A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) is a software
designed to simplify maintenance management. Maintenance management is a
necessity in a broad range of disciplines and CMMS software is able to serve
fields ranging from manufacturing to energy to healthcare. With CMMS, companies
or organizations can monitor work orders, quickly generate accurate reports,
schedule repairs, create accurate inventory forecasts and easily determine
which assets require maintenance and when. You may have also heard of enterprise
asset management (EAM) systems. CMMS and EAM are actually different systems but
are often referenced interchangeably. Both systems provide many similar
features but EAM systems tend to be broader and more useful for larger
companies. 

The goal of CMMS software is to improve organization, extend asset lifespans and reduce costs. It is there to help protect an organizations large capital investment. CMMS software cannot take the place of knowledgeable individuals but instead can help them prioritize and easily keep track of assets and labor. CMMS software’s core functionality includes preventative maintenance, asset management, work order management and inventory management. However, many additional features can be added.  

Does your utility need
CMMS software?

Many utilities, especially small utilities, may be unsure about whether CMMS software would benefit their operation. Below are some guiding questions that can help you decide whether to take the next step in your CMMS research or determine your operation can continue without one.

What does your record-keeping look like? Is it chaotic, with related material kept in many different locations? Is it hard to locate assets?

When record-keeping is unorganized your team could spend more time finding relevant information than making repairs. CMMS software is capable of storing everything in a single, searchable database that allows you to make informed data driven decisions. It also improves the tracking and scheduling of labor, helping you identify and resolve bottlenecks in labor utilization and improve response time.  

Are routine processes moving smoothly? Maybe routine processes are running smoothly but are they as efficient as possible? Are you easily communicating what needs to be completed on a daily basis?

It’s challenging to plan facility repairs and service in
advance and thus you may currently be fixing problems as they arise rather than
preventing them from happening. CMMS software helps you proactively plan most maintenance
tasks with standardized processes and set procedures. This will reduce reactive
repairs and free-up valuable time. The software enables you to move from a
reactive maintenance program to a preventative maintenance program. 

Have you ever failed to complete repairs in a timely manner because important spare parts were unavailable? Maybe you have the part but have no idea where it is. Or you thought you had it only to realize you used it in a previous repair and forgot to order another.

Waiting for parts is a common setback. CMMS software allows you to create a spare parts inventory so you can adjust new material orders based on stock level and identify a pattern of materials consumption. You gain control over your inventory and ensure critical parts are available when needed.

If your utility experiences  some the above issues then it is worth investigating CMMS software further. The software is not inexpensive but is available at varying prices with varying capabilities and most systems will find a product that matches their needs. There must also be a commitment by staff to learn a new system. However, the payoff can make it worthwhile. The next step is to begin creating a list of what your utility wants out of CMMS software before you begin researching software companies. The next blog post will walk you through how to define your CMMS goals and who to involve in the process.

The goal of SB 21/22 is to improve and restore overall clean water protections. The legislature amended The Water Quality Act to establish a permitting and water quality standards system for groundwater discharge. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) must establish a Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (PDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into the state’s waters.

Why Does SB 21/22 Matter to New Mexico?

SB 21/22 fills a massive regulatory shortcoming and will protect New Mexico’s primary water resources, safe drinking water, community health, and the long-term viability of agriculture and recreation. SB 21/22 is New Mexico’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision in 2023, which resulted in the loss of federal protections for nearly all of the state’s streams, rivers, and wetlands—with New Mexico not having an all-inclusive groundwater discharge permitting system left the unprotected waters vulnerable, named the most engaged in the United States by American Rivers in 2024. The new state-level permit system for pollutant discharges into the surface water creates the authority for New Mexico to enforce the federal Clean Water Act, regardless of federal protection status. Additionally, the state will focus on polluted groundwater, directly place cleanup accountability on polluters, and establish a dedicated funding source.

The anticipated benefits of SB 21

• Improved water quality of surface and groundwater protections from pollution, which protects drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and wildlife.
• Reduced risks associated with contaminated water to protect the future of New Mexico’s public health.
• Economic benefits for locations with clean water are more attractive for business growth and development and support industries that rely on clean water, such as outdoor recreation and agriculture.
• Local controls give authority to New Mexico to oversee the protection of its water resources, not having to rely on federal regulations.
• Protection for vulnerable communities that face higher risks of the impacts of water pollution.
• Polluters will be held accountable as the responsible party for cleaning up contamination through updated enforcement policies.

How will this be funded?

SB 21/22 outlines a dedicated funding source to support the cleanup of New Mexico’s contaminated sites through responding, investigating, and remediating, and all polluters bear the burden of costs to clean up their pollution, not state tax dollars. Initially, SB 21/22 planned to appropriate a $50 million fund for groundwater cleanup efforts and surface water quality fees and penalties directed to a water quality management fund for administering the new permit rules similar to the final bill. The final bill also establishes penalties for violations of the PDES Act, including fines and imprisonment.

With the implementation of SB 21/22, similar to the federal Clean Water Act, there are exemptions. An exemption may include traditional farming and ranching activities and associated acequia operations to remove unneeded regulatory burdens on essential agricultural practices, only existing surface waters in farm production, and if the discharge is nontoxic.

What’s next? 

New Mexico will move forward to establish a comprehensive state permitting program. It may look to get authorization from the U.S. EPA for surface water permitting, which would be one of the few remaining states to do this. Overall, New Mexicans will have greater control over the quality of surface waters. Developing and implementing a permit will not happen overnight, and it will likely take a few years to be fully effective; this is a critical first step and a long-term commitment to secure the future of essential water resources.

Source: SB 21/22 – WATER QUALITY & POLLUTION

Written by: Andrew Kalemba, Operations Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image by Brigitte Werner from Pixabay

Senate Bill 37’s (SB 37) purpose is to keep water in New Mexico’s waterways because many of the state’s waterways no longer qualify or meet the criteria for federal protection, such as many streams that do not flow year-round and many wetlands that do not have the required continuous surface connection to streams.

SB 37 will enhance the effectiveness of New Mexico’s water reserve by keeping water in New Mexico’s waterways. The reserve will be filled through new water projects, and existing water rights will be purchased. Water stored in the reserve will be accessed during the state’s most critical drought or other water shortages.

How does SB 37 address the Water Reserve Gap?

1) SB 37 creates a non-reverting fund for the Strategic Water Reserve. Allocated funds will never expire. For example, no matter how long it may take to complete a water rights transaction, such as a purchase or lease, the allocated funds will be available to support the transaction. Before SB 37, allocated funds could expire and be repurposed to the general fund before the execution of a transaction, which resulted in many missed opportunities for the state. Furthermore, the revised fund creates additional opportunities with readily available funds to assure water rights holders that they will be compensated for selling or leasing water to the state.

2) SB 37 includes aquifer recharge as a third primary way for the State of New Mexico to acquire water, acknowledging the relationship between surface water and groundwater. Utilizing the reserve for aquifer recharge, New Mexico can work towards developing and maintaining restorative stream flows and replenishing groundwater supplies simultaneously. The reserve will also support flexible, adaptive groundwater management and address groundwater depletion through continuous learning and adjustment.

3) SB 37 gives authority to the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) to prioritize certain water transactions with supplementary benefits, considering the bigger picture impacts of water management. At least one of the following criteria is required to prioritize a transaction: interstate compact compliance, benefit to threatened or endangered species, and aquifer recharge. An example of a supplementary benefit could be recreation and cultural significance.

In Conclusion

New Mexico is taking significant strides in shaping the state’s water future during the 2025 legislative session, aiming to minimize future risks. SB 37 has the potential to stimulate the economy’s growth with new water projects. Still, on the other hand, we should consider the potential financial costs of maintaining reserves and ensure that they do not become cost-prohibitive. The improvements that SB 37, SB 21/22, and HB 137 lay out as part of New Mexico’s 50-year Water Action Plan are critical to giving the state the control it requires over its water resources and allowing it to reach its full water management potential. SB 37

Source: SB 37 – STRATEGIC WATER RESERVE FUND

Written by: Andrew Kalemba, Operations Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image by John Foxx from FreeImages

The bill designates a $75 million strategic water supply program focusing on the state’s most immediate water scarcity issues, wastewater management, and environmental protection. More specifically, SB 137 expands the states’ implementation of water management strategies to increase resiliency to water shortages, initiative-taking measures focusing on future freshwater resources like brackish water projects, and research on underground aquifers.

Key Areas of Focus

As increased temperatures and drought conditions in New Mexico become commonplace, HB 137’s primary focus is addressing the increasing water scarcity concerns. The newly established Strategic Water Supply Program Fund establishes two key areas of focus to increase resiliency and water availability to ensure the future of New Mexico’s water supply through:

1) Brackish Water Projects ($50 Million)

The Brackish Water Project investments will create more diverse water sources for the state that were not previously accessible without treatment and focus on treating and reusing water with high salinity levels. For example, these projects will focus on water treatment for drinking and irrigation applications and create opportunities for future economic development.

2) Underground Aquifer Research ($28.8 Million)

Investments in research and monitoring underground aquifers will help New Mexico better understand the state’s groundwater resources and identify opportunities to manage the existing critical resources effectively. The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology will lead the effort to map and monitor the groundwater resources, collecting essential data and providing insights to support the establishment of long-term statewide water management procedures.

Prioritizing Public Health and the Environment

In addition to the proactive measures that HB 137 establishes, it is also important to note that provisions for reusing produced water from fracking are not a part of the bill’s final version. The decision to remove the provision is to protect public health and the environment, prioritizing the prevention of potential contamination from produced water for future generations and expanding New Mexico’s strategic water reserves. The change will reduce the potential risk of contamination of soil and water resources. However, it can limit the potential for reducing wastewater generated in the energy production sector and lowering overall energy costs.

Establishment of Fees on Produced Water Disposal:

Furthermore, SB 137 puts a new dedicated revenue generation model in place through a 3-cent fee for each barrel of produced water disposed of in New Mexico to account for the environmental considerations associated with produced water disposal. The revenue generated from the fee will fund water supply projects and management initiatives down the road.

In Conclusion  

The 2025 New Mexico Legislative Session outcomes have laid a solid foundation for the future of New Mexico’s water resources, starting with HB 137 as a crucial step in New Mexico’s plan for its water future to address water scarcity concerns. The removal of produced water reuse provisions potentially limits economic and water reuse opportunities; it shows a deep commitment to protecting overall public health and the environment. Furthermore, HB 137 is key to the broader water and environmental legislation passed in 2025; Senate Bill 21 creates and funds a surface water permitting program, and Senate Bill 37 expands the uses of the Strategic Water Reserve. These three bills come together to give New Mexico greater control over the future of its water resources.

Source: HB 137 – STRATEGIC WATER SUPPLY ACT

Written by: Andrew Kalemba, Operations Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image by m0are from Pixabay.

1. Improving Water Quality 

Water in the distribution system can become stagnant, especially in low-flow areas or dead-end pipes. Stagnation leads to sediment buildup, bacterial growth and potential chemical imbalances, which can degrade water quality. Regular flushing clears out contaminants, ensures proper chlorine residual levels and delivers fresher water to customers. For small systems with limited resources, this proactive measure is a cost- effective way to maintain compliance with water quality regulations.  

2. Preventing Infrastructure Damage 

Sediment and debris in pipes can cause corrosion, reduce flow capacity and damage system components over time. A flushing program helps remove these materials, extending the life span of pipes and reducing maintenance costs. It also helps operators plan and prepare budgets for future replacement of existing equipment. For small systems where staff and budgets are limited, preventing costly repairs through routine flushing is a smart investment. 

3. Enhancing Customer Confidence 

Discolored water, strange odors, or poor taste can erode public trust in a water system. Flushing prevents these issues, ensuring customers receive clean, clear water. For small communities, where word-of-mouth travel fast, consistent water quality builds confidence and strengthens community relationships.  

4. Meeting Regulatory Requirements 

Regulatory agencies often require water systems to maintain specific water quality standards. A flushing program helps small systems meet these standards by controlling biofilm growth, maintaining disinfectant levels and reducing the risk of contamination. Documenting flushing activities also demonstrates compliance during inspections. 

Written by: Mike Rivera, Water/Wastewater Utility Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image courtesy of rick on Flickr.

When I accompanied my girlfriend on a work trip in the coastal town of Arcata, California, I wasn’t expecting to find inspiration for my own work assisting water and wastewater systems at the SW EFC. I was out birding on our first morning there, marveling at the diversity of species, when I realized the meandering path I was taking was actually part of a system of treatment ponds for the town’s municipal wastewater treatment facility. The grounds looked like a park or wildlife reserve, not like any of the wastewater treatment facilities I’d visited before.

The Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary is a beautiful and functional combination of wastewater treatment for the town’s approximately 19,000 residents, and also one of the Northern California Coast’s top birding spots in terms of biodiversity, according to Cornell Lab’s eBird app.

I returned the next day for a self-guided tour of the wastewater treatment system. The Arcata Marsh Interpretive Center provided a map, brochures and advice for spots I should be sure to hit if I was interested in the whole treatment process (of course I was). Most of that process is visible and accessible to the public through a series of bike and foot paths.

Overview of the 5 stages of wastewater treatment at Arcata Marsh:

1. The wastewater enters the facility through a conventional headworks system. Wastewater typically spends less than a day here, first moving through bar screens that remove large solids (like rags, sticks, and toilet paper). The grit chamber removes sand, gravel and dirt, and the clarifier further removes organic material. From there, the solids go to the digester and the water moves on to the oxidation ponds.
2. For the next month and a half, the wastewater receives treatment through open pond and wetland systems. The wastewater moves into 55 acres of exposed oxidation ponds. Here, solids settle and bacteria break down through exposure to the UV rays in sunlight. Algae also grow here, absorbing nutrients such as nitrogen and removing them from the water column.
3. After about a month, operators release the water from the oxidation ponds into the 10 acres of 2-to-4-foot-deep treatment wetlands, where I went birding. The water stays in this anaerobic system for one to three days. The lack of sunlight kills off some of the algae, which settles and decomposes. Breakdown of organic material, such as plant matter, also occurs in the anaerobic environment, which can put some solids and oxygen demand back into the water.
4. In the 30 acres of enhancement wetlands – the final treatment stage – the water gets another 5-10 days of treatment. In this system, open water and cover from vegetation results in a combination of aerobic and anaerobic treatment zones. This makes the wetlands ideal hosts for the biological reactions that further break down organic material, remove nutrients, and generally improve water quality.
5. The water is discharged into the Humboldt Bay by way of the McDaniel Slough tidal wetlands.

Though “stage 4”, the Enhancement Wetlands, is the area where I went birding and what the public thinks of as Arcata Marsh, I noticed an abundance of birds and wildlife in every part of this system. Swallows dive among the eaves of the headworks buildings, California quail parade atop composting piles of removed biosolids, geese and mallards are raising their babies along the edges of the oxidation ponds, and otters swim in brackish tidal wetlands. This is a treatment facility designed with wildlife and public use in mind.

Whether you’re an industry professional or just curious about where your water comes from and where it goes after you use it, touring treatment facilities like this one is a fun and engaging way to learn about water systems. Most municipal treatment facilities have websites and options to sign up for public tours: see the resources below for examples from the Arcata plant.

Resources:

• Friends of Arcata Marsh: https://www.arcatamarshfriends.org/the-marsh/wastewater-treatment/
• To request a tour: https://arcatamarshfriends.org/wp-content/uploads/tour-request-guidelines.pdf
• Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility Brochure: https://arcatamarshfriends.org/wp-content/uploads/wastewater-brochure.pdf
• City of Arcata Wastewater: https://cityofarcata.org/331/Wastewater

Written by: Shannon Sloane Pepper, Research Scientist at the Southwest EFC 

In June 2022, human rights nonprofit DigDeep released the first ever US study on the national price tag for allowing millions of Americans to live without running water. The findings from the report are staggering.  

The Problem 

Many of us in the US take water flowing from a tap and the ability to flush a toilet for granted. But life without water access is a reality that 1.57 million Americans face, the report asserts. This grave number represents what the study calls the water access gap, and it greatly harms health, livelihood, and economy in the US: Water access inequities are costing the nation’s economy $8.58 billion every year. 

The authors contextualize their findings within the history of US infrastructure funding. The water access gap, the study reports, began 100 years ago during the first flush of water infrastructure investment. Governmental decisions about who got money to invest in water infrastructure closely traced racial and economic lines: those who were already at a disadvantage due to racist policies of the 1930s still make up the majority of people living without water access today. These communities are still at a severe disadvantage when it comes to funding and many still lack any kind of water infrastructure. The recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and new funding sources, the report says, are a good starting place to close that gap, but further investment is absolutely necessary.  

Here are the 5 Key Findings the report identifies (from page 29): 

Based on their analysis, the economic harm caused by the water access gap for the 539,000 households (1.57 million people) lacking complete water infrastructure for reliable and running water conservatively comes to a total loss of $8.58 billion per year. Cost categories include physical health, mental health, time lost from hauling water, water purchasing costs, lost productivity impacts to GDP, and implicit costs of premature deaths. 

The report also calls attention to how people deal with lack of water access. They astutely refer to these issues as “coping mechanisms,” which include: limiting bathing and handwashing, cleaning and bathing in local surface water, straight-piping waste into the ground or nearby streams, using a cesspool, substituting drinking water with sugar-sweetened beverages, relying on a failing septic tank, or defecating in the open. These strategies, though essential for coping with lack of water access, add up to serious public and environmental health problems. 

Solutions 

The second half of the report is dedicated to solutions and includes success stories on the family scale from people whose lives improved tremendously once they had water access for the first time. 

According to the study’s models, the benefits of closing the water gap outweigh the costs by 5 to 1. Even when assuming that not all water systems can sustain operations through rate payments alone, it still makes sound economic sense to invest state and federal dollars to close the water gap.  

4 Strategies to Close the Gap: 

• Expand and refocus federal and state funding; 
• Use data to bring visibility to communities; 
• Define the water access gap as a crisis; 

• Build a domestic water, sanitation, and hygiene sector. 

The reports estimates that the grand total cost for closing the gap right now is roughly $42 billion. This may seem like a heady price tag, but researchers also assert that this wouldn’t have to be paid outright. An initial investment of $18 billion would be the first step. And remember – according to the study, the cost benefits to investing in closing the water gap outweigh the overall cost by 5 to 1 when considering costs associated with lack of access: disease burden, decreased economic activity, and opportunity costs. The authors urge political decision-makers to use the findings in this economic analysis as justification for bigger investments in water infrastructure. 

The report has an approachable, well-organized design and uses plain language. Anyone who is interested in water access issues could pick it up and understand the main findings, and this report should be required reading for all of us who work in the water sector. The report also contains a wealth of carefully researched statistics and modeling to back up the arguments. 

Though numbers and economic costs are the main focus of the report, the writers do not turn a blind eye to the human suffering behind lack of water access. Between all those statistics are interviews, photos, quotes, and stories from families who have suffered from lack of access – and whose lives turned around when the tap turned on – give a human face to this struggle. 

Written by: Shannon Sloane Pepper, Research Scientist at the Southwest EFC 

On March 29^th, 2022, the Institute for American Indian Research at the University of New Mexico hosted an online panel discussion on Water and Indigenous Relations. This panel discussion presented an enlightening challenge to the dominant discourse of how water is viewed in the western United States. It offered viewpoints and information that should be taken into account by all water managers as we face the increased threat of drought and significant weather events. 

The panel discussion was led by Melanie K. Yazzie (Diné, Assistant Professor of American Indian Studies, University of Minnesota) and featured panelists:  

• Julia Bernal (Sandia Pueblo/Yuchi), Director, Pueblo Action Alliance, MA student UNM Community & Regional Planning  

• Andrew Curley (Diné), Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Arizona  
• Michelle Daigle (Mushkegowuk), Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Toronto 
• Teresa Montoya (Diné), Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago  

All panelists offered diverse insight based both on their scholarly research and from their lived experiences as Indigenous persons and scholars. They offered alternative ways of understanding and measuring water and presented ideas challenging how water is currently allocated and viewed as a standardized commodity. 

For water managers in the US, it is important to understand that the now dominant discourse of how water is measured and allocated is not the only way. Currently, in most of the western US, water is allocated by prior appropriation, meaning that whoever can prove that they first started using that water for a beneficial purpose historically, has a right to use that water before others who started using water from that source at a later date. In choosing this approach, water has been turned from a necessity into a commodity that can be exchanged for a price, which can be a very destructive ideology. In addition, water makes for a poor commodity due to the nature of how it moves through the environment and differences in water quality between water sources. Instead of allocating by prior appropriation, a simple alternative that was presented, would be to allocate water by crop or community need. In this manner, water scarcity could be addressed by ensuring those that need the water the most, would receive it. This would also be a better fit with many Indigenous traditions, where water is a unique living entity that has its own fundamental rights and cannot be separated from the land and its people. 

One example where understanding different ways of viewing water is relevant, is the conversation around drinking water system partnership. Drinking water systems across the US face many challenges including a lack of technical, managerial, and financial capacity to operate effectively and safely. System partnership is often discussed as a solution to this challenge by the regional sharing of resources to achieve economies of scale. As different stakeholders form these partnerships, they may have different ways of viewing water, have different historical uses for water, and have different definitions of when water is a necessity. To come to a consensus and to have an effective partnership, it is important for stakeholders to be open to alternative ways of viewing and allocating regional shared resources, including water. 

In addition to understanding the various ways of viewing and using water, with increased threats of drought in many parts of the US and an increase in significant weather events, it can be increasingly advantageous for water managers to question their own assumptions and the dominant discourse of how water is viewed. In the western US, there is no doubt that water demand exceeds supply. If more managers and decision makers start viewing water as a dynamic living entity, that should be shared in a more respectful way, it could alleviate some of the tension and result in solutions that lead to a more equitable and just allocation of water. While the allocation of water is a complex topic with many considerations, it is worth considering other ways of thinking about water especially considering the extreme drought impacting much of the southwestern U.S.  

Rio Grande near Albuquerque, NM (occupied ancestral Pueblo land). Photo by Tucker Colvin 

Written by: Tucker Colvin, Research Scientist at the Southwest Environmental Finance Center