We must understand that we’re living in a Ponzi scheme, of sorts.
Or so a friend suggested to me over coffee, earlier this week.
Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi, better known as Charles Ponzi, was a con artist who operated in the U.S. and Canada, promising his clients a 50% profit within 45 days, or 100% profit within 90 days, from “buying discounted postal reply coupons in other countries and redeeming them at face value in the U.S. as a form of arbitrage.”
In reality, Ponzi was simply paying earlier investors using the investments of later investors. His scheme ran for over a year before it collapsed, costing his “investors” $20 million.
A little rural community that wants to be a well-cultured urban center will typically find its caught up in a similar scheme — relying upon “new investors” (new residents) to help pay for the debts and underfunded maintenance needs created by the “earlier investors” (existing residents.) Some people refer to this scheme as “economic growth”, but as we are seeing in 2022, the economic issues can result in working families being driven out of the community they once called “home”.
Of course, the situation is much more complicated than the simple con games run by Charles Ponzi in the 1920s.
But to keep the scheme going, there are certain facts we can’t talk about.
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.
An article appeared in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN yesterday, written by Al Pfister, president of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) — a tax-funded district that’s been discussed at some length in this editorial series, and in previous editorials.
Mr. Pfister wrote in the SUN:
Though the recent rains have been a great temporary reprieve from the past year’s lack of precipitation, we are still not “out of the woods” in getting our overall water supply needs met. We have been in a drought for the past 20 years.
Our water future is predicted to be a continuation of these conditions — warmer and drier. Although we have had good water years over these past 20 years, as water levels at all the Colorado River storage projects (Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, Navajo, Lake Powell) indicate, the Colorado River watershed is facing a dire water future as populations expand, water recreational uses increase, and fisheries and wildlife aquatic habitats decline.
How do we plan for a future with less water?
This type of alarmist rhetoric is typical of the Colorado water industry, and we probably need to ask why SUN editor Terri House decided to run it on the front page as a “news” article, when it is, in fact, clearly an opinion piece. (My editorial, here, is also an opinion piece, of course… but it’s labeled as such.)
Mr. Pfister goes on to mention the release of the draft update for the “Colorado Water Plan” (a 239-page document you can access here) which is currently accepting public comment. The draft version is currently out for a 90-day public comment period from June 30 – September 30, 2022. Public comments can be submitted through engagecwcb.org.
The 2023 Water Plan revision is reportedly focused on four major action areas: Vibrant Communities, Robust Agriculture, Thriving Watersheds, and Resilient Planning.
In addition to the opportunity for public comment now through September 2022, the Colorado Water Conservation Board is offering opportunities to share your water conservation success story, and to commit to action through a pledge to water conservation.
Pagosa Springs, like many other communities in the American West, have already made a substantial commitment to water conservation, even though many residents may not have noticed the change. The Archuleta County population has increased by about 32% since 2001, but the amount of water being sold by the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) is still 16% below what was sold in 2001. (Data provided by PAWSD.)
In a sense, Pagosa Springs — without having an actual ‘plan’ — has already “planned for a future with less water.”
And so have other communities in the American West. Since 2002, Las Vegas and southern Nevada has cut its overall water use by 26%, while also adding 750,000 people to its population. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers cut their water consumption by 7.5% in just the past two years; water use per capita in Southern California is now about 40% lower than it was in the 1990s.
But the alarmists working in the Colorado water industry will probably not share that kind of data with you. They prefer that you feel fearful.
Mr. Pfister’s op-ed concludes:
The SJWCD is holding a public meeting to present the draft results of Wilson Water Group [report] on Tuesday, August 9 from 6 to 8pm at the Ross Aragon Community Center. We hope you attend to assist us in gathering additional stakeholder input on their assessment of our future water needs…
…If you cannot attend the meeting, we would appreciate receiving your comments and sending those comments to comment.sjwcd@gmail.com. The comment period will be open from August 4 through August 31.
SJWCD has posted the Wilson Water Group draft report to their website, here.
As noted, SJWCD president Pfister wrote: “…the Colorado River watershed is facing a dire water future as populations expand, water recreational uses increase, and fisheries and wildlife aquatic habitats decline.”
A person can easily claim that the American West is facing a “dire future” if he ignores the actual data, such as the fact that the second largest metropolitan area in America — Los Angeles — has managed to cut its per capita water demand by 40% since 1990.
But the folks using 85% to 95% of the water in Colorado, and California, and Nevada, and Arizona, are not the folks using treated municipal water. The folks diverting nearly all the water in the American West, use that water to grow crops and raise livestock.
The agriculture industry, here in Archuleta County, is using 6,000-year-old technology to grow grass… and generally speaking, showing little or no profit, or even losing money, while diverting more than 20 times as much water as PAWSD sells to its residential and business customers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average farm or ranching business in Archuleta County showed a net loss of $5,291. Our community’s agriculture industry, as a whole, lost $2.1 million.
68% of the farms and ranches had sales of less than $10,000. Nearly half sold less that $2,500 in products.
For whatever reason, Mr. Pfister’s op-ed essay, on the front page of the Pagosa Springs SUN doesn’t mention the amount of water diverted by our local agriculture industry.
Maybe there are certain facts we shouldn’t talk about?