County utilities present water portfolio; city and county update return‑flow pipeline project

County utilities staff presented an accessible infographic summary of the county's water portfolio, water deliveries and capacity at the Buckman Direct Diversion (BDD), telling commissioners that the county has recurring water supplies that, taken together (native Rio Grande rights, San Juan Chama storage and the Water Resources Agreement with the City of Santa Fe), amount to roughly 1.33–1.40 billion gallons available in a typical year. Utilities staff noted 2025 deliveries were about 556 million gallons and that the BDD has a physical annual diversion capacity of just under 840 million gallons, leaving an operational buffer at present.

Travis (Utilities) explained why available 'paper' allocations differ from on‑the‑ground diversion capacity: some water entitlements rely on storage or partner delivery and the BDD has throughput limits. Commissioners focused questions on allocation for approved development, the role of groundwater and the implications of conservation measures. "We do have water reserve for approved growth," Travis said, but added staff is continuously working to strengthen the water rights portfolio and account for upcoming projects such as the Pauahi Basin interconnect.

Bill Schneider (City of Santa Fe) and Travis then outlined the San Juan Chama Return Flow Pipeline: a federal Title‑16‑funded, roughly 17‑mile pipeline to return treated effluent from the Paseo Real Water Reclamation Facility near the river back toward the Buckman area to create return‑flow credits and effectively increase 'wet' water availability. The county currently holds a 7% interest in project returns per the memorandum of understanding with the city. Schneider described project permitting, NEPA steps and a 10‑mgd pipeline capacity; he said the Forest Service requested a 90‑day extension in the environmental review schedule to allow government‑to‑government consultation with sovereign nations and additional staffing time.

Speakers emphasized the need to analyze downstream, cultural and ecological impacts and to coordinate accounting with the state engineer. Commissioners asked staff to produce additional materials about how return flows would affect local springs and agricultural users and requested follow‑up presentations including Pawaukee Basin/Poejaque Basin planning to show carrying capacity and ledgering of water transfers.