Photo: If the photo above looks to you like a declining water reservoir in the middle of an arid desert, you’re correct.
I have been enjoying the coverage of local government boards by our local weekly newspaper, the Pagosa Springs SUN. I’m slightly jealous of a small town news organization that can afford to pay a staff to cover the numerous meetings held in our community. Here at the Daily Post, our contributors work as volunteers, and many of them don’t live in the community. So it typically falls on me to attend, and write about, board meetings, as the only ‘paid’ staff.
Not sure if I should even use the word, ‘paid’.
An article that appeared yesterday in the SUN, written by reporter Josh Pike, discussed a board meeting I did not attend, but now wish I had. That meeting of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board of directors took place on January 9, and the agenda included a discussion about the friction between the SJWCD board and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board. The friction derives from joint ownership of a 660-acre property — the former Running Iron Ranch — which was purchased as the site for a future water reservoir.
That’s a reservoir that some PAWSD board members see as possibly necessary in 40 years, to serve PAWSD customers, but not now. Meanwhile, PAWSD customers are paying off the $10 million loan acquired to purchase the Running Iron Ranch, and a 2015 agreement with SJWCD gives PAWSD the unilateral legal right to sell the property, if the PAWSD board determines that to be the best course of action.
That’s a point of friction, because some SJWCD board members believe a reservoir should be constructed as soon as possible, even though PAWSD customers have no immediate need for an additional reservoir. SJWCD has not made any payments towards the $10 million loan, and has no agreed-upon right to sell the property, nor to prevent its sale.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer member of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board of directors, but this editorial reflects my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of other PAWSD board members or PAWSD staff.
Mr. Pike wrote in his SUN article:
At the Jan. 9 SJWCD meeting, the board discussed the issue of Weber’s proposal to PAWSD and broader problems in the relationship between the two entities. The SJWCD board expressed general opposition to the extension of the [proposed Weber family] gravel mining lease, citing the opposition of the Log Park neighborhood to mining and the potential value of the gravel for the SJWCD’s reservoir project as reasons for opposition…
…Following a discussion of the worsening relationship with the PAWSD board where PAWSD’s ongoing explorations of selling the Running Iron Ranch property featured, the board voted to draft a letter to PAWSD clarifying its legal position concerning the gravel lease and PAWSD board’s general behavior toward the SJWCD.
SJWCD board member Bill Nobles suggested that the letter should request a written response from PAWSD, although board members agreed that there was a chance that PAWSD would simply ignore the letter…
You can download the SLWCD letter here. It includes the following comments:
We – PAWSD and SJWCD – along with the CWCB, also acknowledged in 2015 that it is in our collective best interests to protect conditional water rights associated with a water storage project. The restructuring agreement designated SJWCD to lead the long-term management of a water storage project, and PAWSD agreed to “make every effort to retain the Running Iron Ranch during the [20-year] Planning Period made possible” by the restructuring arrangement.
Unilateral PAWSD work sessions focusing on sale are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the 2015 agreement. The Running Iron Ranch is uniquely situated for water storage near the headwaters of the San Juan. Failure to treat the property as an essential component of larger scale water management deprives the community of a future public resource of substantial value.
The PAWSD Board plans to discuss this letter at a work session on March 7, perhaps in executive session with its attorney.
For a bit of background… both SJWCD and PAWSD are supported by property taxes, but in the case of PAWSD, the tax revenue furnishes only a small portion of overall district revenues, amounting to about $1 million per year, in a budget of about $48 million. Most PAWSD revenue comes from water and wastewater customer fees, not from taxes.
SJWCD is funded entirely through property taxes, plus an occasional water-related grant. The revenues last year totaled about $100,000. (The budget for 2024 is expected to be larger, due to a big increase in property tax valuations in Archuleta County.) Which is to say, SJWCD is not accountable to any ‘customers’… but is certainly accountable to property owners within its district boundaries.
Another difference. PAWSD provides drinking water to the community. SJWCD does not. SJWCD spends its limited revenues on studies, legal fees defending its water rights, public education, board attendance at water conferences, and grants to various water-related corporations and community groups.
Another difference. The PAWSD Board is elected by the taxpayers. The SJWCD Board is appointed by a judge, with (typically) zero input by the taxpayers.
If you’ve been following the national news, you may have heard that the American West — specifically, the area known as the Colorado River Basin — is struggling to find agreement as to who should use how much of the water flowing in the Colorado River. The current agreement, signed in 1922 and ‘amended’ in minor ways over the past decade, has failed to keep the nation’s two largest water reservoirs — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — anywhere near full.
The San Juan River, running through Pagosa Springs, is one part of that troubled water system.
This crisis has been blamed, by people with various opinions, on various factors.
One: Mother Nature has been more stingy lately with her water deliveries, for her own private reasons.
Two: Climate change.
Three: The careless, wasteful nature of agribusiness corporations, and family farmers.
Four: The use of water resources to facilitate an expanding fracking industry.
Five: Suburban lawns, and golf courses in the desert.
Six: America’s fondness for beef.
Seven: All of the above.
Here in Pagosa Springs, our municipal water supply is fed largely by the winter snowfall in the San Juan Mountains, flowing each spring and summer through various creeks into the San Juan River, which happens to be a tributary of the troubled Colorado River.
Outside the PAWSD district, many landowners have private wells, or they obtain their water from PAWSD fill stations, or tap into private subdivision water systems.
But about 95% of the water used in Archuleta County goes into agriculture. That is, into growing grass, for cows.
Should our water districts be fighting over water storage, when 95% of our water is used for growing grass?