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

63

between the atmosphere and land surface processes, especially energy and moisture fluxes. He hopes to 

contribute to the interesting research being done putting surface systems together with atmospheric 

systems. Dr. Gutzler has taught: Meteorology (a non-mathematical intro to weather science); 

Climatology (an upper- division undergrad survey of climate processes); Global Climate Change (upper 

level science & policy mix), and Physical Climatology (grad-level climatology course). 

William deBuys, Author and Conservationist: Mr. deBuys has authored seven books his most recent 

being “A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American West “(released by Oxford 

University Press, Nov. 2011). He was a 2008-2009 Guggenheim Fellow. As a conservationist, he has 

helped protect more than 150,000 acres in New Mexico, Arizona, and North Carolina. From 2001 to 

2005, he served as founding chairman of the Valles Caldera Trust, which administers the 89,000 acre 

Valles Caldera Preserve. He lives and writes on a small farm in northern New Mexico. 

Park Williams, postdoctoral researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory: Dr. Williams’ 

research focuses on how global climate variability influences drought in places where water is a limiting 

resource for life such as forests in the Southwestern United States. Using tree-ring records, he has 

determined how Southwestern forests have responded to drought, wildfires and bark beetles for the past 

1000 years and has forecast how Southwestern forests should respond to climate change in the next 

several decades. He received a Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara in the Geography 

Department in 2009. 

Karen MacClune, ISET has been engaging for over 5 years with cities around how to utilize climate 

change information in city planning processes to build resilience to potential climate impacts. ISET has 

been supporting communities to understand potential, local climate hazards and how their nature might 

evolve under climate change, to develop vulnerability and risk assessments to explore the potential 

direct and indirect impacts of those climate hazards, and to develop resilience plans which identify and 

prioritize mitigation, adaptation, and resilience building activities to be taken within the context of daily 

policy and operating concerns. As part of this work, ISET has created and continues to refine a resilience 

building curriculum to systematically walk communities through the steps involved in developing 

resilience plans. Dr. MacClune also has a PhD in Geophysics from the University of Colorado and 

extensive experience with New Mexico water issues, having worked for SS Papadopulos & Associates, 

Inc. for 8 years, with particular focus on work for the Interstate Stream Commission on surface water, 

groundwater, and water operations issues. 

Artwork: 1st through 6th grade students in Santa Fe 

Since 2003, The City of Santa Fe Water Conservation Office has hosted an annual poster contest. All 

public, private and charter elementary schools in Santa Fe are invited to participate. Participants range 

from 1st grade to 6th grade. Over 350 classrooms were invited to design a poster with a water 

conservation message. A first, second, and third place winner will be selected from each grade, for a 

total of 18 winners. 

The artwork represented here is a sample of the posters both winning and non-winning that were 

received in 2011 and 2010. The posters represent children’s interpretation of the future of water. 

   
Appendix B.  Participants in the Santa Fe Watershed Climate Change Workshop on March 6, 2012

First Last Company City

Joni Arends Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Santa Fe

Talitha Arnold The United Church of Santa Fe Santa Fe

Pete Balleau Balleau Groundwater, Inc. Albuquerque

Reid Bandeen Truchas Hydrologic Associates, Inc. Placitas

Beth Bardwell Audubon New Mexico Las Cruces

Rita Bates NM Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau Santa Fe

Athena Beshur Seeds of Wisdom, LLC Santa Fe

Bobbe Besold Littleglobe Santa Fe

Consuelo Bokum Santa Fe

Claudia Borchert City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

Angela Bordegaray NM Interstate Stream Commission Santa Fe

David Breecker Santa Fe Innovation Park Medanales

Felicity Broennan Santa Fe Watershed Association Santa Fe

Melvin Buchwald Santa Fe

Elva Busch Santa Fe Garden Club Santa Fe

Patty Bushee City of Santa Fe Santa Fe

Darcy Bushnell Utton Center, UNM School of Law Albuquerque

Mitch Buszek Public Advocates Santa Fe

Nichole Carnevale Nambe Pueblo, Environmental and Natural Resources Nambe Pueblo

Rick Carpenter City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

Margaret Chavez Eight Northern Indian Pueblos

Christine Chavez Los Alamos County Utilities Los Alamos

Juliana Coles We Are People Here Santa Fe

Betsy Conover Santa Fe

Jennifer Cramer Santa Fe National Forest Santa Fe

Susan Dean Self‐Employed Santa Fe

William DeBuys Chamisal

Bill Dempster Institute of Ecotechnics Santa Fe

Carolyn Donnelly Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque

Paul Drakos Glorieta Geoscience, Inc. Santa Fe

Brian Drypolcher City of Santa Fe, Public Works Santa Fe

Gary Durrant City of Santa Fe, Buckman Direct Diversion Santa Fe

Dave Englert New Mexico Environment Department Santa Fe

Emily Geery NMED, Drinking Water Bureau Santa Fe

Pamela Gilchrist ElderGrace Cohousing Santa Fe

Tim Glasco Los Alamos County Utilities Los Alamos

Lindsey Grant Self Employed Santa Fe

David Gutzler University of New Mexico Albuquerque

Anna Hamilton Tetra Tech, Inc. Santa Fe

David Harrington Squash Blossum Farm La Bajada

Steve Harris Rio Grande Restoration Embudo

Kathleen Holian Santa Fe County Santa Fe

Alan Hook City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

John Horning WildEarth Guardians Santa Fe

Melissa Houser Santa Fe Conservation Trust Santa Fe

OrorJonne Hower Bureau of Reclamation Salt Lake City
Appendix B.  Participants in the Santa Fe Watershed Climate Change Workshop on March 6, 2012

First Last Company City

Bruce Hutchison Self Employed Santa Fe

Nancy Hutchison Self Employed Santa Fe

Jan‐Willem Jansens Ecotone Santa Fe

Richard Jennings Earthwrights Designs Santa Fe

Peggy Johnson New Mexico Tech, NMBGMR Socorro

Brandon Johnson United Church of Santa Fe Santa Fe

Mike Johnson New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Santa Fe

Aaron Kauffman Southwest Urban Hydrology Santa Fe

Dave Kite Santa Fe

Jerzy Kulis NM Environment Department Hazardous Waste Bureau Santa Fe

Judith Lawson Santa Fe

Amy Lewis ACL Consulting Santa Fe

Mark Licht NMLA Santa Fe

Andrew Lieuwen ABCWUA Albuquerque

Dagmar Llewellyn Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque

William A Loeb OSFA Santa Fe

Larry Logan Edison Electric Institute Washington

Dale Lyons City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division SANTA FE

Karen MacClune ISET Boulder

Ken Margolis GEOS Institute Santa Fe

Marcos Martinez City of Santa Fe, Attorney Santa Fe

Dominique Mazeaud Heartist Santa Fe

Laura McCarthy The Nature Conservancy Santa Fe

Annie McCoy John Shomaker and Associates Albuquerque

Betsy Millard Southeast Neighborhood Association Santa Fe

Mark Miller Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Albuquerque

Hvtee Miller Santa Fe County Santa Fe

Beth Mills Santa Fe County, Open Trails Santa Fe

Katherine Mortimer Public Utilities, City of Santa Fe Santa Fe

Andy Novak retired Santa Fe

Charlie Nylander EBRIF Santa Fe

Charlie O'Leary Santa Fe Conservation Trust Santa Fe

Erin Ortigoza Environmental Services Santa Fe

Louise Pape ClimateToday Santa Fe

Francois‐Marie Patorni Santa Fe Watershed Association Santa Fe

Jonathan Phillips City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

Alex Puglisi City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

Doug Pushard HarvestH2o Santa Fe

Anna Rael Delay Congressman Tom Udall Office Santa Fe

Daniel Ransom City of Santa Fe,  Sangre de Cristo Water Division Santa Fe

Jesse Roach Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque

Maria Rotunda Earthprints Santa Fe

Steven Rudnick University of New Mexico Santa Fe

Rich Schrader River Source Santa Fe

Chris Shaw New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission Santa Fe

Sigmund Silber S.Silber&Associates Santa Fe
Appendix B.  Participants in the Santa Fe Watershed Climate Change Workshop on March 6, 2012

First Last Company City

Duncan Sill Santa  Fe County Economic Development Santa Fe

John Miles Smith Santa Fe Basin Water Association Santa Fe

Dependable Strongheart Santa Fe Water Conservation Committee Santa Fe

Mark Sundin Bureau of Land Management Taos

Ryan Swazo‐Hinds Pueblo of Tesuque, Environment Dept. Santa Fe

Enid Tidwell Santa Fe Garden Club Santa Fe

Karen Torres Santa Fe County Santa Fe

Laurie Trevizo Sangre de Cristo Water Division, City of Santa Fe Santa Fe

Kari Tyler ISET Boulder

Arnold Valdez Santa Fe County Planning Santa Fe

Velimir Vesselinov LANL Los Alamos

Ralph Vigil New Mexico Acequia Commission Santa Fe

Susan Waterman Santa Fe

Natalie Wells Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Agency Santa Fe

Park Williams Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos

Neil Williams Watershed West Santa Fe

Charles Wilson Charles R. Wilson, Consultant Santa Fe

Stephen Wiman Good Water Company Santa Fe

Robert Wood City of Santa Fe, Parks Division Santa Fe

Rick Young S. S. Papadopulos & Associates Albuquerque

Risana Zaxus City of Santa Fe, Land Use Santa Fe
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

67

Appendix C.    Summary of Speaker Presentations

Human activities are increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and

methane in the atmosphere, and these gases are trapping increasing amounts of heat near the earth’s

surface.    In response, global average air temperatures are rising, oceans are warming and expanding,

melting of land‐based ice is increasing, sea ice is thinning and permafrost melting, precipitation

patterns appear to be shifting, and plants and animals are growing, migrating, and responding in

different ways, places and times.    The evidence for climate change that is being documented in the

world around us is concordant with the climate science and physics captured in the global modeling;

there is no longer doubt that our climate is changing.

The releases of greenhouses gasses that have occurred to date commit us to a certain degree of

climate change, regardless of future emissions; and, currently global emissions appear to be

accelerating rather than decreasing.    This means that, moving forward, in addition to working to limit

future emissions, we need to adapt to existing and at least near‐future climate changes.

The goal of this workshop was to introduce climate change and its potential impacts in the Santa Fe

Basin to a broad group of local stakeholders, and to solicit from those stakeholders their primary areas

of concern and their initial thoughts about how to take action. This summary includes a review of the

climate science presented at the workshop by Dr. David Gutzler, University of New Mexico and Dr. Park

Williams, LANL, explores the implications of that science for water resources in the Santa Fe Basin, and

closes with a call to action delivered by Bill deBuys.

C.1    Climate Change Impacts

Climate change has already occurred as evidenced by observed temperature increases; and forecasts

predict that temperatures will continue to rise.    The increasing temperatures impact the circulation of

moisture in the upper atmosphere, thus impacting precipitation patters.    A summary of the past and

future changes is provided here.

C.1.1The Earth Is Getting Warmer

The earth is getting warmer – unequivocally.    Beginning with the post‐World War II boom, fossil fuel

burning and land use change have had a noticeable and growing impact on global temperatures.   

Figure C‐1 illustrates global mean temperature.    The period from 1000 AD to 1860, obtained from

temperature reconstructions, illustrates a variable but generally stable climate with temperatures

lower than the reference level (the 0oC line, which is based on the 10‐year average of temperatures for

the years 1995–2004).	 	 The period from 1860 to 2010 reflects measured temperatures; global mean

temperature began warming rapidly around 1975 and current temperatures are higher than anything

seen in the past 1000 years.   

These global trends have clear corollaries in New Mexico; New Mexico is getting warmer – significantly.   

Over the past century, climate division 2, which encompasses the Santa Fe Basin, has warmed a degree

Celsius.    The growing season across the southwestern states, the period when average daily

temperatures exceed 5oC, increased by approximately 10 days between 1965 and 2008.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

68

Figure C‐1: Views of temperature change in the next century are informed by temperature changes in the past.

For illustrative and educational purposes, three sets of surface temperatures have been assembled: 1000‐year

reconstructions of past temperature change based on proxies (tree rings, corals, etc.), glacier lengths, and

borehole temperatures; the instrumental record; and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

projections for temperature change from 2000 to 2100. (Chapman and Davis, 2010)

C.1.2 Climate Model Projections Indicate Further Warming

Climate model projections of 21st Century climate show large rates of warming.    In Figure C‐1, the

period from 2010 to 2100 reflects global temperature projections for a variety of future land use,

population, economic and emissions scenarios (C3, B1, A1B, A2) using the current suite of global

circulation models (GCMs).    The models illustrate that temperatures have the potential to

dramatically increase in the next 100 years. Projected temperature changes under the A1B scenario are

for 5.5 to 6.5 oF warming between 2000 and 2100.

However, there is a lot of uncertainty associated with the temperature projections.    Uncertainty

derives from:

 Which GCMs are used – each model represents earth systems with slightly different equations

and divides the globe into slightly different boxes (grid cells and layers) in which to solve those

equations; and,

 Which scenarios each GCM is run for – the scenarios make assumptions about population

growth, energy usage, land use, and global economy to estimate emission rates.    Each of
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

69

those assumptions has implications for global greenhouse gas emissions and local impacts.   

Theoretically, each of the scenarios is as likely as another, although we are currently following

some of the higher emission tracks.

Any value within the range of possible future temperatures is as likely as another.    Consequently, in

working with climate projections, it is important to consider the full range of modeled projections for a

region.

It is also important to remember that climate projections are generally presented as the modeled

range of average values for a given location, and do not take into account local climate variability.   

Gutzler and Robbins (2010) address this for New Mexico by combining historic temperatures and

precipitation variability with projected temperate trends.    Results are illustrated in Figures C‐2

(temperature) and 3 (precipitation).   

One of the striking elements of Figure C‐2 is that, by 2100, projected low temperatures, even when

combined with current variability, exceed all but the highest temperatures seen in the historic record.   

Even by 2050, winter temperatures are close to today’s average temperatures.    This would have

significant implications for water availability, management, and demand.   

Figure C‐2: Time series of annual temperature (

o

C) for the December‐January‐February (DJF) winter season

(lower lines) and June‐July‐August (JJA) summer season (upper lines) for the twentieth and twenty‐first

centuries in New Mexico Climate Division 2. Thin lines show annual values; thick lines are 11‐year running

averages.    For years 1901– 2007 (left of vertical dashed line), values are observed climate divisional data.   

For years 2008–2099 (right of dashed line), values are derived by adding twentieth century inter‐annual

variability to the twenty‐first century simulated trend obtained by averaging 18 GCMs run for the A1B

scenario.    21st century trends have values of +3.3o

C/century in winter and +4.3oC/century in summer (Gutzler

and Robbins, 2010).

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Temperature 20th Century obs + A1B trend

NM Climate Division 2 (Northern Mtns)

DJF temperature [C]

JJA temperature [C]

year

(b)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

70

Precipitation trends are less clear than temperature trends, both in the data and in model projections.   

Figure C‐3 illustrates historic precipitation for NM Climate Division 2, and the projected precipitation

under the A1B scenario, combined with historic variability.    As can be seen, historic variability

exceeds projected trends. Based on model results, future precipitation seasonal averages may be

relatively indistinguishable from historic seasonal averages.

Figure C‐3: Time series of annual precipitation (mm/mo) for the DJF winter season (lower lines) and JJA

summer season (upper lines) for the twentieth and twenty‐first centuries in New Mexico Climate Division 2.

Thin lines show annual values; thick lines are 11‐year running averages.    For years 1901– 2007 (left of

vertical dashed line), values are observed climate divisional data.    For years 2008–2099 (right of dashed line),

values are derived by adding twentieth century inter‐annual variability to the twenty‐first century simulated

trend obtained by averaging 18 GCMs run for the A1B scenario.    21st century trends have values of ‐0.11

(mm/month)/century in winter and +1.6 (mm/month)/century in summer (Gutzler and Robbins, 2010).

This does not mean, however, that future daily precipitation will remain indistinguishable from historic

precipitation events. Climate is projected to become more variable with climate change; future

variability may exceed historical variability, with, for example, the lowest low temperatures remaining

relatively unchanged but the high temperatures increasing dramatically.    In particular, precipitation

events are projected to become more intense (Figure C‐4). This implies that, though seasonal

precipitation totals may remain relatively unchanged, they are likely to be delivered in fewer, more

intense rainfall events.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Precipitation 20th Century obs + A1B trend

NM Climate Division 2 (Northern Mtns)

DJF precipitation [mm/mo]

JJA precipitation [mm/mo]

year

(d)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

71

Figure C‐4: Compared to simulations of current climate, global models generate fewer, but more intense, a

precipitation event, averaged globally, as the climate warms up (Sun et al., 2007).

C.1.3Hydrologic Implications of Climate Change

The projected changes in temperature and precipitation will have implications for summer aridity, for

winter precipitation (increasingly falling as rain rather than snow), snowmelt, and, by association, for

spring melt water runoff timing and volume. Global climate models project a transition to a much more

arid climate in the Southwest by the mid‐21st Century, as a result of both the lack of increase in overall

precipitation and the increased evaporation and evapotranspiration resulting from higher

temperatures.    Evaporation and evapotranspiration (E) are a strong function of surface temperature;

warmer air holds more moisture.    If precipitation (P) holds relatively constant, then available water

(runoff and groundwater recharge), P‐E, becomes consistently negative (drier surface) by the latter half

of this century in model simulations.    This means the dry season becomes even more intensely dry,

with implications for irrigation needs for irrigated crops, and negative impacts to non‐irrigated

vegetation.

Figure C‐5: Modeled change in annual mean Precipitation‐Evaporation for the Southwestern US (Seager et al.,

2007). The historical period used known and estimated climate forcings, and the projections used the

SResA1B emissions scenario. Anomalies (Anom) for each model are relative to that model's climatology from

1950–2000. The model‐ensemble mean P − E in this region is around 0.3 mm/day.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

72

The predicted future winter climate will show changes in snowpack depth and snowmelt.    Driven

primarily by temperature changes, decreases in snowpack throughout the western mountains are seen

in climate model simulations.    The decreases are due principally to temperature change, with winter

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. By mid‐century, projected changes for the Southern

Rocky Mountains range from a 20 to 70% reduction in snowpack (Figure C‐6).

What snow does fall will melt earlier, due to higher spring temperatures?    Figure C‐7 suggests that by

mid‐century, spring runoff could be 15 to 35 days earlier.    This much earlier peak runoff date, driven

by warmer temperatures, may also have lower peak flows, due to less snow.    This clearly has

significant implications for spring irrigation, mid‐ to late‐summer flows, and reservoir storage.   

Snowpack currently feeds a late‐spring flood pulse on the upper Rio Grande and its tributaries,

providing base flow for both the middle and lower river.    In their 2008 paper, Hurd and Coonrod

found that in the warmer climate projected for New Mexico, there would be an earlier and smaller

snow‐fed flood pulse, and a reduced total stream flow volume, especially in late spring/early summer.   

Their projected reductions in flow for the Middle Rio Grande are (Hurd and Coonrod, 2008):

 2030:    4 ‐ 14% reduction

 2080:    8 ‐ 29% reduction

Santa Fe River stream flow projections are similar to those for the Middle Rio Grande. Cox et al., in

their 2011 paper, project an annual decrease in stream flow above McClure Reservoir by 2060 of

11‐18%.   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

73

Figure C‐6: Percentage change in

the April 1 snowpack from the

1961‐90 baseline in four areas of

the western US as simulated for

the 21st century by the Canadian

and Hadley global circulation

models. April 1 snowpack is

important because it stores

water that is released into

streams and reservoirs later in

the spring and summer. The

sharp reductions are due to

rising temperatures and an

increasing fraction of winter

precipitation falling as rain

rather than snow. The largest

changes occur in the most

southern mountain ranges and

those closest to the warming

ocean waters. (NAST, 2000).
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

74

Figure C‐7: Projected change in snowmelt runoff timing for western North America (Stewart et al., 2004)
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

75

C.2. Potential Secondary Effects

The temperature and precipitation projections, and their associated impacts to snowpack, snowmelt,

stream flow, and P‐E anomaly, have significant implications for virtually all water‐related systems in

New Mexico.    Reservoir storage and river operations will be impacted by changes in volume and

timing; these in turn will impact water availability for urban, agricultural and ecosystem use.    Changes

in precipitation intensity and snowpack may impact groundwater recharge rates.    As a result, all

systems that depend on water need to be evaluated for their vulnerability to reduced water

availability, changes in the timing of water availability, and/or sensitivity to aridity and drought.   

The second speaker at the workshop, Dr. Park Williams, LANL, delivered a case study on potential

climate change impacts to forest ecosystems of New Mexico.    This study provides significant insight

into the types of cascading impacts that climate change may bring to New Mexico and the Santa Fe

Basin.

C.2.1 Past, Present, and Future Impacts of Drought on Forests in the Southwestern USA

Dr. Williams initially analyzed how temperature (relative to precipitation) impacts regional forest

productivity and mortality in the Southwestern USA.    However, he quickly realized that temperature

impacts forests via vapor pressure deficit.    Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) is the difference (deficit)

between the amount of moisture in the air and how plants draw more water from their roots.    VPD

has a simple, nearly straight‐line relationship to the rate of evapotranspiration.   

The growth of piñon pine, ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees in New Mexico and the Southwestern

U.S. is limited by moisture availability.    During seasons and years of optimal climatic conditions,

annual growth rings are wide; during drier years, thinner rings develop, on average with the thinnest

rings during the driest years. Breaking the year down into seasons, and assessing both precipitation

and vapor pressure deficit, Williams and colleagues found that winter (Nov‐Mar) precipitation and

summer (Aug‐Oct of previous year and May‐July of current year) account for 91% of the year‐to‐year

variability in tree‐ring width.    Warm season vapor pressure deficit accounts for 56% of this

correlation, and cold‐season precipitation for 44%.    Williams used this to develop a “Forest

Drought‐Stress Index”, FDSI:

FDSI = 0.44 [zscore(cold‐season precipitation)] – 0.56 [zscore(warm‐season VPD)]

Figure C‐8: Correlation between NDVI

(summer vegetation greenness index

derived from AVHRR satellite

imagery) and the Forest

Drought‐Severity Index (FDSI).
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

76

The FDSI is strongly correlated (0.83) with summer vegetation greenness (NDVI) derived from AVHRR

satellite imagery, as is illustrated in Figure C‐8.The NDVI dropped significantly in 2002 and remained

lower, for the rest of the 2000s, than in the 1980s and 1990s.    This drop coincided with a period of

high tree die‐off in response to bark beetle outbreaks, as shown in Figure C‐9.    Between 1997 and

2010 bark beetles were responsible for the death of 8% of the forests in the Southwest; the number of

dead trees roughly doubled between 2001 and 2006.

Figure C‐9: Number of dead piñon pine,

ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, USFS Forest

Inventory & Analysis (FIA) data.   

The bark beetle outbreaks, in turn, corresponded with drought.    Drought‐induced stress made trees

more susceptible to beetle infestation.    Figure C‐10 illustrates the strong inverse correlation (0.84)

between the forest area impacted by bark beetles (left axis) and the 2‐year running‐average FDSI (right

axis; more negative values, corresponding with higher drought, are at the top of the axis).

Figure C‐10: Inverse correlation between

forest area impacted by bark beetles (left

axis; Forest Health Technology Enterprise

data) and the 2‐year running‐average Forest

Drought‐Severity Index (FDSI, right axis).

Drought‐induced stress also left forests more susceptible to wildfires, which further contributed to the

reduction in NDVI.    2002, 2006 and 2011 all saw large areas in the Southwest burn.    As with bark

beetle impact, total burned area is strongly inversely‐ correlated with the FDSI, as shown in Figure

C‐11; 2002, 2006 and 2011 are all years when the FDSI was lower than ‐1.
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

77

Figure C‐11: Inverse‐correlation between forest burned area (left axis) and FDSI (right axis). More negative

values of FDSI correspond to deeper drought conditions.

Drought‐induced forest mortality is normal in New Mexico.    For example, tree‐ring data suggest that

regionally extensive droughts in the late 1200s and late 1500s caused increased tree mortality

throughout the Southwestern U.S.    More recently, mortality of many southwestern tree species

occurred during the severe drought of the 1950s.    In general, the risk of widespread tree mortality

dramatically increases for FDSI values below ‐1.    However, climate projections suggest FDSI values will

become more negative in the future.    By about 2050, FDSI values for even the wettest, coolest years

will equal or exceed the FDSI values experienced during the 1200 and 1500 “mega‐droughts” and the

1950s drought.

Figure C‐12: Projected FDSI (dark red line is average; light red shading is range) vs. historic FDSI derived from

measured data (black).
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

78

This means that, if climate models are correct, by the 2050s average drought stress will equal that of

the worst drought years that the Southwestern U.S. has experienced in the past 1000 years.   

C.2.2Case Study Implications

It is generally accepted that current drought and elevated temperatures have contributed to the recent

increase in widespread fires and bark‐beetle outbreaks in the Southwestern US.    At least 8 to 11% of

southwestern forest and woodland area was affected by extensive tree mortality due to bark beetles

from 1997 through 2008.    Another approximately 3.0% of forest and woodland area was affected by

stand‐replacing fire with moderate to severe burn severity from 1984 through 2006.    Together, fire

and bark beetles have caused high levels of mortality in 14–18% of southwestern forest areas

(excluding woodlands) over the past two decades.

This suggests that, with only two more recurrences of drought/die‐off similar to that of the past 20

years, Southwest forest area could be reduced by more than 50% over 1980s coverage.    And, given

the projections for warming and the associated increase in vapor pressure deficit and FDSI, two more

recurrences similar to or worse than the past 25 years seem likely.    Clearly, this is a broad

simplification that ignores self‐limiting effects, regeneration, and other complexities; there is

considerable uncertainty about how forests will respond to increasing stress over the coming decades.   

Nonetheless, this science should inform the debate around how to build forest resilience.   

   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

79

Appendix D. Solutions Proposed At Workshop

This appendix contains the full list of climate change actions and solutions proposed at the workshop,

62 in all.    Actions are divided into categories, as for sections 5 and 6 of the report, for ease in

cross‐referencing.

D.1 Water Supply Systems

Water: Management

1. Storm water management by neighborhood

2. Coordinated water quality / water quantity management

3. Local, community‐based water board

4. Aquifer recharge/ aquifer storage and recovery: using surplus rainwater and snowmelt,

landscape contouring to enhance storm water capture, arroyo catchment systems, etc.

5. Negotiate agriculture to urban water transfers of limited term with MRGCD, to be implemented

in times of drought or other emergency.

Water: Demand Reduction

1. Tiered water billing ‐ cheaper rates for those who use less

2. Strengthen water and wastewater reuse; explore cleaning wastewater to drinking water

standard

3. Clearinghouse for city conservation programs

D.2 Ecosystems   

1. Improve urban forests using carbon credits

2. Conduct more prescribed fires in winter

3. Thin Santa Fe River watershed (healthy forests)

4. Develop contingency plans for responding to large‐scale fires in the Santa Fe watershed,

including consideration of flood protection, recovery of water systems, rehabilitation of

reservoirs, and budgets required to implement

D.3 Agriculture and Food security

1. Guarantee seed sovereignty   

2. Buffer zones for GE crops

3. Encourage small farms in the city and county   

4. Annual budget from Santa Fe County Commission to support healthy food systems

5. Urban planning to incorporate a wide variety of urban agriculture techniques, including urban

farming and food‐scapes in commons areas
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

80

D.4 Land Use and Quality of Life

Parks and Landscaping

1. Use compost and mulch in all commons areas   

2. Plant trees w/in city limits to “cool” cities

3. Manage city parks to harvest and reduce runoff, reducing water demand

Urban Infrastructure/Green Infrastructure

1. Solar panels over parking lots to reflect heat and generate energy

2. Incentives for addressing water leaks

3. Tax incentives for green properties

4. Require pervious pavement

5. Free green‐waste bin and city/county composting

6. Close 4‐corners coal plant

Zoning/Development

1. Improve zoning to: preserve agricultural land, foster urban infill, and foster small (~150 people)

neighborhoods

2. New development ‐ zero‐runoff requirement for storm water

3. Moratorium on new construction that draws from groundwater

4. Connect land and water planning

5. Explore policy options to address the tension between locals and second‐homers – does Santa

Fe want to encourage or discourage the growth of 2nd homes.

D.5 Energy Systems

1. Electric coop and/or municipal energy company

2. Create incentives to use renewable energy

3. Greater incentives for energy efficiency, coupled with funding help for individual households

D.6 Sociological Systems/Public Engagement/Policy Change

1. Start now: do what you can with what you have where you are

2. Provide more incentives for actions that address climate change

3. Highlight models of successful projects happening now

4. Foster inclusive discussions incorporating all components of community

5. Eliminate corporate personhood, starting locally and using this to leverage state and national

change   

6. Break down solutions between those that do and do not require financing

7. Open discussion of uncomfortable topics such as population growth

8. All citizens work annually for city water system, in exchange for a tax credit, to create more

awareness
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

81

9. Build task force to manage conserved water to enhance resilience, avoid demand hardening or

dedication to growth (task force to preserve/protect water freed up by conservation so that it

doesn’t go to support growth)

10. Create sacred space around water, including at meetings

D.7 Education

1. Free birth control, sex education in schools, and education on impacts of overpopulation

2. Free classes on growing food and composting   

3. Conservation classes, participation rewarded through tax incentives

4. Xeric demonstration gardens

5. Demonstration rainwater harvesting systems

6. Install rainwater catchment systems in all schools, linked to gardens, food gardens, and trees   

7. Require middle school water education and green education

8. Lessons learned – put into school buildings and curricula

9. Tours of WWTP to educate residents and school children on where waste‐water goes

10. Tours of Buckman Direct Diversion (recognize cost)

11. School challenges to decrease carbon footprint within classrooms and school‐wide, including

quantification   

12. Increase water resource outreach and education for all citizens

D.8 Visionary

1. Make imagination and possibility more seductive than scarcity and fear

2. Artist in Residence dedicated to Santa Fe River

3. Make conservation, both at individual and community level, a ritual

4. Water‐free day each year to demonstrate how integral it is to our existence

5. “Year of water” – poets manage water for a year

D.9 Implementation

1. Regional governance – connect government agencies across whole watershed

2. More communication and collaboration across government levels, beginning with the city and

county

3. A diversity of decision‐makers, coupled with deep community engagement

   
Preliminary Assessment Report

Climate Change and the Santa Fe Watershed July 11, 2012

82

Photo descriptions:   

View of sunset from Santa Fe, June 2009. Photo by A. Lewis

One year after Las Conchas Fire, May 16, 2012. Photo by A. Lewis

Bill deBuys at Santa Fe River Climate Change Workshop, March 6, 2012. Photo by A. Lewis.

Santa Fe River Climate Change Workshop, March 6, 2012.    Photo by A. Lewis

Breakout session during the Climate Change Workshop, March 6, 2012.    Photo by A. Lewis

Blue gramma grass near Santa Fe, August, 2006.    Photo by A. Lewis

High water use toilets on route to the landfill after being replaced through the City of Santa Fe’s toilet

retrofit program, December, 2006. Photo by A. Lewis

Las Conchas fire and fireworks, July 4, 2012.    Photo by A. Lewis

Results of forest treatments in the Santa Fe Watershed near Nichols Reservoir, September, 2011.    Photo

by A. Lewis   

Rangeland near Santa Fe, August 2007.    Photo by A. Lewis

Domestic garden near Santa Fe, August, 2007. Photo by A. Lewis

Green chili roasting in Santa Fe, September, 2011. Photo by A. Lewis
Appendix B 

Technical Memo on Development of 

Climate Change Hydrographs for 

WaterMAPS 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Contents 

The CMIP3 GCM Runs .................................................................................. 1
	

GCM Ensembles ............................................................................................. 1
	

From GCM Ensembles to Hydrographs.......................................................... 6
	

From Hydrographs to Basin Scale Operations................................................ 6
	

Data for WaterMaps........................................................................................ 7
	

Analysis........................................................................................................... 8
	

Works Cited .................................................................................................. 15
	

Appendix B- page i 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Jesse Roach, 

Ph.D, Earth Systems Analysis, to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, dated 

September 6, 2013. The memo explains how hydrographs for the Water 

Management and Planning Simulation (WaterMAPS) were developed. 

1 The CMIP3 GCM Runs 

Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project1 (CMIP3) includes 

archived temperature and precipitation model output from 16 Global Climate 

Models (GCM) runs from 1950 through 2099 for three different emission 

scenarios and a variety of boundary conditions. The result is 112 different GCM 

runs numbered according to the framework shown in Table 1. The 112 CMIP3 

GCM runs were spatially downscaled to 1/8 degree resolution using statistical 

methods. The resulting “Bias Corrected Spatially Downscaled” (BSCD) 

projections are archived for public access.2 

2 GCM Ensembles 

The Hybrid-Delta Ensemble (HDe) method (Brekke, Pruitt and Smith 2010) was 

used to create hydrologic simulations for planning purposes that are limited in 

number and capture both the temperature and precipitation trends from the 

112 GCM runs as well as historic variability of the Rio Grande System. This 

was accomplished as follows: 

1.		 The Bureau of Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC) chose a 

representative area for the Upper Rio Grande basin as a rectangle 

extending from 31.6875 through 38.5625 degrees of latitude, and 

-07.9375 through -105.0625 degrees of longitude as shown in Figure 1. 

2.		 A single average temperature and average precipitation was calculated for 

each of the 112 GCM runs for the spatial area shown in Figure 1 for the 

1950-1999 historic simulation period (average of each month of data in 

each 1/8 degree pixel shown in Figure 1). 

3.		 Another single average temperature and average precipitation value was 

calculated for each of the 112 GCM runs for the spatial area chosen during 

the 2040-2069 simulation period. 

1 http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/index.php 

2 http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/ 

Appendix B- page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

4.		 The difference between these values was defined as the “delta” 

temperature and the “delta” precipitation for each model run for the spatial 

extent and time periods selected. 

5.		 The 112 temperature deltas were plotted against the 112 precipitation 

deltas, and the deltas were grouped according to rank. For the Santa Fe 

Basin study, and the accompanying Upper Rio Grande Impacts Analysis 

(URGIA), an activity of the West Wide Climate Risk Assessment,3 the 

deltas were grouped as above or below the 50th percentile temperature 

delta and also above or below the 50th percentile precipitation delta. For 

the 112 runs, the 50th percentile occurs between the 56th and 57th delta. 

Thus, all points fell into one of four groups: 

•	 Above the 50th percentile for precipitation and temperature changes 

(“HotWet” or HW) 

•	 Above the 50th percentile for precipitation change and below the 

50th percentile for temperature change (“WarmWet” or WW) 

•	 Below the 50th percentile for precipitation change and above the 

50th percentile for temperature change (“HotDry” or HD) 

•	 Below the 50th percentile for precipitation and temperature changes 

(“WarmDry” or WD) 

Finally, an overlapping central group was defined as any point between 

the 25th and 75th percentile for both the change in precipitation and 

change in temperature (“Central” or C). The ensembles are shown in 

tabular form by index number (see Table 1) and graphically in Figure 2. 

For the Santa Fe Basin Study, only the Warm Wet (WW), Hot Dry (HD), and 

Central (C) ensembles for the 2050s period are being used. The GCMs 

which define these ensembles for the2050s are listed in Table 2. 

3 http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/docs/west-wide-climate-risk-assessments.pdf 

4 All temperature increases are positive for all models at all periods, thus the lower 50th percentile for 

temperature change is called Warm. 

Appendix B- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Table 1: The index values of the 112 CMIP3 GCM runs and the associated model 

and emission scenario. 

Emissions Scenarios 

Climate Models: A1b A2 B1 

bccr_bcm2_0 1 40 76 

cccma_cgcm3_1 2 3 4 5 6 41 42 43 44 45 77 78 79 80 81 

cnrm_cm3 7 46 82 

csiro_mk3_0 8 47 83 

gfdl_cm2_0 9 48 84 

gfdl_cm2_1 10 49 85 

giss_model_e_r 11 12 50 86 

inmcm3_0 13 51 87 

ipsl_cm4 14 52 88 

miroc3_2_medres 15 16 17 53 54 55 89 90 91 

miub_echo_g 18 19 20 56 57 58 92 93 94 

mpi_echam5 21 22 23 59 60 61 95 96 97 

mri_cgcm2_3_2a 24 25 26 27 28 62 63 64 65 66 98 99 100 101 102 

ncar_ccsm3_0 29 30 31 32 33 34 67 68 69 70 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 

ncar_pcm1 35 36 37 38 71 72 73 74 110 111 

ukmo_hadcm3 39 75 112 

Appendix B- page 3 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 1: Spatial area used to define the average temperature and precipitation 

value for each GCM for a given time period. Extents are 31.6875 through 38.5625 

degrees of latitude, and -107.9375 through -105.0625 degrees of longitude. 

Screen capture is from http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org. 

Appendix B- page 4 
 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Figure 2: Plotting the temperature delta (X axis) against the precipitation delta (Y 

axis) to group the 112 GCMs into ensembles. The red lines represent the 50% 

values for each, and the red bounding square encompasses the 25% to 75% values. 

Appendix B- page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 2: Ensemble summary table for the Santa Fe Basin study. See Table 1 to 

reference each number to a specific GCM run. 

Warm Wet (upper left) Hot Dry (lower right) Central 

14-17,23,24,27,31-34, 

37,56,57,64,72,77-80, 

93-95,97,99,100-109 

6,8-11,13,19,20,25,26,28, 

29,38-44,46-49,51,53-55, 

59,61-63,69,83,110 

1,4,9,12,17,18,27,29,30,37, 

40,47,48,50,52,57-60,62-64, 

66-72,84,93,94,98,99 

3 From GCM Ensembles to Hydrographs 

The average monthly changes in precipitation and temperature for each period and 

each ensemble are used to alter synthetic historic (Maurer et al. 2002) temperature 

and precipitation data for the 1951-1998 time period. This modified climate data 

is then used by TSC as inputs to a 1/8 degree resolution macroscale land surface 

model known as the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) Model 

(Liang et al. 1994) which generates runoff hydrographs at each 1/8 degree 

computation cell, which is then routed through a river network. The VIC model 

application used for the Upper Rio Grande has been calibrated to some degree, but 

still generates flows significantly different from observed when forced by the 

Maurer et al. (2002) historic climate sequence. To handle this, the raw outflows 

are “bias corrected” in a post processing step that involves comparing the 

cumulative density function (CDF) of the historic simulated flows to the CDF of 

the historic observations to create a transformation of flows that is then used to 

transform all raw VIC output, both during the historic simulation and future 

scenario periods. For more information on this bias correction process, refer to 

the Upper Rio Grande Impact Assessment (Llewellyn et al. 2013). The end result 

of this process is 112 bias-corrected daily streamflow sequences for the study 

area. 

4 From Hydrographs to Basin Scale 

Operations 

The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) is a monthly timestep mass 

balance model that uses hydrologic and climatic inputs to simulate the movement 

of surface water and ground water through the Upper Rio Grande system from the 

San Luis Valley in Colorado to Caballo Reservoir in southern New Mexico, 

including the Rio Chama and Jemez River tributary systems, and the Espanola, 

Albuquerque, and Socorro regional groundwater basins. URGSiM simulates 

operations in nine surface reservoirs, interbasin transfers from the Colorado River 

Basin to the Rio Grande Basin (via Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama project), and 

agricultural diversions and depletions in the Chama, Española, and Middle Rio 

Appendix B- page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Grande Valleys. URGSiM requires hydrologic inflows at 21 locations 

corresponding to stream gaging stations with long-term historic records, as well 

as temperature and precipitation information at 21 different locations 

corresponding to climate measurement stations with long term historic records. 

For the HDe analysis, the hydrologic inflows at the 21 locations were generated 

by the bias corrected VIC model output described above. URGSiM simulated 

system behavior for the HDe scenarios is used to generate the inputs necessary to 

run WaterMaps, and thus evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the 

Santa Fe Basin. The version of URGSiM run for this analysis reduces irrigated 

agricultural area in the Middle Rio Grande Valley to ensure that New Mexico 

meets required deliveries to Elephant Butte under the Rio Grande Compact, which 

impacts Santa Fe operations via Article VII conditions. 

5 Data for WaterMaps 

Four different time series data sets were delivered for each parameter needed by 

WaterMaps, the historic baseline, and the three ensembles shown in Table 2. 

Units are cubic feet per second (cfs), acre-feet (AF), thousand acre-feet (kAF), and 

inch/month (in/mo). The parameters being delivered are:
	

1.		 Rio Grande at Otowi [cfs] 

o	 Total flow at Otowi 

o	 Native flow at Otowi 

o	 San Juan Chama flow at Otowi 

o	 San Juan Chama flow at Otowi destined for direct diversion at 

Buckman. 

o	 San Juan Chama flow at Otowi destined for direct diversion by the 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority 

(ABCWUA). 

2.		 Santa Fe River flow above McClure [cfs] (note, these data are directly 

from TSC) 

3.		 San Juan- Chama percent allocation at Heron [%] 

4.		 Abiquiu Reservoir related parameters 

o	 Total volume [AF] 

o	 Volume of Santa Fe City and County San Juan Chama water [AF] 

o	 Total evaporation [cfs] 

o	 Monthly evaporation rate [in/mo] 

5.		 Article VII status [1 or 0 for in effect or not in effect respectively] 

6.		 New Mexico Rio Grande Compact Balance [kAF] 

The parameters are monthly from January 1951 through December 1998. This 

Appendix B- page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

data is based on calendar years, and 1950 is lost because TSC processing occurred 

on a water year basis from October 1950 through September 1999, and the entire 

calendar years available after this processing are 1951 through 1998. A 

Microsoft Excel file named Data4SFWaterMaps9.6.2013 includes the data 

discussed here and is available upon request. Five other Excel files, which include 

data for other Hybrid Delta Ensemble runs and are the source sheets for Figure 3 

through Figure 13 (at the end of the next section) are also available: 

• AbiquiuWaterMapsDynamic9.6.2013.xlsx 

• ArticleVIIWaterMapsDynamic8.26.2013.xlsx 

• OtowiWaterMapsDynamic8.26.2013.xlsx 

• SFRiverWaterMapsDynamic9.06.2013.xlsx 

• SJCAllocWaterMapsDynamic8.26.2013.xlsx 

6 Analysis 

Figure 3 shows native flow at Otowi as simulated by URGSiM. The lines lie on 

top of each other because they are all based on the historic simulation. It is easier 

to discern the overall differences between scenarios by looking at the cumulative 

flows shown in Figure 4. Interestingly, the 2050s “Warm Wet” (WW, which is 

less hot and more wet) ensemble resulted in more water in the system at Otowi 

compared to the Simulated Historic conditions, while the other ensembles show 

significantly less water. In general, the four scenarios from wettest to driest are: 

WW, Simulated Historic, C, and HD respectively. 

Similar plots are shown for the Santa Fe River above McClure, San Juan Chama 

allocations, and Article VII status in Figure 5 through Figure 10. As with the 

Otowi data, differences between scenarios are most easily visualized with the 

cumulative plots. The 2050s WW scenario is approximately equal to the 

Simulated Historic scenario on the Santa Fe River from a total volume 

perspective, and the two are exactly alike with respect to San Juan Chama 

allocations where 100% allocation is made every year. Article VII conditions are 

least frequent under the WW scenario followed by the Simulated Historic, then 

the C and HD scenarios respectively. Abiquiu storage and evaporation related 

data are shown in Figure 11 through Figure 13. Total Abiquiu storage is generally 

highest for the WW scenario followed by the Simulated Historic, and then the C 

and HD scenarios respectively. Cumulative evaporation depth (Figure 12) is 

highest for the HD scenario followed by the C, and then—unlike the order seen in 

other variables, the WW and finally the Simulated Historic. This is because 

changes to evaporation depth are entirely a temperature effect, and the WW 

scenario is warmer than the Simulated Historic. Although evaporation rates in 

terms of depth rise with climate change, the overall effect at Abiquiu is controlled 

by the amount of water stored such that the total volume of water loss is least for 

the HD scenario followed by the C, the Simulated Historic, and finally the WW. 

Thus, despite increased evaporation demands as scenarios become hotter and drier 

with climate change, as supplies diminish, the reduced storage in the reservoir 

results in reduced overall evaporation. 

Appendix B- page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

New Mexico’s Rio Grande Compact (Compact) Balance (Balance) for the four 

scenarios is shown in Figure 14. The largest Compact debit (under-delivery 

relative to Compact requirements) simulated for the four scenarios of interest was 

almost 300,000 AF, and the largest Compact credit (over-delivery relative to the 

Compact requirements) was almost 200,000 AF. For the first 30 years of the 

simulations (1950-1980), the Balance tends to be most positive for the Simulated 

Historic, followed by WW, C, and HD respectively, but as the wet years of the 

1980s and 1990s set in, this order becomes less predictable. The specific reasons 

the relative Compact behavior becomes less predictable is beyond the scope of 

this analysis, but may have to do with the non-linear nature of Compact delivery 

requirements and the fact that in some cases, wetter years with high storage at 

Elephant Butte Reservoir can be more difficult for New Mexico in terms of 

meeting relatively higher delivery obligations. 

Otowi - Native Flow [cfs]
 

Monthly Flow [cfs] 

10000 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

Simulated Historic 

2050s WW 

2050s C 

2050s HD 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

Figure 3: Native flow at Otowi for 2050s period analysis simulated by URGSiMWWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Appendix B- page 9 
 

 

 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Monthly Flow [cfs] Cumulative Flow [MAF] 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Otowi - Native Flow Cumulative [MAF] 

60 

Simulated Historic 

2050s WW 

50 2050s C 

2050s HD 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Figure 4: Cumulative native flow at Otowi for 2050s period analysis simulated by 

URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Santa Fe River above McClure Reservoir [cfs] 

Figure 5: Flow of Santa Fe River above McClure reservoir for 2050s period analysis. 

Data from land surface model results from TSC. 

Appendix B- page 10 
 

 

 

San Juan Chama % Allocation 

1950195519601964196919751980

Figure 6: Cumulative flow of Santa Fe River above McClure reservoir for 2050s 

period analysis. Data from land surface model results by TSC 

50 

0 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Santa Fe River above McClure - Cumulative 

Cumulative Flow [kAF] 

300 [kAF] 

Simulated Historic 

250 WW
 

C
 

200
 

150 

100 

HD 

1984198919942000 

Figure 7: Monthly San Juan Chama allocations as a percent of annual allocation for 

2050s period analysis simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Appendix B- page 11 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

San Juan Chama Allocation as % Annual

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 1950 1955 1960

19641969197519801984198919942000 

Article VII in Effect? 1 = yes 0 = no 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

Equivalent Years of Full Allocation 

Cumulative San Juan Chama Allocations 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

Figure 8: Cumulative San Juan Chama allocations as equivalent years of full 

allocation for 2050s period analysis simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Article VII 

1 

0 

Figure 9: Article VII Rio Grande Compact conditions for 2050s period analysis 

simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Appendix B- page 12 
 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

Article VII Cumulative
 

Figure 10: Cumulative Article VII Rio Grande Compact conditions (# months) for 

2050s period analysis simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

2000 

0 

100000 

200000 

300000 

400000 

500000 

600000 

700000 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

Beginning of month storage [AF] 

Abiquiu Total Storage [AF] 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

Cumulative Months Article VII in Effect 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1950195519601964

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

196919751980198419891994

Figure 11: Abiquiu storage for 2050s period analysis simulated by URGSiMWWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Appendix B- page 13 
 

 

Cumulative volume [kAF] 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Cumulative depth [ft] 

195019551960

Abiquiu Cumulative Volumetric Evaporation 

Figure 12: Abiquiu cumulative evaporation depth for 2050s period analysis 

simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 1950

[kAF] 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

19942000 

2000 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Simulated Historic 

WW 

C 

HD 

Cumulative Evaporation Depth [ft]
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 1955 1960

1964

1964

1969

1969

1975

1975

1980

1980

1984

1984

1989

1989

1994

Figure 13: Abiquiu cumulative evaporation volume for 2050s period analysis 

simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

Appendix B- page 14 
 

 

Appendix B: Climate Change Hydrographs for WaterMAPs 

New Mexico's Rio Grande Compact Balance 

Simulated Historic
 

WW
 

200 

150 C 

-250 

-200 

-150 

-100 New Mexico's Compact Balance [kAF] 

HD 100 

50 

0 

-50 

-300 

19501955196019641969197519801984198919942000 

Figure 14: New Mexico’s Rio Grande Compact Balance for the 2050s period 

analysis simulated by URGSiM-WWCRA.Hde.8.26.2013. 

7 Works Cited 

Brekke, Levi, Tom Pruitt, and Del Smith. Climate Change and Hydrology 

Scenarios for Oklahoma Yield Studies. Technical Memorandum 86-68210-

2010-01, Denver: Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, 2010. 

Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., E. F. Wood, and S.J. Burges. "A Simple 

hydrologically Based Model of Land Surface Water and Energy Fluxes for 

GSMs." J. Geophys. Res., 1994: 14,415 - 14,428. 

Llewellyn, Dagmar, Ariane Pinson, Jesse Roach, and Seshu Vaddey. Upper Rio 

Grande Impacts Assessment; An Activity of the West Wide Climate 

Risk Assessment. Albuquerque: Bureau of Reclamation, 2013. 

Maurer, E. P., A. W. Wood, J. C. Adam, D.P. Lettenmaier, and Bart Nijssen. "A 

long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for 

the conterminous United States." Journal of Climate 15 (2002): 3237-

3251. 

Appendix B- page 15 

Appendix C1 

Temperature and Precipitation Data for 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

 

Appendix C1: Temperature and Precipitation 

Contents 

1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1
	

2 Description of Data ......................................................................................... 1
	

2.1.1 Reference ET..................................................................................... 3
	

2.1.2 Crop Coefficients.............................................................................. 6
	

3 Works Cited .................................................................................................... 7
	

Appendix C1- page i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C1: Temperature and Precipitation

 This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Jesse Roach, 

Ph.D, Earth Systems Analysis to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, dated 

September 13, 2013. This memo describes the development of temperature and 

precipitation data for the City of Santa Fe, and Nichols and McClure reservoirs 

in the Santa Fe River watershed. 

1 Background 

Temperature and precipitation data were developed using the Hybrid-Delta 

ensemble method (HDe) in support of climate change impacts analysis being 

conducted by The City and County of Santa Fe with support from CDM Smith, 

the Bureau of Reclamation, and Sandia National Laboratories as part of the Santa 

Fe Basin Study. Refer to Appendix B for additional background information on 

the HDe method employed for this analysis. 

2 Description of Data 

The temperature and precipitation data delivered here are monthly averages for the 

two 1/8 degree grid cells shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, the City of Santa Fe, 

and McClure Reservoir are centrally located in the two cells. Nichols Reservoir 

straddles the two. It will be up to the users of WaterMAPS to decide whether to 

assume that evaporation at Nichols is more closely described by the cell 

containing McClure, or an average of the two cells. For each of these spatial 

locations, there are data for three different parameters provided along with this 

memo: 

1. Monthly average of daily maximum temperatures in Celsius (Tmax) 1950-1999 

2. Monthly average of daily minimum temperatures in Celsius (Tmin) 1950-1999 

3. Cumulative monthly precipitation in millimeters (P) 1950-1999 

For each of these parameters, four different climate scenarios are provided (see 

Appendix B for additional details): 

A. Maurer (Maurer et al. 2002). A spatially distributed synthetic dataset 

based on available historic point observations. This is a synthetic estimate 

of actual conditions at these locations from 1950-1999. 

B. 2050-WW. Standing for 2050s warm-wet, this timeseries is the Maurer 

data, but altered according to the changes to precipitation and temperature 

represented in the difference between the historic simulation period 

(1950-1999) and the 2040-2069 (centered on 2055) simulation period for the 

warm-wet ensemble of general circulation models (GCM). 

Appendix C1- page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 1: Two 1/8 degree grid cells (note the lighter red vertical line that bisects the 

heavier red rectangle) that define the climatic conditions for the City of Santa Fe 

(left) and the Santa Fe River reservoirs (right). Nichols Reservoir, which is the 

smaller of the two blue water bodies visible actually straddles the cells, while 

McClure is centrally located in the more easterly cell. Image from http://gdodcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/dcpInterface.html#Projections:%20Su 

bset%20Request 

C. 2050-HD. Analogous to 2050-WW, but for the hot-dry ensemble. 

D. 2050-C. Analogous to 2050-WW, but for the central tendency ensemble. 

These data were developed by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Technical Service 

Center in Denver for 15 climate change scenarios (WW, HD, C and two other 

scenarios, each for three future time periods), of which only the three described in 

B-D above are being used in the Santa Fe Basin study. The data described here 

includes 24 time series (2 locations x 3 parameters x 4 scenarios). The Microsoft 

Excel workbook called MetDataSFBasinStudyStatic9.9.2013 delivered with this 

memo has three worksheets. The first two, called City and Reservoirs, contain the 

24 timeseries of data, 12 on each sheet. 

Appendix C1- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C1: Temperature and Precipitation 

2.1.1 Reference ET 

Reference evapotranspiration (ET) is defined as the potential ET for a reference 

crop (typically grass of a specific height, sometimes alfalfa) under a given set of 

climatic conditions. Reference ET can be directly measured with lysimeters, but is 

most typically calculated with empirical or semi-empirical equations calibrated to 

experimental results. There have been many such equations, but currently the 

industry standard, and the most commonly used equation (when good 

meteorological data exist) is a modified Penman-Monteith equation documented 

in FAO-56 (Allen et al. 1998) and adopted by the American Society of Civil 

Engineers as their standard reference ET equation (Task Committee on 

Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration 2005). However, in addition to 

the maximum and minimum temperatures (Tmax and Tmin), this equation requires 

measurements of windspeed, relative humidity, and solar radiation. Without these 

data, and particularly for longer timesteps, the Hargreaves equation (Hargreaves 

and Samani 1985), a temperature and latitude based equation is arguably the best 

choice. Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) uses the Hargreaves 

equation: 

EEEEoo = 0.0023 RRaa (EEmmmmaamm + 17.8) (EEmmaamm − EEmmmmmm)

0.5 (1) 

where Ra is extraterrestrial radiation expressed as a depth of evaporated water per 

time [L/T], and Tmean, Tmin, and Tmax are the mean, minimum, and maximum 

temperatures in Celsius. At a monthly timestep, Tmean is the average mean daily 

temperature for the month, and Tmin , and Tmax are the mean daily maximum and 

mean daily minimum temperatures for the month respectively. For more 

information on Reference ET equations, and why URGSiM uses Hargreaves 

instead of a more data intensive equation, refer to Appendix C2 and Roach 

(2012). 

The Microsoft Excel workbook, called MetDataSFBasinStudyStatic9.9.2013, 

delivered with this memo has three worksheets. The first two, called City and 

Reservoirs, contain the temperature and precipitation data. A third sheet, called 

RefET, includes the calculations of Reference ET at each location (2) for each 

climate scenario (4) for each month from January 1950 through December 1999. 

The calculations on this sheet are dynamic so that if desired, the logic of the 

Hargreaves equation can be traced. 

Thus, in addition to the 24 temperature and precipitation data timeseries, also 

included are 8 time series for Reference ET calculated with the Hargreaves 

equation. The cumulative values for these timeseries are shown in Figure 2 and 

Figure 3. Over the 50-year historical period, the range of annual average 

Reference ET is on the order of 3.3 to 3.7 feet per year for the grid cell 

encompassing the City of Santa Fe, and 3 to 3.4 feet per year for the grid cell 

encompassing McClure. 

Appendix C1- page 3 
 

Maurer 

2050-WW 

2050-HD 

2050-C 

Cumulative Hargraves Reference ET [feet] 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

200 City of Santa Fe Cumulative Reference ET 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

1950195219541956195819601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998 

Historic Year 

Figure 2: Cumulative Reference ET calculated using the Hargreaves equation for the temperature data associated with 

the grid cell encompassing the City of Santa Fe (see Figure 1). 

Appendix C1- page 4 
 

Cumulative Hargraves Reference ET [feet] 

Appendix C1: Temperature and Precipitation 

Santa Fe Reservoirs Cumulative Reference ET 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Maurer 

2050-WW 

2050-HD 

2050-C 

1950195219541956195819601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998 

Historic Year 

Figure 3: Cumulative Reference ET calculated using the Hargreaves equation for the temperature data 

associated with the grid cell encompassing McClure reservoir (see Figure 1). 

Appendix C1- page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

2.1.2 Crop Coefficients 

ET from a non-reference crop or open water evaporation can be estimated by 

adjusting the Reference ET with a “crop coefficient” which is an empirically 

determined factor that relates the ET in question to the Reference ET. URGSiM 

uses the open water evaporation coefficients shown in Table 1 to estimate 

reservoir evaporation with Reference ET. 

Calculated Open Water Evaporation Coefficient by Month and Reservoir: 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

El Vado 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Abiquiu 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 

Cochiti 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 

Elephant Butte 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 

Caballo 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Table 1: Open water evaporation (crop) coefficients calculated from temperature 

and pan evaporation data measured at five reservoirs in New Mexico between 1975 

and 2006. 

These factors are derived based on comparison of Reference ET at each reservoir 

to 70% of observed pan evaporation at each reservoir. There are several 

conceptual problems with this approach to be noted. First, pan evaporation tends 

to overestimate actual reservoir evaporation because the water in the pan gets 

warmer than the top layer of the actual reservoir. As a result, a factor of 70% is 

applied to pan evaporation rate to estimate reservoir evaporation rate. In 

accounting in the Rio Grande, the 70% is applied to all reservoirs during all times 

of the year (unless the pan is frozen), regardless of size, or location. There is likely 

quite a bit of error in this blanket assumption, however, this is the approach used 

by the Rio Grande Compact accounting, and therefore by URGSiM and 

URGWOM. Second, ET is different, and arguably more complex than straight 

open water evaporation because it includes biologically mediated fluxes. URGSiM 

uses an equation derived to describe ET to estimate open water evaporation. This 

is warranted to some degree by the following statement from Chapter 4 of 

FAO- 56: 

Appendix C1- page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C1: Temperature and Precipitation 

“Notwithstanding the difference between pan-evaporation 

and the evapotranspiration of cropped surfaces, the use of 

pans to predict ETo [Reference ET] for periods of 10 days or 

longer may be warranted. The pan evaporation is related to 

the reference evapotranspiration by an empirically derived 

pan coefficient” (Allen et al. 1998). 

Thus, it is reasonable to use monthly Reference ET to estimate monthly pan 

evaporation, and without additional information, this is a reasonable first 

step. 

In future studies, a simpler or different equation could be used to estimate open 

water evaporation more accurately. Estimates of reservoir evaporation from 

Nichols and McClure using Reference ET rates and an URGSiM evaporation 

coefficient perhaps from El Vado (due to elevation) would be a reasonable 

approach, and perhaps most importantly would capture relative differences in 

evaporation between the different climatic scenarios. 

3 Works Cited 

Allen, Richard G, Luis S Pereira, Dirk Raes, and Martin Smith. Crop evapotranspiration ­

Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and 

drainage paper 56. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, Rome: FAO - Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1998. 

Hargreaves, George H, and Zohrab A Samani. "Reference Crop Evapotranspiration from 

Temperature." Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1985: 96-99. 

Maurer, E. P., A. W. Wood, J. C. Adam, D.P. Lettenmaier, and Bart Nijssen. "A longterm hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the 

conterminous United States." Journal of Climate 15 (2002): 3237-3251. 

Roach, Jesse D. Evapotranspiration Calculations in the Upper Rio Grande Simulation 

Model (URGSiM). Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, 2012. 

Task Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration. The ASCE 

Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation. Task Committee Report, 

ASCE-EWRI, 2005. 

Appendix C1- page 7 

Appendix C2 

Evapotranspiration Calculations in the 

Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model 

(URGSiM) 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

Contents 

I. Abstract ........................................................................................................ 1
	

II. Reference evapotranspiration (ET) equations .............................................. 1
	

A. Modified Penman ETo problems ............................................................. 2
	

B. Choosing a new ETo calculation. .............................................................. 2
	

1. Data availability issues................................................................................ 5
	

2. Data quality issues ...................................................................................... 5
	

III. Crop coefficients.......................................................................................... 8
 

A. Issues with the Sammis et al. (1985) crop coefficients ............................ 8
 

1. Magnitude ................................................................................................... 9
	

2. Growing degree day issues........................................................................ 11
	

B. Current crop coefficient methods........................................................... 13
	

1. Irrigated agriculture................................................................................... 13
	

2. Riparian vegetation ................................................................................... 15
	

3. Open water ................................................................................................ 20
	

IV. Vegetation classifications .......................................................................... 22
	

A. Irrigated agriculture ................................................................................ 22
	

B. Riparian vegetation ................................................................................ 25
	

V. Effective precipitation ............................................................................... 26
	

VI. Implications of changed methods on historic mass balance ...................... 27
	

VII. Bibliography............................................................................................... 29
	

Appendix C2- page i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Jesse Roach, 

Ph.D, Earth Systems Analysis, to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, June 2, 2012. 

I. Abstract 

In 2011, the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) switched from a 

modified Penman based Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) equation with an 

associated growing degree day-based crop coefficient method and 20 vegetation 

types, to a Hargreaves based ETo equation, FAO-56 based crop coefficients 

(Allen et al. 1998), and 5 vegetation types. These changes to URGSiM were made 

as part of ongoing model refinement (independent of the Santa Fe Basin Study) 

and for a variety of reasons, including unreliable results from the previous 

methods, sparse and unreliable historic weather data, and unnecessary complexity 

in previous vegetation classifications. This document summarizes the rationale for 

these changes and the implications in terms of simulated ET in the Upper Rio 

Grande between 1975 and 1999. 

II. Reference evapotranspiration (ET) 

equations 

URGSiM (Roach 2007 and Roach and Tidwell 2009) calculates a monthly mass 

balance in reaches of the Rio Grande in New Mexico from 1975 through 1999 in 

calibration mode, 2000 through 2009 in validation mode, and 2010 forward in 

scenario analysis mode. ET is one of the major terms in this mass balance, and is 

calculated as the smaller of potential ET and available water. For a given month, 

reach, and vegetation type this can be expressed mathematically as shown in 

Equation (1) below. 

rr,mm,vv rr,mm,vv EEEEaarr,mm,vv = min(EEEEpp , HH2OOaavvaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) (1) 

where EEEEaa

rr,mm,vv [L3

/T] is actual ET, EEEEpp

rr,mm,vv [L3

/T] is the potential ET, and rr,mm,vv HH2OOaavvaaaaaaaaaaaaaa [L3

/T] is the water available for ET in reach r during month m for 

vegetation type v. Vegetation types include irrigated crops, riparian vegetation, 

or open water as discussed further in Section III. 

In URGSiM, water availability is determined for irrigated crops as a fraction of 

monthly rainfall (effective precipitation) plus irrigation deliveries to the field, for 

riparian vegetation by the depth to groundwater, and for open water by river flow 

or reservoir volume. Potential ET is calculated as Reference ET (ETo) multiplied 

by a crop coefficient and an area expressed mathematically in Equation (2) below. 

rr,mm,vv EEEEpp = EEEEoorr,mm ∗ KKccrr,mm,vv ∗ AArr,mm,vv (2) 

Appendix C2- page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

where EEEEoo

rr,mm [L/T], the Reference ET, is the potential ET of a reference crop, 

either grass or alfalfa, in reach r during month m, KKcc

rr,mm,vv

 [-] is a crop coefficient 

that relates the potential ET of crop v to the reference crop, and AArr,mm,vv [L2]is the 

area of vegetation v in reach r during month m. Estimation of vegetative area rr,mm (AArr,mm,vv) although potentially uncertain, is straightforward. Estimation of EEEEoo

and KKcc

rr,mm,vv

 on the other hand are uncertain and also ambiguous. A variety of 

equations and methods are available in the literature for calculation of ETo, crop 

coefficients, or the product of the two. These range from highly localized pan 

evaporation observations to temperature and radiation based equations 

(e.g., Hargreaves 1985) to more general data intensive semi-empirical equations 

(e.g., Penman-Monteith). 

A. Modified Penman ETo problems 

Prior to 2011, following the Bureau of Reclamation’s ET Toolbox (Brower 2008), 

URGSiM used a version of the Penman equation modified by Dr. Ted Sammis 

(Sammis et al. 1985) to estimate ETo and an associated growing degree day based 

crop coefficient estimation (ibid). In 2011, the ET Toolbox abandoned the 

Sammis modified Penman method for calculation of ETo because of erroneously 

high results. ETo for year 2007 Angostura weather station data1 (Figure 1) was 

calculated with a variety of equations by Keller-Bliesner Engineering using 

software developed by Dr. Rick Allen called Ref-ET. According to this analysis, 

the annual cumulative ETo calculated by the modified Penman equation was 

approximately 80 inches, some 20 inches or 33% greater than the approximately 

60 inches calculated by the widely accepted FAO-56 (reference) or ASCE 

Standard (reference) methods. This result is not applicable quantitatively to all 

weather stations and all years, but follows a qualitative pattern of significant 

overestimate of ETo by the modified Penman equation. 

B. Choosing a new ETo calculation 

The results described above led to the abandonment of the legacy modified 

Penman equation as the default method of ETo calculation by URGSiM, the 

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model (URGWOM), and the ET Toolbox. In 

choosing a new method for URGSiM, the availability and quality of historic data 

became of concern. Generally, two forms of the Penman-Monteith equation 

(FAO-56 (Allen et al. 1998), and the ASCE-Standard method (Task Committee 

on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration 2005)) are the current state of 

the art for calculating ETo where sufficient high quality data exists. PenmanMonteith based equations such as these are weather data intensive however, 

requiring solar radiation, wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity data. If 

1 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/rivers/awards/Nm2/rg/PROD/wx/txt/archive/2007/ANGN.txt accessed 

1/10/2012 

Appendix C2- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

Calculated Reference ET: Angostura 2007 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Cumulative Reference ET (in) 

Modified Penman (ET Toolbox pre 2011) 

FAO-24 Penman 

1948 Penman 

ASCE Standard 

FAO-56 PM 

1996 Kimberly Penman 

Hargreaves 1985 

0

50

100150200250300350 

Day of Year 

Figure 1: Cumulative Reference ET (ETo) calculated at Angostura weather station 

during the year 2007 by a variety of ETo equations. The modified Penman used 

previously by the ET Toolbox is erroneously high compared to all other methods. 

The other high outlier, the FAO-24 Penman has been superseded by the FAO-56 

Penman-Monteith method. The FAO-56 and ASCE Standard methods are coincident 

for this data. The Hargreaves 1985 method requires temperature data only. 

these data are not available, or of questionable quality, less data-intensive, 

temperature based methods such as the Hargreaves 1985 (Hargreaves and Samani 

1985) may be more appropriate. 

In the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico upstream of Caballo Reservoir (the
	

spatial extent of URGSiM), from 1975-1999 (the calibration period for 

URGSiM), full weather data including solar radiation, wind speed, and relative 

humidity measurements are spatially limited and of suspect quality. Temperature 

measurements, on the other hand, are more widely available and reliable. In
	

addition, the monthly timestep of URGSiM reduces temporal variability that 

would be captured by a more complex and data intensive method, which reduces 

the advantage of the more complex method. Indeed, for timesteps longer than 

5 days, the Hargreaves 1985 equation often compares very favorably to more 

complex methods (Hargreaves and Allen 2003). For all of these reasons, the 

relatively simple Hargreaves 1985 equation was adopted for use by URGSiM:
	

Appendix C2- page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Monthly average of daily ETo calculations [cm/da] 

EEEEoo = 0.0023 RRaa (EEmmaaaamm + 17.8) (EEmmaamm − EEmmaamm)0.5 (3) 

where Ra is extraterrestrial radiation expressed as a depth of evaporated water per 

time [L/T], and Tmean, Tmin, and Tmax are the mean, minimum, and maximum 

temperatures in Celsius. For URGSiM, at a monthly timestep, Tmean is the average 

mean daily temperature for the month, and Tmin , and Tmax are the mean daily 

maximum and mean daily minimum temperatures for the month respectively. 

Although the (EEmmaamm − EEmmaamm)0.5 term in equation (3) is not linear, monthly ETo 

values calculated from monthly average inputs are almost identical to monthly 

averages of ETo values calculated from daily inputs as shown in Figure 2 for daily 

Angostura weather station data from 2000 through 20112. The choice to use 

Hargreaves 1985 is further supported by data availability and quality issues in the 

region explained in more detail in the next two subsections. 

Monthly ETo from Monthly vs Daily Calculations Angostura
 

Weather Station 2000-2011
 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

y = 0.9954x 

R2 = 0.9999 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 

Monthly ETo calculations [cm/da] 

Figure 2: Comparison of monthly calculations of ETo using the Hargreaves 

equation (x-axis) to monthly averages of daily calculations of ETo using the same 

(y-axis) shows an almost imperceptible difference between the two methods for 

12 years of Angostura weather station data. This stability of the non-linear (Tmax – 

Tmin)

0.55 term in the Hargreaves equation for daily versus monthly calculations 

suggests that daily (Tmax – Tmin) in °C is relatively constant in any given month. 

2 Daily data from ET Toolbox website downloaded 2/27/2012 

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/rivers/awards/Nm2/rg/PROD/wx/txt/archive/ 

Appendix C2- page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

1. Data availability issues 

Within the spatial extent of URGSiM, full weather data (temperature, wind 

speed, relative humidity, and solar radiation) are available from 1985 to 1992 and 

1993 to present at the Los Lunas and Alcalde data stations.3 Weather data from 

additional locations became available starting in 2001; however, the 1975 to1999 

calibration period is the period of focus for this analysis. Thus for the period of 

interest, full weather data are not available at all for 11 of 25 years and are only 

available in two useful locations for the remaining 14 years. Temperature data, 

however, is more widely available. Numerous temperature stations along the Rio 

Grande or Rio Chama within the URGSiM model extent have data available 

beginning in 1975 or earlier. The locations of some of these are shown in Figure 3 

along with the two full weather data sites. It is clear from this figure that without 

better spatial and temporal data availability, the potential benefit of a dataintensive Penman-Monteith based Reference ET method is questionable, and a 

temperature based method makes the most sense for historic calculations. 

2. Data quality issues 

In addition to the spatial and temporal sparseness of the historic record for full 

weather data, preliminary analysis also suggests that the available historic data has 

not been carefully checked, and may not be reliable. Keller-Bliesner performed a 

high level analysis of weather data for the Alcalde Station from 1985- 2010, and 

found obvious issues with the solar radiation, relative humidity, and wind speed 

data. As seen in Figure 4, daily solar radiation values higher than theoretical 

maxima, relative humidity values greater than 100% or equal to 0%, and dramatic 

changes in wind sensor behavior in short periods of time were all noted in the data. 

In addition, Keller-Bliesner has noted one day shifts and a lack of quality control 

or assurance procedures associated with weather data from New Mexico State 

University sources (Brian Westfall, personal communication 7/1/2011). In 

general, a model is only as good as the data driving it, and this applies to 

Reference ET equations. As stated in Appendix D of the ASCE Standardized 

Reference Evapotranspiration Equation documentation (Task Committee on 

Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration 2005): 

“Weather data must be screened before use in any ET equation, 

including the standardized equation, to ensure that data are of good 

quality and are representative of well-watered conditions. This is 

especially important with electronically collected data, since human 

oversight and maintenance may be limited. When weather 

measurements are determined to be faulty, they can be adjusted or 

corrected using a justifiable and defensible procedure.” 

3 Downloaded from the New Mexico State University website: 

http://hydrology1.nmsu.edu/cgi-shl/cns/uberpage.pl?selected=2 Available online as of 1/10/2012 

Appendix C2- page 5 
Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 3: Weather station data available along river reaches within the URGSiM model extent with 

periods of record starting before the year 2000. Stations are labeled by period of record start year. 

Only two stations are available with long term full weather data (Alcalde and Los Lunas), while 

numerous stations are available with long term temperature data. 

Appendix C2- page 6
 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

Figure 4: Weather station diagnostics for Alcalde weather station daily data 

between 1985 and 2010. Daily solar radiation values greater than theoretic 

maximum (upper left), maximum relative humidity values greater than 100% and 

minimum relative humidity values equal to 0% for years at a time (upper right), and 

dramatic shifts to the slope of cumulative wind plots in different years (lower left) 

are indicative of sensor problems. The daily temperature range (lower right) seems 

fine. 

Appendix C2- page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The limited availability of full weather data sets for the spatial and temporal 

extents of interest to URGSiM, coupled with the monthly timestep of the model, 

are sufficient to preclude use of a Penman-Monteith ETo equation in the monthly 

timestep URGSiM. The apparent unreliability of the full weather data adds even 

more credence to the decision to use a temperature based method. Of the 

temperature based methods, the Hargreaves 1985 equation (Equation [3] above) 

is perhaps the most widely accepted and is now used in URGSiM for ETo 

calculations. 

III. Crop coefficients 

Reference ET (ETo) is by definition the potential evapotranspiration rate of a 

well-watered reference crop, in the case of Hargreaves 1985 and most other ETo 

methods, a grass of specific properties. From this ETo, which is a function of 

atmospheric conditions and reference crop physiology, the potential ET rates of 

other vegetation types can be inferred based on vegetation specific factors called 

crop coefficients as introduced in Equation (2) above. A crop coefficient of 0.9 for 

a given crop in a given time period means that the ET from that crop will be 90% 

of reference crop ET. Crop coefficients typically vary with time because of 

changes in the crop phenology. They can be defined as a function of month, 

position in growing season, or climatic factors depending on the level of detail 

desired. 

A. Issues with the Sammis et al. (1985) crop coefficients 

A significant factor in selection by the ET Toolbox of the modified Penman 

method as the default for estimation of ETo was the existence of locally developed 

crop coefficients based on this specific ETo formulation. Sammis et al. 

(1985) developed crop coefficients for alfalfa, cotton, corn, and sorghum at 

locations throughout New Mexico. The crop coefficients were calculated by 

comparison of ET estimates for the crop using a mass balance method (nonweighing lysimeter) to the Reference ET calculated from weather data using the 

modified Penman equation discussed in Section I.A. Rather than correlating the 

resulting crop coefficients to the day of year, however, the crop coefficient was 

correlated to the cumulative growing degree days. Growing degree days (GDD) 

are a proxy of expected cumulative plant growth calculated with daily temperature 

data and plant properties. Crop coefficients were calculated as a function of crop 

stage rather than date. Using this method, the crop coefficient for a given crop 

may vary on a given day from year to year based on antecedent temperature 

conditions to that point in the year. For example, in a cold year, alfalfa in June 

may be smaller and use less water than the same field of alfalfa in June of a 

warmer year. 

Appendix C2- page 8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

1. Magnitude 

It would be expected that an erroneously high ETo from the modified Penman 

equation (as shown in Section II.A) would lead to erroneously low crop 

coefficients, and that in combination the errors would cancel and potential ET 

estimates would be useful. However, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, the 

opposite is true, at least for Angostura 2007 data. Figure 5 shows that Sammis et 

al. crop coefficients for alfalfa at Angostura in 2007 are higher than alfalfa crop 

coefficients of the magnitude of FAO-56 recommendations, particularly during 

the peak of the summer when ETo values are highest. When the effect of the 

GDD-based crop coefficients are combined with the effect of the high ETo, the 

result, for the Angostura 2007 case, is potential ET estimates of 64 inches per year 

(which is almost 50% higher than the 43 inches per year estimated for the FAO-56 

ETo and crop coefficients case). Of this difference of 21 inches per year, 15 inches 

(over 70%) is due to the ETo difference, and the remaining 6 inches is due to the 

crop coefficient difference. These results are shown in Figure 6. 

Alfalfa Crop Coefficients: Angostura 2007 

Kc [-] 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

Sammis et al GDD 

FAO 56 

Jan-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 

Date 

Figure 5: Crop coefficients calculated for alfalfa at Alcalde weather station using the 

Sammis et al. (1985) GDD method compared to simple FAO-56 based estimates of 0.4 

for the first month of the growing season and 0.95 thereafter. The GDD method values 

are higher than the FAO-56 based values from May 21st through September 19th, a nearly 

4 month period during which Reference ET will be at its greatest. 

Appendix C2- page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

Jan-07

Feb-07

Mar-07

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07

Jul-07

Aug-07Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07Dec-07 

Consumptive Potential [in] 

Cumulative Alfalfa Potential Consumption Angostura 

ETo-Mod Pen, Kc-Sammis et al GDD 2007

(64 inches) 

ETo-FAO, Kc-Sammis et al GDD (49 

inches) ETo 

Kc difference: 

Figure 6: Cumulative potential ET estimates for alfalfa at Angostura in 2007 for 

different combinations of Reference ET (ETo) equations (either modified Penman or 

FAO-56 Penman Monteith) and crop coefficients (Kc) (either Sammis et al. 1985 

growing degree day (GDD) based method or FAO-56 based). The combination of 

modified Penman ETo with Sammis et al. GDD Kc results in cumulative estimates 

50% greater than the FAO combination. 

Also shown in Figure 6 is cumulative actual ET estimated by an eddy covariance 

tower4 for an alfalfa field in San Acacia, which is further south and at a lower 

elevation than Angostura. Potential ET assumes “standard” growing conditions, 

meaning a disease free, well-fertilized crop, grown in large fields under optimum 

soil water conditions (Allen et al. 1998). This situation typically represents an 

upper limit to ET, and thus actual ET is often less than potential ET. Thus, a direct 

comparison of potential ET at Angostura to actual ET at San Acacia is difficult in 

a quantitative sense. However, the fact that actual ET from a “well-watered” 

alfalfa field in San Acacia is on the order of 40 inches per year provides additional 

support for the notion that methods used previously by the ET Toolbox for 

calculation of ETo and Kc that suggested more than 60 inches of potential ET at a 

more northerly location were anomalously high. A remaining question is why the 

potential ET values calculated by the Sammis crop coefficient method are so high 

when they were developed with field experiments. One possibility is that when 

Sammis et al. excavated and then refilled boxes in the field to create the nonweighing lysimeters, they created growing conditions that were not representative 

of the “standard” conditions simulated by the ETo equation. Alfalfa yield data 

4 Data downloaded 6/24/2010 from http://bosque.unm.edu/~cleverly/ALF/ALF.html . Website no 

longer available as of 1/10/201 

Appendix C2- page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

shown in Table 1 support this hypothesis. Alfalfa yields from the five lysimeters 

were on average 174% of yields in the surrounding fields. Sammis et al’s results 

might have been different if instead of calculating ETo, they had measured ETo 

with parallel lysimeters growing the reference crop. 

Alfalfa Yield [kg/ha] 

Location ETo 

[mm] 

ETa 

[mm] Lysimeter Field 

Artesia 2140 1873 23400 13450 

Clovis 2142 1786 15800 12780 

Farmington 1582 1581 14700 6720 

Las Cruces 

1 1710 1715 21900 11430 

Las Cruces 

2 1893 1687 22600 12100 

Average 1893 1728 19680 11296 

Table 1: Reference ET (ETo), actual ET (Eta) in non-weighing lysimeters, and yields 

in the lysimeters and surrounding field crop yields reported by Sammis et al (1985) 

for Alfalfa. Note that lysimeter yields are significantly larger than field yields for all 

locations, with lysimeter yields averaging 174% of field yields. The non-weighing 

lysimeters were not representative of field conditions, and may not have been 

representative of “standard” conditions. 

2. Growing degree day issues 

Situations in which the GDD method begins to shut the plant down before the end 

of the growing season is another issue noted with using GDD to estimate riparian 

crop coefficients. This is illustrated when GDD are calculated using temperature 

data from the Bosque del Apache temperature station,

5 and then translated to Salt 

Cedar crop coefficients using the GDD based method in ET Toolbox (Brower 

2008). The result, shown in Figure 7 is a crop coefficient that is zero before 

October6 in every year between 2000 and 2008, before saltcedar is done 

transpiring (the ET Toolbox suggests a transpiration end date of November 15th 

5 Data downloaded from the Western Regional Climate Center website: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1138 Available online as of 1/10/2012. 

6 These results are calculated at a monthly timestep using URGSiM. However, because GDD days are 

calculated as the midpoint between daily max and daily min temperatures less a base temperature, the 

sum of daily calculated GDD will be the same as a single calculation with monthly average min and 

monthly average max temperatures. 

Appendix C2- page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kc [-] 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

for Salt Cedar). The ET Toolbox GDD versus Kc curves shut down Salt Cedar 

and Cottonwood ET by the time they reach 1,600 Growing Degree Days, which is 

less than any other crop in the ET Toolbox for which GDD is used except spring 

barley. Alfalfa is still transpiring at 4,000 GDD, and Wheat at 3,000 to give some 

comparison. (The base temperature is higher for the riparian species than the other 

crops meaning the riparian species GDD will not accumulate as fast, so the 

comparison is not quite direct, but illustrative nonetheless). According to the ET 

Toolbox documentation (Brower 2008) page 34, the Salt Cedar and Cottonwood 

GDD to crop coefficient relationship are a result of “extensive field studies in 

1999 at the Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge” by Dr. Salim Bawazir 

of NMSU. Interestingly, as can be seen in Figure 8, the year 1999 had low 

average temperatures at Bosque del Apache. especially in April, June, and July 

compared to 2000-2011. Thus defining GDD to crop coefficient relationships 

based on a single (relatively cool) year of data may explain why those curves end 

at 1,600 GDD, but GDD values exceeding this are reached at Bosque del Apache 

by October of all but one year between 2000 and 2009. Regardless of the reason, 

the GDD-based crop coefficients used previously by URGWOM and URGSiM 

can lead to obviously erroneous results for riparian vegetation in the (warmer) 

southern reaches of the Middle Rio Grande. 

Kc for Salt Cedar at Bosque del Apache Temperature Station using GDD Method 

from ET Toolbox
 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Ave 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Figure 7: Crop coefficient (Kc) estimated for Salt Cedar at the Bosque del Apache 

temperature station4 using a Growing Degree Method. Note that Kc comes down 

too quickly at the end of the summer mathematically shutting off ET prematurely 

before October of almost every year between 2000 and 2009. 

Appendix C2- page 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

-30 

0 

30 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Average daily max temp compared to 1999 [°F]

Bosque del Apache Monthly Average Temp (°F) 2000­

2011 Compared to 1999 Values 

Warmer than 1999 

Cooler than 1999 

Warmer: 25% 9% 18% 100% 33% 82% 83% 67% 45% 45% 18% 100% 

Figure 8: Monthly average temperature at the Bosque del Apache temperature 

station in 2000-2011 compared to the year 1999. Growing Degree Day based 

estimates of riparian crop coefficients in the ET Toolbox are based on 1999 field 

data from Bosque del Apache. 1999 was a cool summer in this location, especially 

in April, June, and July compared to 2000-2011. The “Warmer” percentages mean 

that, for example, 100% of Aprils between 2000 and 2011 had higher average 

temperatures than April of 1999. 

B. Current crop coefficient methods 

1. Irrigated agriculture 

Irrigated agriculture in the URGSiM model extent has been dominated during 

recent history by alfalfa and pasture grass (see Section IV.A). To choose a new 

crop coefficient methodology for use in URGSiM, observed ET data from the 

eddy covariance tower over an alfalfa field near San Acacia (data seen previously 

in Figure 6) was compared to potential ET calculated with a Hargreaves ETo 

method and alfalfa crop coefficients from three different sources: the Sammis et 

al. (1985) GDD method, the Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment (MRGWA) 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 1997) values, and FAO-56 (Allen, et al. 1998) based 

values. Results are seen in Figure 9. The actual ET is less than any of the potential 

ET values during the main growing season, but more than any method in October 

through December. The Sammis et al. (1985) GDD method results in the highest 

estimated potential ET while results from the MRGWA (reference) and FAO-56 

(reference) crop coefficients are comparable. Based on this result, crop 

Appendix C2- page 13 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

coefficient values based on FAO-56 were adopted for use in URGSiM for Alfalfa, 

Pasture Grass, Grains, and Fruits and Vegetables crop types. (The use of these 

four irrigated crop classifications is explained in Section III.) The crop 

coefficients used are shown in Figure 10. 

8 

10 

12 

Potential & Actual Alfalfa ET 2007 

San Acacia Tower estimated ET 

Eto-Harg 

Eto-Harg, Kc-MRGWA 

Eto-Harg, Kc-ETTB 

Eto-Harg, Kc-FAO 

onth 

40 

50 

60 

Potential & Actual Growing Season 

Cumulative Alfalfa ET 2007 San Acacia 

Tower estimated ET 

Eto-Harg 

Eto-Harg, Kc-MRGWA 

Eto-Harg, Kc-ETTB 

Eto-Harg, Kc-FAO 

6

inches/m

30

inches 

4 20 

2 10 

0 0 

Figure 9: Estimates of potential ET for an alfalfa field near San Acacia during 2007. 

The blue line is an estimates of actual ET from an eddy-covariance tower (see 

footnote #3). The red line is calculated ETo using the Hargreaves 1985 equation 

with observed temperature data from a temperature station next to the field. The 

remaining three lines are potential ET estimates resulting from multiplication of the 

ETo value by a crop coefficient for alfalfa for the given month from either the 

Sammis et al. (1985) GDD method, the Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment 

(MRGWA), or FAO-56 (Allen et al. 1998) based values. 

Appendix C2- page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Alfalfa 0 0 0.4 0.7 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0 0 

Pasture 0 0 0.4 0.7 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0 0 

Grains 0 0 0.3 0.7 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.4 0 0 

Fruits/Vegetables 0 0 0.7 0.9 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0 0 

Riparian 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 0.3 0.2 

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 

1.2 

1.4 

Kc [-] 

Month 

URGSiM Crop Coefficients 

Figure 10: Tabular and visual representation of crop coefficients utilized by 

URGSiM. 

2. Riparian vegetation 

Figure 10 also shows values used for riparian vegetation, which are explained 

here. Riparian vegetation is vegetation growing along the river corridor. For 

URGSiM, riparian vegetation is deep rooted vegetation that can obtain water from 

the shallow ground water system (i.e., trees but not grasses), and is not irrigated. 

Eddy covariance tower measurements of actual ET from riparian vegetation are 

available in the Middle Rio Grande valley from 2000 to 2004 (Cleverly et al. 

2006). Eddy covariance derived ET data from three locations representing sparse 

Cottonwood, dense Cottonwood, and Salt Cedar vegetation types are shown in 

Figure 11. 

Modeling ET from riparian vegetation is complicated by reductions in potential 

ET as groundwater levels drop. Groundwater models typically specify some 

relationship between depth to groundwater and potential ET. In their Albuquerque 

Basin MODFLOW groundwater model, McAda and Barroll (2002) specify 

groundwater deeper than 30 feet (extinction depth) as inaccessible to riparian 

vegetation, and a maximum riparian ET of 5 feet per year when groundwater 

levels reach the ground surface. Baird and Maddock (2005) use a relationship 

between transpiration and groundwater depth that reflects decreases in plant 

activity for very shallow groundwater situations due to root inundation. As water 

levels approach the surface and transpiration shuts down (as shown by the Baird 

Appendix C2- page 15 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

ET [inches] 

Riparian ET Towers 2000 - 2004 Measurements 

Sparse Cottonwood Average 

Dense Cottonwood Average 

Salt Cedar Average 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Figure 11: Eddy covariance tower based monthly ET estimates for sparse 

cottonwood (blue), dense cottonwood (green), and salt cedar (red) vegetation 

types from 2000 through 2004. Shapes indicate the year of measurement, colors 

indicate vegetation type, and the solid lines represent vegetation specific average 

values. Average cumulative annual values are approximately 41 inches for Salt 

Cedar, 42 inches for dense Cottonwood, and 48 inches for sparse Cottonwood. 

and Maddock [2005] line), direct evaporation from the ground surface should 

increase. For a spatially distributed model, it might be possible to separate 

transpiration and ground surface evaporation components, but for the spatially 

lumped URGSiM model, it would be difficult. In order to capture the transpiration 

peak in the Baird and Maddock (2005) line while including the deep extinction 

depth and direct evaporation for very shallow groundwater from McAda and 

Barroll (2002), URGSiM uses a combination of the two. The URGSiM 

relationship is shown along with those from McAda and Barroll (2002) and Baird 

and Maddock (2005) in Figure 12. Finally, to use Reference ET information, 

URGSiM substitutes atmospheric potential ET for the absolute rates used by 

McAda and Barroll (2002) and Baird and Maddock (2005) (5 feet per year and 

0.3 centimeters per day respectively). In this way, URGSiM combines both 

ground-water level and atmospheric condition information in calculating riparian 

ET. 

Appendix C2- page 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

Riparian ET as % of Maximum
 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Depth to GW [feet] 

URGSIM 

Baird Maddock (approximate) 2005 

McAda Barroll 2002 

35 

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 

Fraction of Atmospheric Potential ET 

Figure 12: Relationship between depth to groundwater and atmospheric potential 

ET utilized by URGSiM. Atmospheric potential ET is defined as reference ET times 

the riparian crop coefficient. The McAda and Barroll (2002) and Baird and Maddock 

(2005) curves are defined with respect to absolute maximum ET rates of 5 feet per 

year and 0.3 centimeters per day respectively. By specifying these values as 

atmospheric potential, the URGSiM method normalizes the lines, and combines 

depth to groundwater and atmospheric conditions. 

Adding the groundwater dependence to equation (2), we get 

gggggg,mm,vv gggggg,mm,vv ∗ AAgggggg,mm,vv EEEEpp = EEEEoo

rr,mm ∗ KKccmm,vv ∗ GGGGcc (4) 

where EEEEpp

gggggg,mm,vv [L3

/T] is evapotranspiration from riparian crop v in groundwater 

zone gwz during month m, EEEEoo

rr,mm [L/T] is Reference ET in reach r during month 

m, KKcc

mm,vv

 [-] is the riparian crop coefficient, GGGGcc

gggggg,mm,vv

 [-] is the groundwater 

coefficient (percent of maximum ET due to groundwater depth) which is 

calculated with the depth to groundwater in groundwater zone gwz during month 

m, and the URGSiM relationship shown in Figure 12, and AAgggggg,mm,vv [L2

] is the area 

of riparian vegetation. 

Appendix C2- page 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

In URGSiM, Reference ET is calculated at a reach level while groundwater levels 

are calculated at a smaller spatial unit called a groundwater zone. Values can be 

rolled up from groundwater zone to reach or disaggregated from reach to 

groundwater zone depending on computational needs. Riparian vegetation crop 

coefficients adopted for use in URGSiM (Figure 10) are not spatially dependent, 

and so no reach or groundwater index has been added to the crop coefficient 

notation in equation (4). 

If we divide both sides of equation (4) by the vegetation area, make the 

assumption that for groundwater-dependent vegetation's actual ET is equal 

to potential ET, and rearrange equation (4) to solve for crop coefficient, we 

get: mm,ddeedd

mm,vv EEEEaa−ddddddddh KKcc = 

EEEEoo

mm,ddeedd∗GGGGeemm,vv,ddeedd (5) 

mm,aaccee where EEEEaa−ddaappeeh is actual ET depth [L] measured at eddy covariance tower ect, 

and the Reference ET and groundwater depth (and thus groundwater coefficient) 

are based on weather data and groundwater depth measurements at the same eddy 

covariance tower ect. All terms on the right can be solved with data from a given 

eddy covariance tower. 

Riparian vegetation in URGSiM is dominated by Cottonwood and Salt Cedar, and 

thus data from all three towers shown in Figure 11 were used to develop riparian 

crop coefficients. Reference ET was calculated with the Hargreaves 1985 

equation, and the groundwater coefficient was calculated with the URGSiM 

relationship to groundwater depth shown in Figure 12. The resulting coefficients 

for each tower, as well as the average of the three towers are shown in Figure 13 

below. Based on data overlap and relative consistency between the average data 

from the three different towers, the overall average crop coefficient was adopted 

for use throughout URGSiM. 

While the riparian vegetation crop coefficients derived here should be usable 

with Reference ET calculated with other accepted methods, they are specific to 

the relationship between depth to groundwater and maximum riparian ET used 

here and should not be used with other groundwater to maximum riparian ET 

relationships. Figure 14 shows the impact of the groundwater depth correction, 

and an alternate set of riparian vegetation crop coefficients that can be used 

without groundwater depth information, or with the McAda and Barroll (2002) 

relationship shown in Figure 12 above. The crop coefficient values calculated 

with the McAda and Barroll are extremely large as a result of groundwater depths 

on the order of 5 to 6 feet and actual cumulative riparian ET on the order of 3.5 to 

4 feet in the areas where these measurements were made. The McAda and Barroll 

(2002) relationship would suggest only 2.5 to 3 feet of riparian loss for this 

situation without a Kc correction, and thus a high Kc is needed to reconcile the 

two. This results in values close to 100% of maximum for the URGSiM 

Appendix C2- page 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

groundwater-potential ET percentage relationship (Figure 12), but sub-optimal 

values of 50% to 60% for the McAda Barroll relationship. 

 It is important to realize that estimates of ET from riparian vegetation without 

using groundwater depth implicitly assume some availability of water to the plant 

and thus some depth to groundwater. In the case of the groundwater independent 

crop coefficients shown in Figure 14, the implicit condition is the average depth to 

groundwater experienced by the vegetation when the eddy covariance tower 

measurements were made. For the eddy covariance data used here, the monthly 

average groundwater depth was less than 6.56 feet in 69% of measurements and 

between 6.56 and 9.84 feet in 21% of measurements where the riparian ET would 

be 100% and at least 90% of atmospheric potential respectively according to the 

URGSiM relationship between groundwater depth and atmospheric potential ET 

shown in Figure 12. Thus it is not surprising that the adopted riparian Kc value is 

close to the uncorrected groundwater value. Eddy covariance tower data and 

groundwater level data from areas where the depth to groundwater between 

10 and 30 feet more often would make these results more robust. Put another way, 

if groundwater levels are always within 10 feet of the surface and if the URGSiM 

relationship between depth to groundwater and potential atmospheric ET shown 

in Figure 12 holds, then no groundwater correction would be necessary. 

Nonetheless, the Kc values shown in Figure 13 are adopted for use in URGSiM 

where there are areas with riparian groundwater deeper than 10 feet. 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Sparse Cottonwood Average 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.6 

Dense Cottonwood Average 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.2 

Salt Cedar Average 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 

Values adopted for URGSiM 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 0.3 0.2 

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 

1.2 

1.4 

Kc 

Month 

URGSiM GW Corrected Kc Estimates from 3 Riparian Towers 

Figure 13: Monthly crop coefficients derived based on eddy covariance data in the 

Middle Rio Grande from 2000 - 2004 for specific vegetation types, and an overall 

average adopted for use in URGSiM. 

Appendix C2- page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Crop Coefficients (Kc) for Riparian Vegetation 

2.5 

0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

K c 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

GW Corrected URGSiM 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 

GW Corrected McAda Barroll 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.7 0.5 0.7 

No GW Correction 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 

Month 

Figure 14: Monthly crop coefficients derived based on eddy covariance data in the 

Middle Rio Grande from 2000 - 2004 with different treatment of depth to 

groundwater as a constraint on potential ET. The values adopted use the URGSiM 

groundwater-ET relationship shown in Figure 12. 

3. Open water 

During the historic period, evaporation rates from the seven reservoirs modeled in 

URGSiM (Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, Cochiti, Jemez, Elephant Butte, and 

Caballo) are calculated as 70% of measured pan evaporation. For climate change 

scenarios where impacts of changing temperature are to be evaluated with 

URGSiM, a temperature-based method of ET estimation is necessary. 

The ET Toolbox (Brower 2008) includes open water evaporation coefficients 

from Jensen (1998) that are used to predict open water evaporation from ETo. 

Because the Jensen coefficients were developed in the lower Colorado River, 

URGSiM does not use them and instead relies on coefficients calculated here 

based on pan evaporation rates observed at the Rio Grande reservoirs. Two notes 

of caution here: 

•	 An equation like the Hargreaves 1985 reference equation designed to 

calculate evapotranspiration is set up to handle the physical differences 

between evaporation and transpiration, namely additional surface area and 

stomatal resistance associated with transpiration in plants compared to 

evaporation from a water or soil surface. To calculate open water 

evaporation, one might be better served by an early evaporation equation 

such 

Appendix C2- page 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

as the Penman, which was developed more based on evaporation than 

transpiration. However, the data limitations described previously remain 

problematic. Therefore, despite this theoretic weakness, for reasons of 

practicality and simplicity, ETo is used by URGSiM to predict open water 

evaporation. 

•	 Pan evaporation can overestimate large and deep water body evaporation 

significantly largely because the temperature in the pan rarely matches that 

in the larger water body. As a result, the measured pan evaporation is 

multiplied by a calibration factor (70% in the case of URGSiM based on 

URGWOM methods) to account for some of this error. However, using the 

same factor of 70% at the relatively cool northern Heron reservoir 

(elevation ~7200 feet above mean sea level [amsl]) and the warmer 

southern Elephant Butte (elevation ~4300 amsl) as is done now in 

URGWOM and URGSiM may warrant some discussion. This issue will be 

seen in the calculations below.

 Reference ET was calculated from 1975 through 2006 at the El Vado Dam,7 

Abiquiu Dam,8 Cochiti Dam,

9 Elephant Butte Dam,10 and Caballo Dam11 

temperature stations using the Hargreaves 1985 equation. For the same months, 

measured pan evaporation at each of these reservoirs was multiplied by the 70% 

factor, and this total then divided by the calculated reference ET to get an implied 

open water crop coefficient specific to a specific historic month and reservoir. 

This is shown in Equation (6) below which is a restatement of Equation (5) 

without any groundwater influence. 

mm,rrddrr
 

mm,rraarr EEEEddaapp−ddddddddh KKcc = mm,rrddrr	 (6) EEEEoo

Finally all values for a given month of year at a given reservoir were averaged and 

rounded to the nearest tenth to get estimated monthly open water evaporation 

coefficients for each of the five reservoirs as shown in Table 2. Empty cells from 

November through March at reservoirs upstream of Elephant Butte are a result of 

pan evaporation not being recorded during winter months at the northern 

reservoirs. URGSiM uses the April value for January through March, and the 

October value for November and December at these reservoirs. URGSiM uses El 

Vado values for Heron, and Cochiti values for Jemez reservoirs, and the value for 

the closest reservoir for direct river channel evaporation calculations. 

7 Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm2837 Accessed 1/16/2012. 

8 Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm0041 Accessed 1/16/2012. 

9 Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1982 Accessed 1/16/2012. 

10 Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm2848 Accessed 1/16/2012. 

11 Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1286 Accessed 1/16/2012. 

Appendix C2- page 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Calculated Open Water Evaporation Coefficient by Month and Reservoir: 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

El Vado 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Abiquiu 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 

Cochiti 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 

Elephant Butte 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 

Caballo 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Table 2: Open water evaporation (crop) coefficients calculated from temperature 

and pan evaporation data measured at five reservoirs in New Mexico between 1975 

and 2006. 

It is clear in Table 2 that the coefficients increase in magnitude with distance 

south (and overall evaporative potential). In theory, climatic variability is handled 

by the reference equation, and thus the consistent spatial variability seen in Table 

2 suggests a model weakness. This may be a result of either errors in the reference 

ET equation, the inability of reference ET to capture open water evaporation, or 

the actual evaporation estimate, or all three. Because of the trend towards 

increasing coefficients with increasing temperatures, it seems likely that this error 

is largely a result of assuming that 70% of pan evaporation is a reasonable 

approximation of actual reservoir evaporation at all reservoirs. These results could 

be explained by pan evaporation values that overestimate actual reservoir 

evaporation to a greater and greater degree as the air temperature at the reservoir, 

and thus presumably the difference in water temperature between pan and 

reservoir increases, a hypothesis that fits well with known deficiencies of pan 

evaporation measurements. 

IV. Vegetation classifications 

URGSiM was developed closely following URGWOM, and initially used riparian 

and irrigated agricultural areas from that model. Recently, the classifications of 

land types used have been simplified as explained in the next two subsections. 

A. Irrigated agriculture 

URGSiM uses estimates of irrigated area by reach and by crop type that were 

developed for URGWOM based on Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

(MRGCD) and Reclamation’s annual crop acreage reports. Values for 19 different 

crops for each year between 1975 and 1999 for each river reach between Cochiti 

and San Marcial are shown in Table 56 of the 2002 URGWOM model 

Appendix C2- page 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

documentation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 2002). Until recently, 

URGSiM used 20 crop types from the ET Toolbox (Brower 2008) that overlapped 

reasonably with the 19 crop types shown in the URGWOM documentation. 

However, the historic crop distribution is dominated by alfalfa and pasture grass 

such that additional crop types beyond these doesn’t add much information to the 

model. As seen in Figure 15, URGSiM currently uses only four crop types: 

Alfalfa, Pasture Grass, Grains, and Fruits and Vegetables. Values for estimated 

irrigated crop area in the Middle Rio Grande from 1975 through 1999 are shown 

by crop type in Figure 16 and by reach in Figure 17. URGSiM also includes 

approximately 5,000 acres each in the Chama, Rio Grande above Otowi, and 

Jemez valleys, and 250 acres between San Acacia and San Marcial which are 

classified using the simplified four-crop classification. 

Figure 15: URGSiM crop type classifications and relative total percentages in the 

Middle Rio Grande in 1999. Left pie is the previous crop type classifications, and 

right pie is the current classifications. The crop types defined in the left pie are 

based on ET Toolbox classifications (Brower 2008). Alfalfa and pasture grass 

dominate irrigated area in the Middle Rio Grande. 

Appendix C2- page 23 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Total Middle Rio Grande Irrigated Ag Area 

by Crop Type 1975 - 1999 

Area [acres] 

70000 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

Total 

Alfalfa 

Pasture Grass 

Grains 

Fruits & Vegetables 

Year 

Figure 16: Irrigated area in the Middle Rio Grande from 1975-1999 by URGSiM crop 

type classification. 

Total Middle Rio Grande Irrigated Ag Area
 

by Reach 1975 - 1999
 

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

40000 

50000 

60000 

70000 

Area [acres] 

Total 

Cti2Sfp 

Sfp2Alb 

Alb2Bdo 

Sa2Sm 

Year 

Figure 17: Irrigated area in the Middle Rio Grande from 1975-1999 by river reach. 

Cti2Sfp: Cochiti to San Felipe, Sfp2Alb: San Felipe to Albuquerque, Alb2Bdo: 

Albuquerque to Bernardo, Sa2Sm: San Acacia to San Marcial. 

Appendix C2- page 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

MRG Area (acres) 

B. Riparian vegetation 

Until recently, URGSiM used five riparian vegetation classifications based on 

data in the ET Toolbox (Brower 2008): Bosque (a mix of Cottonwood and Salt 

Cedar), Cottonwood, Marsh, Grass, and Salt Cedar. As seen in Figure 18, the 

estimates of areas of riparian vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande are dominated 

by Bosque and Salt Cedar. This makes the Cottonwood, Marsh, and Grass 

categories of questionable value to the model. As seen in Figure 11 and discussed 

in Section III.B.2, no significant difference between Cottonwood and Salt Cedar 

was evident from analysis of eddy covariance based estimates of ET. Thus, the 

model benefit of maintaining a difference between these is also questionable. As a 

result, URGSiM now uses only one riparian vegetation category. To get potential 

ET, total riparian vegetation area is multiplied by ETo times the groundwater 

depth modified riparian crop coefficient discussed in Section III.B.2. 

Historic riparian vegetation areas used previously in URGSiM. Data from ET 

Toolbox (Brower 2008) 

45000 

75% 

40000 

35000 

30000 

25000 

17% 

all in 20000 

Sa2Sm 

reach 15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

Bosque Cottonwood Marsh Grass Salt Cedar 

Figure 18: Riparian vegetation area by class in the Middle Rio Grande 1999. Area is 

dominated by Bosque (a mix of Cottonwood and Salt Cedar) with the exception of 

significant Salt Cedar area in the San Acacia to San Marcial (Sa2Sm) reach.
 

Appendix C2- page 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

V. Effective precipitation 

Effective precipitation is the portion of precipitation that can be used directly by a 

crop. It is calculated in URGSiM (and URGWOM) using a monthly average 

approach developed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil 

Conservation Service in their Technical Release no. 21 (United States Department 

of Agriculture 1970) often referred to as TR-21. According to the TR-21 method, 

monthly effective precipitation can be estimated as a function of total 

precipitation, depth of irrigation application, and crop consumptive use: 

0.82416 − 0.11556) ∗ 10 pp 0.02426EEEEdd aa = ssss ∗ (0.70917ppee (7) 

where pe = effective precipitation in inches per month, sf is a soil storage factor 

determined by the depth of irrigation application as shown in Table 3 below, pt is 

total monthly precipitation in inches per month, and ETp is the crop potential ET 

(ETo * Kc) also in inches per month. At each timestep, URGSiM calculates the net 

irrigation requirement as the crop potential ET less the effective precipitation. 

Irrigation Application Depth 

[inches] 

Storage Factor sf [-] 

0.75 0.72 

1 0.77 

1.5 0.86 

2 0.93 

2.5 0.97 

3 1 

4 1.02 

5 1.04 

6 1.06 

7 1.07 

Table 3: Storage factor (sf) as a function of irrigation application depth used to 

estimate monthly effective precipitation with the TR-21 method (United States 

Department of Agriculture 1970). 

Appendix C2- page 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

VI. Implications of changed methods on 

historic mass balance 

Evapotranspiration is calculated spatially and temporally in URGSiM, and ET is 

an important term in the hydrologic mass balance. Because it is part of a mass 

balance that was calibrated to get close to observed agreement at observation 

points (stream flow gages or reservoir stage gages), a 50% reduction (Figure 6) in 

ETo does not necessarily result in a 50% reduction in modeled ET as other mass 

balance terms compensate to absorb changes to ETo. As seen in Table 4, the new 

ET methods result in approximately 12% of total ET reduction between Cochiti 

and Elephant Butte in the recalibrated URGSiM model (665 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) to 586 cfs). The reach specific changes range from a 45% ET decrease for 

the for the Bernardo to San Acacia reach (29 cfs to 16 cfs), and a 34% ET 

decrease for the Jemez reach (42 cfs to 27 cfs) to a 3% increase between San 

Acacia and San Marcial (169 cfs to 175 cfs). The increase between San Acacia 

and San Marcial may be a result of the changes to riparian crop coefficient 

calculations correcting premature shutdown of riparian ET noted in southern 

reaches with the Growing Degree Day method (see Figure 7). In addition to 

changes in modeled ET, 

Table 4 also shows changes to ungaged inflows because these are the main 

calibration term used in URGSiM for surface water reaches. Net changes to 

ungaged inflows offset much of the change to ET in the reaches from Cochiti to 

Bernardo. The remainder of the change is absorbed by other mass balance terms 

including surface water groundwater interactions and groundwater movement. 

Because the groundwater system ties certain reaches together, the net changes to 

ungaged inflows less ET are close to zero across all reaches associated with a 

given groundwater basin. Reaches between Cochiti and San Acacia overlie the 

Albuquerque groundwater basin and show a net decrease of less than 2 cfs across 

reaches for the ungaged inflows less ET term. The San Acacia to Elephant Butte 

reaches are associated with the Socorro groundwater basin, do not have any 

modeled ungaged inflows, and thus show no net change to ET across the two 

reaches. 

The ET methods developed by Sammis et al. (1985) and used until 2011 in the 

ET Toolbox (Brower 2008), URGWOM (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 

2002) and URGSiM have been shown to be unreliable as compared to current 

best available methods. The modified Penman Reference ET equation adopted by 

Sammis et al. overestimates ETo when compared to other more widely accepted 

methods, and the associated growing degree day based crop coefficients appear to 

overestimate irrigated crop demand, and potentially underestimate riparian ET 

significantly in warm locations by shutting riparian vegetation down prematurely. 

Appendix C2- page 27 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Old ET methods Current ET methods Difference 

ETo: Modified Penman 1985 Hargreaves Reduced ETo 

Irrigated Crop Kc: Growing Degree Day FAO-56 Based Reduced Kc 

Riparian Kc: Growing Degree Day From local data Reduced Kc ? 

Effective Precipitation: None considered TR-21 (USDA 1970) Less irrigation demand 

Irrigated Crop Types: 18 4 Reduced complexity 

Riparian Veg. Types: 5 1 Reduced complexity 

Average Modeled Flux 

1975-2000 

Average Modeled Flux 

1975-2000 Change 

Ungaged

inflows ET Net 

Ungaged 

inflows ET Net 

Ungaged 

inflows ET Net 

Reach [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs] 

Cochiti to San Felipe 16 39 -23 9 29 -20 -7 -10 3 

Jemez Pueblo to Jemez Dam 45 42 4 36 27 9 -9 -14 5 

San Felipe to Albuquerque 35 97 -62 10 75 -65 -25 -22 -3 

Albuquerque to Bernardo 39 256 -217 237 -237 -39 -19 -20 

Bernardo to San Acacia 29 -29 16 -16 0 -13 13 

San Acacia to San Marcial 169 -169 175 -175 0 6 -6 

San Marcial to Elephant Butte 33 -33 27 -27 0 -6 6 

Total 135 665 -530 55 586 -531 -80 -79 -1 

Table 4: Summary of changes to ET methods described in this document (rows above greyed out row), 

and resulting changes to total ET and ungaged inflows (model calibration term) for URGSiM reaches 

below Cochiti. 

In terms of choosing a replacement method, the available historic weather data in
	

the basin for solar radiation, relative humidity and wind speed are limited spatially
	

and of suspect quality during the 1975-2000 URGSiM calibration period. This
	

lack of quality solar, wind, and humidity data reduces the advantages of
	

calculating ETo with the widely accepted but more data intensive PenmanMonteith equations and has resulted in the decision to use the simpler temperature
	

based Hargreaves 1985 method. Finally, irrigated crop types in the Rio Grande are 

dominated in the Rio Grande by alfalfa and pasture grass, and riparian vegetation 

types by the bosque classification, and thus irrigated crop and riparian vegetation 

Appendix C2- page 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C2: ET in URGSiM 

classifications have been simplified to reduce unnecessary model complexity. In
	

sum, these changes have resulted in a far simpler and more reliable method for
	

estimating irrigated crop and riparian vegetation evapotranspiration demands as a
	

function of climatic conditions. 

VII. Bibliography 

Allen, Richard G., Luis S Pereira, Dirk Raes, and Martin Smith. Crop 

evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements ­

FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 

Rome: FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

1998. 

Baird, Kathryn J, and Thomas III Maddock. "Simulating riparian evapotranspiration: 

a new methodology and application for groundwater models." Journal of 

Hydrology, 2005: 176-190. 

Bureau of Reclamation. Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment. 

Estimates of Consumptive Use Requirements for Irrigated Agriculture and 

Riparian Vegetation. Volume II Appendices 1-7. Supporting Document 

Number 6, Albuquerque: United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1997. 

Brower, Al. ET Toolbox: Evapotranspiration Toolbox for the Middle Rio Grande, 

a Water Resources Decision Support Tool. Model Documentation, 

Denver: Water and Environmental Resources Division, Technical Service 

Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2008. 

Cleverly, James R., Clifford N. Dahm, James R. Thibault, Dianne E. McDonnell, 

and Julie E Allred Coonrod. "Riparian ecohydrology: Regulation of water 

flux from the ground to the atmosphere in the Middle Rio Grande, New 

Mexico." Hydrological Processes, 2006: 3207-3225. 

Hargreaves, George H. and Richard G Allen. "History and Evaluation of 

Hargreaves Evapotranspiration Equation." Journal of Irrigation and 

Drainage Engineering, 2003: 53-63. 

Hargreaves, George H. and Zohrab A Samani. "Reference Crop 

Evapotranspiration from Temperature." Applied Engineering in 

Agriculture, 1985: 96-99. 

Jensen, M.E. Coefficients for Vegetative Evapotranspiration and Open Water 

Evaporation for the Lower Colorado River Accountintg System. 

Boulder City, Nevada: Bureau of Reclamation, 1998. 

Appendix C2- page 29 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

McAda, Douglas P. and Peggy Barroll. Simulation of Ground-water Flow in the 

Middle Rio Grande Between Cochiti and San Acacia, New Mexico. Water 

Resources Investigations Report 02-4200, Albuquerque: U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2002. 

Roach, Jesse D. Integrated Surface Water Groundwater Modeling in the Upper 

Rio Grande in Support of Scenario Analysis. PhD Thesis, Tucson: 

University of Arizona, 2007. 

Roach, Jesse D. and Vincent C Tidwell. "A compartmental-Spatial System 

Dynamics Approach to Ground Water Modeling." Ground Water, 2009: 

686-698. 

Sammis, T. W., C L. Mapel, D. G. Lugg, R. R. Lansford, and J. T. McGuckin. 

"Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients Predicted Using Growing-DegreeDays." Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers, 1985: 773-780. 

Task Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration. The ASCE 

Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation. Task Committee 

Report, ASCE-EWRI, 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

International Boundary and Water Commission. "Upper Rio Grande Water 

Operations Model Model Documentation, Draft." Model Documentation, 

Albuquerque, 2002. 

United States Department of Agriculture. Irrigation water requirements. 

Technical Release no. 21. Technical Release, Washington DC: USDA Soil 

Conservation Service, 1970. 

Westfall, Brian. Personal communication with Jesse Roach, July 1, 2011. 

Appendix C2- page 30 
Appendix D 

Projected Water Supply for 

Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama 

Project 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

Contents 

1 Imported Water: The San Juan-Chama Project............................................... 1
	

2 Diversions ....................................................................................................... 3
	

3 Azotea Tunnel................................................................................................. 3
	

4 Heron Reservoir .............................................................................................. 6
	

5 Impact on Annual Allocations to Contractors................................................. 8
	

6 Comparison to Previous Yield Estimates and Discussion ............................ 10
 

7 References..................................................................................................... 11
 

Appendix D- page i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

1	 Imported Water: The San Juan-Chama 

Project 

Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project brings a portion of New Mexico’s 

allocation under the Colorado River Compact (Compact) into the Rio Grande 

system. The system (Figure 1) diverts water from tributaries to the San Juan 

River, through the Azotea Tunnel and stores that water in Heron Reservoir, from 

where it is distributed. The San Juan-Chama Project supply depends on flows in 

three tributaries to the San Juan River: the Rio Blanco, the Little Navajo River, 

and the Navajo River. The project allocates 95,831 acre-feet of water per year 

(AFY) to its contractors (369 AFY of the 96,200 AFY firm yield is currently 

unallocated). 

Analyses presented in this appendix are based on methods described in the 

Upper Rio Grande Impact Assessment (Llewellyn, et. al, 2013). These analyses 

use the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM; Roach 2013), and the 

full suite of 112 150-year simulations developed from the General Circulation 

Model (GCM) runs included in the World Climate Research Programme 

(WCRP) Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) (Meehl et 

al. 2007). Input for the URGSiM simulations were developed from 

Reclamation’s Bias-Corrected and Spatially Downscaled Surface Water 

Projections (Reclamation 2011), as processed through the Variable Infiltration 

Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model (see Appendix B and Llewellyn et. al. 2013). 

These projections did not use the Hybrid Delta ensemble projection sets that 

were used for the WaterMAPS modeling of the Santa Fe municipal water system 

described in this study. 

Appendix D- page 1 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 1.—Location and capacities in cubic feet per second (cfs) of San JuanChama Project diversions and tunnels. 

Appendix D- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

2 Diversions 

Figure 2 provides the URGSiM modeling results for the ensemble of projected 

flows through the three diversion locations: Oso Diversion on the Navajo River, 

Little Oso Diversion on the Little Navajo River, and Blanco Diversion on the Rio 

Blanco. 

Projections show that: 

•	 Flows would decrease by one-quarter overall. The sum of flows in the 

three tributaries to the San Juan River is projected to drop by only about one 

quarter between the historic simulation period (1950 through 1999) and 

the year 2100, which is less than the one-third reduction projected for 

native Upper Rio Grande flows. The five-year average of the median flow 

projection decreases from approximately 225 cfs between 1950 and 1999, 

to approximately 165 cfs in 2100 (Figure 2, Panel A). 

•	 Peak flows would shift to earlier in the year. Total flows at the three 

diversion locations between February and April increase over the course of 

the century, as those between May and December decrease (Figure 2, 

Panel B). By the 2090s, almost 15 percent of simulated March and April 

flows are greater than any flow observed for those same months between 

1950 and 1999 (Figure 2, Panel D). 

3 Azotea Tunnel 

Figure 3 provides the analysis results for the ensemble of simulations for 

projected flows through the Azotea Tunnel. Projections show that: 

•	 Flows would decrease by one-quarter overall. The ensemble average 

trans-basin diversion decreases steadily from around 90,000 AFY during 

the historic simulation period (1950 through 1999) to between 70,000 and 

80,000 AFY during the 2050 through 2099 period. 

•	 Flows would decrease in summer and increase in spring. Overall, 

tunnel flows decrease with a larger portion of the flows occurring earlier in 

the year. The overall reduction in tunnel flows comes from large decreases 

in divertible flows from May through October even while divertible flows 

increase in March and April. The seasonality of the average tunnel flows is 

shown in Figure 3, Panel B. 

Appendix D- page 3 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 2.—Projections of total flows from the three San Juan-Chama Project diversion locations 

on the Rio Blanco, Little Navajo River, and Navajo River. 

Appendix D- page 4 
 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

Figure 3.—Projected flows through the Azotea Tunnel of the San Juan-Chama Project. 

Appendix D- page 5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The analyses on the availability of flows to the San Juan-Chama Project 

diversion tunnels were performed on a monthly basis. Therefore, these analyses 

do not capture potential changes to the volume or duration of snowmelt runoff at 

less than a monthly scale. Since snowmelt runoff is projected to occur earlier, 

and at potentially higher flow rates for a shorter period of time, the impacts on 

the San Juan-Chama Project’s ability to divert could be larger than shown in this 

analysis. However, it is possible that the Federal government could decide to 

implement infrastructure changes to allow for a greater capture of short, highdischarge runoffs, so that these changes in runoff flows and timing do not 

significantly affect the San Juan-Chama Project’s ability to divert sufficient 

water. 

Also, it is important to note that, even if sufficient water is available in 

tributaries to the San Juan River for diversions to the San Juan-Chama Project, 

shortages within the Colorado River Basin could lead to priority calls or 

shortage-sharing agreements that would result in decreased supply to New 

Mexico under the Colorado River Compact. Such shortages could result in 

decreases in Reclamation’s authorization to divert water to the San Juan-Chama 

Project, even if sufficient water is available locally. 

4 Heron Reservoir 

San Juan-Chama Project water is stored in the Heron Reservoir until it is moved 

downstream for storage or beneficial use. Heron Reservoir storage decreases 

significantly as the simulations progress, as shown in Figure 4, which displays 

Heron Reservoir storage on January 1st of each simulation year for the ensemble 

of simulations. As discussed in the next section, years when Heron Reservoir 

storage on January 1st is below 95,200 acre-feet result in a reduced initial 

allocation to San Juan-Chama Project contractors. 

Projections show that: 

•	 Storage in Heron Reservoir would be reduced. The reduction in 

storage seen in Figure 4 could be caused by a combination of the 

decreases in supply noted above and increases in use of San Juan-Chama 

allocations by contractors as temperature-driven demands in the Rio 

Grande basin (especially agricultural demands) rise as the simulations 

progress. However, as seen in Figure 5, San Juan-Chama Project releases 

from Heron are fairly constant through the first 100 years of simulation 

and don’t show an increasing trend. This suggests that the reduction in 

storage in Heron Reservoir seen in Figure 4 is predominantly a result of 

decreased inflows and not as a result of increased outflows. 

Appendix D- page 6 
 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

Figure 4.—Projected Heron storage on January 1st of each year. 

Figure 5.—Projected releases of San Juan-Chama Project water 

from Heron Reservoir. 

Appendix D- page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

5 Impact on Annual Allocations to 

Contractors 

Heron Reservoir storage on January 1st (Figure 4) determines Reclamation’s 

initial allocation of San Juan-Chama Project water to the contractors. If the 

initial allocation is less than 100 percent of the firm yield, a second allocation 

may be made on July 1st. This means that any water in storage on January 1st 

plus any water that can be moved through Azotea Tunnel between January 1st 

and July 1st can be allocated in a given year to San Juan-Chama contractors. As 

January 1st storage begins to drop in the simulations, the July allocation becomes 

more important to the total San Juan-Chama Project allocation. 

Three time series showing the distributions of total, January, and July 

allocations are shown in the left side of Figure 6. As the flows through Azotea 

Tunnel become less reliable, the initial allocation also becomes less reliable, and 

the secondary allocation becomes more important. San Juan-Chama contractors 

receive a full allocation in 99 percent of simulated years from 1950 through 

1999, 94 percent during the 2020s, 72 percent during the 2050s, and only 61 

percent in the 2090s. At the same time, July allocations go from negligible 

during the 1950 through 1999 historic period to accounting for almost 40 

percent of allocated water during the 2090s. Table 1 summarizes these trends 

quantitatively, and the right side of Figure 6 visualizes these trends as 

exceedance probability lines. This shows that the chances for a full allocation 

drop almost 30 percent and July allocations rise almost 40 percent. 

Table 1.—San Juan-Chama allocations during different simulation periods 

Period Simulations 

with full San 

Juan-Chama 

allocation on 

January 1 

Simulations 

with eventual 

full San JuanChama 

allocation 

(July 1) 

Average 

total 

San JuanChama 

allocation 

Average 

initial 

(January 1) 

allocation 

Average 

secondary 

(July 1) 

allocation 

1950 - 1999 98% 99% 99.95% 99.5% 0.45% 

2020s 72% 85% 94% 81% 14% 

2050s 51% 72% 88% 64% 24% 

2090s 36% 61% 81% 49% 32% 

Appendix D- page 8 
 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

Figure 6.—Projected San Juan-Chama Project total annual allocations (top figures), January (initial) allocations (middle figures), and 

July (secondary) allocations (bottom figures). 

Appendix D- page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

6 Comparison to Previous Yield Estimates and 

Discussion 

Reclamation has estimated the potential firm yield of the San Juan-Chama Project 

since the 1950s era design phase. By “firm yield,” these studies meant the yield 

at which there would rarely be a shortage. Reclamation studies since 1964 

(Reclamation 1964, 1986, 1989 and 1999), each with a longer hydrologic 

analysis period than the last, set the firm yield of the project to 101,800; 94,200; 

96,200; and 96,200 acre-feet, respectively. 

More recently, Roach (2009) performed an analysis using 604 years of tree-ring 

records developed by Gangopadhyay and Harding (2008). This analysis tracked 

Heron Reservoir storage as it would have been if the San Juan-Chama Project had 

been in operation over that 604-year hydrologic sequence. Figure 23 shows the 

resulting distribution of January 1st storage values at Heron Reservoir. Once the 

influence of initial conditions wears off, the distribution of possible values is 

fairly constant. Once this state is reached (about simulation year 2040 in (Figure 

7), there is approximately a 10 percent chance that Heron would start the year 

with less than 95,200 acre-feet in storage, and thus that the initial San JuanChama Project allocation would be less than the contracted amount less than 

10 percent of the time. 

Figure 7.—Simulated Heron Storage on January 1st of a 150-year simulation 

representing the range of variability of a 600-year tree-ring record (simulated as if 

the San Juan-Chama Project was in operation for all of those 150 years). 

Appendix D- page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Imported Water: San Juan-Chama Project 

In 2013, for the first time in the 42 years of operation of the San Juan-Chama 

Project, Heron Reservoir water supplies were insufficient on January 1st to support 

a complete initial allocation. Although Reclamation was able to provide a full 

supply July 1st, the supply is less certain for subsequent years. Whether this is just 

natural variability or a harbinger of things to come (as projected in the URGIA 

analysis) remains to be seen. This event may prompt an update of the firm yield 

calculations by Reclamation, and the added hydrologic record since 1999 (the last 

time the firm yield was evaluated) might itself result in a reduction in the firm 

yield calculation. 

7 References 

Gangopadhyay, S. and B. Harding. 2008. Stochastic Streamflow Simulations for 

the Otowi Gage. Memo to Dr. Nabil Shafike, P. E., New Mexico Interstate 

Stream Commission. Boulder: AMEC Earth & Environmental. 

Llewellyn, Dagmar, Seshu Vaddey, Jesse Roach, and Ariane Pinson, 2013. Upper
	

Rio Grande Impacts Assessment: An Activity of the West Wide
	

Climate Risk Assessment. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New
	

Mexico.
	

Meehl, G.A., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. Mcavaney, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. 

Stouffer, and K.E. Taylor, 2007. “The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel
	

Dataset—A New Era in Climate Change Research,” Bulletin of the
	

American Meteorological Society, 88(9), 1383–1394. 

Reclamation. 1964. San Juan - Chama Project Definite Plan Report. Southwest 

Region, Amarillo, Texas. 

______. 1986. San Juan - Chama Project Yield Update. Southwest Region, 

Amarillo, Texas. 

______. 1989. San Juan - Chama Project Yield Update Addendum to the 1986 

Study. Southwest Region, Amarillo, Texas. 

______. 1999. Revised San Juan-Chama Firm Yield (Draft). Upper Colorado 

Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

______ 2011. West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments: Bias- Corrected and 

Spatially Downscaled Surface Water Projections. U. S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum No. 

86-68210-2011-01, Denver, Colorado. 

Appendix D- page 11 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

______.2013. Upper Rio Grande Impact Assessment. 

http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/wcra/reports/urgia.html. Accessed
	

12/13/14. 

Roach, J. D. 2009. Stochastic Hydrologic Analysis of the Upper Rio Grande Surface 

Water System in New Mexico. Report to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Roach, Jesse, 2013; The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM). 

published as Appendix E of Llewellyn et. al., 2013. 

Appendix D- page 12 
Appendix E 

Task 3: Update and Enhance 

WaterMAPS 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

©2013 CDM Smith All Rights Reserved 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Contents 

1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
	

2 WaterMAPS Background ............................................................................... 2
	

3 Climate Change Modeling Background.......................................................... 3
	

4 Task 3 of the Basin Study ............................................................................... 5
	

4.1 Task 3a: Climate-Change Projected Stream Flow Hydrographs.............. 6
	

4.2 Task 3c: Update Model Data and Logic................................................... 7
	

4.2.1 Water Supplies and Priorities............................................................ 7
	

4.2.2 Water Supply Constraints ................................................................. 9
	

4.2.3 Water Demand ................................................................................ 10
	

4.2.4 Reclaimed Water Demand and Use ................................................ 15
	

4.2.5 Water Accounting Logic................................................................. 18
	

4.2.6 Santa Fe River Target Flows........................................................... 19
	

4.3 Task 3e: Water Demand Variability....................................................... 23
	

4.4 Task 3f: San Juan Chama Project Adjustments ..................................... 28
	

4.4.1 Understanding of San Juan-Chama Project Percent Allocation...... 28
	

4.4.2 3.4.2 San Juan-Chama Project Water Delivery System.................. 28
	

4.4.3 WaterMAPS Simulation of San Juan-Chama Project Water Delivery
	

System 29
	

4.5 Task 3g: Evaporation Rates for the Santa Fe Municipal Reservoirs...... 30
	

5 WaterMAPS Functionality............................................................................ 31
	

6 References..................................................................................................... 31
	

Appendix E- page i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Kelly Collins, PG, 

BCES, CDM Smith, to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, dated September 13, 2013. 

This memo summarizes Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS. 

1 Introduction 

To increase the sustainability of their water supplies, the City of Santa Fe (City) 

and Santa Fe County (County) water utilities have developed new surface-water 

sources. Like many surface waters in the arid Southwest, however, both existing 

(Santa Fe River) and new sources (Rio Grande and the tributaries to the San Juan 

River, the source of water for the San Juan-Chama Project) are vulnerable to 

climate-change-induced impacts. Through this Santa Fe Basin Study (Basin 

Study) the City, County, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and their 

consultants are working to better understand the future effects of and associated 

risks from climate change on surface water availability in three sub-basins: the 

Santa Fe River watershed, the upper Rio Grande watershed (upstream of Otowi 

stream gage), and the San Juan River watershed. 

Tasks 1 and 2 of this Basin Study were related to preparing data for the Study and 

a Reclamation project conducting a firm-yield analysis of San Juan-Chama Project 

water supplies. These tasks were completed solely by the City, the County, and 

Reclamation. Task 3 of the Basin Study, and the topic of this memorandum, 

involves updating the City’s Water Management and Planning Simulation 

(WaterMAPS) model to include the County as a partner entity and to enhance the 

model to include functionality to assess projected climate-change impacts. 

WaterMAPS is a tool that currently allows the City to manage their water supply 

portfolio from both water resources and water rights perspectives. 

This technical memorandum describes the modifications and updates that were 

made to WaterMAPS under Task 3, as listed below: 

 Incorporate climate-change projected stream flow hydrographs (Task 3a) 

 Incorporate County supplies and demands and update other City data and 

management logic (Task 3c) 

 Develop an algorithm to incorporate scaled demand projections according to 

climate change conditions (Task 3e) 

 Incorporate adjustments to San Juan-Chama Project supplies (Task 3f) 

 Develop and include climate-change-related evaporation rates for the Santa 

Fe municipal reservoirs and apply to WaterMAPS (Task 3g) 

Note that the appendices referenced are the other technical appendices 

developed as part of the Santa Fe Basin Study Report. 

Appendix E- page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

2 WaterMAPS Background 

WaterMAPS is a systems model built on the STELLA programming environment. 

STELLA (Systems Thinking Experimental Learning Laboratory with Animation), 

developed by Isee Systems, Inc. is a systems modeling industry standard. Figure 1 

shows a schematic of the components of the water system that is modeled in 

WaterMAPS. The WaterMAPS model includes three different modes of 

simulation (the name in WaterMAPS is shown in parentheses): 

 Short-term operational (Operational Simulation) 

 Long-range, time-series planning (Forty Year Sequential Time Series
	

Simulation)
	

 Long-range, probabilistic planning (Future Year Planning Simulation) 

The Forty Year Sequential Time Series Simulation and the Future Year Planning 

Simulation are discussed further below. 

Figure 1. WaterMAPS model schematic 

Appendix E- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

The Basin Study uses the long-range, probabilistic planning simulation mode of 

the model, which is referred to as the Future Year Planning Simulation (Planning 

Year) mode, to estimate the impacts from climate change. This mode represents a 

single future planning year. A selected water supply portfolio is tested with the 

entire hydrologic period of record to determine the system performance for any 

type of hydrology condition recorded in a selected planning year. This type of 

simulation provides a probabilistic approach to planning decisions. For the Basin 

Study, climate change scenarios will be tested as part of Tasks 4 and 5 using the 

Planning Year mode for the planning year of 2055. 

In order to use the Planning Year mode, the Forty Year Sequential Time Series 

Simulation (Forty Year) mode must be run because it sets up the conditions 

necessary for the Planning Year simulation. The Forty Year mode represents a 

forty year sequential time series, with increasing demands over time. The supply 

portfolio is tested with forty-year hydrology sequences that were selected from the 

historical hydrology data. The purpose of this type of simulation is to model the 

impacts of groundwater pumping on aquifer drawdown, reservoir storage, offsets, 

and stream depletions over time. This simulation also gives a starting point, with 

regards to groundwater pumping, for the Planning Year simulation. 

An important element of the Santa Fe system is the groundwater-surface water 

interaction and the surface water depletions caused by pumping of some wells. To 

solve for the effects of pumping in groundwater and surface water, the Forty Year 

mode uses an additional model, the Stream Unit Response Function Solver 

(SURFS) SURFS, developed in Excel, works in tandem with STELLA. SURFS is 

also a stand-alone tool that can be used to solve simple groundwater pumping 

scenarios for depletions and drawdown. 

Note that the details of WaterMAPS are only discussed here as they relate to the 

updates that were made for the Basin Study. Additional details of the model are 

available in the WaterMAPS Model manual developed in 2005. 

3 Climate Change Modeling Background 

WaterMAPS was updated to include climate-change impacts to assist with 

updating the City and County long-term water supply plans, which will now 

address the water supply needs of the City/County region. The process of 

developing the inputs that represent the changes in climate was described in detail 

in Appendix B and is summarized here. The hydrologic data used in this project 

was developed from an analysis of 16 Global Climate Models (GCM) run under 3 

greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and a variety of starting conditions resulting 

in 112 GCM runs. The Hybrid-Delta Ensemble (HDe) method (Brekke, Pruitt, and 

Smith 2010) was used to combine the 112 GCM runs in a way that captures the 

range of temperature and precipitation trends. The HDe method resulted in four 

climate change simulation groups that can be described as follows: 

Appendix E- page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

 Hot-Wet: above the 50th percentile for precipitation and temperature
	

changes
	

 Warm-Wet: above the 50th percentile for precipitation change and below the 

50th percentile for temperature change 

 Hot-Dry: below the 50th percentile for precipitation change and above the 

50th percentile for temperature change 

 Warm-Dry: below the 50th percentile for precipitation and temperature
	

changes
	

An overlapping group was defined as being between the 25th and 75th percentile 

for both the change in precipitation and change in temperature and is referred to 

here as Central Tendency. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of these 

groups. 

Figure 2. Hydrid-Delta ensemble (HDe) scenarios 

For the Basin Study, three of the HDe simulation groups were selected for 

simulating climate change impacts in WaterMAPS: 

•	 Warm-Wet 

•	 Hot-Dry 

•	 Central Tendency 

Appendix E- page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

These three were chosen because they have a greater number of observations from 

the GCM simulations and they represent the extremes of predicted temperature 

and precipitation changes. 

The HDe climate scenarios were then used as inputs in a land surface model 

known as the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model. The VIC model 

generates the runoff hydrographs that can then be routed through a river network. 

As discussed in Appendix B, it was necessary to correct biases in the VIC model 

for use in the Upper Rio Grande basin modeling. 

Hydrologic inflows at 21 locations were generated by the bias-corrected VIC 

model output for use in the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM). 

URGSiM is “a monthly timestep mass balance model that uses hydrologic and 

climatic inputs to simulate the movement of surface water and ground water 

through the Upper Rio Grande system from the San Luis Valley in Colorado to 

Caballo Reservoir in southern New Mexico, including the Rio Chama and Jemez 

River tributary systems, and the Española, Albuquerque, and Socorro regional 

groundwater basins” (Roach 2013). URGSIM also simulates reservoir operations, 

interbasin transfers, and agricultural diversions and depletions. 

Dr. Jesse Roach, formerly of Sandia National Laboratories, was contracted by the 

Bureau of Reclamation to use URGSiM with the selected HDe scenarios and VIC 

model results to generate the surface water flow inputs necessary for WaterMAPS 

to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the Santa Fe Basin. This 

work was described in more detail in Appendix B. 

4 Task 3 of the Basin Study 

Task 3 of the Basin Study incorporates the three selected HDe simulation groups 

plus a baseline simulation that represents the temperature and precipitation 

conditions with no climate change. The baseline simulation is described as a 

simulation of the historic climate. It uses current infrastructure and operations 

with synthetic historic climate and inflows. Actual historic climate data could not 

be used because the rainfall runoff models require spatially distributed data that 

are not available directly but can be produced synthetically. This baseline 

simulation is referred to as the “simulated historic” scenario. 

The result is four scenarios that are simulated in WaterMAPS to assess climatechange-induced impacts. For simplicity in explanation throughout this 

memorandum, these four scenarios will be referred to as the “climate-change 

scenarios,” although one of the scenarios is the baseline used for comparison. 

Appendix E- page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

4.1 Task 3a: Climate-Change Projected Stream Flow 

Hydrographs 

The climate-change-projected stream flow hydrographs used in WaterMAPS were 

generated by the URGSiM model. The output related to this sub-task includes: 

•	 Stream flow into the Santa Fe Basin above McClure Reservoir (Santa Fe 

River Flow) 

•	 Stream flow in the Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge 

•	 Parameters related to Abiquiu reservoir 

Each of the above items is provided as a time series representing the 

variability in climate. Four time series are provided for each parameter. 

The stream flow into the Santa Fe Basin is used to simulate the amount of 

water in the McClure and Nichols Reservoirs. The climate-change scenarios 

result in different stream hydrographs that impact the water supply available in 

these reservoirs. The impact of climate change on the evaporation rates for 

these reservoirs is discussed in Section 4.5. 

The stream flow in the Rio Grande at the Otowi gage limits the amount that can 

be diverted via the Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD). Logic in WaterMAPS was 

updated according to an environmental impact assessment (United States 

Department of the Interior 2007). The report outlines the conditions under which 

diversions should be curtailed. 

Abiquiu Reservoir was the only San Juan-Chama Project reservoir for which 

climate-change scenario data were provided. Evaporative losses out of Abiquiu 

Reservoir are applied to any San Juan-Chama Project water stored there. 

Evaporative losses as simulated by URGSiM are based on the entire reservoir 

volume. Because WaterMAPS only simulates the storage of San Juan-Chama 

Project water for the City and County in Abiquiu Reservoir, the simulated 

evaporative losses could not be applied directly. Instead, the evaporative losses 

were converted to a percent loss that could then be applied specifically to the San 

Juan-Chama Project water for the City and County. Remaining mass balance data 

(stream flows, evaporation, withdrawals, etc.) were not provided for the 

reservoirs that transfer and store the San Juan-Chama Project water, as this 

system of reservoirs is not specifically modeled in WaterMAPS or used for water 

resource management. This is discussed in detail in Section 4.4.2. 

Because WaterMAPS uses a percent loss to simulate evaporative losses out of 

Abiquiu Reservoir, percent losses were developed for each of the climate change 

scenarios as part of the Basin Study. The annual average percent loss due to 

evaporation out of Abiquiu Reservoir for each of the climate change scenarios is 

Appendix E- page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

shown in Figure 3. As expected, the Hot-Dry scenario results in the greatest 

percent loss to evaporation. Evaporative Loss as Percent of Volume in the Reservoir

16% 

14% 

12% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

Simulated Warm-Wet Hot-Dry Central 

Historic Tendency 

Climate Change Senarios 

Figure 3. Evaporative loss as a percentage of San Juan-Chama Project simulated 

water in Abiquiu Reservoir 

4.2 Task 3c: Update Model Data and Logic 

This Basin Study encompassed several WaterMAPS updates, which applied to 

different model aspects. Most of these updates apply to the three simulation 

modes, but some may only apply to simulations with the climate change scenarios. 

The water supply priorities, water supply constraints, water demand, and 

reclaimed water demand and use apply to all simulation modes of WaterMAPS. 

However, changes made regarding water accounting and the Santa Fe River 

Target Flows only apply to the Planning Year simulation mode when simulating 

climate change scenarios at this time. Each update is described in the following 

sections. 

4.2.1 Water Supplies and Priorities 

The primary water supplies available are outlined below in order of priority: 

 San Juan-Chama Project water and Rio Grande native water diverted via the 

Buckman Direct Diversion 

 Local surface water from the Santa Fe River watershed 

 Groundwater from the City Well Field along the Santa Fe River 

 Groundwater from the Buckman Well Field near the Rio Grande 

Appendix E- page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

San Juan-Chama Project water and Rio Grande native water: The Buckman 

Direct Diversion is used to divert water from the Rio Grande. This includes both 

San Juan-Chama Project water and native Rio Grande water that can be diverted 

via the Buckman Direct Diversion. San Juan-Chama Project water is described in 

more detail under Section 4.4. 

Local surface water from the Santa Fe River watershed: This is water released 

from the McClure and Nichols Reservoirs and treated at the Canyon Road Water 

Treatment Plant (CRWTP). 

City Well Field along the Santa Fe River: This supply includes the Osage well, 

Northwest well, St. Michael’s well, and “Other City wells.” The Osage, 

Northwest, and St. Michael’s wells are modeled as individual sources of supply. 

The “Other City wells” are grouped together as a single supply source and include 

Agua Fria, Torreon, Alto, Ferguson, Santa Fe, and Hickox wells. 

Buckman Well Field near the Rio Grande: This supply includes 13 wells near 

the Rio Grande. Use of the Buckman Well Field results in depletions from the Rio 

Grande, Rio Pojaque, Rio Tesuque, and La Cienega (calculated in WaterMAPS). 

These river depletions are re-paid with Rio Grande surface water rights for 

depletion offsets and dedicated portions of the San Juan-Chama Project water, if 

necessary. Such depletions also apply to the Northwest and Osage Well fields, but 

the depletions are minimal in comparison. 

Water rights, management targets, and capacity constraints (discussed in Section 

4.2.2) require that the primary supplies discussed above be modeled in further 

detail. The detailed supply sources in the model are prioritized as follows: 

• Minimum Buckman Pumping (for operational purposes) 

• Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD) 

• Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP) 

• Osage Well Supply 

• St. Michael’s Well Supply 

• Northwest Well Supply 

• Other City Wells Supply 

• Additional Supply from Buckman Wells 

Water conservation and use of reclaimed water to offset potable demands will be 

included as part of Task 5 for this Basin Study, which analyzes ways to fill the 

Appendix E- page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

water supply gap. These sources, when included, are considered as first-priority 

supplies (i.e., before minimum Buckman pumping in the list above). Note that 

reclaimed water is simulated in the model and meets specific reclaimed water 

contracts for non-potable use. This is discussed more under Section 4.2.4 -

Reclaimed Water Demand and Use. 

The minimum pumping of the Buckman wells is required as a first priority due to 

water rights constraints and is portrayed that way in WaterMAPS. During the 

beginning months of the year, the Buckman Direct Diversion, CRWTP, and City 

wells have the capacity to meet projected demands without much supplemental 

supply from the Buckman wells. However, water rights constraints limit the 

availability of the CRWTP and City wells, potentially leaving only the Buckman 

Direct Diversion and Buckman wells to meet demands at the end of the year, 

which results in shortages due to capacity constraints rather than actual supply 

constraints. In order to prevent overuse of the CRWTP and City well field at the 

beginning of the year, a minimum Buckman pumping is provided as a 

supplemental source of supply throughout the year, thereby reducing shortages 

caused by source prioritization assumptions and water rights constraints. 

4.2.2 Water Supply Constraints 

The water supply sources are subject to various regulatory, management targets, 

and capacity constraints. Some of these constraints were updated as part of this 

Basin Study. Additionally, water rights values were added for the County and Las 

Campanas Co-Op. The system capacity constraint is an automatic physical 

constraint, but the water rights and management targets are management 

objectives. WaterMAPS allows the user to select one of the following constraint 

scenarios when simulating future planning years: 

• Water Rights (i.e., supply) and Capacity Constraint 

• Management Target and Capacity Constraint 

• Capacity Constraint Only 

The Management Target and Capacity constraint will primarily be used for the 

Basin Study. The other constraints may be explored as needed. These constraints 

for each supply are shown in Table 1. 

Expansion of WaterMAPS to include the County involves inclusion of the 

County’s water supply sources. Although the City does not have native Rio 

Grande water rights, the County does, so these were added to WaterMAPS. This 

supply required some changes to the model logic because the City only has San 

Juan-Chama Project water; therefore, Buckman Direct Diversion water and San 

Juan-Chama Project water were previously modeled as one. With the addition of 

the County supply, there is supply from the Buckman Direct Diversion that is not 

Appendix E- page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

San Juan-Chama Project water. This is significant to note because this source of 

supply has different constraints on its diversion than does the San Juan-Chama 

Project water. As modeled for this study, this supply will be used by both the City 

and County. 

It is important to note that the City and County demands and supplies in 

WaterMAPS are not accounted for separately. The City and County supplies and 

demands are added to WaterMAPS as separate inputs, but the logic and routing of 

WaterMAPS adds these values together, after which they cannot be separated. 

This study will capitalize on all water rights owned by the City and County, which 

means that supply deficits cannot be separated as a City or County deficit without 

additional post processing. 

4.2.3 Water Demand 

Water demand was updated in WaterMAPS as part of this project to determine the 

impact of climate change, but it was also updated in general for use in other 

simulation scenarios available in WaterMAPS. The demand components that were 

updated include: population projections, annual unit demands, and seasonal 

variability factors. Additionally, County demands were added. Note that all of the 

water demand calculations that are presented in this section are based on City 

data. Assumptions regarding County water demands were made as described 

below because water demand data were not provided by the County. 

Population Projections 

The City population projections are based on the City of Santa Fe (2008) Long 

Range Water Supply Plan, Appendix D. For this study, the population projection 

was shifted by six years because 2006 projected water demand in the Water 

Supply Plan matched the demand estimated for 2012. The population projections 

used in WaterMAPS are from 2015 to 2055. 

The County water service area population was estimated based on Water 

Transmission and Storage System Master Plan (Brown and Caldwell 2009) 

developed for the City of Santa Fe. The master plan includes water demand 

projections for the County because the City must have capacity to deliver 

maximum day demands to the County as part of a water service agreement. 

Maximum day demand was converted to population by first converting the 

maximum day demand to an average day demand. The average day to maximum 

day peaking factor is two (Brown and Caldwell 2009). The average day demand 

was then divided by the current gallons per capita per day (gpcd) calculated for the 

City. 

Appendix E- page 10 
 - 

-

 - 

-

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Table 1. Water Supply Constraints Included in WaterMAPS for the City and County (Including Las Campanas) 

Source 

SF County City of SF 

Las 

Campanas 

Co op 

Water Rights (AFY) 

SF County City of SF 

Las 

Campanas 

Co op 

Management Target (AFY) 

SF County 

(mgd) 

City of SF 

(mgd) 

Capacity12 

(AFY) 

Capacity Constraint 

SF River (CRWTP + St. Mike's Well) 0 3 

5040 6 0 TBD 8 0 8 8,961 

St. Mike's Well alone 241 0.62 694 

Relinquishment Pool Water 7000 0 

City Well Field (without NW Well) 4215 7 3000 2.89 9 

Northwest Well 650 500 1.4 1,568 

Osage Well 96 96 0.36 403 

County Wells 153 4 153 0 

Buckman Well Field 10000 3000 0 8.9 10 9,969 

Buckman Well Offset 2 1200 100 1200 100 

BDD (Native Rio Grande) 1325 5 1325 

15 11 BDD (SJCP) 375 5230 375 5230 16,802 

BDD (Native Partner Exp.) 1 590 590 590 590 

Notes: 

1. Does not exist today, but is assumed to be in place for the future planning simulation year of 2055. 

2. Supply can only be used to satisfy surface water depletions from groundwater pumping. 

3. Santa Fe basin, in-basin surface water rights is 23 AFY. Assumed to be out of Santa Fe River. Amount is small and not included in model. 

4. Santa Fe basin, in-basin groundwater rights is 153 AFY. Wells do not currently exist for this right; therefore, this supply is added to the City Wells in WaterMAPS 

5. Imported Middle Rio Grande water (2% carriage loss to be subtracted from this number) 

6. CRWTP and St. Mike's operate together untill cumulative production reaches 3500 AFY. Then St. Mike's shuts down and CRWTP has an additional 1540 AFY. 

7. If NW well is used, the total water rights for City Wells and Northwest Well are 3257 AFY. May change after NW well hearing. Other City Wells, Osage, NW and 

St. Mikes are modeled as separate sources. 

8. TBD based on Santa Fe River target flows 

9. Capacities in previous model are from a 2001 report (about 3 mgd). Latest report from B&C (2009) has updated capacities that can be broken down 

by well as needed (pg 2-2 to 2-4). Total max hydraulic capacity is 3.87 mgd excluding NW well. Excluding St. Mike's and Osage reduces it to 2.89 mgd. 

10. Accounts for improvements made as part of the BDD project 

11. Capacity of potable system is 15 mgd. Max capacity is 28.2 cfs (18.2 mgd) but this includes Las Campanas at 5 cfs (3.2 mgd). 

12. This is only capacity converted from mgd to AFY to be able to compare to the water rights. It does not represent any permit limits. 

Appendix E- page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The County maximum day water demand projections extend only to 2030. From 

2030 to 2055, it was assumed that the demand would increase at a similar rate as 

from 2010 to 2030. The resulting growth rate for the County water service area is 

fairly constant from 2015 to 2055. 

The resulting County water service area population projection was compared to 

the total County population projection from the Santa Fe County Sustainable 

Growth Management Plan (Sustainable Growth Plan) adopted in 2010 (Santa Fe 

County 2010). This projection includes the City of Santa Fe. While the actual 

population growth rate for the entire County will decrease over time, it is 

reasonable to assume that the County water service area will increase at a constant 

rate. This accounts for existing population and new population connecting to the 

County water system in the future. 

The City water service, County water service, total water service (City plus 

County), and total County population projections are shown in Figure 4. The 

2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 population values are shown in Figure 4. The 

difference between the total County population and the total water service 

population represents the population that is not served water by either the County 

or City water systems. The ultimate 2055 populations used for the climate change 

analysis and for development of the water supply plan are 125,019 for the City 

water service area and 44,673 for the County water service area. 

Unit Water Demand and Seasonal Demand Factors 

The current annual unit water demand in terms of gallons per capita per day 

was determined from monthly water production data provided by the City and the 

City population data from 2002 to 2010. The unit per capita potable water 

demand calculated for each year is shown in Figure 5. The data from 2004 was 

assumed to be not representative; therefore, was excluded from the calculated 

average of 114 gpcd. 

To be consistent in our analysis, the data used in Task 3e and the data used to 

develop the annual unit water demands had to be the same; therefore, the base 

demand calculated here may not exactly correspond to the 2012 Santa Fe Annual 

Water Report (2012 Water Report). The 2012 Water Report discusses unit 

demand calculated using a specific methodology. These values could not be 

exactly reproduced with the water production data provided and used as part of 

the demand variability task discussed under Section 4.3 in this memorandum. 

Appendix E- page 12 
Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

County population

not served by City or

County water 

Figure 4. Population projections (labeled values are for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050) 

130
 

Unit Water Demand (gpcd) 120
 

110
 

100
 

90
 

80
 

70
 

60
 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
 

Water Production Data
 

Average 2002 to 2010 (excluding 2004)
 

Figure 5. Unit demand data for the City of Santa Fe 

Appendix E- page 13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Two demand scenarios were programmed in WaterMAPS as part of the Basin 

Study. Each is described below: 

 Status Quo (SQ): The unit demand is assumed to stay the same as it is 

today, which was calculated as 114 gpcd. As population increases, total 

water demand will increase, but the unit demand will remain at 114 gpcd. 

This scenario represents the baseline demands that will be used to identify 

the potential water supply gap. 

 Use Less (UL): The unit demand will decrease such that as population 

increases, the total water demand will stay the same. This was calculated to 

be 73 gpcd. This scenario will be included as an option to incorporate more 

aggressive water conservation measures. 

The seasonal demand factors were updated in WaterMAPS. The seasonal demand 

factors are multiplied by the unit demands described above to get the unit water 

demand for a particular month. The demand factors previously modeled were 

based on water production data from 1981 to 2002. The updated demand factors 

are based on data from 2002 to 2010. Each demand factor curve is shown in 

Figure 6. The difference in the curves is most notable in April (decrease) and 

August (increase), which indicates a shift in the time when water is needed. 

0.5 

0.6 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

1.0 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Seasonal Demand Factor 

Month 

Previous Model (1981 - 2002) Model Update (2002 - 2010) 

Figure 6. Comparison of seasonal demand factor curve from the previous model 

to the updated model 

Appendix E- page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Note that the seasonal demand factor is not used as part of the climate change 

impacts for this Basin Study. Demand for those scenarios is specifically varied 

based on the predicted temperature and precipitation as discussed in Section 4.3. 

The seasonal demand factor information was updated and provided for 

informational purposes only. 

Other Water Demands 

Other water customers previously included in WaterMAPS include the Acequia 

Madre and Cerro Gordo irrigation systems, and the Las Campanas community. 

The Acequia Madre and Cerro Gordo water demand is assumed to be the same as 

the court order right of 70 and 25.4 acre-feet per year (AFY), respectively. This is 

similar to previous programming in WaterMAPS. One change that was made was 

to apply a seasonal demand factor similar to reclaimed water seasonal use, 

because the use is mostly for irrigation. The same demand factor curve was 

applied as shown in the next section. In the future, this demand may be met by 

reclaimed water, but currently it is assumed as a potable water demand. Las 

Campanas is a wholesale customer of the County, and so the demand is assumed 

to be included as part of the calculated County water demand. 

4.2.4 Reclaimed Water Demand and Use 

Demand on reclaimed water was updated per the City of Santa Fe Reclaimed 

Wastewater Resource Plan (City of Santa Fe 2013) (RWRP). The RWRP outlines 

specific allocations for reclaimed water use. Table 2 lists the different allocations, 

their annual amounts, and the anticipated maximum monthly demand. The option 

“Upstream Santa Fe River” (i.e., “living” river option) was removed from the total 

demand programmed in WaterMAPS as instructed by the City, because they are 

re-considering this use. Note that this option is not the same as the Santa Fe River 

target flows, which are currently met by releases from the reservoir. This option 

specifically pumps reclaimed water upstream to run through the City. The option 

“Future Potable Supply” was also removed because this will be calculated 

separately according to the dynamics of the model to be included as a potential 

supply option to be analyzed as part of Task 5. Finally “Santa Fe Equestrian 

Center” was removed because potable supply is ranked as a higher priority; 

therefore, the demand SF Equestrian will be met when supply is available, but it is 

not necessary to include in this analysis. The total annual reclaimed water demand 

modeled in WaterMAPS, excluding the above three options, is 3,489 AFY. 

Appendix E- page 15 
-

-

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 2. Reclaimed Water Allocations from RWRP 

Option ID 

(from 

Reclaimed 

Wastewater 

Resource Plan) 

Option Name 

Annual 

Use (Acre 

Feet per 

Year) 

Maximum 

Monthly Use 

(Acre Feet 

per Month) 

14 USFS Livestock Water 6.14 1.24 

11 NM Game & Fish 6.14 0.62 

12 Landfill 18.41 4.04 

3 Southwest Activity Node (SWAN) 

Park 58.31 11.20 

10 On-demand Sales 95.14 13.69 

13 Buckman Well Field Permit 

Compliance 101.27 8.56 

2 Downs of Santa Fe 135.03 24.27 

4 SW Irrigated Parks 147.31 30.49 

1 Municipal Recreation Complex 

(MRC) 165.72 33.92 

8 Santa Fe County Club Golf 

Course 398.96 78.10 

7 Marty Sanchez Golf Course 515.57 83.70 

5 Downstream SF River 1841.33 289.37 

TOTAL OF ABOVE 3489.33 

6 Upstream Santa Fe River 543.19 45.74 

9 Santa Fe Equestrian Center 125.82 38.58 

15 Future Potable Supply1 2200.40 NA 

1 To be included in later analysis as a potential supply 

Appendix E- page 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

As discussed in the RWRP, it is expected that most of the allocated reclaimed 

water will be used in the next 5 to 7 years. By the 2020s, the City expects to use 

reclaimed water as a potable supply. Infrastructure is needed to make use of these 

supplies, but the amount of reclaimed water currently produced is not expected to

increase. Given that current supply of reclaimed water is already enough to meet the 

total demand expected (i.e. the sum of the allocations listed in Table 2), it was 

assumed that the current demand for reclaimed water modeled in WaterMAPS 

would be the full amount for any future year simulated from now until 2055. 

The demand for reclaimed water varies monthly. Historical monthly use of 

reclaimed water was used to update the seasonal demand factors used in 

WaterMAPS. Data from 2007 to 2012 was used to develop the average demand 

factor curve shown in Figure 7. Seasonal Demand Factor 

0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Month 

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Figure 7. Reclaimed water monthly demand factors 

For this Basin Study, it was not necessary to vary the demand for reclaimed water 

based on the climate change scenarios. The sum of the allocated amounts is what 

is expected to be used. 

The RWRP discusses the anticipated supply of reclaimed water that will be 

available. WaterMAPS calculates this dynamically, and the supply will adjust 

according to the demand scenario simulated. The supply available is based on 

indoor water use, which does not change significantly in any given month nor is it 

expected to change significantly with climate change. Therefore, the supply is 

based on the demand scenario multiplied by a return factor. The return factor is 

the expected return of water to the wastewater treatment plant given the amount of 

water produced. The return factor reported in the RWRP and used in WaterMAPS 

Appendix E- page 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

is 62 percent (i.e., 62 percent of water produced returns to the wastewater 

treatment plant and 38 percent is consumed). 

Water discharged from the wastewater treatment plant that is not used by one of 

the reclaimed water contracts shown in Table 2 is considered as additional supply 

that may be used as follows: 

•	 Direct potable supply 

•	 Additional reclaimed water contracts 

•	 Discharged to Santa Fe River (some of this flow will recharge the aquifer) 

•	 Credits for return flow to the Rio Grande 

These options will be reviewed in more detail as part of Task 5. 

4.2.5 Water Accounting Logic 

The water accounting module of WaterMAPS is one of the most complex 

components in the system. Storage in the Canyon reservoirs (Nichols and 

McClure) is subject to several management strategies and conditions. The 

available water accounting pools to which Canyon reservoir storage may be 

allocated include the Pre-Compact Pool, the Post-Compact Pool (subject to 

storage restrictions according to the Rio Grande Compact), the San Juan Chama 

pool, and the Relinquishment Pool. These are not physical pools of water. Instead 

they represent volumes of water that are tracked on paper for accounting purposes. 

Each pool is described below: 

 Pre-Compact Pool: This pool stores water in storage space constructed 

before the Rio Grande Compact (Compact) went into effect, and it is not 

subject to Compact restrictions. Storage limit is 1,061 acre-feet (AF). 

 Post-Compact Pool: This pool holds native water and is subject to Compact 

restrictions. There is no limit on the storage volume for this pool other than 

the capacity of the Canyon reservoirs. 

 San Juan-Chama Pool: The volume in this pool represents water that has 

been exchanged for San Juan-Chama Project water. Storage in this pool is 

not restricted by the Compact, but all increases in daily storage in this pool 

must be paid for with releases of San Juan-Chama Project water. There is no 

limit on the storage volume for this pool other than the capacity of the 

Canyon reservoirs. 

Appendix E- page 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

 Relinquishment Pool: This pool holds native water stored under the terms 

of the 2003 Relinquishment Agreement between New Mexico and Texas. 

Storage in this pool is not restricted by the Compact, but all increases in 

daily storage in this pool must be paid for with a portion of the credit 

assigned to Santa Fe. 

Daily increases and decreases in the Canyon reservoirs are assigned to one of 

these four pools. 

Changes made in WaterMAPS regarding the water accounting logic were made 

specifically based on aspects of the Rio Grande Compact, which include: 

 New Mexico’s credit or debit status 

 If Elephant Butte Reservoir has over or under 400,000 AF in storage 

(i.e., status of Article VII, storage restrictions)
	

These aspects dictate when water can be stored in the Post-Compact Pool and if 

water can be moved from the Post-Compact Pool to other pools. WaterMAPS 

uses an assumed priority logic for determining which inflows are assigned to 

pools, the order in which outflows are assigned to pools, and when to transfer 

water from the Post-Compact Pool to other pools. 

The Rio Grande Compact settings are usually static in the WaterMAPS 

simulations, meaning that the status of each is selected for a particular simulation 

and remains the same throughout the simulation. However, the URGSiM 

simulations that provide input to WaterMAPS determine the status of Rio Grande 

Compact settings for each month. The Bureau of Reclamation provided the status 

of each condition for each month as an input to WaterMAPS for the climatechange scenarios to be simulated in the Basin Study. 

4.2.6 Santa Fe River Target Flows 

An ordinance and associated administrative procedure (City of Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, Ordinance No. 2012-10 and City of Santa Fe, Administrative Procedures 

for Santa Fe River Target Flows and City of Santa Fe) was adopted in February of 

2012 to provide 1,000 AFY to the Santa Fe River. The purpose of the Santa Fe 

River Target Flow is to increase water flow in the river below the City’s reservoirs 

in order to maintain a “living river,” except under emergency conditions. The 

administrative procedure outlines specific hydrographs for daily releases 

throughout the year based on the expected annual yield. For normal and wet 

years, the annual target is 1,000 AFY. This target decreases in dry and critical 

years according to the percent of normal annual yield expected. Figure 8 shows 

how the Santa Fe River Target Flow decreases based on the annual yield. 

Appendix E- page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 8. Santa Fe River Target Flow Allocation as a function of annual yield 

(City of Santa Fe, 2012) 

To model the Santa Fe River Target Flow in WaterMAPS, the hydrographs 

representing daily releases required to meet the desired target flow were 

summarized into monthly releases. These summarized hydrographs are shown in 

Figure 9. Each hydrograph is different, based on the percent of normal expected 

annual yield (e.g. “Dry – 70%” means the expected annual yield is 70 percent less 

than normal). If the expected annual yield is 30 percent or less of normal, then the 

“Critical-Dry” hydrograph is used. This means that even under drought 

conditions, the City plans to release at least 300 AFY to support in-stream flows 

in the Santa Fe River. 

The hydrographs of releases shown in Figure 9 were applied in WaterMAPS 

according to the projected stream flow hydrographs for each of the climate change 

scenarios. The average annual yield of stream flow in the Santa Fe River 

according to gage data from 1914 to 2007 is 4,909 AFY (as stated in the 

administrative procedure). This value represents “normal” conditions. 

Appendix E- page 20 
 

 

 

 

250 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Monthly Release (AFM) 200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Month 

Normal (1000 AFY) Dry - 70% (700 AFY) Dry - 60% (600 AFY) 

Dry - 50% (500 AFY) Dry - 40% (400 AFY) Critical-Dry (300 AFY) 

Figure 9. Santa Fe River Target Flow monthly releases hydrographs 

The hydrograph associated with the percentage of normal from Figure 9 was 

applied to each year to create the Santa Fe River Target Flows to be simulated in 

WaterMAPS. These target flows are simulated as releases from Nichols Reservoir 

and they are tracked through the model. 

The average annual yield for each year simulated and each climate change 

scenario was developed from the projected stream flow hydrographs. These yearly 

averages were compared to the normal annual yield of 4,909 AFY to determine 

the percent of normal. The variation of flow as a percentage of the normal annual 

yield for each climate change scenario is shown in Figure 10. The frequency of 

average annual flow being above and below normal is shown in Figure 11. 

Appendix E- page 21 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 10. Santa Fe River projected annual yield as a percent of normal 

(4,909 AFY) by climate change scenario 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Frequency of Average Annual Flow Above or

Below Normal 

Simulated Warm-Wet Hot-Dry Central 

Historic Tendency 

Below Normal Above Normal 

Figure 11. Frequency of years below and above normal Santa Fe River flow 

conditions, for each climate change scenario 

Appendix E- page 22 
 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

4.3 Task 3e: Water Demand Variability 

The objective of this analysis was to provide a means of varying future water 

demand estimates for the City and County of Santa Fe given future weather 

conditions projected under the climate change scenarios. This variability in 

demand was applied to the WaterMAPS model. 

Monthly water production, monthly average maximum daily temperature, and 

monthly total precipitation were obtained for January 2002 through December 

2010 for the City of Santa Fe. Annual population of the City was used to convert 

the water production values from million gallons per month to monthly 

estimates of gallons per day per capita (monthly gpcd). 

The variation in monthly gpcd is strongly correlated with the average of maximum 

daily temperatures in the month (max. temp.) as shown in Figure 12. The 

relationship between monthly estimates of gpcd and monthly precipitation is not 

as clearly defined as shown in Figure 13. Also notable in Figure 12 and Figure 13 

is that the gpcd data for the year 2004 are abnormal. This may be due to reporting 

or data formatting errors. Therefore, observations for the year 2004 are removed 

from this analysis. 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

1/31/20026/30/2002

11/30/2002

4/30/20039/30/20032/29/20047/31/2004

12/31/2004

5/31/2005

10/31/2005

3/31/20068/31/20061/31/20076/30/2007

11/30/2007

4/30/20089/30/20082/28/20097/31/2009

12/31/2009

5/31/2010

10/31/2010 

Max Temp (F) 

gpcd 

Observed gpcd Observed Avg Max Temp 

Figure 12. Monthly observed gpcd and average maximum daily temperature 

for the City of Santa Fe 

Appendix E- page 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

5 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

Precipitation (inches) 

gpcd 

1/31/20026/30/2002

11/30/2002

4/30/20039/30/20032/29/20047/31/2004

12/31/2004

5/31/2005

10/31/2005

3/31/20068/31/20061/31/20076/30/2007

11/30/2007

4/30/20089/30/20082/28/20097/31/2009

12/31/2009

5/31/2010

10/31/2010 

Observed gpcd Observed Precipitation 

Figure 13. Monthly observed gpcd and precipitation for the City of Santa Fe 

A number of regression models were tested in which the monthly gpcd is the 

dependent variable and monthly maximum temperature and monthly precipitation 

are tested as independent variables. As expected by the overlapped time series 

shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, the regression coefficients for monthly average 

maximum temperature were highly significant while coefficients estimated for 

monthly precipitation were not significant. Models were tested in both linear and 

log forms. The advantage of the log model is that the estimated coefficient can be 

directly interpreted as the elasticity of demand to the variable and represents the 

percent change in demand given a percent change in the variable. Model 1 and 2 

show the estimated relationships between gpcd and maximum temperature in 

linear and log form, respectively. 

 Model 1:
	

gpcd = 6.6316 + 1.6316 x (avg max temp) R2

 = 0.856 

 Model 2:
	

gpcd = e1.092753 x (avg max temp)0.869574 R2

 = 0.869 

The R2

 values represent goodness of fit and range from 0 to 1. In Model 2, the 

elasticity of maximum temperature of 0.8695 indicates a 0.87 percent increase in 

gpcd for every 1 percent increase in maximum temperature. This relationship can 

be used to adjust estimates of future water demand (in gpcd) for theoretical 

changes in monthly average maximum daily temperature. 

Appendix E- page 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Model 3 (below) shows the addition of monthly precipitation as an additional 

variable to Model 2 above. 

 Model 3: 

gpcd = e1.09341 x (avg max temp)0.869298 x (precip + 1)0.00078 R2

 = 0.824 

There is a very negligible shift in the estimated elasticity for average maximum 

temperature, and the estimated elasticity for monthly precipitation is 0.00078. It is 

expected that the precipitation elasticity would be negative (i.e. a decrease in 

precipitation would lead to an increase in demand), but given the data, the result 

was a positive elasticity. Given that the value is so small compared to the 

elasticity for temperature, the effect of precipitation is considered to be 

statistically insignificant. Thus, variations in precipitation during this period show 

no effect on per capita water use. Note that the model is in log form, and one 

cannot take the log of zero, but some months have zero precipitation. To address 

this, a value of one is added to all monthly precipitation values before they are 

transformed into log values. This has no impact on the relationship between 

precipitation and gpcd. 

The average annual demand for the City of Santa Fe from 2002 to 2010 (excluding 

2004) is about 113.8 gpcd. This value can be used in conjunction with projections 

of future population for the City and the County to derive estimates of average 

future water demand. The average value for monthly average maximum daily 

temperature for this time period is 65.66 °F and the average value for monthly 

precipitation is 1.04 inches. These values may be considered as representative of 

“normal” conditions. Deviation from these “normal” values can be calculated and 

used to adjust the average gpcd for the month. Thus monthly per capita water 

demand with adjustments for variation in monthly weather can be estimated as: 

 Predicted gpcd = 113.8 x (max temp/65.66)0.869298 x
	

((precip+1)/(1.04+1))0.00078
	

Figure 14 shows the results of using this formula to estimate historical monthly 

gpcd from the historical monthly weather values relative to the observed historical 

gpcd. 

This same formula can be used to assess the impacts of alternative climate change 

scenarios on future water demand for the City and County. Reclamation has 

provided temperature and precipitation data for the climate change and simulated 

historic scenarios. These data are for the same time period as the other climate 

change scenario provided and discussed as part of Task 3a. The development of 

this data was described in a memorandum from Dr. Jesse Roach (Appendix C). 

Temperature and precipitation projections were provided for two 1/8 degree grid 

cells, referred to as the “City” and “McClure Reservoir” grid cells. 

Appendix E- page 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

gpcd 

159

131721252933374145495357616569737781858993 

Month from 2002 to 2010 Excluding 2004 

Observed gpcd Predicted gpcd 

Figure 14. Monthly observed gpcd and predicted gpcd (excluding 2004 data)

The City of Santa Fe falls in the middle of the City grid cell. The temperature and 

precipitation projections developed for the City grid cell were used for projecting 

demand. The McClure Reservoir grid cell covers an area where there is less 

population and demand for water, and therefore was not used to predict demand. 

The temperature and precipitation projections were also used in the development 

of the evaporation projections for McClure and Nichols Reservoirs, as is 

discussed further in later sections of this memorandum. 

The climate change scenarios include an estimation of simulated historic weather 

as a basis for determining the change in climatic patterns. The simulated historic 

weather does not align precisely with observed historic weather. Therefore, the 

long-term averages of monthly daily maximum temperature and monthly total 

precipitation were calculated from the simulated historic period and substituted 

into the above formula for predicted gpcd. Thus, the adjusted formula shown 

below is calibrated to the same historic period averages as the climate change 

scenarios. 

Simulation Formula: gpcd = 114 x (max temp/63.08)0.869298 x 

((precip+1)/(1.41+1))0.00078 

The above formula is used with temperature and precipitation time series in the 

climate change scenarios to predict water demand in WaterMAPS simulations. 

Two demand scenarios are considered, as previously discussed: status quo and use 

Appendix E- page 26 
 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

less. For status quo (SQ), the above formula is used as is. For the use less demand 

scenario (UL), 114 gpcd is replaced with 73 gpcd. The average and maximum 

monthly gpcd simulated for each climate change scenario and under the status quo 

and use-less demand scenarios are shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. 

The labels in these figures indicate the unit demand value for Synthetic Historic 

and the percent increase from the Synthetic Historic unit demand for each of the 

climate change scenarios. 

180 

Unit Water Demand (gpcd) 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

114

4.5%

7.5%

5.8% 

154

8.0%

10.4%

6.1% 

Synthetic Historic Warm-Wet Hot-Dry Central Tendancy 

Status Quo, Average Status Quo, Max 

Figure 15. Average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated, status quo 73 4.6% 7.7% 5.9% 99 8.0% 10.4% 6.1% 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

Synthetic

Historic 

Warm-Wet Hot-Dry Central 

Tendancy 

Unit Water Demand (gpcd) 

Use Less, Average Use Less, Max 

Figure 16. Average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated, use less 

Appendix E- page 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

4.4 Task 3f: San Juan Chama Project Adjustments 

The objective of this task was to incorporate the impacts of climate change on 

expected firm yield water deliveries from the San Juan-Chama Project into 

WaterMAPS. When WaterMAPS was first developed, it was assumed that San 

Juan-Chama Project water would always be available to the full permitted 

amount. Shortages in recent years have shown that this is not the case. 

4.4.1 Understanding of San Juan-Chama Project Percent Allocation

Using URGSiM, Reclamation has provided the percent allocation expected at the 

beginning of each simulated year for the climate change scenarios. If the 

allocation for a given year in the simulation is not 100 percent starting in January, 

there is the potential for revision to the allocation in July. For example, if the total 

allocated amount of annual of San Juan-Chama Project water for an entity is 100 

AFY, but based on URGSiM results, only 25 percent is predicted to be available 

at the beginning of the year, only 25 AFY can be delivered. Starting in July, if 

URGSiM determines that an additional 50 percent of the annual allocated amount 

can be used, then an additional 50 AFY are delivered. This means for that year, a 

total of 75 AFY can be used, but the model cannot account for the additional 50 

AFY until July. 

4.4.2 San Juan-Chama Project Water Delivery System 

An understanding of how San Juan-Chama Project water is delivered to the Rio 

Grande for diversion at the Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD) is necessary for 

explaining how the San Juan-Chama Project system and deliveries were modeled 

in WaterMAPS. Below is an outline of how San Juan-Chama Project water is 

delivered and the limitations on the water’s availability for diversion: 

•	 San Juan-Chama Project water is diverted from tributaries to flow by 

gravity to Heron Reservoir. The amount and frequency of diversion is 

based on the flow of the tributaries and the temperature (i.e., the diversion 

does not occur under freezing conditions). This aspect is modeled in 

URGSiM. Note that other entities in addition to the City and County of 

Santa Fe have rights to San Juan-Chama Project water. 

•	 The City and County call for their portion of San Juan-Chama Project
	

water, from Heron Reservoir as needed on a daily basis.
	

•	 As needed, the City and County transfer water from Heron Reservoir to
	

Abiquiu Reservoir. From Abiquiu, water is released into the Rio Grande
	

for diversion at the Buckman Direct Diversion.
	

•	 The City and the County are allowed to store water in Abiquiu until there is a 

need for use or until storage capacity exceeds storage contract rights. Evaporative 

Appendix E- page 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

losses apply to water stored in Abiquiu. Any unused waterstored in 

Heron Reservoir is lost to Reclamation at the end of the year unless the 

contractor obtains a waiver (as Santa Fe has done in recent years). 

However, any losses due to evaporation in Heron Reservoir are 

absorbed by Reclamation. 

•	 As discussed in OSE Permit SP-2847-E (New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer 2006), which allows for direct diversion of San Juan-Chama 

Project water via the Buckman Direct Diversion, “the amount of the 

permittees’ San Juan-Chama Project water available for diversion at the 

Buckman Direct Diversion on a particular day shall be calculated as the 

amount of water released from either Heron or El Vado Reservoir two 

days prior to diversion at the Buckman Direct Diversion, less a 2 percent 

conveyance loss...” This conveyance loss is to account for losses due to 

evaporation and infiltration as the water is transported. If water is to be 

released directly from Abiquiu, the conveyance loss is reduced to 

0.9 percent and is calculated one day prior to diversion. 

4.4.3 WaterMAPS Simulation of San Juan-Chama Project Water 

Delivery System 

The system of reservoirs and daily calls for water discussed above is complex. 

The San Juan-Chama Project system of reservoirs and delivery of water was 

modeled in a simplified manner in WaterMAPS as described below: 

•	 San Juan-Chama Project water is delivered on a monthly basis to Heron 

according to the percent allocation data predicted by URGSiM for the 

different climate change scenarios. It is assumed that the allocated amount 

is divided over the twelve months of the year for the first six months. Then 

if the allocation is increased in July, the remaining annual amount is 

divided evenly over the last six months. 

•	 If the monthly amount of San Juan-Chama Projectwater delivered to 

Heron is less than the demand for such water in any given month, the 

water passes through the reservoirs. No evaporative losses due to storage 

are incurred, but the 2 percent carriage loss is applied. 

•	 If the monthly amount of San Juan-Chama Project water delivered to 

Heron is greater than the demand for such water in any given month, water 

is stored in Abiquiu according to storage limits. Related to this is the 

following: 

—	 Evaporative losses are applied to stored water in Abiquiu. 

—	 If the storage limit for Abiquiu is exceeded, water is stored in Heron. No 

evaporative losses are applied to Heron, but any water remaining in 

Heron at the end of the year is lost. 

Appendix E- page 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

—	 The 2 percent carriage loss is applied when the water is used. 

•	 Simulation of the San Juan-Chama Project reservoirs in WaterMAPS does 

not include any flows or storage amounts other than San Juan-Chama 

Project water for the City and County and evaporative losses at Abiquiu 

Reservoir. Evaporative losses at Abiquiu are applied as a percentage of the 

San Juan-Chama Project amount that is stored for the City and County. 

Those percentages were developed as described under Section 4.1. 

This simplification of the system is considered adequate because WaterMAPS 

only tracks water for the City and County of Santa Fe. San Juan-Chama Project 

water transferred for other entities is not relevant for the Basin Study nor is it 

useful for the City or the County. 

WaterMAPS does not consider the 0.9 percent carriage loss for use of water that 

has been stored in Abiquiu. For the purposes of this project, which looks at the 

impact of climate change on the system in 2055, water is seldom stored in 

Abiquiu in the modeled scenarios. As a high priority source, it is likely that it will 

be completely used before other sources. The additional modeling complication of 

including this loss was, therefore, not included. The 2 percent loss is applied 

across the board for all water used. 

4.5 Task 3g: Evaporation Rates for the Santa Fe 

Municipal Reservoirs 

Evaporation rates for Nichols and McClure Reservoirs were developed for the 

climate change scenarios for simulation in WaterMAPS. Appendix C discussed 

the development of the temperature and precipitation data that were used to 

calculate reference evapotranspiration. Additional detail on the evapotranspiration 

calculations is presented in a report on the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model 

(United States Department of the Interior et al. 2013) that has also been provided 

in Appendix C2. 

As discussed in Appendix C2 and under Section 4.3, temperature and 

precipitation data were developed for two grid cells in the downscaled climate 

projections. The two grid cells centrally encompass the City of Santa Fe and 

McClure Reservoirs, so the evaporation data developed for the McClure Reservoir 

grid cell could be used directly. Nichols Reservoir straddles the grid cells; 

therefore, the evaporation data for Nichols Reservoir is based on the average 

evapotranspiration developed for the two grid cells. 

Appendix E- page 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Task 3: Update and Enhance WaterMAPS 

Reference evapotranspiration is converted to reservoir evaporation using open 

water evaporation coefficients, developed for each month, as discussed in 

Appendix C2. Such coefficients are not available for McClure and Nichols 

Reservoirs; therefore, open water evaporation coefficients for a reservoir nearest 

in elevation to McClure and Nichols was used. Although Heron Reservoir is 

nearest in elevation, a lack of historic temperature data prevented the development 

of such coefficients. The next reservoir nearest in elevation is El Vado. The open 

water evaporation coefficients for El Vado were used to convert reference 

evapotranspiration to reservoir evaporation for each of the municipal reservoirs. 

A time series of evaporation was calculated for each reservoir and for each of the 

climate change scenarios to be simulated in WaterMAPS. Evaporation was 

simulated in feet per month. This is multiplied by the dynamically simulated area 

of each reservoir to get a volume of water lost from the reservoirs. 

In addition to evaporation, precipitation was included in the simulation, but only 

as an amount that falls directly on the reservoir. The inflow hydrographs account 

for precipitation that falls on the watershed. Precipitation was simulated in feet 

per month. This is multiplied by the simulated area of each reservoir to get a 

volume of water gained from the precipitation. 

5 WaterMAPS Functionality 

The functionality of WaterMAPS, given the changes described in this 

memorandum, is checked as part of Task 4, which is an examination of the results 

given the climate change scenarios. The results presented in the Task 4 

memorandum are checked against the average annual estimate of supply and 

demand to determine if the results are reasonable. 

Significant changes were made to WaterMAPS as part of this Basins Study, 

including additional supplies and demands from the County. These improvements 

to the model prevent a direct comparison to previous WaterMAPS results. 

Although final results cannot be directly validated, specific programming in the 

model was checked with regard to the functionality of each of the updates 

discussed in this memorandum. 

6 References 

Borchert, Claudia. 2013. Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan (RWRP), City of 

Santa Fe. 

Brekke, Levi, Tom Pruitt, and Del Smith. 2010. “Climate Change and Hydrology 

Scenarios for Oklahoma Yield Studies.” Technical Memorandum 86­

68210-210-01. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. 

Appendix E- page 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Brown and Caldwell. 2009. Water Transmission and Storage System Master Plan, 

City of Santa Fe. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2008. Long-Range Water Supply Plan. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/document_center/document/772 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2012. Administrative Procedures for Santa Fe 

River Target Flows. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/archive_center/document/6261. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2012. Ordinance No. 2012-10. An Ordinance 

Creating a New Article 25-13 SFCC 1987 Regarding the Santa Fe River 

Target Flow For a Living River Initiative. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/archive_center/document/5964. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2013. Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/document_center/document/794 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2006. SP-2847-E, San Juan Chama 

Project Permit. 

Santa Fe County, 2010. “The Santa Fe County Sustainable Growth Management 

Plan.” Santa Fe County General Plan. Adopted by the Board of County 

Commissioners by Resolutions 2010-210 and 2010-225. 

United States Department of the Interior, USDA Forest Service. 2007. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion on the Effects of Action 

Associated with the Biological Assessment for the Buckman Water 

Diversion Project, Santa Fe National Forest. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and Sandia National Laboratories, 2013. “Appendix 

E: The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM).” Section 3, 

Evapotranspiration Calculations in URGSiM. 

Appendix E- page 32 
 

Appendix F 

Task 4: Assessment of Adequacy of 

Current Water Supplies in Meeting

Future Demand under Projected 

Climate-Change-Induced Conditions 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

©2014 CDM Smith All Rights Reserved 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

Contents 

1. Background Information................................................................................. 1
	

2. Water Supply and Future Demand.................................................................. 1
	

3. Modeling Approach ........................................................................................ 2
	

4. Gap Analysis Results for Climate Change Impacts........................................ 3
	

5. Deficit Probability........................................................................................... 4
	

Appendix F- page i
	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Kelly Collins, 

PG, BCES, CDM Smith, to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, dated September 

5, 2014. This memo summarizes Task 4: Assessment of Adequacy of Current 

Water Supplies in Meeting Future Demand under Projected Climate-ChangeInduced Conditions. This memorandum is not a stand-alone document. An 

understanding of the information presented in Appendix E is important for 

comprehending the results shown here. 

1. Background Information 

In this section, a brief summary of the water supply, future demand, and modeling 

approach are provided as background for the gap analysis. Additional information 

can be obtained in Appendix E. 

2. Water Supply and Future Demand 

A brief summary of the climate-change scenarios, City and County water 

supplies, demand projections, and demand variability are discussed below: 

•	 Four water supply scenarios under future climate-change-projected 

conditions were selected to represent the range of projected conditions and 

are described in detail in Section 3 of Appendix E. These include: 

o	 Simulated historic (baseline simulation) 

o	 Warm-wet 

o	 Central tendency 

o	 Hot-dry 

The primary water supplies available, in order of priority, are: 

o San Juan Chama Project (SJCP) water and Rio Grande native 

water diverted via the Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD) 

o	 Local surface water from the Santa Fe River watershed 

o	 Groundwater from the City Well Field along the Santa Fe River 

o	 Groundwater from the Buckman Well Field near the Rio Grande 

•	 The water supply sources are subject to various regulatory limits,
	

management targets, and capacity constraints. The constraints for each
	

supply are described in Appendix E.
	

•	 The ultimate 2055 populations used for the climate change analysis and 

for development of the water supply plan are 125,019 for the City water 

service area and 44,673 for the County water service area (Appendix E). 

By comparison, 2015 populations for the City and County are 96,578 and 

18,048, respectively. 

•	 The demand scenario selected for analysis is based on the current average 

annual unit demand, which was calculated from City records as 114 gallons per 

capita per day (gpcd). 

Appendix F- page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tatus Quo, Average Status Quo, Max

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

With regard to seasonal demand factors, monthly demand is specifically varied 

based on the predicted temperature and precipitation for the respective climate 

change scenarios. The average and maximum monthly gpcd simulated for each 

climate change scenario is shown in Figure 1 and is described in detail in Section 

4.3 of Appendix E. 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Central Tendancy 

Figure 1. Average and Maximum Monthly Simulated Water Demand (gpcd) 

3. Modeling Approach 

In addition to the information presented below, detailed information concerning 

the model setup is provided in Section 4.2 of Appendix E. Concerning the model 

setup, several parameters remain constant among the simulations: 

•	 Supplies are constrained by the management targets (rather than water 

rights, which are greater) determined by the City and County as shown in 

Table 1. For the supplies shown in Table 1, surface water supplies are 

impacted by climate change while groundwater supplies are not for this 

study. While climate change conditions may impact groundwater in 

reality, this was not considered in the study. The management targets are 

used to represent possible depletions in the availability of groundwater in 

the future. 

•	 Maximum Buckman Well Field pumping is 5,000 acre-feet per year 

(AFY). This applies to designated dry years. 

•	 The initial storage condition for McClure, Nichols, El Vado, and Abiquiu 

reservoirs is 25 percent full, representing an approximation of recent 

conditions. Unit Water Demand (gpcd) 

114

4.5%

7.5%

5.8% 

154

8.0%

10.4%

6.1% 

Synthetic Historic Warm-Wet Hot-Dry 

SAverage Demand Maximum Demand 

Appendix F- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

Table 1. Management Targets for Selected Water Supply Sources. 

Source Management Target (AFY) 

County City 

Groundwater Supply 

Buckman Wells - 3,000 

City Wells - 3,000 

Northwest Well - 500 

St. Mike’s Well - 241 

Osage Well - 96 

Surface Water Supply 

Varies based upon 

Canyon Road WTP 0 SF River flows 

(3,630) 

Native Rio Grande Rights 1,915 590 

San Juan-Chama Project 375 5,230 Water 

Additionally, a preliminary simulation (the Forty Year Sequential Time Series 

Simulation) is required to determine groundwater pumping offsets that will need 

to be met with water rights (either specific water rights for offsets or other rights) 

in the future. 

WaterMAPS was used to simulate the demand on supply given climate change 

and the above conditions. The results were then used to evaluate how well the 

City and County will be able to meet future water supply objectives under the four 

climate change scenarios. 

4. Gap Analysis Results for Climate Change 

Impacts 

Results from the simulations include quantitative estimates from WaterMAPS on 

the gap between expected demand in 2055 and available supply for each of the 

three climate-change scenarios. As noted in Task 3, the simulated historic 

scenario serves as a baseline; therefore, the results from the respective simulation 

can be compared to the baseline. 

The performance measures of the results include: 

•	 Need for and frequency of mandatory demand restrictions or additional 

supply 

•	 Extent to which non-Buckman Direct Diversion water supply (Santa Fe 

River water and groundwater) is needed. 

To compare the performance measures among all climate change scenarios, the 

following results were developed: 

•	 Annual and monthly deficit probability: the likelihood that there will be a 

water shortage of a certain extent in any given year or month. 

Appendix F- page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

•	 Monthly deficit probability for both summer and winter months: the 

likelihood of deficits under summer and winter conditions 

•	 Annual average supply mix: the extent to which each supply is used on an 

average annual basis 

•	 Monthly supply mix: the extent to which each supply is used on a monthly 

basis 

The monthly supply mix displays eight water sources and is determined for four 

conditions based on the simulated historic Santa Fe River flow. The four 

conditions are: 

•	 Average Annual – all time steps are taken into account 

•	 Normal Year – one year in the time series where flow in the Santa Fe 

River represents the median flow 

•	 Dry Year – one year in the time series where flow in the Santa Fe River 

represents the 10th percentile (low flow condition) 

•	 Wet Year – one year in the time series where flow in the Santa Fe River 

represents the 90th percentile (high flow condition) 

Note that the dry and wet years were chosen to be representative of dry and 

wet years and do not necessarily represent the “worst” and “best” case 

scenarios for water supply. 

5. Deficit Probability 

Part of the WaterMAPS output is the probability of deficits (or water shortages) 

on an annual basis and on a monthly basis. The output graphs show the percent 

likelihood of a deficit of a particular amount in any given year based on the 

simulation results. 

Figure 2 shows the annual deficit probability for each climate change scenario. 

Each line represents a climate change scenario and the range of deficits predicted. 

An example of how to interpret the graph is shown in Figure 2, which indicates 

that there is a 10 percent probability that there will be an annual deficit of 12,200 

acre-feet (AF) under the Hot-Dry climate condition. For reference, the projected 

average annual demand under this climate condition is approximately 23,300 

acre-feet per year (AFY). 

Appendix F- page 4
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

10% probability that there will be a

shortage of 12,200 AF in 2055 under the

Hot-Dry climate condition 

Annual Avg Demand: 

SH – 21.640 

WW – 22,650 

CT – 22,930 

HD – 23,300 

Figure 2. Probability Curves for the Annual Deficit for each Climate Change 

Scenario 

From Figure 2, all climate change scenarios (including the baseline) encompass 

an annual deficit ranging between 3,500 acre-feet (AF) and 14,000 AF. To 

compare the climate change scenarios, the Hot-Dry scenario has the highest 

maximum annual deficit, about 14,000 AF while the Warm-Wet scenario has the 

lowest maximum annual deficit, falling just below 9,000 AF. The annual deficit 

probability curve for the Central Tendency scenario falls in between the Hot-Dry 

and Warm-Wet probability curves. 

Based on these results, it is very likely that there will be an annual deficit greater 

than 3,500 AF in the year 2055 unless adaptive strategies are implemented to 

reduce demand or supplement supply. It is important to understand that these 

results not only indicate climate change impacts, but also reflect the combination 

of City and County supply and demand, which has not been studied previously. 

The combined result is much greater demand without a commensurate increase in 

supply. Also, groundwater pumping is being restricted by the management 

targets; the most restrictive of which is the Buckman Well Field limitation of 

3,000 AFY. 

Appendix F- page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 3 shows the monthly deficit probability for each climate change scenario. 

Similar to Figure 2, each line represents a climate change scenario and the range of 

deficits predicted. An example of how to interpret the graph is shown in Figure 3, 

which indicates that there is a 10 percent probability that there will be a monthly 

deficit of 1,300 AF in any given month of 2055 under the Hot-Dry climate 

condition. 

10% probability that there will be a shortage

of 1,300 AF (or more) in any given month of

2055 under the Hot-Dry climate condition 

68% probability that there will be a deficit 

of some magnitude (0 or more) in any given 

month of 2055 under the Simulated Historic 

climate condition 

Figure 3. Probability Curves for the Monthly Deficit for each Climate Change 

Scenario. 

As shown in Figure 3, a monthly deficit ranging from zero to 2,000 AF is likely for 

all climate change scenarios, including the baseline. The Hot-Dry climate change 

scenario has the highest maximum monthly deficit of approximately 1,900 AF 

while the Warm-Wet scenario has the lowest maximum monthly deficit of about 

1,500 AF. It is important to understand that these graphs represent the probability 

of deficits of a particular magnitude and not the probability of no deficits. For 

example, under the Simulated Historic climate conditions, it cannot be said that 

there is a 68 percent chance of no deficits. It can only be said that there is a 

68 percent chance of deficits between 0 and 1,350 AF. To state the probability of 

any deficit, the cumulative probability should be inverted (i.e., the probability of no 

deficits for Simulated Historic in 2055 is 32 percent). 

As with the annual deficit, the monthly deficit probability curve for the Central 

Tendency scenario falls in between the Hot-Dry and Warm-Wet probability 

Appendix F- page 6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

curves. Based on these results for monthly deficit, there is a 68 to 95 percent 

chance that there will be a water supply shortage in any given month by year 

2055. 

To better understand the seasonality of deficits, the summer and winter monthly 

probability curves for each climate change scenario were developed (Figure 4 and 

Figure 5). The summer months were designated as June, July, and August while 

the winter months are December, January, and February. 

10% probability that there will be a shortage of

1,450 AF in any of the summer months of 2055

under the Hot-Dry climate condition 

Figure 4. Probability Curves for the Summer Monthly Deficit for each Climate 

Change Scenario. 

As expected, the summer months show a greater magnitude and frequency of 

deficits for all climate change scenarios. Within the summer months, the largest 

deficit occurs in the Hot-Dry scenario as compared to the Central Tendency and 

Warm-Wet scenarios. The summer monthly deficit ranges from zero to 1,900 AF 

over all climate change scenarios. As anticipated, the maximum deficit seen in the 

summer months is the overall maximum monthly deficit. Overall, it is very likely 

that there will be a monthly deficit during the summer by the year 2055. 

Therefore, adaptive strategies will be the most important in the summer months. 

Appendix F- page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

10% probability that there will be a shortage of

750 AF in any of the winter months of 2055

under the Hot-Dry climate condition 

Figure 5. Probability Curves for the Winter Monthly Deficit for each Climate Change 

Scenario 

During the winter months, the largest deficit occurs in the Hot-Dry scenario and is 

approximately 1,000 AF, considerably less than the summer maximum monthly 

deficit. The Central Tendency and Warm-Wet scenarios have a maximum deficit 

in the winter months of about 850 AF and 800 AF, respectively. The difference 

between the maximum deficits for each climate change scenario in the winter 

months is minimal. The significant difference in probability occurs when deficits 

of less than 400 AF occur. The monthly deficits predicted to occur during the 

winter are low in comparison to the summer months and annual deficits. 

As mentioned previously, the supply gap and average annual supply mix was 

determined for each climate change scenario and includes eight water supply 

sources (Figure 6). These sources, in order of priority, include the San JuanChama Project supply, Native Rio Grande (RG) Rights, Canyon Road Water 

Treatment Plant (WTP), Osage Well, St. Mike’s Well, Northwest (NW) Well, 

City Wells, and Buckman Wells. The Canyon Road WTP represents surface water 

supplies for the Santa Fe River reservoirs. The Osage Well, St. Mike’s Well, and 

Northwest Well are also considered as part of the City Well field, but those 

supplies are tracked separately in Water Management and Planning Simulation 

(WaterMAPS) and thus are shown separately here. 

Appendix F- page 8
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

Figure 6. Supply Gap and Average Annual Supply Mix for each Climate Change 

Scenario 

The largest water supply gap based on the annual average supply mix occurs in 

the Hot-Dry scenario and is approximately 9,300 AFY. The water supply gap for 

the Central Tendency and Warm-Wet scenarios are 7,400 AFY and 6,300 AFY, 

respectively. The water supply gap for baseline conditions (simulated historic), is 

5,100 AFY. 

Climate change was not applied to the supply from Native RG Rights, Osage 

Well, St. Mike’s Well, NW Well, City Wells, and Buckman Wells; therefore, they 

do not vary amongst the climate change scenarios. As an alternative, the 

management targets were used to restrict the groundwater supply due to their 

indeterminate availability in the future. The combined average annual supply 

from these sources is approximately 8,500 AFY. The San Juan-Chama Project 

water and Canyon Road WTP are significantly impacted by climate change 

conditions. As shown in Figure 6, the Hot-Dry scenario significantly impacts the 

Canyon Road WTP supply as well as the San Juan-Chama Project supply, which 

is expected as both of these supplies are dependent upon surface water 

availability. 

Appendix F- page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Note that all the scenarios show a significant decrease in the availability of San 

Juan-Chama Project water from the annual right of 5,605 AFY (City and County 

total rights). There are two reasons for this. First, some of the San Juan-Chama 

Project water is being used to meet groundwater pumping offsets that could not be 

completely met by current offset water rights. Because these simulations assume 

no demand restrictions due to drought and no additional supplies being added 

over time, the system relies heavily on groundwater supplies. This results in 

greater offsets that need to be met. In reality, it is likely that the City and County 

would apply water-saving strategies or new surface supplies over time, which 

would reduce the use of groundwater on an average basis. This would, in turn, 

reduce groundwater pumping offsets that would need to be met and increase the 

San Juan-Chama Project water available for use. 

The second reason for the reduction in San Juan-Chama Project supply is the 

climate-change-predicted availability of San Juan-Chama Project water in the 

future. This information was provided by Reclamation using the Upper Rio 

Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) as described in Appendix B and 

programmed into WaterMAPS. 

As mentioned, the monthly supply mix for each climate change scenario was 

developed for four conditions based on the Santa Fe River Flow: average annual, 

normal year, dry year, and wet year. Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10 show each of these 

conditions for the Simulated Historic, Warm-Wet, Central Tendency, and HotDry climate change scenarios, respectively. 

Appendix F- page 10 
 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

Figure 7a Figure 7b. Monthly supply mix for simulated historic during a normal year. . Average annual monthly supply mix for simulated historic. 

Figure 7c. Monthly supply mix for simulated historic during a dry year. Figure 7d. Monthly supply mix for simulated historic during a wet year. 

Appendix F- page 11 
 

Santa Fe Basin Study
 

Figure 8a. Average annual monthly supply mix for warm-wet. Figure 8b. Monthly supply mix for warm-wet during a normal year.
 

Figure 8c.Monthly supply mix for warm-wet during a dry year. Figure 8d. Monthly supply mix for warm-wet during a wet year. 

Appendix F- page 12 
 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change
 

Figure 9a. Average annual monthly supply mix for central tendency. Figure 9b. Monthly supply mix for central tendency during a normal year.
 

Figure 9c. Monthly supply mix for central tendency during a dry year. Figure 9d. Monthly supply mix for central tendency during a wet year. 

Appendix F- page 13 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study
 

Figure 10a. Average annual monthly supply mix for hot-dry. Figure 10b. Monthly supply mix for hot-dry during a normal year.
 

Figure 10c. Monthly supply mix for hot-dry during a dry year. Figure 10d. Monthly supply mix for hot-dry during a wet year. 

Appendix F- page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Task 4 Water Supplies Under Climate Change 

The supply mix graphs show the impacts of climate change on some of the 

supplies and the impact of some of the WaterMAPS programming with regards to 

the Buckman Well Field. In the Central Tendency and Hot-Dry scenarios (Figures 

9 and 10), there are significant declines in the Canyon Road WTP supply (purple 

bar). This supply reduction is also seen during the dry year conditions for all 

scenarios (Figures 7c, 8c, 9c, and 10c). Because this supply depends on surface 

water availability, it is expected that climate change impacts would be substantial. 

Also observed in the Central Tendency and Hot-Dry scenarios, the first six 

months of the year show a reduction in available San Juan-Chama Project water 

(green bar). This reduction is due to the climate-change-predicted availability of 

San Juan-Chama Project water that was provided by URGSiM and programmed 

into WaterMAPS. Note that the change occurs in six-month increments because 

that is how URGSiM produces the percent availability (see Appendix E, Section 

4.4.1). 

The Buckman Well Field (blue bar) also shows interesting results. WaterMAPS 

was programmed to employ different pumping schemes, depending upon whether 

the simulated year was considered dry, normal, or wet. For normal and wet years, 

water can be pumped from the Buckman Well Field up to the capacity of the 

system in any month, but it is then restricted by water rights or a management 

target for the year. For example, in Figure 10b, there are still deficits in January, 

February, and March because the capacity of the system was reached before the 

supply for the year was used. For dry years, the maximum pumping limit is 

subject to seasonality factors that distribute the maximum pumping limit over the 

entire year. These pumping schemes work well when there is enough supply in 

most years to cover demand. Because demand is significantly greater than supply, 

even wet and normal years have significant deficits. 

The dry year results for the Buckman Well Field (Figures 7c, 8c, 9c, and 10c) also 

show that even though the pumping scheme is supposed to distribute the supply 

over the year, the supply barely lasts till August. This is because the management 

target established for this study (3,000 AFY) is less than the 5,000 AFY 

maximum pumping that was set as part of the simulation run. During a dry year, 

WaterMAPS applies a seasonal distribution based on 5,000 AFY, but then the 

3,000 AFY maximum is reached before the year is over. This is an impact of the 

programming that was rectified as part of simulating the adaptation strategies 

discussed in Appendix G. 

Monthly supply mix results show that the SJCP water, Native RG Rights, Canyon 

Road WTP, and City Wells including Osage, St. Mike’s, and NW Wells with 

supplemental supply from the Buckman wells do not provide enough supply to 

meet projected demands. Management target constraints limit the supply that 

could be available from groundwater sources. Model runs were conducted to see 

if demands could be met if groundwater pumping was allowed up to the full 

amount of water rights available instead of being restricted by the management 

Appendix F- page 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

targets. Deficits were reduced significantly, but they could not be eliminated. For 

the Central Tendency and Hot-Dry scenarios, deficits were still greater than what 

could be managed without implementing additional adaptive strategies. 

In summary, for all climate change scenarios there is a clear need for adaptive 

strategies that result in demand reductions and additional supply. The City and 

County are exploring different adaptive strategies including water conservation, 

water reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in addition to obtaining 

additional surface water rights. 

Appendix F- page 16 
Appendix G 

Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation 

Strategies 

Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Contents 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
 

2 Identify Adaptation Strategies...................................................................... 1
 

2.1	 Direct Reclaimed Water Reuse .............................................................. 2
 

2.2	 Water Conservation............................................................................... 3
 

2.3	 Direct Injection for Aquifer Storage and Recovery ................................ 3
 

2.4	 Infiltration for Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Santa Fe River
 

Channel via Aquifer Storage and Recovery............................................ 5
 

2.5 Additional Surface Water Rights ........................................................... 7
 

3 Alternative Climate Mitigation Portfolios .................................................... 7
 

3.1	 Portfolio 1: Conservation Only ............................................................ 10
 

3.2	 Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only............................................................. 11
 

3.3	 Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only........................................... 13
 

3.4	 Portfolio 4: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to Potable)..... 14
 

3.5	 Portfolio 5: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to Return Flow 

Credits)................................................................................................ 16
 

3.6	 Portfolio 6: More Infiltration Aquifer Storage and Recovery ............... 17
 

3.7	 Portfolio 7: More Direct Reuse (Potable Use) ...................................... 19
 

3.8 Portfolio 8: More Direct Reuse (Return Flow Credits) ......................... 20
 

4 Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................... 21
 

4.1	 Performance Criteria ........................................................................... 21
 

4.1.1 Cost Considerations...................................................................... 22
 

4.1.2 Reliability and Sustainability........................................................ 22
 

4.1.3 Acceptance................................................................................... 23
 

4.1.4 Environmental/Cultural ................................................................ 23
 

4.1.5 Technical Implementability .......................................................... 24
 

4.2 Criteria Weighting............................................................................... 24
 

5 Rank the Climate Mitigation Portfolios ...................................................... 24
 

6 References ................................................................................................. 27
 

Appendix G- page i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

This appendix provides the text of a technical memorandum from Kelly Collins, 

PG, BCES, CDM Smith, to Claudia Borchet, Santa Fe County, dated September 

12, 2014. This memo summarizes Task 5 of the Santa Fe Basins Study, which 

entails developing adaptation strategies to be used in the evaluation of alternatives 

for meeting demands under projected climate conditions. 

1 Introduction 

A methodical decision process was used to compare and evaluate the alternatives 

for adapting to projected climate scenarios. The overall process has four steps: 

1.	 Identify adaptation strategies appropriate for the Santa Fe area 

2.	 Combine the adaptation strategies into alternative climate mitigation 

portfolios 

3.	 Develop evaluation criteria and weight each criterion based on the relative 

importance of the criterion 

4.	 Rank the climate mitigation portfolios based how well they meet the 

criteria 

This memo presents the results of each step in the decision process and the 

selection of the climate mitigation portfolio that best meets water needs of the 

City and County of Santa Fe under projected climate change scenarios. 

2 Identify Adaptation Strategies 

Representatives of the City and County identified the adaptation strategies for 

meeting water demands under climate change scenarios, which are appropriate for 

the arid climate and landscape of the Santa Fe region. For example, water storage 

is an important adaptation strategy, but building additional storage reservoirs was 

not considered an appropriate adaption strategy because of the high evaporation 

losses off of reservoirs and the limited areas available for constructing storage 

reservoirs. Instead, underground storage of water through an aquifer storage and 

recovery (ASR) system is considered appropriate because evaporation losses are 

negligible and the surface land area required is small compared to a traditional 

surface reservoir. The adaptation strategies selected for the Santa Fe Basin Study 

are summarized in Table 1 and described in the following sections. 

Appendix G- page 1 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 1: Adaptation Strategies for Santa Fe Region 

Adaptation Strategy Description Infrastructure Components 

Direct Reclaimed Water 

Reuse 

Use reclaimed water from the City 

wastewater treatment plant to meet 

contract obligations; remaining 

reclaimed water for potable reuse or 

return flow credits for pumping 

New conveyance for reclaimed 

water from wastewater 

treatment plant to existing 

Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility and 

distribution system or new 

conveyance to the Rio Grande 

for return flow credits 

Water Conservation Reduce water use on a per person 

per day basis 

None 

Direct Injection for 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Inject treated water into the aquifer 

in wet and normal years for use in 

dry years 

Construction and operation of 

injection well(s); withdrawal 

using existing wells and 

distribution system 

Infiltration for Aquifer 

Storage and Recovery in 

the Santa Fe River 

Channel via Aquifer 

Storage and Recovery 

Maintain flow in the Santa Fe River 

to induce infiltration into the aquifer 

for use in dry years 

Withdrawal using existing wells 

and distribution system. 

Additional Surface Water 

Rights 

Additional surface water would be 

diverted at the Buckman Direct 

Diversion and treated at the 

Buckman Regional Water 

Treatment Facility 

Existing diversion, conveyance, 

treatment, and distribution 

systems 

2.1 Direct Reclaimed Water Reuse 

Reclaimed water is currently used in the City as described in the City of Santa Fe 

Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan (Santa Fe 2013) (RWRP). The RWRP 

outlines specific allocations for reclaimed water use. The total annual contracted 

reclaimed water demand is about 3,489 acre-feet per year (AFY). For this Basin 

Study, it was not necessary to vary the supply of reclaimed water based on the 

climate change scenarios because reclaimed water is from indoor water use, 

which is not expected to vary significantly in response to climate change. 

Water discharged from the City of Santa Fe wastewater treatment plant that is not 

used by one of the reclaimed water contracts, about 6,000 AFY by 2055, is 

considered as an additional supply. Due to the seasonality of demands and 

constraints set in WaterMAPS regarding the infrastructure and how this source is 

utilized, the ability to use the full supply under current reclaimed water use 

practices is significantly reduced. The simulated supply is presented in later 

sections. This study considered two new beneficial uses for reclaimed water: 

•	 Treatment at the Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility for potable 

supply 

Appendix G- page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

• Return flow credits for discharges to the Rio Grande 

Discharge from the Quill wastewater treatment plant, owned and operated by 

Santa Fe County, was not included in the Santa Fe Basin Study, but represents an 

additional source of reclaimed water in the study area. 

2.2 Water Conservation 

The City began a Water Conservation Program in 1997, building a comprehensive 

and effective program which has resulted in Santa Feans reducing per capita water 

consumption by more than 39 percent since tracking began in 1995. Reducing 

gallons per capita per day (gpcd) is one measure of success for any water 

conservation program, and Santa Fe is a leader in the Southwest. The current 

annual unit water demand averages 114 gpcd, as determined from monthly water 

production data provided by the City and the City population data from 2002 to 

2010. 

For this adaptation strategy, the maximum conservation realistically achievable 

was considered to be a decrease of 20 gpcd, to a unit demand of 92 gpcd. Water 

demand under the climate change scenarios was specifically varied based on the 

predicted temperature and precipitation. 

2.3 Direct Injection for Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

This adaptation strategy would inject treated water from one of the City’s other 

sources into an aquifer that has been developed by the City for water supply (e.g., 

Buckman Well Field) for storage and later use of the water in a process 

commonly referred to as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). The ASR process 

uses water from above ground to recharge a groundwater aquifer. ASR can be 

achieved by active means, usually direct injection, or through passive methods, 

primarily infiltration. 

Large scale implementation of ASR through direct injection wells is not currently 

in widespread use, but ASR is assumed for this adaptation strategy because all of 

the water injected into an aquifer can be withdrawn under a permit from the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer and it minimizes the amount of land required 

for implementation. 

ASR projects must comply with the requirements of the Ground Water Storage 

and Recovery Act, NMSA 1978, §72-5A-2 and the New Mexico Underground 

Storage and Recovery Regulations and Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

regulations. 

The Ground Water Storage and Recovery Act is the legal mechanism for aquifer 

storage and recovery. In enacting the Act, the Legislature specifically found that 

the “conjunctive use and administration of both surface and ground waters are 

essential to the effective and efficient use of the state’s limited water supplies” 

Appendix G- page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

and that ground water recharge, storage and recovery have the potential to reduce 

the rate of aquifer decline, promote conservation, serve public welfare, and lead to 

more effective use of water resources. Water stored pursuant to the Act is exempt 

from forfeiture (NMSA 1978, §72-5A-8). The amount of water that can be 

recovered is only the amount of water recognized and approved by the State 

Engineer that has reached the aquifer, remained within the area of hydrologic 

effect, and may be recovered without impairment to water rights or harm to land 

owners within the area of hydrologic effect. These constraints on the amount of 

water that can be recovered from the aquifer must be quantified by the 

pilot/demonstration testing described below. The determination of the amount of 

water that can be recovered will be an important factor in decisions regarding the 

extent to which direct injection ASR is appropriate in the Santa Fe Basin. 

Water can be stored pursuant to this statute only by permit, and a number of 

criteria must be met before a permit will be issued (NMSA 1978, §72-5A-6). The 

State Engineer has adopted Underground Storage and Recovery regulations 

(19.25.8.1 NMAC). These regulations govern the application process; the 

hydrologic, technical and financial capability report requirements; and the permit 

terms and conditions authorized under the Act. 

The application procedure for an Underground Storage and Recovery Permit is a 

two-step process: 

1.	 Pilot/Demonstration Project: This step is intended to collect and 

evaluate technical information to determine the feasibility of a full-scale, 

long-term project. An application for a Pilot/Demonstration Project 

Permit must include a complete description of the pilot/demonstration 

project, a Capability Report for the pilot/demonstration project, and a 

preliminary description of the full-scale project (including an estimate of 

the area of hydrologic effect and the scope and purpose of the full-scale 

project). 

2.	 Full-Scale Project: This step includes the permit application for the fullscale project and must include a complete description of the full-scale 

project, findings from the pilot/demonstration project, and a Capability 

Report for the full-scale project that is based on the information gathered 

during the pilot/demonstration project (Step 1). 

Storage of water under the Act would also have to comply with all requirements 

of New Mexico’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, as 

implemented through the Water Quality Act (NMSA 1978, §74-6-1 et seq.) and 

the UIC regulations (20.6.2.5000 NMAC). The UIC regulations control 

discharges from UIC wells to protect groundwater that has an existing 

concentration of 10,000 mg/L or less of TDS. Groundwater management 

injection wells used to replenish water in an aquifer are considered Class V UIC. 

Pursuant to the UIC regulations, a groundwater discharge permit must be 

obtained from the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) prior to 

use of a groundwater management injection well. 

Appendix G- page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

A Groundwater Discharge Permit application must include the methods or 

techniques that will be used to ensure compliance with groundwater quality 

regulations (Sections 20.6.2.3000 through 20.6.2.3999 NMAC and Sections 

20.6.2.5000 through 20.6.2.5006 NMAC). 

This adaptation strategy would use water made available through the acquisition 

of additional surface water rights through the City’s Water Rights Transfer 

Program (Section 2.5), treat the water at the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility to meet drinking water standards, and directly inject the water in the 

aquifer at or near existing water supply wells. It is assumed that the water rights 

used for this strategy can be permitted by the OSE with dual purposes: it can be 

used for meeting return flow credits and for ASR. The concept of water rights 

permits with dual purposes has been discussed with the Office of the State 

Engineer, but no dual purpose permits have been applied for or issued to date. 

It is possible that an existing well(s) could be modified to act as an injection well. 

A study previously conducted for the City found that hydrogeologic conditions at 

Buckman wells 11 through 13 are suitable for ASR. Modeling results showed 

that approximately 500 gallons per minute (gpm) of water could be injected into 

each Buckman 11 and 13 on a seasonal basis or for several years at a time. 

Buckman 12 is limited to an injection rate of 250 gpm. A new injection well(s) 

could also be constructed for this adaptation strategy. 

Withdrawal of water under this adaptation strategy is assumed to be through 

existing water supply wells and conveyed through the existing distribution 

system. Water would be injected in wet to normal years and would build up over 

time. The water could be withdrawn and used in normal to dry years. A maximum 

cap of 5,000 AFY of accumulated storage was assumed for this adaptation 

strategy. 

2.4 Infiltration for Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the 

Santa Fe River Channel via Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Large scale implementation of ASR using passive methods of ASR through 

natural or engineered infiltration systems have been implemented in at numerous 

locations in the United States. This adaptation strategy takes advantage of flow in 

the Santa Fe River as a natural infiltration system that recharges the aquifer. This 

process occurs whenever water is flowing in the Santa Fe River, but this 

adaptation strategy would entail satisfying the requirements of both the Ground 

Water Storage and Recovery Act, NMSA 1978, §72-5A-2 and the New Mexico 

Underground Storage and Recovery Regulations and UIC regulations (as 

described in Section 2.3) to be able to withdraw the water that has infiltrated. 

Appendix G- page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

An ordinance and associated administrative procedure (City of Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, Ordinance No. 2012-10 and City of Santa Fe, Administrative Procedures 

for Santa Fe River Target Flows) was adopted in February 2012 to provide for 

releasing 1,000 AFY from the City’s Nichols Reservoir to the Santa Fe River. The 

purpose of the Santa Fe River Target Flow is to increase water flow in the river 

below the City’s reservoirs in order to maintain a “living river,” except under 

emergency (i.e., drought) conditions. The administrative procedure outlines 

specific hydrographs for daily releases throughout the year based on the expected 

annual yield. For normal and wet years, the annual target is 1,000 AFY. This 

target decreases in dry and critical years according to the percent of normal 

annual yield expected (see Appendix E, Section 4.2.6 for more information). 

ASR through infiltration in the Santa Fe River would be permitted for two areas: 

•	 The upper Santa Fe River where releases from upstream reservoirs
 

maintain flow in the river
 

•	 The lower Santa Fe River where flow in the river is maintained by
 

discharge from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant
 

The amount of water expected to be available for ASR is a percentage of the 

released water flowing in the Santa Fe River. In the upper Santa Fe River, the 

Santa Fe River Target Flow was modeled using Water Management and Planning 

Simulation (WaterMAPS), based on hydrographs representing daily releases 

required to meet the desired target flow. Each hydrograph is different based on the 

percent of normal expected annual yield (e.g. “Dry – 70%” means the expected 

annual yield is 75 percent of normal). If the expected annual yield is 30 percent or 

less of normal, the “Critical-Dry” hydrograph is used. This means that even under 

drought conditions, the City plans to release at least 300 AFY to support in-stream 

flows in the Santa Fe River. 

The “infiltration rate” is that portion of stream flow that is assumed to infiltrate 

the stream bottom and recharge the aquifer. The assumed infiltration rate is in line 

with the rate granted by the State Engineer for a similar project in Albuquerque, 

the Bear Canyon Arroyo. Also, the rate is not inconsistent with infiltration 

studies completed for the Santa Fe River. For this adaptation strategy, the 

infiltration rate was assumed to be up to 70 percent of stream flow. Withdrawal of 

water under this adaptation strategy is assumed to be through existing water 

supply wells and conveyed through the existing distribution system. There is 

projected to be sufficient water for flow in the Santa Fe River in wet to normal 

years and the stored water from infiltration is projected to accumulate over time. 

The water could be withdrawn and used in normal to dry years. A maximum cap 

of 2,000 AFY of accumulated storage was assumed for this adaptation strategy. 

For the lower Santa Fe River, the flow of reclaimed water released from the 

City’s wastewater treatment plant to the Santa Fe River is used to estimate 

Appendix G- page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

infiltration. The amount of flow in this portion of the Santa Fe River is 

constrained by the amount of reclaimed water used to supply reclaimed water 

contracts or for direct use (Section 2.1). The maximum infiltration rate (70 

percent) and cap of accumulated water storage (2,000 AFY) are the same as for 

the upper Santa Fe River infiltration adaptive management strategy. 

2.5 Additional Surface Water Rights 

This adaptation strategy is based on obtaining additional surface water rights and 

using the Buckman Direct Diversion Project infrastructure to divert, convey, and 

treat the water. The treated water could be directly distributed through the water 

distribution system or could be injected for ASR. 

The City has established the Water Right Transfer Program, which links new 

development to water. Large scale development projects are required to purchase 

water rights from outside of the City system and to transfer those rights to the 

City in order to offset the increased demand associated with their projects. Future 

water from conservation provides dual benefits: as a decrease in demand and an 

increase in supply. The amount of additional surface water rights expected to be 

available through the Water Right Transfer Program is expected to be a maximum 

of about 35 AFY each year, based on historical trends in this program. This value 

is quite small relative to other adaptation strategies evaluated in this study. 

3 Alternative Climate Mitigation Portfolios 

The adaptation strategies described in Section 2 were used to develop portfolios 

of strategies that, if implemented, could mitigate the impact of climate change on 

the water supply for the Santa Fe area: 

Single adaptive strategies: 

Portfolio 1: Conservation Only 

Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only 

Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only 

Combined adaptive strategies: 

Portfolio 4: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to Potable)
 

Portfolio 5: More Conservation & Water Rights (Reuse to Return Flow
 

Credits)
 

Portfolio 6: More Infiltration Aquifer Storage and Recovery
 

Portfolio 7: More Direct Reuse (Potable Use)
 

Portfolio 8: More Direct Reuse (Return Flow Credits)
 

Appendix G- page 7 
 

 

 

 

- -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

The adaptive strategies in each portfolio were varied with ranges that were 

considered realistic by the planning team. For example, conservation was varied 

between maximum, moderate, and smallest decrease in water use. The gap 

between water supply and demand under the climate change scenarios is 

described in detail in Appendix F and is summarized in Table 2, below. A water 

supply gap of about 5,000 AFY in 2055 is projected to occur under simulated 

historic climate conditions (assuming a climate similar to historic), but the 

magnitude of the water supply gap increases under any of the three climate 

change scenarios: the smallest gap under the warm-wet scenario and largest gap 

under the hot-dry scenario. The Central Tendency climate change scenario 

represents future conditions between warm-wet and hot-dry scenarios. The 

Central Tendency climate change scenario is considered to be the most 

appropriate for planning purposes. 

The systems model WaterMAPS was used to simulate each portfolio to determine 

if they could meet demand under climate-change conditions. It is important to 

understand that WaterMAPS employs several constraints that may reduce the 

supply available for a particular adaptation strategy within a portfolio. These 

include capacity, water rights, seasonal, and hydrologic condition (wet, dry, or 

normal year) constraints. Additional constraints are then applied based on the 

individual strategy as discussed in Section 2. 

Table 2: Santa Fe Basin Projected 2055 Water Supply Gap (Annual Average) 

Climate Change Scenario 

Simulated 

Historic (no 

climate change) 

Central 

Tendency 

Warm 

Wet 

Hot 

Dry 

Total Demand - Average Annual 

(AFY) 21,643 22,925 22,646 23,299 

Total Supply - Average Annual 

(AFY)1 16,488 15,549 16,304 13,976 

Water Supply Gap – Difference 

between Demand and Supply

(AFY) 

(5,155) (7,376) (6,343) (9,323) 

1. Supply based on simulation in WaterMAPS with groundwater use limited by management 

targets, which are less than the water rights. 

In developing the results for the portfolios, groundwater pumping management 

targets used to develop Table 2 were found to be too restrictive, causing a high 

frequency of shortages that could be easily managed by allowing more pumping 

in some years. To alleviate this, groundwater pumping was allowed to be used up 

to the available water right. With the Buckman Well Field representing the last 

priority supply, the supply was only used when and up to the extent it was needed. 

The average Buckman pumping then becomes part of the performance criteria 

used to evaluate each portfolio, which will be described in Section 4. The 

portfolios and the simulated supply, including groundwater pumping beyond the 

management target, are summarized in Table 3. 

Appendix G- page 8 
 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Table 3 – Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios and Simulated Supply 

Simulated Supply 

from Adaptation 

Strategy 

Portfolio 1 

Conservation 

Only 

Portfolio 

2 

Direct 

Reuse 

Only 

Portfolio 3 

Additional 

Water 

Rights Only 

Portfolio 4 

More 

Conservati 

on & Water 

Rights

(Reuse to 

Potable) 

Portfolio 5 

More 

Conservati 

on & Water 

Rights

(Reuse to 

Offsets) 

Portfolio 6 

More 

Infiltration 

ASR 

Portfolio 7 

More Direct 

Reuse 

(to Potable) 

Portfolio 8 

More Direct 

Reuse 

(to Return

flow 

credits) 

Direct Reclaimed 

Water Reuse (AFY) 4,024 2,224 2,224 3,243 3,243 

Conservation (AFY) 4,005 4,005 4,005 3,003 2,002 2,002 

Direct Injection 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery (AFY) 

559 559 0 

Infiltration Santa Fe 

River Aquifer 

Storage and 

Recovery (AFY) 

149 149 2,841 148 148 

Additional Water 

Rights (AFY) 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 920 920 

Buckman Well Field 

Pumping Beyond 

3,000 AFY 

2,674 2,225 4,451 0 0 291 323 323 

Portfolio Simulated 

Additional Supply 

(AFY) 

6,679 6,249 5,851 8,337 8,337 7,535 6,636 6,636 

Appendix G- page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Each portfolio was evaluated to determine if the portfolio met basic reliability 

criteria. The reliability criteria were established to ensure that only portfolios that 

can reliably provide water supply were considered further. The reliability criteria 

are: 

1.	 Average Buckman Well Field pumping does not exceed the management 

target by more than 500 AFY on average –The current management 

target for the Buckman Well Field is 3,000 AFY but water rights equal 

10,000 AFY. It was determined that a 500 AFY increase in average 

pumping was acceptable for this planning-level analysis. 

2.	 Deficit in any year does not exceed 2,000 AFY – Based on the assumption 

that in emergency situations conservation of 10 gpcd is realistic and would 

fill a temporary gap of 2,000 AFY in 2055. 

3.	 No more than 10 percent probability of deficits over 100 AFY – Based on 

the assumption that the system can accommodate small deficits that cannot 

be reliably simulated with the model. To account for model “noise,” over 

10 percent probability of deficits are accepted if they are less than 100 AFY. 

Performance criteria (Section 4) were also developed to further evaluate only the 

portfolios that meet the reliability criteria above. 

Each portfolio is presented in the following sections with results from 

WaterMAPS. Note that because of the change from constraining groundwater 

pumping by management targets to water rights, the supply gap is reduced by 

both the portfolio and the additional groundwater pumping over the management 

target. The management target for the Buckman Well Field is 3,000 AFY. 

3.1 Portfolio 1: Conservation Only 

Portfolio 1 consisted solely of conservation to see if the projected effects of 

climate change could be ameliorated by conservation alone. This portfolio is 

based on a 20 gpcd decrease in water use, to a total of 94 gpcd. This portfolio 

could be implemented with an increase in water conservation education and 

enforcement, but no new infrastructure would be required. The simulated supply 

created by this level of conservation is 4,005 AFY. Supply from Buckman 

pumping in excess of the management target is approximately 2,674 AFY. In the 

absence of climate change, Portfolio 1 can meet the gap between supply and 

demand but significantly more groundwater pumping is needed. The cumulative 

probability of annual deficits under the Central Tendency climate change scenario 

for Portfolio 1 is shown in Figure 1. 

The annual deficit probability curve in Figure 1 shows that the maximum annual 

deficit is 1,372 AFY and at 10 percent cumulative probability the annual deficit is 

391 AFY. Portfolio 1 does not meet two of the three reliability criteria as shown 

Appendix G- page 10 
 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

in Table 4. Additional analysis of this portfolio showed that conservation of 

40 gpcd (total of 74 gpcd) would result in a portfolio that would meet the 

reliability criteria. However, the ability of the City and County to consistently 

reduce demand by 40 gpcd is too uncertain to use this conservation goal in 

planning. The goal itself remains as part of utility management efforts and 

conservation outreach. 

Table 4 – Performance of Portfolio 1 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in Excess 

of Target 

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolio 1: Conservation 

Only 

NO 

(exceeds by 2,674) 

YES 

(1,372 AFY 

maximum annual 

deficit) 

NO 

(391 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

Figure 1: Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 1 Annual Deficit Probability Curve 

under Central Tendency Climate Scenario 

3.2 Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only 

Portfolio 2 consists solely of the direct reuse of reclaimed water. Similar to 

Portfolio 1, the purpose of Portfolio 2 was to assess if the projected 2055 water 

supply gap could be filled by reuse of reclaimed water alone. The portfolio 

assumes that effluent from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant is conveyed by 

Appendix G- page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

new infrastructure to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility. The 

reclaimed water would be treated to drinking water standards and delivered for 

potable use through the existing distribution system. Alternatively, new piping 

could be installed to deliver the treated water to the Rio Grande for return flow 

credits. 

Portfolio 2 assumes that 1,734 AFY (about 50%) of the 3,489 AFY existing 

reclaimed water contracts is delivered. The remainder is delivered for potable 

reuse. The simulated average annual supply for Portfolio 2 is 4,024 AFY. Supply 

from Buckman pumping in excess of the management target is approximately 

2,225 AFY. In the absence of climate change, Portfolio 2 can meet the gap 

between supply and demand but significantly more groundwater pumping is 

needed. Figure 2 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 1,159 AFY and the 

annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 378 AFY. 

Portfolio 2 does not meet two of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 5. 

Additional analysis of this portfolio showed that if the reuse was assumed to be 

6,696 AFY, the resulting portfolio that would meet the reliability criteria. 

However, this would mean that most of the existing reclaimed water contracts 

would not be honored and there would be no discharge to the Santa Fe River. 

Considering the reliance on reclaimed water by downstream users (both human 

and ecological), this level of direct reuse was considered unacceptable. 

Figure 2 – Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 2: Direct Reuse Only Annual Deficit Probability
 

Curve under Central Tendency Climate Scenario
 

Appendix G- page 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Table 5 – Performance of Portfolio 2 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in Excess 

of Target 

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolio 2:Direct Reuse 

Only 

NO 

(exceeds by 2,225 

AFY) 

YES 

(1,159 AFY 

maximum annual 

deficit) 

NO 

(378 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.3 Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only 

Portfolio 3 consists solely of acquiring additional surface water rights. Similar to 

Portfolios 1 and 2, the purpose of Portfolio 3 was to assess if the projected 2055 

water supply gap could be filled by obtaining water rights alone. The portfolio 

assumes that the Water Rights Transfer Program acquires 35 AFY each year of 

new surface water rights or a total of 1,400 AFY over the 40-year planning 

period. The water would be diverted, conveyed, treated and delivered through the 

existing Buckman Direct Diversion Project and would require no new 

infrastructure. The simulated average annual supply for Portfolio 3 is 1,400 AFY. 

Supply from Buckman pumping in excess of the management target is 

approximately 4,451AFY. In the absence of climate change, Portfolio 3 can meet 

the gap between supply and demand but significantly more groundwater pumping 

is needed. Figure 3 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 3,978 AFY and 

the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 2,363 AFY. 

Portfolio 3 does not meet any of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 6. 

Additional analysis of this portfolio showed that over 7,000 AFY in new surface 

water rights would be required to meet the reliability criteria. Acquiring this 

amount of new water rights is unrealistic considering the relative scarcity of water 

rights for purchase. 

Appendix G- page 13 
 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 3: Santa Fe Portfolio 3: Additional Water Rights Only Annual Deficit
 

Probability Curve under Central Tendency Climate Scenario
 

Table 6 – Performance of Portfolio 3 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in Excess 

of Target 

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolio 3: Additional 

Water Rights Only 

NO 

(exceeds by 4,451 

AFY) 

NO 

(3,978 AFY 

maximum annual 

deficit) 

NO 

(2,363 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.4 Portfolio 4: More Conservation & Water Rights 

(Reuse to Potable) 

Portfolio 4 and the remaining four portfolios are a combination of adaptive 

strategies. The purpose of these combination portfolios is to develop source and 

demand strategies that meet the reliability criteria. It is clear from Portfolios 1, 2, 

and 3 that a single adaptive strategy will not reliably provide sufficient water 

supply under conditions projected for 2055. Portfolios 4 through 8 combined 

adaptive strategies to create portfolios with different emphases so that when the 

portfolio that best meets the performance criteria was selected, it would provide 

clear direction for the City and County long-range water supply planning. 

Portfolio 4 has the following components: 

Appendix G- page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

•	 Direct Reuse: Deliver 2,250 AFY to reclaimed water contracts, 1,239 

AFY to potable use. 

•	 Conservation: Reduce demand by 20 gpcd. 

•	 Direct Injection ASR: 640 AFY up to a maximum of 5,000 AF of 

storage. 

•	 Infiltration ASR: Infiltration from upper Santa Fe River (30 percent of 

river flow). 

•	 Additional Water Rights: Acquisition of 1,400 AFY of water rights. 

This portfolio would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new). 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water
 

Treatment Facility and distribute to customers (existing).
 

•	 Construct injection well(s) or modification of wells for use as injection 

well (new). 

•	 Convey water from Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility to 

injection well (new). 

•	 Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing). 

Buckman pumping is reduced to below management targets for this portfolio. 

Figure 4 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 57 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is zero. Portfolio 4 meets all of the three 

reliability criteria as shown in Table 7. Further, Portfolio 4 meets the reliability 

criteria under all 3 climate scenarios, with the exception of the hot-dry scenario 

where the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is greater than 100 AFY (Figure 

4). Portfolio 4 was carried on for evaluation with respect to the performance 

criteria (Section 4). 

Appendix G- page 15 
 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Figure 4: Santa Fe Portfolios 4 and 5: More Conservation and Water Rights 

(Reuse to Potable) 

Table 7 – Performance of Portfolios 4 and 5 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman

Pumping in Excess 

of Target 

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolios 4 and 5: More 

Conservation and Water 

Rights 

YES 

(does not exceed) 

YES 

(57 AFY maximum 

annual deficit) 

YES 

(0 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.5 Portfolio 5: More Conservation & Water Rights

(Reuse to Return Flow Credits) 

Portfolio 5 is exactly the same as Portfolio 4 except the treated water is returned 

to the Rio Grande for return flow credits rather than for potable use. Portfolio 5 

has the following components: 

Appendix G- page 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

•	 Direct Reuse: Deliver 2,250 AFY to reclaimed water contracts,
 

1,239 AFY to the Rio Grande for return flow credits.
 

•	 Conservation: Reduce demand by 20 gpcd. 

•	 Direct Injection ASR: 640 AFY up to a maximum of 5,000 AF of 

storage. 

•	 Infiltration ASR: Infiltration in upper Santa Fe River
 

(30 percent of river flow).
 

•	 Additional Water Rights: Acquisition of 1,400 AFY of water rights. 

This portfolio would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new). 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water
 

Treatment Facility (existing).
 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to Rio Grande for return flow credits (new). 

•	 Construct injection well(s) or modification of wells to act as injection well 

(new). 

•	 Convey water from Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility to 

injection well (new). 

•	 Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing). 

Buckman pumping is reduced to below management targets for this portfolio. 

Figure 4 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 57 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is zero. Portfolio 5 meets all of the three 

reliability criteria as shown in Table 7. Further, Portfolio 5 meets the reliability 

criteria under all 3 climate scenarios, with the exception of the hot-dry scenario, 

where the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is greater than 100 AFY (Figure 

4). Portfolio 5 was carried on for evaluation with respect to the performance 

criteria (Section 4). 

Appendix G- page 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

3.6 Portfolio 6: More Infiltration Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Portfolio 6 emphasizes infiltration ASR, with moderate conservation and less 

acquisition of water rights. Portfolio 6 has the following components: 

•	 Conservation: Medium reduction in demand (15 gpcd). 

Direct Injection ASR: 640 AFY to a maximum of 3,500 AF of storage. 

•	 Infiltration ASR: Infiltration in both upper and lower Santa Fe River 

(70 percent of flow). 

•	 Additional Water Rights: Acquisition of 1,400 AFY of water rights. 

Table 3 lists the simulated additional water supply from Portfolio 6. This portfolio 

would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey water from Buckman Regional Water Treatment Facility to 

injection well (new). 

•	 Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing). 

Buckman groundwater pumping exceeds the management target by 291 AFY. 

One notable result of this portfolio is in regards to the direct injection ASR. The 

order in which water is used is to fulfill required offsets for groundwater pumping 

first and any remaining water is used for direct injection. Portfolio 6 does not 

include direct reuse, so there is only enough water to meet offset requirements and 

there is not enough to inject for ASR. Figure 5 illustrates that the maximum 

annual deficit is 553 AFY and the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 161 

AFY. Portfolio 6 meets two of the three reliability criteria as shown in Table 8, 

although the portfolio is very close to meeting all criteria. Portfolio 6 was carried 

on for evaluation with respect to the performance criteria (Section 4). 

Appendix G- page 18 
 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Figure 5: Santa Fe Basin Portfolio 6: More ASR Annual Deficit Probability Curve 

Table 8 – Performance of Portfolio 6 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in Excess 

of Target

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolio 6: More 

Conservation and Water 

Rights 

NO 

(exceeds by 291 

AFY) 

YES 

(553 AFY maximum 

annual deficit) 

NO 

(161 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.7 Portfolio 7: More Direct Reuse (Potable Use) 

Portfolio 7 emphasizes direct reuse with the smallest decrease in conservation. 

Portfolio 7 has the following components: 

•	 Direct Reuse: Meet 1,734 AFY of reclaimed water contracts, remainder 

to potable use. 

•	 Conservation: Small reduction in demand (10 gpcd). 

•	 Infiltration ASR: Santa Fe River infiltration in upper Santa Fe River 

(30 percent of river flow). 

Appendix G- page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 3 has the simulated additional water supply from Portfolio 7. This portfolio 

would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new). 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water
 

Treatment Facility and distribute to customers (existing).
 

Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing).
 

The simulated average additional annual supply for Portfolio 7 is 6,313 AFY, and 

Buckman pumping that exceeds the management target adds approximately 

323 AFY. This portfolio is 763 AFY short of closing the water supply gap of 

7,376 AFY. Figure 6 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 211 AFY and 

the annual deficit at 10 percent probability is 32 AFY. Portfolio 7 meets all three 

reliability criteria as shown in Table 9, although the portfolio is very close to 

meeting the remaining criteria. Portfolio 7 was carried on for evaluation with 

respect to the performance criteria (Section 4). 

Buckman groundwater pumping exceeds the management target by 323 AFY. 

Figure 6 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 211 AFY and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is 32 AFY. Portfolio 7 meets all three reliability 

criteria as shown in Table 9. Portfolio 7 was carried on for evaluation with respect 

to the performance criteria (Section 4). 

•	 Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing). 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water
 

Treatment Facility and distribute to customers (existing).
 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new). 

Table 3 has the simulated additional water supply from Portfolio 7. This portfolio 

would require the following infrastructure components: 

• Additional Water Rights: Acquisition of 920 AFY of water rights. 

Figure 6: Santa Fe Basin Portfolios 7 and 8: More Reuse Annual Deficit

Probability Curve 

Appendix G- page 20 
 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

Table 9 – Performance of Portfolios 7 and 8 Relative to Reliability Criteria 

Reliability Criteria 

Avg Buckman 

Pumping in Excess 

of Target 

< 500 AFY 

Maximum Annual 

Deficit 

< 2000 AFY 

Annual Deficit at 10% 

probability 

< 100 AFY 

Portfolios 7 and 8: More 

Direct Reuse 

YES 

(exceeds by 323 

AFY) 

YES 

(211 AFY maximum 

annual deficit) 

YES 

(32 AFY annual deficit at 

10% probability) 

3.8 Portfolio 8: More Direct Reuse (Return Flow 

Credits) 

Portfolio 8 is the same as Portfolio 7 except the treated water is returned to the 

Rio Grande for return flow credits. Portfolio 8 has the following components: 

•	 Direct Reuse: Meet 1,734 AFY of reclaimed water contracts, remainder 

to potable use 

•	 Conservation: Small reduction in demand (10 gpcd) 

•	 Infiltration ASR: Upper Santa Fe River 

•	 Additional Water Rights: Acquisition of 920 AFY of water rights 

Table 3 has the simulated additional water supply from Portfolio 8. This portfolio 

would require the following infrastructure components: 

•	 Convey reclaimed water to the Buckman Regional Water Treatment 

Facility (new) 

•	 Treat to drinking water standards at the Buckman Regional Water
 

Treatment Facility (existing)
 

•	 Convey to Rio Grande for return flow credits (new) 

•	 Withdraw from wells and distribute to customers (existing) 

Buckman groundwater pumping exceeds the management target by 323 AFY. 

Figure 6 illustrates that the maximum annual deficit is 211 AFY, and the annual 

deficit at 10 percent probability is 32 AFY. Portfolio 8 meets all three reliability 

criteria as shown in Table 9. Portfolio 8 was carried on for evaluation with respect 

to the performance criteria (Section 4). 

Appendix G- page 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

4 Evaluation Criteria 

The five combination portfolios (Portfolios 4-8) that meet or nearly meet the 

threshold of the reliability criteria were moved through the next step of the 

decision process: evaluation with respect to the performance criteria. For 

consistency, the overall performance criteria are largely the same as those used 

for the Santa Fe Long-Range Water Supply Plan in 2008, although they have been 

simplified for this Basin Study. 

4.1 Performance Criteria 

The performance criteria address multiple aspects of the water supply system and 

are both quantitative and qualitative. For each criterion, there is a corresponding 

performance measure that describes the metric that will be used to evaluate that 

criterion. Further, all criteria are not of equal importance. The method used to 

indicate the relative importance of the criteria is by assigning each a weight. The 

weights were developed on a consensus basis by the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe 

County and the Bureau of Reclamation. The criteria, performance measures, and 

weights are shown in Table 10 and are described in the following sections. 

Table 10 Santa Fe Basin Study Performance Criteria, Performance Measures, and 

Weights 

Performance Criteria Performance Measures Criteria 

Weights 

Cost Considerations 15% 

Capital Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

O&M Cost Qualitative: estimate 40% 

Potential for Cost Share Qualitative 20% 

Reliability and Sustainability 25% 

Drought Supply Quantitative: assessment of annual 

deficit probability curves 50% 

Groundwater Use 

Quantitative: average and maximum 

pumping compared to management 

target 

50% 

Acceptance 10% 

Regulatory Compliance Complexity Qualitative 50% 

Public Acceptance Qualitative 50% 

Environmental /Cultural 30% 

Santa Fe River Flows Quantitative: flow in Santa Fe River 50% 

Rio Grande Flow Qualitative 50% 

Technical Implementability 20% 

Technology Viability Qualitative 100% 

4.1.1 Cost Considerations 

This criterion addresses the cost of each portfolio. Developing cost estimates was 

not part of this basin study, so the cost considerations are qualitative estimates 

based on the amount of new infrastructure that would be required to implement 

Appendix G- page 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

the portfolio and the complexity of the operations for the portfolio. This criterion 

is the sum of three sub-criteria listed below: 

•	 Capital costs, which are the cost of construction and must be accounted 

for in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Estimated based on number 

and type of new infrastructure required. 

•	 Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, are an indication of the longterm costs of a portfolio, estimated based on complexity of the 

infrastructure components. 

•	 Potential for cost share, the degree to which the portfolio would be 

eligible for State or Federal funding. Estimated based on features such as 

reuse and regionalization. 

4.1.2 Reliability and Sustainability 

This criterion applies to how well the portfolio performs with respect to providing 

water supply under different climate conditions and impact to groundwater 

supplies. Portfolios 4 through 8 met (or nearly met) the initial reliability criteria 

because of their performance under the Central Tendency climate scenario. This 

criterion looks at the performance of each portfolio under the hot-dry climate 

scenario to identify the portfolio that provides water supply under the range of 

projected climate conditions. 

•	 Drought Supply: the measure of the ability of a portfolio to supply 

adequate water under the Hot-Dry climate scenario. This is determined 

from the annual deficit probability curves produced by WaterMAPS. 

•	 Groundwater Use: assesses the impact of pumping groundwater. 

WaterMAPS provides the amount of water pumped from the Buckman 

Well Field, which is presented as the percentage above the management 

target and maximum pumping constraint. 

4.1.3 Acceptance 

This criterion is an expectation of the public acceptance of each portfolio. Two 

aspects of acceptance are provided: regulatory complexity and willingness of the 

public to accept the portfolio. Risk to human health is often correlated to 

regulatory complexity: low risk activities (e.g., pumping water) have simpler 

regulatory requirements than do high risk activities (e.g., treating reclaimed water 

for potable use). Public acceptance is broader, because it includes health and 

safety concerns (e.g., reclaimed water on athletic fields) as well as quality of life 

concerns (e.g., conservation at 94 gpcd). 

•	 Regulatory Compliance Complexity: is an assessment of the effort, cost, 

and time to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance for a portfolio. 

Appendix G- page 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

This is a qualitative estimate based on the number of activities requiring 

regulatory permits in each portfolio. 

• Public Acceptance: assesses the perception of the public regarding the

different components of each portfolio. This is a qualitative estimate based

on national, regional, and local trends.

4.1.4 Environmental/Cultural 

This criterion is intended to consider the impacts to the environment and cultural 

properties or practices associated with each portfolio. The criterion is made up of 

two sub-criteria: flow in the Santa Fe River and in the Rio Grande. The discharge 

from the City of Santa Fe wastewater treatment plant has provided flow in the 

Santa Fe River. Irrigators downstream of the plant depend on flow in the river. 

The riparian habitat is also supported by flow in the river. The Rio Grande has 

special species considerations so the impact of the portfolios on flow in the Rio 

Grande is included as a sub-criterion. 

• Flow in the Santa Fe River: is a measure of the extent to which a

portfolio accommodates maintaining flow in the river below the

wastewater treatment plant. WaterMAPs provides the projected flow after

all modeled inflows and outflows.

• Flow in the Rio Grande: assesses whether the flow in the Rio Grande is

affected by the portfolio. This is a qualitative appraisal based on the

inflows and outflows directly to the Rio Grande.

4.1.5 Technical Implementability 

The purpose of this criterion is to consider the extent to which the portfolios 

include commonly used technologies that are well understood, have accepted 

designs, and proven operational track records. It is also intended to consider of the 

appropriateness of the technologies for the climate and landscape of the Santa Fe 

area. 

• Technology Viability: is a measure of the robustness of the technologies

incorporated in each portfolio. It is based on the qualitative assessment of

the balance of established versus newer technologies in each portfolio.

4.2 Criteria Weighting

In any decision-making process, evaluation criteria are not all equally important, 

and some criteria may be more relevant for the decision-maker than others. As an 

example, for a given individual, costs may be more important than the 

environmental/cultural considerations of an alternative. These relative weightings 

vary from person to person and community to community, reflecting different 

values, experiences, and opinions. Thus, weighted criteria representing the 

perspectives of a cross-section of the effected population are valuable as they 

Appendix G- page 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

reflect the range of values and preferences present in the community and 

customize the decision-making process for that community. 

The performance criteria described in Section 4.1 reflect the weights that were 

developed for the Santa Fe Long-Range Water Supply Plan in a process that 

involved input from the public and government officials. The weights assigned to 

the evaluation criteria and sub-criteria were presented in Table 11. 

5 Rank the Climate Mitigation Portfolios 

The ranking process for the Santa Fe Basin Study was based on scoring each 

climate mitigation portfolio with respect to each of the criteria described in 

Section 4. A team composed of representatives of the City, County, Bureau of 

Reclamation and CDM Smith completed scoring at a workshop and each score 

represents the consensus of the team. All of the criteria were scored from 1 to 5: 

• “1” equals worst, virtually impossible, infeasible, undesirable, highest cost 

• “5” equals best, most easily implemented, most desirable, lowest cost 

The weighted sum of the criteria were compared for each portfolio. The higher the 

score, the better the portfolio meets the cumulative criteria. The ranking of the 

portfolios, based on the consensus scoring and the criteria weighting, is 

summarized in Table 11 and illustrated on Figure 7. 

A relatively simple sensitivity analysis of the criteria weights was conducted 

because there was concern that costs were weighted low compared to the other 

criteria. This analysis showed that the weight of the cost criterion does not change 

that Portfolio 5 is the most highly ranked. This is true even when the cost criterion 

weight is increased to 50 percent or reduced to zero. This result provides 

confidence that Portfolio 5 best meets the criteria, whether costs are considered or 

not. 

Appendix G- page 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe Basin Study 

Table 11 Portfolio Assessment 

Criteria Criteria 

Weights 

4 

More 

Conservation 

& Water 

Rights 

(Reuse to 

Potable) 

5 

More 

Conservation 

& Water 

Rights 

(Reuse to 

Offsets) 

6 

More 

Infiltration 

ASR 

7 

More 

Direct 

Reuse 

(to 

Potable) 

8 

More Direct 

Reuse (to 

Return flow 

credits) 

Cost Considerations 15% 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 

Capital Cost 40% 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.5 

O&M Cost 40% 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.1 

Potential for Cost Share 20% 2 1 4 4 1 

Reliability and 

Sustainability 25% 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Drought Supply 50% 5 5 1 2 2 

Groundwater Use 50% 5 5 3 2 2 

Acceptance 10% 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 

Regulatory Compliance 

Complexity 50% 1 5 2 1 5 

Public Acceptance 50% 2 5 4 2 5 

Environmental/Cultural 30% 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 

Santa Fe River Flow 50% 2 2 4 2 2 

Rio Grande Flow 50% 2 2 2 3 3 

Technical 

Implementability 20% 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 

Technology Viability 100% 2 5 3 2 5 

Results 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.4 3.2 Portfolio 

Portfolio 8, 3.2 

Portfolio 7, 2.4 

Portfolio 6, 2.9 

Portfolio 5, 3.8 

Portfolio 4, 2.9 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 

Portfolio Overall Score 

Figure 7 Ranking of Santa Fe Basin Study Portfolios 

Appendix G- page 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Task 5: Develop and Analyze Adaptation Strategies 

The ranking of the portfolios clearly shows that Portfolio 5 with an overall score 

of 3.8 meets the performance criteria better than the other alternatives (Figure 7). 

Portfolios 4 and 5 scored highly in Reliability and Sustainability because they 

provide an adequate water supply under the Hot-Dry climate scenario while 

maintaining groundwater pumping near the management target. However, 

Portfolio 5 scored higher for Acceptance and Technical Implementability because 

the reclaimed water is used for return flow credits rather than potable use as in 

Portfolio 4. Portfolio 5 also scored higher for Public Acceptance because the 

reclaimed water is used for return flow credits rather than potable use as in 

Portfolio 4. 

The next ranked portfolio, Portfolio 8, did not perform well in Reliability and 

Sustainability, although it was slightly higher in Environmental/Cultural and 

Public Acceptance because it uses reclaimed water for return flow credits, which 

would augment the flow in the Rio Grande in the short-term while allowing for 

additional groundwater pumping. 

One common element of the three highest ranked portfolios is increased use of 

reclaimed water. This suggests that the City and County focus efforts to use 

reclaimed water from both the City wastewater treatment plant and the County’s 

Quill wastewater treatment plant. The three highest ranked portfolios also use the 

maximum number of adaptive strategies demonstrating the value of a multifaceted approach to achieving climate change mitigation goals for the Santa Fe 

Region. 

6 References 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2013. Reclaimed Wastewater Resource Plan. 

http://www.santafenm.gov/document_center/document/794 

New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1978; 

http://public.nmcompcomm.us/nmpublic/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=de 

fault.htm. 

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, Ordinance No. 2012-10 and City of Santa Fe, 

Administrative Procedures for Santa Fe River Target Flows, February of 2012. 

Appendix G- page 27