MAP: A sketch of a proposed reservoir in the Dry Gulch valley northeast of downtown Pagosa Springs. The purple-tinted sections of land are not owned by the water districts.
My feelings about the Running Iron Ranch — 660 acres of open meadows and rolling hills just northeast of downtown Pagosa Springs, now owned by the local taxpayers — have undergone a change over the past couple of years.
I still view the $10 million purchase, in 2008, as a boondoggle, and I still believe the members of our two local water district boards — Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) — were intentionally provided inaccurate information between 2003 and 2008, leading to a poor decision about the value of the property as a future reservoir site.
But that’s now water under the bridge. The two water districts own the property. PAWSD customers are paying the mortgage, to the tune of about $250,000 a year. The question I now think about is: can the property be put to some beneficial use, while we consider a reservoir in the distant future?
The PAWSD Board voted last month to allow the former ranch owners — the Weber family — to continue grazing cattle on the property, and to crush and sell about 20,000 tons of rock that they had already mined on the property during a previous lease.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial reflects only my own personal opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD Board as a whole.
The new PAWSD-approved leases were provided to the SJWCD Board on June 17, for their consideration. At first, it sounded like the SJWCD Board was in favor of also approving the two leases. In recent months, I’ve seen increased interest, on the SJWCD Board, in allowing PAWSD to use the property to generate income, to help make the annual mortgage payments. The SJWCD has also been researching auxiiary uses for the property that might benefit the taxpayers.
At their June 17 meeting, the SJWCD Board was sympathetic to the grazing lease. But Board member Rod Proffitt objected to the gravel-crushing lease that PAWSD had approved, because it allowed the Weber family to sell crushed gravel to the general public. Mr. Proffitt argued that the gravel ought to be sold only to local governments.
I believe this argument reflects an interesting view of society — a view that I’ve heard expressed also during discussions about government-assisted housing. Some members of our government bureaucracies seem to believe that governments and government employees are a special class, and should have first priority whenever public benefits are provided.
In other words, a belief that taxpayers exist mainly to serve government’s needs. This perspective summons to mind the days of European monarchies, when the peasants existed mainly to provide the nobility with a life of luxury.
I also have an interesting, but different, view of society. I believe American governments were created to serve We the People… not the other way around. Perhaps that’s a revolutionary perspective?
On June 17, it sounded for a moment like the SJWCD Board was going to embrace Mr. Proffitt’s argument, and amend the previously-approved lease, to prohibit the Webers from selling gravel to the general public.
A motion was made by Board member Rob Hagberg to do exactly that.
I was pleased, then, when one of the Board members — Bill Nobles — urged his board to expand their perspectives.
“So, here’s my point, guys. The Webers, whether you like it or not, they’re in this as a business and they’re producing [gravel] for PAWSD because PAWSD needs the [gravel]. What’s additionally left there, they basically dug that up in the past. I don’t think it matters who the hell they sell it to because, number one, if you start discriminating and say, ‘Oh, only the County can buy it, or only Forest Service can buy it’… But if [a member of the public] walks in there and says, ‘I need gravel because I can’t get up and down my road,’ and he’s willing to pay $40 a ton for it, I think that’s fine…
“There’s only 20,000 tons [of rock waiting to be crushed]. It’s not that much. It’s not that much gravel.”
The lease under consideration would not allow the Webers to mine additional rock on the ranch, but they could crush what rock has already been mined and stockpiled. The Webers have claimed that another 80,000 tons of rock still sits in the ground, and could be mined and crushed in the future. But the PAWSD-approved lease did not allow for additional mining.
Mr. Hagberg commented that he was concerned about the precedent that the current lease would potentially set.
Mr. Nobles reminded the Board that the issue of additional mining was “a different scenario” which might come before the SJWCD Board in the future.
“But the reality is, you’ve got the public that’s actually also gonna want to have a comment on that.”
Board member Chuck Riehm then reminded the Board that SJWCD and PAWSD — who had been acting, essentially, as adversaries since about 2010 — have recently been making an effort to work more cooperatively, and collaboratively.
“And I want to make sure that we understand that we are… just breaching some new ground with cooperation between the two boards and there’s no reason on this lease to deny what they’ve already approved, per se, because [PAWSD] removed the mining. That takes away the whole 80,000 and all the [issues] that go with it.”
He then called for a vote on Hagberg’s amended motion, introducing restrictions on who the already-mined rock could be sold to.
Mr. Proffitt voted in favor of the motion, and the rest of the board voted against it.
A new motion, to approve the PAWSD-endorsed lease as presented, passed with only Mr. Proffitt voting in opposition.
There was, however, another discussion at the same June 17 SJWCD meeting, that I found interesting, speaking as a person concerned about water resources.