When District 7 Water Court Judge Greg Lyman approved the water rights for a proposed 35,000 acre-foot reservoir in Dry Gulch in 2004, that decision was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, by national fishing organization Trout Unlimited. The Supreme Court objected to Lyman’s decision and remanded the case back to him for additional “findings of fact.” The Supreme Court’s objections were based on three main issues.
In 2003, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District engineer Steve Harris had designed the Dry Gulch Reservoir at 35,000 acre-feet for one simple reason: that was the largest reservoir that would fit in Dry Gulch. Harris admitted this in court, and at public PAWSD meetings. In order to justify such a large reservoir — almost 18 times current Archuleta County use — Harris had used estimates of 100 years of astronomical community growth.
First off, the Supreme Court told Judge Lyman to limit the PAWSD water rights application to a more reasonable planning period — say, 50 years. Second, the Supreme Court had told the District 7 Water Court to use reasonable growth predictions. And third, the Supreme Court had instructed Lyman to consider future water conservation measures.
Water conservation is on the tip of every sensible community planner’s tongue these days. Every community in the American West from Denver to Los Angeles knows that water supplies are daily becoming more precious — and water storage is becoming more controversial. Fortunately, huge strides have already been made, throughout the West, in the area of water conservation.
According to the City of Phoenix website:
“The least expensive way to provide water for growth and to assure an adequate supply for the future is through wisely managing and carefully using (and reusing) supplies we already have.”
Indeed, many communities throughout the West have embraced this same fact: that water conservation is a highly effective water planning tool, yet costs almost nothing to implement. No reservoir is required, no new pipelines need to be engineered, and in many cases, no new treatment plants need to be built. Curiously, the words “water conservation” did not feature prominently in the PAWSD roll-out of their revised Dry Gulch proposal last week. In fact, I do not recall a single slide in the 90-minute-long, 40-page PowerPoint presentation that mentioned the word “conservation.”
So I took the opportunity to mention the word during the half-hour question and answer session following the slide show. I addressed my question to one of the panelists, Denise Rue-Pastin, the PAWSD water conservation expert and PR person. I asked Rue-Pastin how much water is used in the PAWSD district currently, on a per capita basis.
“About 165 gallons,” she replied.
“About 165 gallons per day, per person?”
“That’s right.”
“And there are some conservation measures being looked at by PAWSD, and you are going to be rolling those out in the next couple of months?”
“Yes.”
“According to the research that I’ve done,” I noted for the benefit of the audience, “the average per capita use, worldwide, is about 7 gallons per day. Here in Archuleta County, we use about 165 gallons per day. In your expert opinion, how much of a reduction could PAWSD residents make in their water use over the next 20 years? Could we possibly drop our water use in half, for example, and save ourselves $150 million in reservoir costs?”
I was suggesting the $150 million figure because the full proposed cost of the Dry Gulch project, as presented that night, was $357 million. I was trying to suggest that aggressive water conservation would be a lot cheaper for area residents, and maybe the reservoir could be built smaller?
Rue-Pastin replied after a momentary pause.
“When you look at communities in the United States that have very aggressive conservation plans — say in New Mexico, or New York — bringing the water use down to half of where the levels are now is probably more aggressive than I imagine this community would be able to handle.”
‘Perhaps it’s easier for this community to handle paying for a $357 million reservoir project?’ I wondered to myself.
“A 20 percent reduction is what a lot of other communities are looking at,” Rue-Pas continued. “We might be able to get our local water use down to maybe 120 gallons per day. 120 to 150 gallons. I think we would be doing pretty good to achieve those levels.”
“So you think we could cut our water usage by a third? Down to 120 gallons per day?” I asked.
“I’m not sure cutting our water usage down to 120 gallons, or 150 gallons, is exactly a third. But I think there is room for improvement.”
It put my mind at ease, that the PAWSD water conservation expert thought there was room for improvement. In fact, PAWSD customers have already made very significant reductions in their water usage — and water wasting — since PAWSD began promoting water conservation measures following the 2002 dought. According to PAWSD figures, a typical single family home was using about 420 gallons per day in the year 2000. By 2007, that usage had dropped to about 270 gallons per day.
In other words, over a seven-year period, PAWSD customers reduced their average water usage by a third — the amount Rue-Pastin thought might not be achievable over the next 20 years. This was done without instituting any mandatory water usage restrictions, except during the 2002 drought.
Could Archuleta County, in fact, cut its per capita water demand in half over the next 20 years? Could we, as a community, decide to conserve enough water to save us from needing a $357 million reservoir project — and still allow for growth? How much water does a single family home really need? How much will it need in 20 years?
And perhaps even more important, how much water is PAWSD itself wasting — through an outdated, leaking water system that PAWSD board member Bob Huff described on several occasions as “rotten”?