On August 1, 2024, the Pagosa Springs SUN published an article by Josh Pike titled “Water district discusses challenges with outlying areas”.
On August 8 2024, the Pagosa Daily Post shared that PAWSD is having challenges with outlying subdivisions such as Elk Park.
In the spirit of fair and equitable public dialog, additional information needs to be explained to the public.
The Daily Post editorial titled “Making Them Pay for Their Water” discussed a Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors meeting which was held on July 25 2024. During the public meeting, engineer Justin Ramsey (PAWSD District Manager) discussed how new subdivisions were historically added into PAWSD.
This Daily Post editorial (written by a PAWSD board member in his personal capacity) characterized this process as PAWSD “happily included” new subdivisions.
PAWSD Board Member Gene Tautges, at the public meeting, characterized the PAWSD process as “damn the details, just growth, growth, growth”.
What was not disclosed (in either the SUN article, the Daily Post editorial, or past PAWSD public meetings) is that PAWSD engineering operations originally specified Elk Park’s water storage tank, and residential water distribution infrastructure. The original developer of Elk Park was obligated to strictly follow PAWSD engineering operational specifications, because once the water storage and water distribution system was paid for and built by Elk Park’s developer, the PAWSD Board mutually agreed with the developer that the system would then be deeded for permanent PAWSD ownership, and long-term PAWSD operation.
The joint mutual agreement (made over +20 years ago) was that 100% ownership and 100% operations would be by PAWSD, so that PAWSD could forever sell safe residential drinking water to all residents of Elk Park subdivision.
The Daily Post editorial commented that PAWSD chose to add additional water customer subdivisions “without thinking too much about the long-term implications”. To fully appreciate this statement, more information needs to be shared with the public by PAWSD engineering operations.
When PAWSD dictated the engineering specifications, one key fact is whether PAWSD required the Elk Park water storage, and water distribution system be on a loop so that properly chlorinated water could either be used in a reasonable period of time (by Elk Park residents), or allow properly chlorinated water allowed to flow-thru the Elk Park system (for eventual use by additional downstream retail consumers of PAWSD).
Or, did PAWSD engineering operations simply specify a design that statically dead-end loads the Elk Park system with properly chlorinated water which if not used within a specified period of time must be discarded (by opening up fire hydrants and dumping 2.5 million gallons of water per month onto the ground)? The fact that fire hydrants (within Elk Park) are being used to dump valuable treated water on the ground would strongly indicate that, in fact, no loop exists within the water distribution system to allow water to be shared downstream. Could a lack of a loop also explain why additional chlorine can also not be simply added, and re-circulated within the end-of-the-line subdivision?
During the July 25, 2024, public Board meeting did PAWSD engineering operations discuss whether PAWSD operations is able to regulate the amount of chlorinated drinking water which is provided to end-of-the-line subdivisions? If PAWSD does not have the Elk Park subdivision on a loop, then PAWSD operations must regulate the gallons of water entering Elk Park to ensure that the water supply entering the end-of-the-line subdivision is in balance with daily water consumption. Elk Park residential water consumption appears to be approximately 80,000 gallons per day, or 2.5 million gallons per month.
The fact that each month PAWSD is opening up fire hydrants, and dumping 2.5 million gallons of water on the ground would indicate that when PAWSD originally dictated the design of the Elk Park water storage and water distribution, PAWSD failed to plan for the dissipation of chlorine that might occur when the supply of water is substantially greater than the amount of water which Elk Park residents can purchase and consume.
It appears to be disingenuous in 2024 (+20 years after the Elk Park system was deeded to PAWSD) for PAWSD to now claim that it is Elk Park’s fault for not consuming enough water. PAWSD dictated the design specifications for a system that lacks the required water circulation necessary to sell water (in a timely fashion) to downstream PAWSD customers. If PAWSD is not presently able to regulate the amount of water distributed to end-of-the-line subdivisions (like Elk Park), then PAWSD should have originally required that all end-of-the-line subdivision systems be built on a loop.
The SUN article also appears to include a few ‘red-herring’ statements (pieces of information that are, or are intended to be, misleading or distracting). For example, if Elk Park is not on a loop, and Elk Park is an end-of-the-line PAWSD customer, then how can extending a 12” water supply main line 2.5 miles (to Aspen Springs) help remove 2.5 million gallons per month of water from the ELK Park water distribution system? If PAWSD can not remove 2.5 million gallons of water per month (approx. 80,000 gallons per day), then how can PAWSD resupply 2.5 million gallons of additional chlorinated water into the Elk Park tank each month?
Another possible red-herring statement is why does PAWSD believe a new water storage tank (or a booster station) may be required in Elk Park in order to provide the required pressure (to avoid contaminants from entering the water distribution lines).
If PAWSD is opening up fire hydrants (to dump 2.5 million gallons of water on the ground), and PAWSD is failing to regulate that the daily amount of water supply is not greater than the average daily water consumption… could the root-cause be that PAWSD operations is causing a substantial drop in water pressure (when fire hydrants are wide open) for which PAWSD operations themselves should be responsible to address… not attempt to shift the financial obligation to residential customers that have purchased PAWSD water for over +20 years.
PAWSD next regular Board meeting (available in-person or by Zoom) is Thursday, August 29 2004 at 5:00pm. Visit the PAWSD website.
Hopefully Justin Ramsey (PAWSD Engineer District Manager) will discuss more options than force end-of-the-line subdivision to be on their own service areas (pay an alternative fee schedule like being a bulk customer), or ejecting end-of-the-line subdivisions from the PAWSD district. Hopefully PAWSD engineering operations will be fully transparent and discuss with the public the process which PAWSD engineering operations followed to originally specify the design of water systems which were by legal contract obligated to be deeded to PAWSD for long-term ownership. Hopefully a fair and equitable public discussion can include an explanation as to why subdivisions were designed to be end-of-the-line, and not require a flow-through line, or circulation loop.
Hopefully the next regular PAWSD Board meeting will include a discussion to fully understand if +20 years ago, PAWSD knew, or should have known, that dead-end end-of-the-line subdivisions should be designed to operate in a manner that allows circulation of safe drinking water through that subdivision’s water storage and water distribution system. This discussion would help inform the public if PAWSD had a duty to mandate a design that required the water distribution system to be on a loop which would allow the water supply line entering the subdivision to also have a by-pass water line for removing water from the subdivision. A by-pass water line exit could have been mandated by PAWSD to supply future downstream filling stations.
A by-pass water line exit would also allow replenishment of fresh chlorinated drinking water into Elk Park. And, until such time as additional down stream retail water customers exist, a properly PAWSD designed circulation system could allow additional chlorine to be added into the Elk Park system to meet Federal Safe Drinking Water Standards.
Hopefully it will be discussed with the public whether (+20 years after the Elk Park subdivision’s water distribution system was deeded to PAWSD) whether PAWSD engineering operations now has the operational expertise to regulate that amount of water being supplied into end-of-the-line subdivisions. If not, PAWSD operational best practices now risk supplying a substantially higher amount of water than a subdivision’s residents can be expected to reasonably consume.
Fortunately, the State of Colorado has a well established law of Promissory Estoppel.
The elements of a Promissory Estoppel claim are:
(1) the promisor made a promise to the promisee;
(2) the promisor should reasonably have expected that promise would induce action or forbearance by the promisee;
(3) the promisee in fact reasonably relied on the promise to the promisee’s detriment; and
(4) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice.
(1) PAWSD made a promise that after the PAWSD specified water system was deeded to PAWSD, that PAWSD would solely be responsible to provide safe drinking water to Elk Park according to well established PAWSD water service agreements.
(2) Elk Park was led by PAWSD to reasonably expect that PAWSD would honor legal agreements, and PAWSD would not later attempt to renege on mutually agreed legal obligations.
(3) Property owners reasonably relied on PAWSD to be a reliable supplier of safe affordable drinking water, as evidenced by the purchase of land, construction of homes, payment of PAWSD tap fees, and mutually signed PAWSD water service agreements.
(4) PAWSD must serve end-of-the-line subdivisions, as has been done for +20 years, and not attempt to eject existing retail customers from the PAWSD district (force Elk Park residents to truck-in safe drinking water), or subject existing retail customers to now assume 100% ownership of their water distribution system (which PAWSD has maintained for over +20 years).
During the the next regular PAWSD Board meeting, I look forward to public comment and hearing whether PAWSD Board understands why PAWSD has a legal obligation (under various Colorado Laws, including Promissory Estoppel) to maintain reliable cost effective service for outlying subdivisions according to “traditional PAWSD arrangements” (not now attempt to renege on legal contracts), in order to prevent injustice.