My past coverage of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) here in the Daily Post — during my three years as a volunteer board member for the District – got me into hot water with certain other volunteer board members, who felt it was somehow unethical for a member of a tax-funded government agency to communicate his personal opinions about SJWCD actions and policies to the wider public, from his position as editor of the Daily Post.
More about that dispute, later.
First, we’re going to touch on the fear of water shortages, and the groups that have been promoting that fear, for fun and profit.
Just a reminder that SJWCD does not provide any water to anyone, and has — over the past two decades — spent millions of tax dollars doing so. Our irrigation water, and drinking water, is provided by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and various other water districts and ditch associations.
Disclosure: I currently serve on the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily those the PAWSD board as a whole.
Back in about 2005, (I don’t remember the exact year, but it was back when the Daily Post and its fledgling editor were still wet behind the ears) SJWCD’s then-president Fred W. Schmidt phoned me and asked if I would like to learn more about a proposed ‘de-Brucing’ ballot measure on which local voters would be able to express an opinion, that coming November. If the voters ‘de-Bruced’ the Conservancy District, Mr. Schmidt explained, SJWCD would no longer be financially limited by Colorado’s TABOR amendment and would thus be able to fully spend a $1 million grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
He told me SJWCD would use that $1 million grant to help purchase a 660-acre ranch in the Dry Gulch valley as the site for a future water reservoir.
Pagosa Springs was dangerously close to running short of water, he claimed. Without this proposed reservoir, the growth of our community would be stymied. And we don’t want that, do we? We want endless growth… right?
If I knew then, what I know now — about Mr. Schmidt, and about the water industry in general — the resulting Daily Post article would have read very differently.
The article would have included, for example, the word, “boondoggle”.
Over the past couple of months, several people have communicated to me, their concerns about an approaching water crisis in Archuleta County…
At the moment, things don’t look too terrible in Archuleta County. According to the weekly water report sent out by PAWSD district manager Justin Ramsey, the San Juan River is running at about 100 CFS (cubic feet per second) through downtown Pagosa, and PAWSD is diverting about 3 CFS at the San Juan pump station. Four of our five key reservoirs are full or nearly full, during the busiest month of the tourist season.
No one can doubt, however, that there’s a serious water crisis unfolding in the American West… considering that (as was mentioned yesterday) the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is threatening federal intervention into the administration of the Colorado River, unless the seven Colorado River Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California — can develop an agreement to reduce diversions from the Colorado River by 4 million acre-feet per year.
If we were to take that threat at its initial face value, the demand seems ridiculous. 4 million acre feet is more than the total water diverted from the river basin by Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, all together.
On the other hand, the way water has been used (and wasted) in the historically-arid American West for the past 50 years also seems ridiculous.
But… do we have a crisis… here in Archuleta County? Some people believe we do. In fact, most Archuleta County residents might believe we have a pending water crisis.
For example… this comment made to me by an observant Daily Post reader, concerning a proposed development project in Pagosa Springs:
Where does the developer think they are going to get water for this project? And what are they going to do about getting rid of the waste? Look at the current sewage pump problems…
I would agree with this concerned citizen, about the sewage problems, especially within the town limits. Those problems may be worse than most people realize.
But… do we have a problem with water… for drinking, washing, irrigation? Is Archuleta County short of water resources?
Especially, is ‘population growth’ going to be limited, in the near future, by local water shortages?
Let’s take a realistic look at those questions. The kind of realistic look our local water districts completely failed to avail themselves of, when purchasing the 660-acre Running Iron Ranch in the Dry Gulch valley.
Disclosure: I currently serve on the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily those the PAWSD board as a whole.
On June 20, during interviews for four vacant seats on the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board of directors, current board treasurer Joe Tedder asked the four candidates if they were coming aboard with “open minds” concerning the proposed but long-delayed Dry Gulch Reservoir project.
Director Tedder:
“Just wanted to make sure that any of the candidates are going into [this issue] with an open mind. You know, the reservoir is not a ‘done deal’. We have a water supply and demand study [from Wilson Water Group] that we’re working on. We fully expect that there will be several options that we will put before the board, and before the community.
“And I just want to be sure that — especially, the candidates who have claimed we ‘must do the reservoir’ — that they are going into this with an open mind.”
‘Open minds’ — in connection with the Dry Gulch Reservoir — were in short supply during the first decade of the 21st century. Specifically, ‘open minds’ were pretty much nonexistent in 2003, when Durango water engineer Steven C. Harris submitted a study to SJWCD and PAWSD, claiming that the Dry Gulch valley was the prime location for a large water reservoir.
In a study of numerous possible improvements to the PAWSD water system, Mr. Harris wrote, in March 2003:
Dry Gulch Reservoir is the least costly storage alternative for any size reservoir. Dry Gulch Reservoir could be constructed to provide all of the storage requirements.
The Dry Gulch valley location had a couple of issues, of course. Half the valley was owned by the Weber family, and the other half was owned by the U.S. Forest Service.
Another issue arises when a government agency announces a preferred location for a large infrastructure project. The price of the real estate suddenly goes up.
Curiously enough, Steven C. Harris had submitted a different report just two months earlier, that included this chart:
