Before I get around to sharing my public comments shared with the Pagosa Springs Town Council on October 3, I want to quote some comments from the Town’s Community Development Director, James Dickhoff, that he shared with the Council a bit later in the same meeting.
My comments, and Mr. Dickhoff’s comments, were directly related to Resolution 2023-15, which assigned the management of a $1 million project aimed at “ecological and recreational enhancements along the San Juan River” to the Upper San Juan Watershed Enhancement Partnership (WEP).
Mr. Dickhoff:
“I apologize for the short notice… we’ve had to change direction…”
“I do want to state that… just ensure that everybody is aware of the appearance of a conflict of interest, right? Everybody is aware that I served on the steering committee for the Watershed Enhancement Partnership for five years. Totally, my sole role in participation is definitely for advocating for the Town [government] interests, and I have recently been asked to serve as a Board member, and I’m currently a Board member on WEP.
“Again, specifically, for ensuring that the Town’s interests are considered through their work…”
Apparently, transparency and truthfulness are not consistently among the Town’s interests.
Mr. Dickhoff:
“So I want to make sure that there’s no financial benefit to me, related to this consideration this evening.”
“There might be a little reduced work capacity, as a result of reporting and helping with this…” He laughed.
“So I guess there is a benefit to me, but not in terms of compensation. So I want to make sure, if anyone has any concerns about this, I’m certainly willing to hand off the presentation to someone else.”
Presumably, that “someone else” would have been WEP Board President, Mely Whiting, who was seated in the audience, and who has worked for many years for the sportsman’s organization, Trout Unlimited — one of the organizations involved seeking the funding for the “ecological and recreational enhancements along the San Juan River”.
But there was no sign from anyone on the Town Council that they were uncomfortable with their Community Development Director soliciting the management of a $1 million project for a non-profit on which he serves as a Board member.
Mr. Dickhoff explained that the Town government would serve as the ‘fiscal agent’ for the proposed project — handling the money and reporting requirements that typically accompany a grant of taxpayer funding — because the WEP is a newly-formed non-profit corporation and does not currently have any staff, nor does it even have a bank account.
The WEP was previously supported, financially, by Durango-based Mountain Studies Institute, but MSI is going through a period of rerganization, which has led the Pagosa-based WEP to acquire its own non-profit status.
Although Mr. Dickhoff himself might not benefit financially from this $1 million taxpayer-funded project… the organization, on which Board he now sits, will presumably benefit financially.
So speaking as an interested observer — interested in government corruption and waste, for example — I would classify Mr. Dickhoff’s presentation of the WEP’s proposed “ecological and recreational enhancements along the San Juan River” as borderline unethical.
And definitely fishy.
Fishy, in more than one sense of the word.
This project has been marketed to the public funding agencies — local and state — as a “recreational enhancement”. But as far as I can tell, it will enhance recreation only for the property owners along that 2.5 stretch of the San Juan — and not for the general public.
From the agenda packet:
This conceptual plan for ecological and recreational enhancements along the San Juan River above the town of Pagosa Springs reflects the vision of stakeholders to the Upper San Juan Watershed Enhancement Partnership (WEP) planning effort…
The tourism-based economy of Pagosa Springs is tightly coupled to the ecological well-being of the San Juan River — and the aesthetic and recreational values derived from it… Maintaining cool water temperature regimes in the river is critical to the viability and quality of the sport fishery above and through the town of Pagosa Springs…
Removal of… debris from the stream banks will enhance habitat quality and significantly reduce hazards for recreational activities like rafting and kayaking…
But, in fact, the tourists and sportsmen have no obvious access to this 2.5 mile stretch of river. Both sides of the river are private property, and under Colorado law, the river bed itself is also private property.
I wanted to share my concerns with the Town Council, prior to their approval of this arrangement. I had written about the proposed taxpayer expenditure a few times in the Daily Post, and had attended two public meetings where the WEP had taken input from the public. As I recall, however, I was the only member of the public to attend those two meetings, so perhaps the public input has been rather limited?
Nevertheless, the WEP hoped to spend $1 million, or more, on enhancing “recreational values”. Or so we were told.
My comments to the Council:
“I’ve written a couple of articles about this project, and I’m fascinated, that we are spending a lot of taxpayer money — possibly — on revitalizing a recreational stretch of river that runs exclusively through private property. No one will be able to access the river to go fishing, unless they are in a raft floating down the river, or they get permission from some private property owner.
“There is one piece of property that is publicly owned along this stretch of river. It’s owned by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation, and the Board recently voted, unanimously, not to allow river access from that property, but to use it for other purposes.
“I’ve been to a couple of meetings of the Watershed Enhancement Partnership — their public meetings for input. I’ve heard the presentations about how great this is going to be for our community, and I’ve never heard anyone address the fact that [the public] cannot access it. That we are going to spend $1 million, or maybe $2 million, of taxpayer money to make the river more friendly to fish.
“But not for people.
“Before you guys make a decision on this, I’d love to hear the answer to that question. Is this project just for the fish? Is this just for the mayflies?
“Or is this project really for people?”
Alas, the Council was not interested in discussing this issue, nor was Mr. Dickhoff willing to address my question.
I have no beef with the fish. The fish are merely innocent bystanders in this controversy. My objection to the project is that it has been marketed as “recreational enhancements” but that, in terms of actual recreation, it will serve a few private property owners, and not the general public.
My objection is that no one on the Town Council seemed the slightest bit interested in discussing this “recreational” misinformation, but were nevertheless willing to hand a $1 million project over to a newly-formed non-profit with no current staff and not even a bank account.