IMAGE ABOVE: 2013 concept for the Dry Gulch Reservoir.
When it comes to investing, Real Estate is king. There is a good reason why 31% of investors chose real estate speculation as to their top pick of investment options in a recent Bankrate survey.
— from Nomadic Real Estate, September 2020
We’re going to be talking a bit about speculation — acquiring possessions, not for their current value, but in hopes they will become more valuable in the future. Here in America, we allow real estate speculation, and that allowance is part of the reason so many communities are now struggling with a lack of affordable housing.
But we do not countenance water speculation here in Colorado. Theoretically.
In 2004, Archuleta County’s two largest water districts — Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) — applied to the Water Court in Durango for some speculative water rights, to facilitate the construction of a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Dry Gulch valley. When sportsmen’s organization Trout Unlimited (TU) took the case to the Colorado Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the application violated Colorado’s anti-speculation laws.
The two districts went back to Water Court with a slightly smaller reservoir in mind — 25,300 acre-feet — and again the Supreme Court ruled the request as ‘speculation’. Quote:
The Water Court allowed the 100 cfs direct flow diversion and the 25,300 acre-feet storage amounts in the remand decree based on speculative claims, at least in part…
You can download the second Supreme Court decision here.
I suspect some of us would prefer that our governments and special districts not speculate with taxpayer money. But not everyone feels that way.
Disclosure: I currently serve on the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District Board, which is under contract to cooperate with SJWCD on planning for a future Dry Gulch Reservoir. This editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily those of the PAWSD Board as a whole.
Our ‘representative’ form of government occasionally fails to make decisions that are rationally defensible, either because of ignorance, laziness, corruption, or arrogance. (There may be other causes as well.) In my humble opinion, having a local media that’s willing to report accurately on the sometimes irrational decisions is generally a benefit to the taxpayers and voters.
And with that, we will look at a couple of quotes from a February article by Pagosa Springs SUN reporter Derek Kutzer, covering a lengthy discussion at the February 20 SJWCD board meeting. At issue are speculations about how water demand is going to grow — or not — in Archuleta County over the next 30 years. I can vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Kutzer’s writing, because I attended the meeting myself, and made an audio recording of the meeting, as Mr. Kutzer obviously did as well.
Sparking the debate was board president Al Pfister’s update that he had received a new “water demand study” from Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Manager Justin Ramsey. This study is an alternative to a demand study that the SJWCD commissioned.
PAWSD, the district that has been delivering drinking water since the 1970s, believes our municipal water demand may increase by 2% per year, increasing by about 60% over the next 30 years.
SJWCD has never delivered a drop of water, but rather, was formed in 1987 to facilitate the construction of water reservoirs. They recently commissioned a study by the Lakewood-based consultants Wilson Water Group (WWG) to assess total community water demand growth, including municipal, agricultural, recreational and environmental demands. That study was delivered last July; you can download it here.
Typically, in Colorado, reservoirs have been built to meet municipal drinking water demands. According to WWG numbers, if municipal water demand were to grow at 2.6% per year, Archuleta County would need additional reservoir water storage by 2050. Wilson Water Group estimated that municipal water demand, in 2050, at 5,481 acre-feet.
For comparison, last year PAWSD sold less than 1,300 acre-feet of treated water.
Simply stated, the WWG math was flawed, based on poor research and faulty assumptions… unfortunate mistakes that could ultimately result in ‘speculative behavior’ by certain government districts.
More accurate projects were provided to the community by the PAWSD staff, earlier this year, based on actual water production. That document put the water demand in 2050 at 4,128 acre-feet… roughly equal to the amount of reservoir storage PAWSD has available already, in 2023.
But the vast majority of PAWSD raw water originates not from reservoir storage, but from flowing mountain streams.
Here’s another quote from the February 23 SUN article:
[SJWCD board member Rachel Suh] continued, “PAWSD owns 90 percent of this property and we decided unilaterally that it was gonna be 11,000 acre-feet, before we even discussed it with PAWSD.”
[Board president Al Pfister] asked, “Are you representing PAWSD or the San Juan Water Conservancy District?”
“Actually, what I’m representing is the public here, in Archuleta County, who deserve to know why we’re having issues with what is quoted as ‘the reservoir that never goes away,’” Suh said.
She clarified that she does support a reservoir, but that “we need to follow the proper steps, and the first step would be to get the PAWSD board’s collaboration.”
We might wonder at SJWCD president Al Pfister’s question. Who is Ms. Suh representing, on the SJWCD board? Like… which sports team are you rooting for here? San Juan Water Conservancy or PAWSD?
Ms. Suh replied, very reasonably, that she is representing the taxpayers.
We might ask, who is Mr. Pfister representing?
When scientists look at a reservoir and its effects on the riparian environment, they typically find that a reservoir results in negative impacts on the ecology and the natural health of the river.
When the water industry looks at a reservoir, they typically see the potential for population growth, and corporate profits.
The Wilson Water Group, looking at a potential Dry Gulch Reservoir, found little need for additional agricultural water, minimal additional demand for municipal water, and an truly impressive need for “recreational and environmental” water.
That’s going to be my next research project. Can a taxpayer-funded reservoir actually benefit the tourism industry? Rafting, tubing, fly fishing?
Is that even a possibility? Because most reservoirs do just the opposite.