Image: PAWSD drawing from 2009 of a proposed $357 million Dry Gulch Reservoir project.
The board then adjourned the meeting while [SJWCD President Candace] Jones commented that it was “unfortunate” that the organizations cannot have a “civil conversation.”
— from the article, “PAWSD considers action against water conservancy district over proposed sale” by Josh Pike, in the November 21, 2024 Pagosa Springs SUN.
Candace Jones, President of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board, was invited to make a public comment near the conclusion of the November 14 special meeting of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board. Her comments devolved into a heated argument involving several PAWSD board members and a member of the Southwestern Water Conservation District, JR Ford.
We all rely on our past experiences and beliefs, to help us plan for the future, and, of course, those past experiences and beliefs are different for each person.
One such belief might be, that “civil conversations” are preferable to “uncivil conversations.”
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer member of the PAWSD board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my personal opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD board or staff.
We briefly considered, in Part One of this editorial series, the idea of accuracy as an element of honest storytelling. The recent Pagosa Springs SUN article by reporter Josh Pike, about the November 14 PAWSD meeting, for example, struck me as reasonably accurate, even though it basically summarized a lengthy discussion and debate, and made use of very few actual quotes.
One of Mr. Pike’s quotes came from me.
“I am the biggest opponent since 2008 of this project and I will work with this guy because I believe that what he wants is… water security for our community,” Hudson said. “And God bless him for that.”
That’s an accurate quote. Whether I’ve actually been the biggest opponent of the Dry Gulch Reservoir project since 2008, may or may not be accurate. But the quote, itself, was accurate.
What wasn’t shared by Mr. Pike, was the rest of my comment.
“I’ve only been on the [PAWSD] board for two years. But I’ve been documenting the Dry Gulch Reservoir [proposal] since 2008, and expressing my opinions, as I love to do. And I have been totally opposed to the Dry Gulch Reservoir since 2008, and have given all my reasons why I’ve been opposed to it.
“But here, I’m presented with someone who believes that we — the community — could actually make use of a reservoir, and PAWSD [customers] wouldn’t have to pay for it. Here, a person comes forward and says, ‘Without PAWSD’s participation financially, I would like to build a reservoir on this property’.
“I am just blown away, because my opposition has always been, that PAWSD doesn’t need this reservoir. It would be great to have it, say, in a three-year drought. We don’t need it, but it would be great for the community. If someone can come up with the means for building it, that doesn’t involve PAWSD, I’m not going to oppose it.
“So I’m blown away by the idea that this could actually happen. And I would even be willing to work on a subcommittee — without San Juan’s participation, because right now, obviously, they don’t want anything to do with this — I would be willing to work on a subcommittee that works with this possible purchaser, to help him build the reservoir that he thinks would benefit our community.”
That’s an accurate statement of my feelings, as expressed on November 14.
But is it an accurate statement, to say that “PAWSD doesn’t need the Dry Gulch Reservoir”?
That’s one of the points of contention in this often uncivil debate.
During the argument involving Ms. Jones, PAWSD board member Gene Tautges objected to the insinuation that PAWSD has done a poor job of planning for the future.
Mr. Tautges: “I’ve been here since 1976, and in the water business since 1982…”
Ms. Jones (interrupting): “And a lot of people haven’t, Gene…”
Mr. Tautges: “Have we ever run out of water? No. For the 40 years that I’ve been…”
Ms. Jones (interrupting): “But can you tell us, under current climate conditions, can you tell us what flows are going to be, 20 years from now?”
There we have one of the central questions that divides these two water districts. Can the PAWSD board tell the community what the flows in the San Juan River will be, 20 years from now?
This question was too much for Southwestern Water Conservation District board member JR Ford, and after sitting quietly through an hour-long discussion, he weighed into the debate.
“Nobody else can. Nobody else can. If you’re asking for… I’m sorry. You’ve gone too far now. You’re asking for people to make things up, and that’s what got us into this problem in the beginning.”
He addressed the PAWSD board.
“I’d like to make a statement. From Southwest’s standpoint. The [Dry Gulch] water rights that Southwest gave to our community, we’d like [PAWSD] to address how you plan on handling that, if and when one of these deals maybe goes through… With the state, with the developer, with… whomever. We would like to know what the plan is, on those water rights.”
That is, if a deal to purchase the Running Iron Ranch goes through.
“And now a personal statement. I’ve watched these two boards be so dysfunctional like this, and people on these boards ask for things they know they can never get delivered.”
He directed his next remarks to Ms. Jones.
“Nobody negotiates and turns down a deal, if they’re honestly looking for a deal. And when I read in the paper, that you guys [SJWCD] turned that deal down without talking to the people who made the offer — that’s so disingenuous that you were even open-minded to anything.
“You talk about being open-minded, to the PAWSD board? I don’t think you guys are open minded.
“What I see happening here is the same thing I saw 30 years ago. There are people on these boards who have pet projects that they want to see happen, pet projects that they can add on to whatever the community is going to have to pay for.
“And I believe what this community wants, is for someone to find out the right size for a reservoir… but people have pet projects and they want to enlarge the reservoir, because… what might happen 20 years from now?”
So there’s a question. What is the right size for a reservoir?
Who does it serve?
And who will pay for it?
Read Part Three, tomorrow…