“I wish to make it clear to you, there is not sufficient water to irrigate all the lands which could be irrigated, and only a small portion can be irrigated… I tell you, gentlemen, you are piling up a heritage of conflict!”
– Explorer and scientists John Wesley Powell, speaking at the Los Angeles International Irrigation Conference, 1893
We’ve been discussing an activist rancher named Paul Bruchez in this editorial series… and we now have a chance to meet him — virtually — in the following 10-minute video. Paul’s family is involved in some taxpayer- and foundation-funded research, here in Colorado, to learn whether ranchers can grow hay in the area near the headwaters of the Colorado River, without using irrigation water from the river.
Nine ranching families, including Paul Bruchez’ family, are involved in the research project. The research may point to ways for farmers and ranchers to “sell their water” to other users, while also continuing to run their agricultural operations.
Once upon a time, few people lived in Colorado other than ranchers, farmers, and miners, and the section of the 1876 Colorado Constitution, addressing water allocations, focuses almost exclusively on those industries.
Colorado’s farm water use remains stubbornly high, according to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, despite millions of dollars spent on experimental water-saving programs and a statewide push to conserve water. In Colorado, growers use about 89 percent of available supplies, according to the Colorado Water Plan, while cites and industry consume roughly 11 percent.
State water officials and environmentalists have long called for finding ways to use less water on farms as one way to make Colorado’s water supplies go further.
I’ve heard of very few efforts, here in Archuleta County, to reduce the impacts of ranching on San Juan River flows — even though agricultural diversions here amount to about 94 percent of community water consumption, according to the US Geological Survey.
Some people seem to think the solution to excess water diversions is to create more diversions.
The San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) — an agency created by a segment of Archuleta County voters in 1987 — has been grappling with an awkward job for the past decade. The District is supported by a relatively meager property tax levy, compared to some other local government agencies… only about $80,000 a year, which comes to about $7 per year for every adult in Archuleta County. (The District does not, however, collect taxes from certain outlying areas of the county.)
(Disclaimer: I currently serve on the San Juan Water Conservancy District Board of Directors, as an appointed volunteer, but this editorial series does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Board as a whole, nor of any individual Board members other than myself.)
In spite of a relatively meager annual budget, SJWCD managed, in 2008, to cooperate with Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) on the purchase of 660 acres of ranch property in the Dry Gulch valley, just northeast of downtown Pagosa Springs, as the site for a desperately needed water reservoir. At least, the community was assured, in 2008, that the reservoir was desperately needed. The future reservoir construction was to be funded by PAWSD customers.
By 2015, however, the PAWSD Board of Directors had suffered a complete political reversal, arranged for their District Manager to resign, and put a stop to an ongoing, debt-funded spending spree on new infrastructure projects.
Maybe “suffered” isn’t the right word. Maybe, “celebrated”.
That same year, 2015, the folks who had provided the loans and grants for the Dry Gulch property purchase — the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) — agreed to a surprisingly favorable refinancing package, so long as PAWSD continued to try and fix its leaky water pipeline system, and so long as SJWCD continued to research ways to build the Dry Gulch Reservoir, without expecting any funding from PAWSD.
As noted, it’s an awkward job.
This project is related, in a minor way, to our current topic of “diversions”. If a Dry Gulch Reservoir were constructed to accommodate the maximum amount of water allowed annually by its 2011 water right, it would be built to hold about 11,000 acre-feet of water — about twice the amount of water stored in all the reservoirs in the Pagosa Lakes area: Lake Hatcher, Stevens Reservoir, Pinon Lake, Village Lake, Lake Pagosa, Lake Forest. The water would be diverted from the San Juan River, for some purpose. (SJWCD has not yet defined the purpose, nor the reservoir size, at this point.) Depending on the purpose, the water might eventually be recycled back into the San Juan River, or it might be diverted and never return.
If 11,000 acre-feet were diverted ‘permanently’ each year, that would make very little difference to San Juan River water users, or Colorado River water users, downstream. The San Juan typically delivers about 2.1 million acre-feet annually to Lake Powell, and 11,000 acre-feet would be 0.05% of that flow. Most people would never notice the difference, downstream.
But when added to the thousands of other diversion water rights along the Colorado River system, it begins to add up to real money.
From a 2017 article by reporter James Hamblin in Atlantic Magazine, “If Everyone Ate Beans Instead of Beef”:
Eco-anxiety is an emerging condition. Named in 2011, the American Psychological Association recently described it as the dread and helplessness that come with “watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations.”
Certainly, one way to reduce the amount of water diverted from the Colorado River system is to grow hay without irrigation, and free that irrigation-free hay to your cattle. This solution would allow Colorado ranchers to maintain their adopted way of life, with a minimum of dramatic operational changes.
Another way to reduce the amount of water diverted might be, for Americans to stop eating so much beef.
Would one approach, or the other, be better for the state’s overall economy, and environment?