On Chili Beach in Queensland, Australia, 4,696 flip-flops — referred to as ‘thongs’ by Australians — had washed ashore and were collected during a five-day clean up effort by marine conservation group Tangaroa Blue Foundation.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the controversies in Archuleta County, concerning water resources or the wearing of flip-flops by County employees. But I thought it was a fascinating photo, from a 2012 article on LaughingSquid.com
Waste plastic floating in our oceans is certainly a contentious issue in 2023, among certain concerned citizens. Of course, Pagosa Springs is a good long distance from any oceans, but we still have issues around water. Mainly, about access to water, and the cost of water, and whether we will have enough water in the future to support the endless population growth that many local leaders believe to be necessary to the survival of the community.
Those controversies were on display to some degree, yesterday afternoon, at a joint meeting of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board and the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) Board.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial series reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of any other Board members, or the PAWSD Board as a whole.
Before we get into the story, I will mention a few ideas that influence the way I tell stories in the Daily Post, based on 19 years of researching and writing about social and economic issues.
1. Endless population growth will not necessarily benefit the majority of people currently living in Pagosa Springs, but will benefit a select few.
2. Endless growth of the local tourism industry will not necessarily benefit the majority of people currently living in Pagosa Springs, but will benefit a select few.
3. Our elected and appointed leaders in Archuleta County do not generally believe 1 & 2.
Thus, we have controversy around those issues.
A group of elected and appointed leaders sat down last night to discuss some different controversies, related to how publicly-owned property can best serve the community, when the purpose for which the property was originally purchased appears — to most people — to be impossible or beyond the ability of the community to finance.
That original use being, a 35,000 acre-foot water reservoir — 20 times the size of Lake Hatcher— which was declared unjustifiably oversized by the Colorado Supreme Court and was subsequently downsized to a proposed 11,000 acre-feet.
But with no obvious way to pay for the construction of the reservoir.
The San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) fielded seven of their nine board members for a one-hour meeting with the five members of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board, to discuss the former Running Iron Ranch property, which was purchased jointly by the two districts in 2008, as the site for a future reservoir. The Dry Gulch Reservoir, as it was so aptly named at the time.
A majority of the SJWCD would like to see an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir built, but has not yet proposed a way to pay for it.
A majority of the PAWSD board sees no obvious need for the Dry Gulch Reservoir, at least for the next 50 years, nor does the PAWSD board see evidence of community support for the idea.
No one brought up “endless population growth” or “endless tourist industry growth” or “endless anything”, for which I was grateful.
The controversies were basically four. A river put-in. An employee housing project. A grazing lease. And, perhaps most controversial of all, the potential sale of the Dry Gulch property.
Controversy Number One:
1. If the president of the SJWCD board has been consulting for several years on a project to make the San Juan River more friendly to recreationalists — especially, rafters and kayakers and tubers… and if that same stretch of the river runs along a portion of the former Running Iron Ranch… and if there’s currently no public access along that stretch of the river…
…and if a separate 20-acre piece of the former ranch had riverfront access… but no obvious connection to the proposed reservoir…
…and if some government entity, like say, the Archuleta County government, could lease the portion of the property along the river to provide a public water park, to encourage more tourists to float down the San Juan River…
… if all of that is possible…
…why would the PAWSD board unanimously reject such a delightful idea, and declare their intentions to use the property for PAWSD employee housing and not for recreation?
That PAWSD decision was made a month ago, and funding for moving the housing project forward has been included in their draft 2024 budget.
SJWCD board member Candace Jones wondered why the PAWSD board opposed the recreational put-in.
“This was not going to be a park; it was just a put-in. And it came as an opportunity to use the [ranch property] as a beneficial use for the public, while… because a put-in is not a permanent structure; it was something that was going to be a season-to-season thing. It was not an immediate impairment to planning or strategy for the reservoir. It did not impair the potential that that [20-acre] property might be used for something necessary or useful in conjunction with the reservoir…
“That was my thinking. Oh, good, there’s a way to put this property to use for the County or the residents. If that can’t happen, then that can’t happen. I think it’s important that we try and move together on what the uses would be.”
PAWSD board president Jim Smith explained:
“Our board has already made a decision about what the best use would be. We’ve got a project. We have people who don’t have homes; we can’t get them a place to live so they can work here. We’ve gone through this for three years — we couldn’t hire people because they couldn’t afford to live here.
“And [housing on the 20 acres] might be an alternative for us.”
He noted that the Archuleta County government does not have a parks department, nor any obvious capability to maintain a park. He also noted that the PAWSD board had received recommendations from its attorney and its insurance company to avoid allowing public use of the 20 acres.
PAWSD Board member Glenn Walsh expressed his frustration with SJWCD spending time on proposals for recreational amenities, when they have shown so little success finding financing or partnerships for the proposed Dry Gulch reservoir.
Another controversy concerned the potential to lease the 660-acre property to the former ranch owners, the Weber family, to run cattle.
We’ll discuss that controversy on Monday. Have a great weekend…
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.