Rio Grande: How Clean Is Our River

Rio Grande, how clean is our river, is made possible in part by funding from the New Mexico Border Health Office, as part of a larger effort to educate people about surface water quality and health issues in southern New Mexico and El Paso County. The river has a fairly clean bill of health. Go down to the river today and see the ditch that it has been selling. I would say it's probably our principal concern. I think in the way of pesticides, it's good and heavy metals, I don't think it's... I'm assuming the river probably just isn't a good idea. The idea that a farmer puts on pesticides just to loosen up the enhancement of life along the river. I think that the Rio Grande can become healthier. The Rio Grande are great river.

What's your impression of it? What you think of the river probably depends on your vantage point. Here as it cuts gently through the macea valley, the river paints a serene picture. 50 miles downstream, it's another world. This fence designed to keep illegal aliens out of the U.S. also seems to send out a warning that this river may not be safe. So just how clean is the water in the Rio Grande? Well that depends on who you ask. I have not really seen water quality in the Mexico in a visual sense be degraded to any great extent from what I remember when I was young. What would you say about the quality of the river today? Pretty poor. Sometimes newspaper reports tell us the river is in poor shape.

In this article, the Rio Grande is ranked the most endangered river in the nation. Is that really true? One way to find answers is to turn to the studies done on river water quality. You can take your pick, there's lots to choose from. The reports normally look at some of the many potential pollutants in the river. Fecal coliform is one. It's bacteria from animal waste that tells us there might be disease-causing organisms in the water. There's also pesticides that are used on crops or in gardens and make their way to the river. Other potential toxic substances are heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic and aluminum, which can occur naturally or come from mines, industry and urban runoff. Nutrients are usually attributed to fertilizer and waste water. At high levels, they can cause the river to clog up with plant growth. Sedimentation is undissolved matter, soil particles and plant debris that can harm aquatic life. It comes from erosion and activities like cattle grazing and construction. And then there's salinity.

As river water gets used and reused, the salt content goes up, sometimes making it unusable for irrigation or drinking water. And this was one of 20 study units that were started in 92. Gary Levings, who's with the US Geological Survey in Albuquerque, helped author one of the most comprehensive reports on water quality in the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico. It's part of a national water quality assessment program called NACWA for short. The three-year study takes an in-depth look at issues like the amount of pesticides and nutrients in the river water. But it gives this stretch of the river a fairly clean bill of health. Right now, we don't have a particular problem with any of the pesticide concentrations or dissolved solids. But it's something that we need a continually monitor to see what happens in the future. If you want up-to-date information on water quality along the Rio Grande in Texas, this report is probably your best bet.

It's a 1996 assessment prepared by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Among the findings, concern over the high level of nutrients in the river stretches that run through El Paso. Solinity concentrations are too high, just downstream from downtown, and the problem is getting worse. And the report raises concerns about fecal coliform in the river, though the levels are decreasing. Well, it's a water temperature. 14.5 degrees centigrade. There are also the more informal surveys. As part of a program called Project Del Rio, high school students from 65 schools have been testing the waters along the entire length of the Rio Grande for eight years. And while their results are not official, project volunteers have learned a lot about the Rio Grande over the years. Well, in urban areas along the border, there's a lot of problems with waste water, sewage in the river, and we see indicators of fertilizers. And we see different amounts of clarity or turbidity in the water.

It's no longer such a temperature. There's a political side to water quality, and when it comes to water quality decisions in New Mexico, it's this group that has the most clout. It's called the Water Quality Control Commission. The most job is to make sure the water in the Rio Grande is in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and other New Mexico Clean Water Laws. To accomplish that, the panel first decides how the various stretches of the Rio Grande in the state will be used, for instance, for fishing, irrigation, drinking water, or swimming. Then the commission sets the standards required to meet those so-called designated uses. It monitors the river with the help of the State Environment Department, the USGS, and other organizations to see if those standards are being met, and it makes regular reports of its findings to the federal government. In New Mexico, the river is divided into ten segments, each with their assigned uses and standards.

In Texas, the Natural Resource Conservation Commission oversees another nine segments of the river in that state. The two commissions are required to keep close tabs on operations like this wastewater treatment plant in Los Cruces. It's an example of a point-source polluter. If you live in the city, everything you send down the drain at home ends up here. The wastewater goes through several stages of treatment before it's discharged into the river at a very specific point. These plants need to permit from the state to operate, and most everyone agrees that point sources along the Rio Grande are, for the most part, under control. The quality of the water that we are returning to the river is at least the quality of the receiving stream.

That's part of the requirements from our NPDS permit. But there's another type of pollution, it comes from what's called non-point sources, and it's much harder to manage. On this rare rainy day in El Paso, urban contaminants run off the city streets into storm sewers. Some of the pollution will eventually make its way to the river. Rain and urban runoff get lots of blame for non-point source pollution, but there's another culprit. This water looks harmless enough as it is diverted from the Rio Grande and canals operated by the elephant-dute irrigation district. It's headed for a farmer's field where it will irrigate crops that are central to the economy of this region. Some of the water from the fields makes its way into these drainage canals, which return it to the Rio Grande, in a condition that irrigation officials insist meets all water quality standards.

The water does tend to pick up salts on its way south as it's used for agriculture and seeps through the soil and gets to our drains and returns back to the river. But other than that, I feel as though it's pretty good. But others are concerned that the water also picks up pesticides, fertilizers, and nutrients on its way back to the river. It's the job of people like Craig Runyon to teach farmers how to make sure the drainage water is clean. For one thing, he says fields like this one are laser-leveled, so there's very little water runoff. And he says farmers are getting smarter about irrigating their crops. And what farmers are learning to do then is to know when to irrigate and how much to apply. And knowing how much to apply basically is trying to keep the water within the root zone. That's where it's going to do the most good for the plant. When it comes to non-point source pollution, there's plenty of finger pointing.

There's concern over runoff from the many dairies along the Rio Grande Valley. Ranchers get blamed for overgrazing. And some say the biggest contributors are the colonias that dot the region. In this neighborhood north of Anthony, there are simply too many septic tanks located too closely together. And it's feared that polluted groundwater and spills eventually end up in the river. It's uncertainty over non-point source pollution that led the Southwest Environmental Center and another environmental group in New Mexico to sue the EPA. The suit contended the state was moving too slowly in developing plans, called total maximum daily loads or TMDLs. These plans, which involve an expensive in-depth study of water pollution problems, are required of states that have done all they can to control point source pollution, but still have water quality problems in their rivers. Two sides reached an agreement on a schedule for those intense studies. You can find out where along the river those TMDL studies are required by reading the

state's latest reports to the federal government. This 303D document, which is filed every two years, lists reaches of the river that have water quality problems where the standard set for the designated uses have not been reached and a TMDL study is required. In Southern New Mexico, the 1998 list includes a stretch of the Rio Grande between Leesburg Dam and Caballo for failing to support its use for warm water fishing because of eroding banks and pH levels that are too high. pH has to do with the balance between acids and alkalize in the water. However, the Water Quality Control Commission will be advised later this year to make changes to the pH standards that could bring this stretch into compliance. In the river reach from the Leesburg Dam to the Texas State Line, a 1996 list found problems with ammonia, chlorine, pH, metals, and stream bottom deposits that failed to support warm water fishing and irrigation.

However, state officials say after re-examining the data, they are now only concerned about a 1.7-mile stretch of the river, where it meanders between New Mexico and Texas. The cause is an unknown toxicity. It's been sort of disturbing that NMED, the Mexican Environment Department's approach to complying with the settlement has been to go down that list and find reasons for not having to do TMDL's one-by-one. Environmentalist Kevin Bixby says he's skeptical about the state's recommendation to take 25 percent of rivers and lakes in New Mexico off the 303D list when he says it's doubtful the water quality has improved. But state officials say they only remove a segment from the list after carefully valuation of the data. If we found that there was not sufficient data to make a judgment, to make a call either one way or another, we aired on the conservative side and left it on the list.

And what about Texas? Well, this structure, the International Dam, separates two river segments that run through El Paso. The river gets a higher rating upstream from the dam to the New Mexico state line. This stretch was on the 303D list two years ago, because fecal coliform levels were too high to make swimming safe, but that concern was removed from the 1998 list because of a change in the way the EPA interprets the data. Below the dam, the river turns into a concrete ditch, where the water is mainly effluent and of such low quality that its only uses are what's referred to as non-contact recreation and limited aquatic life. It's not on the 303D list, but it is a target for further study. The final segment of the Rio, below the Riverside Dam, is on the impaired list, because pollutants such as chloride and sulfate are at levels that threaten its use as a drinking water supply and to support aquatic life.

However, the state of Texas has listed the segment as a low priority, so it will probably not get serious attention for many years. Stretch by stretch, that's how the Rio Grande is assessed when it comes to water quality. In the end, it's up to you to decide how well we are doing in meeting the goal of the Clean Water Act, which is to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The state of New Mexico, in a lot of ways and especially on the team-deal process, is leading the way. But the reality is, we have not restored the integrity of the lower Rio Grande. It's another successful day at the river for David Sines, one of many fishermen who tried

their luck at the Mesilla Dam on the Rio Grande. Up on the bridge, Lupé Contreras is still waiting for a bite. He says the fish he catches here are of good quality. The river water that produces healthy fish, good enough to eat, that's one of the goals of the Clean Water Act. And state officials say tests show that fish from the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico are safe. The fish in the river in this area are safe to eat, and also the Texas Department of Health, which is responsible in Texas, has evaluated data for fish consumption, and they have not issued any advisories on this stretch in the river. In the NACWA study prepared by the USGS, there are no meaningful conclusions drawn about fish from the Rio Grande.

Only a small percentage of the fish that were tested had what are termed external anomalies. Just the fact that we found them, we don't really know from our standpoint what that means because we don't have any historical data to relate it to, to know whether it's getting worse or it's getting better. This Texas study doesn't offer much help either. It simply says there's not enough information to determine if the fish are safe. But border health experts like Kitty Richards say while eating a Rio Grande fish now and then might be okay, it's not advisable to eat them too often because whatever contaminants or in the water can accumulate in the fish over time. I would really caution as far as the amount of fish they eat per week, not eat it every day and maybe set a maximum catch limit for consumption. The other big health concern when it comes to the river is whether it's safe for swimming. On a hot summer day, upstream of the international dam, it's not unusual to find youngsters in the water.

They don't seem too worried about getting sick. But four years ago, El Paso Health officials got concerned enough to put this section of the river off limits after a deadly amiibo was found here. Similar to a microorganism that killed two children in the lower Rio Grande that same year. What makes it quite unusual and scary is that it can cause an infection by being inhaled. You just have to get some water up your nose and it's in your nasal cavities. It can start the infection there. Then penetrate into the brain and form a meningitis, which then can be fatal. While stories about deadly amiibas make the news of greater concern to public health officials as the amount of fecal coliform in the river, that's bacteria from animal waste that is often associated with disease. Tests along stretches of the river that run through El Paso show fecal coliform levels are sometimes unacceptably high. If you swallow the water, there's a slight chance you could get sick. If kids go and swim once in a while, yeah, it could be a problem.

Similarly, in New Mexico, health officials urge you to be cautious about taking a dip in the river. This reach of water, I don't believe it's swimming is not allowed really. And probably from the health risks associated with fecal coliform and hepatitis A and things like that. So, in that aspect, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to go swimming. There's one other health concern connected to the Rio Grande. It has to do with this canal in Juarez called the Aguas Negras since Juarez has no wastewater treatment plants, untreated wastes, and up here. There's everything that's flushed down into these two big cows, and that gets mixed with river water and then is used as irrigation down in the southeast part of the Juarez Valley. The part of that irrigation water that's not used though gets dumped back into the Rio Grande and appears to be a significant source of contamination for the Rio Grande. There's been so much concern about border industry and agriculture polluting the river that the U.S. and Mexico have undertaken the first-ever binational study of toxic substances in the

water. Phase one of the project found a high potential for toxic impacts in three of the four sites tested. But officials have not determined where the toxic substances come from or how they might impact health. So, can the river make you sick? The officials say the Rio Grande is certainly a source of health concerns, but so far, not a major one. The reason is simple, not many residents fish or swim in the river. There's not a lot of contact between the populace and the river. I mean, I don't mean to say that, doesn't mean it's not a problem or it shouldn't be improved in quality, but just fortunately because of those barriers, when it is contaminated, it's not posing a major sort of outbreak type of threat to the populace. When you open the tap to plant your thirst, you probably don't think much about where

the water is coming from or how clean it is. The fact is, most water in this region comes from deep underground from wells like this one. In southern New Mexico, well water supplies all are drinking water needs. It's a primary source of drinking water in El Paso, too, but there's a big problem with the aquifer underneath the city. At the present rate of withdrawal from both El Paso and Juarez, it's projected that it will be un-economical to pump any more after about the year 2030, 2035. So for all practical purposes, it will be gone. For a while, El Paso looked north to drill wells in the more plentiful aquifer in New Mexico. This is the submarine, beautiful submarine costume for the wake-up. But after years of legal battles and hearings like this one, the two states agreed to form the New Mexico Texas Water Commission to work together to find another solution, one that centers on the Rio Grande.

Already El Paso was getting about half its water supply from the river. This plant is one of two in the city that treat the river water. For the plant to operate, the water coming in must meet strict standards. Now, if you'll see right here, this one is a sample assigned for metals and it was collected from the river. So this is from the Rio Grande right here. John Baloo heads a team of laboratory technicians who test samples taken from the Rio Grande in El Paso each day. He says the most worrisome pollutant is not pesticides or metals, but rather salt. The El Paso plants are not designed to get rid of it. And even if they were, it would cost too much to dispose of the salt that's removed. Obviously, if you were in a community that's close to the ocean, the simple answer to that is you just discharge that salty water back to the ocean, you don't have to do anything with it. But here, if we put that salty water from the rivers as most as back into the river, then someone downstream is going to be having a problem, then even worse than the problem that

we have now. So it's just not practical. It's also not practical or even possible to run these water treatment plants in the fall and winter. That's because, at the end of the irrigation season, when Caballo Dam is shut off, the remaining water in the river is too salty to treat. Can Needham as an engineer working with the New Mexico Texas Water Commission to find a way to get treatable water to El Paso's plants year-round here at a public hearing, he outlines some of the options. One is to simply use existing canals to bring water to the city from Caballo. The other is to let the Rio Grande flow year-round and to use canals to divert polluted drainage water to below the international dam in El Paso. Environmentalists prefer the second plan, mainly because the year-round flow might improve habitats for wildlife. And that's something that most of the big water users and the engineers are loathed to do.

Let water run down the river because they all see that as wasted water, but it's not wasted. This is a mindset that the environmentalists are in that I really deplore. To run the water all the way to the Great Bend, there wouldn't be any left for irrigation and lost cruises. And that's the other big factor in the decision to treat surface water. Once the river does begin flowing year-round, other cities such as Hatch and Lost Cruces have plans to tap the Rio Grande for their drinking water needs. It's water that is committed right now to farming. That irrigation district officials say the legalities of transferring the water to cities can be worked out. Our mandate is to serve the farming community first and foremost, and that is what we plan to do. But as we see farmland being taken out of production and that water not being applied, there is the potential to change that usage from agriculture to municipal and industrial use. In the meantime, the debate centers on exactly how to get the high-quality river water to El Paso.

There are going to be a series of alternatives that are going to be scrutinized very carefully as to how implementable they are, quality of life issues, environmental impacts, and also, obviously, financial aspects. When Oñate saw the river, it must have been incredible. Lots of trees along the river, a cottonwood forest, the boschi. There are still a few places along the Rio Grande that might make the early Spanish settlers feel at home. The boschi de la Pachi south of Sacoro is one of the few wetlands that still exist along

the Rio Grande. The river takes a more natural course here, one that creates a haven for wildlife. This is a rare site. It's estimated that 80% of the riparian habitat on the Rio Grande has disappeared. Among the biggest changes to the river are the dams. Elephant butte was the first to go up in 1916. They're a boon to agriculture because the river flows are regulated to coincide with the irrigation season and floods are controlled, but the river has paid a price. Think about the 75% of our native fish species that have disappeared and all the wildlife values that we've lost in transforming that living river into a almost dead ditch. Along the middle Rio Grande near Albuquerque, you still find plant growth on the banks, but a lot of it is not native to the river. So on this stretch we have three exotic plants that are taken over the riparian corridor. I mean salt cedar and the third one is Russian olive. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biologist Brian Hansen is concerned that native plant life is

being crowded out by the newcomers. Salt cedar is one of the toughest competitors. It was first introduced to stabilize river banks. Once it got established it became more difficult for the native cotton woods to take root. The older trees are not being replaced with younger ones. The change in vegetation in turn impacts wildlife. The focus of attention lately is this songbird, the southwestern willow fly catcher. Biologists say the loss of habitat puts it in danger of extinction. And they say more than half the native fish in the Rio Grande are gone, including the shovel-nose sturgeon. Those are some reasons why some biologists and environmentalists are recommending we re-engineer the river and improve its quality by returning to more natural flows, planting more vegetation, and letting it meander. If they had a naturally meandering stream they could stabilize it by using vegetation, and that would have fish and wildlife value. In long term you wouldn't have the maintenance required.

It's the job of the International Boundary and Water Commission to manage the river channel south of Cabayo Dam to make sure Mexico gets its share of river water. To deliver water efficiently and reduce the chance of floods, the IBWC works to keep the river channel straight and the banks mowed and free of trees. But officials say they're open to change. Suggestions like that we can look at and see we can allow some areas to go wild or change the course of the river within, again, the levees themselves. Others though are more skeptical. Great. I'd love to see it, but it is not practical under our present economy, as I see it. First of all, those plants that they would like to have grow down there, the salt seeder and the willows and the grasses, they're tremendous users of water. And so the debate over the quality of water and the Rio Grande rages on, a debate that will impact the future of the river for years to come and our interaction with it, a debate

over an issue that everyone agrees has no simple solutions. We don't even know all the questions yet, so we can't have all the answers. Rio Grande, how clean is our river, was made possible in part by funding from the New Mexico Border Health Office, as part of a larger effort to educate people about surface water quality and health issues in southern New Mexico and El Paso County.