Photo: Sunset on the San Juan River, October 12, 2024.
Just for a moment, forget about drought and water shortages, because this year, it’s been wet in Colorado, with precipitation hitting 102% of normal…
— from the Colorado Sun, September 2024.
As we begin the 2025 ‘Water Year’, the San Juan River is flowing smoothly through downtown, and bathers are enjoying the expensive hot springs pools at The Springs Resort, or alternatively, the free, public hot springs pools adjacent to the municipal riverside parks.
The official ‘Water Year’ runs from October 1 through September 30 each year, to capture the effects of winter snowfall and spring runoff.
We’ve had plenty of water this past year to serve the community. That wasn’t the case in 2002, during Pagosa’s worst drought in 100 years. But since then, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) has had no problems supplying plenty of drinking water to the community.
As mentioned in Part Two of this editorial series, the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) received a letter last month from Marcus Lock, attorney for PAWSD, asking that SJWCD provide written affirmation that — according to a three-way agreement signed in 2015 by PAWSD, SJWCD, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) — a potential sale of the 667-acre Running Iron Ranch can move forward smoothly, should PAWSD come to an agreement with a future buyer.
PAWSD was asking SJWCD to clarify whether they accept the following statements:
- That selling the ranch is within PAWSD’s sole discretion;
- That SJWCD has no right to prevent such a sale; and
- That SJWCD will honor its contractual obligation to execute the deeds that would convey the ranch to a buyer.
In a response letter approved by the SJWCD Board on Monday, SJWCD’s attorney Jeff Kane refused to provide those assurances, and implied that PAWSD has no legal right to sell the property at this time.
The 2015 three-way agreement with CWCB relieves SJWCD of the obligation to repay a $1 million grant used in the 2008 purchase of the Ranch. That obligation — to repay the $1 million plus interest if a Dry Gulch Reservoir is not built — has been assumed by PAWSD customers, along with the obligation to pay off $9.2 million borrowed from CWCB, also used to purchase the Running Iron Ranch in 2008.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD organization as a whole.
In exchange for taking on all the current financial obligations related to the Ranch, PAWSD was granted — in the three-way agreement — the right to sell the Ranch, “at its sole discretion” after consulting with CWCB and SJWCD. That consultation took place on September 24, 2024.
Based partly on a 2011 report from the 23-member Water Supply Community Work Group, the PAWSD Board had decided in 2013 that PAWSD customers had no need for, and could not afford, an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Dry Gulch valley on the Ranch. You can download the WSCWG report here.
The three-way agreement tasked SJWCD with planning and building the Dry Gulch Reservoir, which would obviously require partnership with a financially generous partner, or several partners. From the agreement:
4.5.2. As Project leader, the SJWCD, in consultation with the CWCB and PAWSD, shall:
4.5.2.1. have the authority to use its best efforts, given the resources available, to take steps and actions to move the Project forward, including to attempt to acquire land necessary for the Project pool basin or to facilitate a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service or others, pursuant to Paragraph 1.5.3 below; and
4.5.2.2. promote and develop additional Project stakeholders; and
4.5.2.3. take the lead on future water court proceedings in applications for reasonable diligence and other measures reasonable and appropriate to proceed with the Project; and
4.5.2.4. provide day-to-day management and Project facilitation as needed.
The agreement tasks PAWSD with making “every effort” to retain the property, including repaying the loan and grant used for the 2008 property purchase.
The agreement also clearly gives PAWSD the right to sell the property “in its sole discretion.”
5.2.1. PAWSD agrees to make every effort to retain the Running Iron Ranch during the Planning Period made possible by this Agreement. In the event that PAWSD, in its sole discretion but after consultation with SJWCD and CWCB, does sell the Running Iron Ranch during the Planning Period, the following terms shall take effect…
This paragraph has created the controversy between the two districts.
The October 14 response letter from SJWCD attorney Kane to PAWSD attorney Lock states, in part:
If PAWSD would like to engage in a meaningful consultation with CWCB and SJWCD concerning planning for the Project and its rights under Section 5.2.1, SJWCD suggests that, at minimum, the following matters be analyzed and discussed by the parties:
a. Participation of PAWSD, with SJWCD and other stakeholders, in a comprehensive water needs assessment process. Participation with Archuleta County and the Town of Pagosa Springs in CSU’s Polaris Land Use and Water Planning Tool could be an element of that effort.
b. Engineering analysis of alternatives to constructing a water storage facility in Dry Gulch that can address water availability and water quality in a multi- year drought and wildfires of the magnitude of the 2001 and 2002 water years.
c. PAWSD’s implementation of such alternatives to date and whether PAWSD’s water system has sufficient capacity and redundancy to prevent water service interruptions in years of severe drought.
d. Economic analysis of whether the public benefits of the community’s investment in the Running Iron Ranch should be jettisoned by sale to a private party.
e. Efforts PAWSD has made to generate income or other public benefit from uses of Running Iron Ranch that are compatible with building a water storage facility (e.g., public access to the San Juan River; solar power generation).
Those matters and others, including any decision PAWSD considers involving the sale of Running Iron Ranch, should be made in open forums that promote public involvement.
We might note that this letter was discussed by SJWCD in a closed-door, executive session… not in an “open forum that promotes public involvement.”