Agreeing on utilizing the same growth data will help ensure we are planning for future growth in unison, providing to each board a set of growth data allowing it to determine needed future infrastructure improvements and policy changes needed to best serve our growing community and development of corresponding Land Use policy…
— from a brief report about the ‘Growing Water Smart’ work group, posted to the Archuleta County website.
Growth is a problem, even if governments plan for it ‘in unison.’ Growth causes government leaders to think in terms of infrastructure improvements (that is, tax-funded expansion) and additional regulations.
But many people believe ‘growth’ is not only beneficial, but even necessary.
A tableful of local government representatives met at the Pagosa Springs Town Hall on Monday, January 28, to discuss population growth in Archuleta County — something that’s been rather ‘hit-or-miss’ over the past decade. The group, known as the ‘Growing Water Smart’ work group, had been inspired by a slightly different group of community leaders who attended a 3-day “Resilient Communities and Watersheds Growing Water Smart” workshop in 2017, to learn about “integrating Land Use and Water Resource Planning.” Funding for that 2017 workshop was provided by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Gates Family Foundation.
Sitting at the table on January 28, and considering the future of government facilities, spending, and regulations, were:
- Town Planning Director James Dickhoff
- County Commissioner Steve Wadley
- Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) General Manager Justin Ramsey
- Fire Protection District Chief Randy Larsen
- County Planning Manager John Shepard
- Engineer Mike Davis
- San Juan Water Conservancy District President John Porco
- County Planning Commission chair Mike Fredrick
- Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association General Manager Allen Roth
And at the far end of the table: consultant Gabe Preston, owner of Durango-based RPI Consulting.
In the audience sat one lone member of the public, listening. Yours truly.
The future of government facilities, spending and regulations depend, to some degree, upon the number of people living in, and visiting, Archuleta County, and that was the main topic of discussion on January 28. How many people might that be, in 2035, for example? Or in 2050? The US Census has suggested that the current full-time population of Archuleta County is around 13,300 people. That number is based upon income tax filings, and other accessible records. We have only sketchy information about how many people visit Pagosa Springs during a given day, or month, or year. (Mr. Preston suggested we could do a better job of counting those visits.)
If we believed we would be a community of, say, 24,000 full-time residents by 2050 — that is, roughly double our current population — what wise decisions would our government leaders make about facilities, spending, and regulations, in order to prepare for such a situation?
Mr. Preston shared an impressive number of numbers, and our government leaders offered comments on the possible validity of the RPI population projections. Unfortunately for a news reporter like myself, these projections were merely ‘preliminary’… and Town Planning Director James Dickhoff asked me not to share Mr. Preston’s numbers, until the final report is distributed to the various government boards, who may — or may not — adopt the RPI population projections as their own.
So I won’t be sharing any of Mr. Preston’s charts and numbers this morning. They’re still a ‘work product’ — as such preliminary reports are referred to in government circles.
Well, actually… I take that back. I’m going to share one of the RPI charts, because James Dickhoff, himself, presented the chart at a public presentation last night, Wednesday January 30, at the County Extension Building. The presentation was hosted by a new community group, ‘Resilient Archuleta’ and it attracted about 40 people who came to hear about ways our community could be better prepared to respond to future catastrophes. Fire fires, for example. Floods. Economic disasters. Cyber terrorism. Or whatever.
During that presentation, Mr. Dickhoff shared one of the ‘work product’ RPI charts about halfway through that ‘Resilient Archuleta’ event. The chart was one of the first charts discussed at the ‘Growing Water Smart’ meeting on Tuesday. Consultant Gabe Preston was illustrating the various ways that a government or other organization might estimate the future population growth in a rural community like Pagosa Springs. A person could, for example, accept the estimates generated by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) State Demography Office. These are taxpayer-funded professionals charged with developing (supposedly reasonable) population projections for cities and counties in Colorado.
One problem, as Mr. Preston noted on Tuesday, is that the State Demographer — on a regular basis — wildly overestimates population growth. I personally wonder if these grossly inflated government estimates are purposeful. Governments always want things to look better than they really are… and because more population growth is seen as better than less population growth. (Except that I’m trying to make the opposite argument: that less population growth is better than more population growth.)
In 2008, for example, the State Demography Office projected that, by 2015, our Archuleta County population would be 17,045. The actual population in 2015 was about 12,382 (US Census). The State Demographer missed the mark by almost 40 percent. Not very impressive. (You can download the Demographers 2008 projections here.)
Here’s the chart shared with the public by Town Planner James Dickhoff, at the ‘Resilient Archuleta’ event yesterday:
The orange line shows the State Demographers Office projection for Archuleta County, hitting a population of about 24,000 by 2050. We should probably ignore that line.
The green line shows the 2050 population when RPI draws a linear projection based on the annual growth between 1985 and 2015. About 21,000 people. (I’m not entirely sure why Mr. Preston picked 1985 instead of, say, 1975?)
The gray line shows the 2050 population if RPI bases the estimate on the annual growth between 200o and 2015. About 18,000 people.
(RPI did not show us a projection if we used the past ten years as the basis. That line would be even lower than the gray line, I do believe.)
Of course, we recognize that government spending and facilities and regulations are not always related to population estimates. Some government activities are determined by pipe dreams, Good Ole Boy friendships, greed, political campaigns, lobbying, or just plain stupidity. But in the cases where population projections play a major role, we hope that the estimates are reasonable, and are supported by a thoughtful analysis of community trends. That is to say, trends in the very town where the projections are being applied.
So, let’s talk next about the trends. And potential disasters.