WHEREAS, the objects and purposes for which the increase in the mill levy rate is proposed is the acquisition of real property for water storage and water supply at the Reservoir site…
— From the ‘Election Resolution’ approved by the San Juan Water Conservancy District board of directors on June 12, 2017
We thought it was dead.
How little we understand, about water industry politicians and their mysterious ways.
I didn’t attend the Monday, June 12, meeting of the San Juan Water Conservancy District, so the ugly rumors about the zombie reservoir — known, and feared, as the fabled Dry Gulch Reservoir — had come to me second-hand, courtesy of a discussion at yesterday morning’s Archuleta Board of County Commissioner work session. The BOCC meeting was generally entertaining and informative, and the BOCC discussed several important topics, including — of course — the tentative proposal to place a tax increase proposal before the Archuleta County voters this coming November. That yet-to-be-defined tax increase would, if approved by the voters, be used to fund the debt on a new County jail and new Sheriff’s offices, and perhaps also for expanded downtown facilities for the State Judicial Department.
The price tag for all this new stuff remains vague, but appears to total in the $20 million range.
$20 million? That’s apparently just a drop in the reservoir bucket, for the San Juan Water Conservancy District board. Reportedly, that volunteer board is looking to spend at least $60 million extracted from taxpayers — despite the district’s current annual budget of around $70,000 from local property taxes. And the $60 million wouldn’t even include the interest on the loan…
We’re listening to Commissioner Michael Whiting, breaking the bad news to his two fellow commissioners, Steve Wadley and Ronnie Maez:
“I attended the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board meeting last night, and they voted to go to the ballot in November for a tax increase, for Dry Gulch.
“They also agreed to change the name [of the proposed reservoir project.]”
Reportedly, the SJWCD board could not agree, last night, on exactly which new name they wanted to use. One of the suggestions, I understand, was ‘The Running Iron Reservoir’ — based on the fact that the previous owners of the Dry Gulch property had called their operation, the ‘Running Iron Ranch.’
So let’s take a slight detour into cowboy history, before hearing more of Commissioner Whiting’s lament.
Back in the cowboy days in Texas, one of the quickest ways for a cattle rustler to arrange for his own hanging ceremony was to be caught carrying “running irons” rolled up in his bedroll.
From an online article, “Running Irons,” by G.R. Williamson:
The mere possession of these rustler’s tools meant an on-the-spot trial for the rider that usually resulted in a rancher hollering, “String him up!”
No judge, no lawyers, no arguing — just pure and simple justice…
Branding irons came in two very distinct types.
1. Long-handled stamp irons that burned the registered brand of the ranch, and…
2. Short-handled ‘running irons’ used by cattle rustlers to alter those legitimate brands.
According to Mr. Williamson, the business end of a running iron was shaped into a hook, a curve, a straight line or sometimes a “V” shape.
This enabled rustlers to change an “R” to a “B”, an “F” to an “E”, an “I” to a “7”, or one of many combinations. One of the most frequently changed brands was the “XIT”, the brand of the huge North Texas ranch owned by the British syndicate led by Charles B. and John V. Farwell.
At its peak, the XIT Ranch was home to around 150,000 head of cattle, with 1,500 miles of fencing. Their brand could be manipulated in a number of ways by a properly equipped cattle rustler. The most common way was altering it into a star with a cross inside.
Now we jump ahead to 2008, when the Weber family — owners of the Running Iron Ranch, located a couple of miles northeast of downtown Pagosa in the shallow valley known as Dry Gulch — sold 660 acres of property to the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD). The $10 million deal was negotiated by the then-president of the San Juan Water Conservancy District, Fred W. Schmidt. (The “W” stands for “Weber.”) Mr. Schmidt vanished from Archuleta County shortly after the deal was concluded, never to be seen again.
The San Juan Water Conservancy District had contributed $1 million toward the purchase price, thanks to an unusual grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB.) The PAWSD board paid the remaining $9 million, which they had been borrowed — without voter approval — from CWCB.
Subsequently, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the size of the proposed reservoir violated Colorado water law.
Around the same time, it was becoming apparent that the population of Archuleta County had stopped growing, and the need for yet another local reservoir seemingly evaporated into thin air. Actually, the “need” had been fabricated in the first place, by Fred Schmidt and Durango water engineer Steve Harris. (PAWSD already had a whole series of under-utilized reservoirs located in the Pagosa Lakes area, and was also losing 40 percent of its treated water to a leaking pipeline system.)
The current PAWSD board — which still holds a 90 percent ownership interest in the former Running Iron Ranch — has expressed zero interest in seeing the reservoir built with Archuleta taxpayer funding.
But apparently, the SJWCD board is very interested in seeing Archuleta County taxpayers participate in a reservoir we have no apparent need for.
Here again is Commissioner Michael Whiting, speaking on Tuesday morning. Mr. Whiting had played a role in negotiating with the Laverty family during the period just prior to the apparent death of the Dry Gulch project.
“I consider myself an informed person. I’m a County commissioner. I was intimately involved in the first Dry Gulch deal. And I have no idea what this tax increase is going to be used for. I suggested to the [SJWCD] board that they have no idea, either.
“And I reminded them that they are still digging out from a huge PR hole called ‘Dry Gulch.’ Changing the name isn’t going to fix that.”
But the really bad news, for the BOCC, may be a result of the water district’s unfortunate timing. The BOCC has been planning, for at least 18 months, to put their own proposed tax increase on next November’s ballot.
Commissioner Whiting:
“We were going to be coming to the voters in November. SJWCD knew that. And wiser people than us have said, when you put two tax increases on the same ballot, generally they both lose.”
Reportedly, the proposed SJWCD tax increase is intended to raise around $2 million to finance additional property purchases — because the 660-acre Running Iron Ranch is too small for the proposed 11,000-acre-foot reservoir (thanks to the unsuitably flat topography of the Dry Gulch valley.) But that tax increase would only serve to buy more property.
The taxpayers would then need to pay for the reservoir, of course. The cost of the reservoir itself was reportedly estimated, at Monday’s SJWCD meeting, at $60 million.
Anyone have $60 million handy, for a reservoir we don’t need?