Photo: San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) President Rod Proffitt shares a Dry Gulch Reservoir map at an Archuleta Board of County Commissioners’ work session, May 2016.
We ran a series of humor articles last week, written by columnist Louis Cannon, about two theories about life on earth: the Theory of Evolution and the theory commonly known as Creationism or Intelligent Design. Did the species Homo sapiens evolve by ‘natural selection’, or was our appearance directed by divine intention?
Both theories have their supporters… scientists and philosophers who claim to have compelling evidence that proves their case. But because we are talking about the distant past, we will never know who is closest to the ‘truth’. These will always be theories that you can choose to believe, or not.
Here in Pagosa Springs, a few citizens are engaged in a political controversy — not about the past, but about the future. The future of water in Archuleta County. Discussions about the future are always based on theories, of course.
But are the theories built upon facts? Or upon fears? Or upon something else?
I’ve already mentioned, earlier in this editorial series, the lengthy 3,300-word article written by Pagosa Springs SUN reporter Josh Pike, about the ongoing political and legal contest between the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD). The controversy concerns the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir project, under discussion since 1989… and PAWSD’s legal right to sell the Running Iron Ranch… and a recent offer from a private party to buy the Ranch. The offer would pay off millions of dollars in public debt held by PAWSD customers, and would invest, for the first time, private funding into the construction of the Dry Gulch Reservoir.
SJWCD will hold a special meeting tonight, Monday, December 2 at 4pm. The agenda includes a discussion of the Ranch purchase offer. You can download the meeting packet here. The public can attend the meeting in person, at 46 Eaton Drive, Suite 5, Pagosa Springs or via Zoom. The meeting may include an executive session, from which the public will be excluded.
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.
Mr. Pike’s SUN article was, in my opinion, a reasonably accurate rendition of the discussions and debates that took place at the November 14 PAWSD meeting. But he did not dig into whether the statements and arguments made at the meeting, by the participants, were accurate.
In the same issue of the SUN, the newspaper’s editor, Randi Pierce, also weighed in on the controversy. She wrote, in part:
It’s apparent that both PAWSD and the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) have board members who are passionate about the ownership of Running Iron Ranch and about the proposed reservoir. Unfortunately, they fall on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to if they believe the districts should maintain ownership and continue working to develop a reservoir or not.
And it seems that the passion shown by both sides is serving to pull the boards further and further apart on the issue, instead of truly finding a way forward that can best serve everyone, which is incredibly unfortunate…
I can understand Ms. Pierce’s frustration with the situation. The PAWSD board asked a potential purchaser to make an offer to SJWCD… an offer that might lead to a reservoir finally getting started after 35 years, while also relieving PAWSD customers of a multi-million-dollar debt burden.
SJWCD refused to even talk to the potential partner.
For some reason, Ms. Pierce did not include that information in her editorial. Unfortunately, Ms. Pierce did not include any actual data — historical or otherwise — in her editorial. Although her editorial was accurate in describing an uncomfortable political situation, she did not provide her readers with any evidence or facts about the provision of water — historical or otherwise — in Archuleta County. She did not help us understand the facts behind the debate.
In a sense, this puts Ms. Pierce on the same side of the controversy as SJWCD. Complaining about the lack of honest, reliable information, without providing any themselves, to the community.
And this, as I see it, is one significant difference between PAWSD and SJWCD.
PAWSD has 50 years of historical water data, and 50 years of experience, constantly improving access to drinking water in Archuleta County. The decisions being made at PAWSD are based on evidence and facts… historical evidence and facts.
Based on those facts and that evidence, and based on new improvements to the water system currently underway, PAWSD feels that our water future is quite secure.
SJWCD has been warning us about threats to our water future for 35 years, but has been paying little attention to evidence and facts. Instead, SJWCD has relied on projections and predictions made by water engineers. In my experience, your typical water engineer has never seen a reservoir project big enough, or expensive enough.
I’ve shared the following graph before. The red line shows water engineer Steve Harris’ 2007 prediction of PAWSD water demand from 2001 through 2021.
The blue line shows actual, historical water sales by PAWSD.
When Mr. Harris made his prediction in 2007, PAWSD water sales had been “flat” for six years already. But Mr. Harris wanted to justify a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir project, so he utterly ignored the available historical data, and predicted a dire water shortage by 2021.
Then in 2021, SJWCD hired different water engineers from Wilson Water Group (WWG) to provide accurate data related to a proposed reservoir on the Running Iron Ranch. Once again, the water engineers utterly ignored the actual historical data available from PAWSD, and predicted a future demand based on a “theory” about how water demand will increase in the future. If you graphed their prediction, it would look very similar to the red line above.
SJWCD accepted that WWG prediction as “accurate”, and claimed that it justifies a monstrously large reservoir, funded by tax dollars.
Here’s another quote from Ms. Pierce’s November 21 editorial:
The community wants and needs to know our future water needs can be met and how.
We also need to know we can trust our local officials — elected or appointed — with making sound, informed decisions on something so important.
Our elected and appointed boards can make sound, informed decisions based on accurate, historical data… or they can make decisions based on nightmares about a frightening future.
Which line into the future do Ms. Pierce and the community want to follow? The blue line, or the red line?
The facts? Or the fears?
Because we actually have a choice.
Read Part Six, tomorrow…