“Xeriscape” has been a buzzword in the drought-ridden west for several years now, but as we face summers that are getting drier and hotter in Colorado, it’s becoming more important than ever to buckle down on replacing water-hungry grass lawns with drought-tolerant plants and xeric gardens…
— from “Xeriscaping in Colorado: A Step by Step Guide” by Emily Cross Reeves, on ResourceCentral.org, May 2019.
During a discussion at Town Hall earlier this week — a Town Planning Commission hearing about a planned townhome development on South Sixth Street — project architect Brad Ash explained to the Commission that, due to regulations in the Town’s Land Use and Development Code controlling how rainfall is handled on a newly-developed parcel, the project had little choice but to plant grass, extensively.
As we all know, grass is a luxury in an arid climate, in terms of water use. Many communities in the American West have been urging citizens to tear up their grass lawns and plant drought-hardy landscaping, typically using native plants.
But grass is also specified as a method to slow down the flow of rainfall from ‘this property’ onto ‘that property’. And in a community that has never invested in a municipal storm water system to handle rainfall, our regulations actually drive developers to plant “water-hungry grass” when it’s slightly crazy to do so.
Architect Brad Ash referred to the architectural renderings:
“So, the development shows, kind of everywhere, where we would have preferred [xeriscaping]… considering maintenance and water usage. But because of [requirements to control runoff] on a previously developed site, just the development of six town homes required that all of that be grass…”
Often, we want things to remain the way they were. Often, we want things to change.
Often, Mother Nature makes the decision for us.
When the San Juan Water Conservancy District board of directors finished approving its new ‘Strategic Plan’ last winter, several long-term goals were implied in the document.
One of which was:
- Determining the water needs (agricultural, municipal, environmental, and recreational) of the District, and how the San Juan River Headwaters Project and other projects might meet those needs.
If one were so inclined, “Determining water needs” could be differentiated from “Determining water wants”. And the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) took a preliminary stab at defining the difference between a “need” and a “want” last year, when the board was faced with spending a good deal of taxpayer revenue defending its ‘West Fork Reservoir’ water rights in court — or making the choice to abandon those water rights.
You can read that story here in the Daily Post.
The choice, ultimately, was to abandon the water rights, for so many good reasons.
(Disclosure: I serve as a volunteer on the SJWCD board of directors, but this editorial expresses my own opinions, which are not necessarily the opinions of the board as a whole.)
You can download the 22-page draft “West Fork Water Rights Alternative Study” created by Lakewood-based Wilson Water Group; it is also available on the SJWCD website.
The most important findings of the report (in my humble opinion) were as follows:
1. The only reasonable location for a 24,000 acre-foot reservoir is in the Dry Gulch valley, on property already owned jointly by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and SJWCD.
2. PAWSD and SJWCD already hold water rights for an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir at that same location.
3. The future water demands, estimated through 2050, do not suggest the need for a reservoir larger than 11,000 acre-feet.
4. In fact, the estimates of future water demand for municipal and agricultural users do not appear to justify even an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir. But SJWCD might be able to justify a reservoir that large, if the water in the reservoir could be released to enhance, specifically, environmental conditions and recreational uses in the San Juan River.
5. The West Fork and Dry Gulch water rights do not currently allow for the release of water for environmental or recreational needs. It might be possible to get the rights changed to allow for those uses.
A couple of important elements were not discussed in the Wilson Water Group report.
1. Money.
2. Voter approval.
As mentioned, the SJWCD did vote last year to abandon the West Fork water rights. The District still holds water rights for a large reservoir in the Dry Gulch Valley, just north of downtown Pagosa. Those water rights were the result of legal wrangling, back in 2011, between SJWCD, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and sportsman’s group Trout Unlimited. No water court decisions have ever been based a data that specifically justifies an 11,000-acre-foot reservoir north of town.
Which is why I’m pleased that SJWCD has decided to explore that very question in the coming months. Do we need a another reservoir?
Do we want another reservoir?
“Needs” and “wants” sometimes get confused, as already mentioned.
Elections in Archuleta County, over the past decade, provide some evidence that our community does not want to pay for a large reservoir in the Dry Gulch Valley. But we will likely be paying for other water-related infrastructure in the near future, whether we want to or not.
Population trends continue to change with the economic weather, here in Archuleta County. We pretty much stopped building new homes following the financial meltdown, between 2008-2012… and then began building them again in recent years. But judging by the slew of “Help Wanted” ads in the local newspaper, those new homes are largely second-homes or vacation rentals. People night be moving here, but if they are, they apparently aren’t looking for jobs.
Are they planting “water-hungry” grass?
Well, in some cases, yes. They are planting grass. Occasionally, because government regulations make it difficult to do otherwise.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.