I currently serve on the San Juan Water Conservancy District Board, and one of the Board’s goals, in its strategic plan, concerns educating the public about water issues.
(Please note: This editorial series does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the SJWCD Board as a whole.)
During a conversation with a friend the other day, the topic of water education came up, and in particular, the question as to whether the general public has any interest in learning about water issues. I mentioned the phrase that I’d heard a couple of times recently: that a drought is a terrible thing to waste. And indeed, it seems that Colorado’s water industry, and the media reporters supported by the water industry, have been doing their best to convince the general public that the American Southwest is in the midst of a long-term drought — one that, due to human-caused climate change, is destined to continue indefinitely and profoundly change the way our water resources get used and shared.
Sooner, rather than later.
As an amateur researcher and as a SJWCD Board member, I have to concede that this may, indeed, be our future. I may not agree, however, that the situation is necessarily dire.
SJWCD is a tax-funded special district with a mission to help ensure all water uses are protected. When I started writing about water issues here in the Daily Post many years ago, the only story that local folks seemed concerned about was the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, not so much because it would divert water out of the San Juan River, but because — due to the funding mechanism chosen — it would greatly increase the cost of building a home or business in Archuleta County.
The ordinary folks I talk with in Archuleta County often exhibit a measure of confidence that they will have long-term access to the water they need or want. This confidence seems to infuse all types of water users: agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational.
I would venture to say that this continuing confidence is warranted, in 2021, especially among agricultural users.
Most of the larger ranches in Archuleta County have senior water rights, which guarantees “first-in-line” access to whatever water is flowing in the San Juan and its tributaries. For example, every year, around June, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) is required to stop drawing water from Four Mile Creek, so that agricultural users — ranchers, mostly — can have all the water they are guaranteed under Colorado water law.
As a result of this law and historical water use patterns, Archuleta County agricultural water users divert about 15 billion gallons of water per year, to grow — mostly — grass, as feed for livestock. (Source: US Geological Survey, 2015)
That’s billion with a “b”.
How much is 15 billion gallons? About enough to provide municipal water for 38 communities the size of Archuleta County.
Our local golf course uses maybe 50 million gallons per year. A drop in the bucket, so to speak.
PAWSD sells about 400 million gallons of treated water per year to residential and commercial customers. A slightly larger drop in the bucket, but still very modest compared to agricultural use. And a significant amount of that municipal water is returned to the river, following sewer treatment.
We can compare these amounts to the total amount of water flowing annually down the San Juan River — past the USGS water gauge in downtown Pagosa — which is about 80 billion gallons, according to provisional numbers provided by hydrologist Seth Mason. (The river collects additional water farther downstream.)
If we were to add back in the water diverted by agriculture, mainly for growing grass, the river flow might total 95 billion gallons per year.
These are rough estimates, based on water information a person can find online, and in various documents I’ve managed to collect over the years.
According to a report written last winter for SJWCD, by Wilson Water Group, the number of irrigated acres in our region has declined in recent years, and is not expected to grow in the future.
From that report:
The State of Colorado’s irrigated acreage assessments, updated on an approximate 5‐year basis, shows that irrigated acreage has decreased by 6 percent over the past 25 years in the San Juan basin.
The Wilson Water Group report did not, however, mention the actual amount of water currently being consumed by our local agriculture operations, nor did the report remark on the appropriateness of serious water conservation measures by the agricultural industry.
Be that as it may, let’s consider a possible future…
…a future where all of the agricultural users in Archuleta County — some of whom are still using irrigation technology that dates back to the 1800s — reduced their water use by adopting the latest irrigation methods. Let’s say, just for fun, that the Archuleta County agricultural community, through investments in the latest technology, were able to reduce their water use by 10%.
That would be a theoretical savings of 1.5 billion gallons per year. Enough for three more water districts the size of PAWSD. Pagosa Springs could theoretically grow to four times its current size, without any municipal water conservation measures at all, and we would still be sending the same amount of water flowing downstream to Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
But Colorado water law does not require agricultural users to adopt the latest technology. Colorado water law, as currently written, pretty much guarantees that agricultural water users along the San Juan River will continue irrigating basically the same way they did 100 years ago.
Which is not to imply that I want to see Pagosa Springs grow to four times its current size. (I wonder if anyone really wants to see that outcome?)
What it does imply, is that the future of water in the American Southwest rests squarely on the shoulders of our farmers and ranchers, acting in the best interests of all concerned.
Or on the shoulders of legislators and political leaders, if they are willing to take a hard look at Colorado water law.
Will a drought be enough to get us thinking about real solutions?
And not just thinking about real solutions… but actually talking about them?