Photo: Lake Mead’s “bathtub ring” due to excessive water use in Arizona and California.
This case represents the latest evolution of Colorado’s anti-speculation doctrine, signaling a new era of water supply planning — an era that will involve greater water supply planning collaboration and a heightened focus on conserving our most valuable resource…
— from ‘Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District v. Trout Unlimited and an Anti-Speculation Doctrine for a New Era of Water Supply Planning’, by Derek Turner, for the University of Colorado Law Review.
Yesterday evening, Monday January 6, following the adjournment of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board’s special meeting, someone asked aloud if there was any snow in the forecast.
A lack of snow in the Colorado Rockies, during the winter, always means less water flowing into the various reservoirs along the Colorado River. And those reservoirs are already exhibiting the strain of several low-water years since the 1980s.
Added to that strain, we have seen annual withdrawls in excess of supply, mainly by agricultural users in Arizona and California.
SJWCD recently held a film showing at the Pagosa Springs Center for the Arts, focused on the importance of snow in the San Juan mountains, for Archuleta County’s ranches, residents, and recreationalists. SJWCD had obtained a grant to produce three short videos highlighting water issues in Archuleta County, and about 200 people turned out in November to watch the first two videos.
Last night, following the brief exchange about the lack of snow, one of the SJWCD board members pulled me aside and asked me about his observation that Lake Hatcher is full, and spilling at the dam. He wondered if that was unusual? In January? For our primary Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) reservoir to be full to overflowing in mid-winter?
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer PAWSD board member, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD board or staff.
Although I’ve been writing about Archuleta County water issues for about 20 years, I had no idea if Lake Hatcher typically spills during January. And I imagine only a handful of people in Pagosa could answer that question — most of them being, presumably, PAWSD employees.
But I did mention that Lake Hatcher had been spilling practically all summer long. Our community has had more than enough water, for all our needs, during 2024.
But my friend was concerned. He speculated, to those listening, that the fact that Lake Hatcher is spilling in January is evidence that the snowpack in the San Juan mountains is already melting… and obviously, melting at the “wrong time of year”…
…which is evidence, in turn, of Climate Change.
This was entirely speculation, of course.
People love to speculate about water. We understand that — while Americans are usually able to produce enough automobiles and phones and Big Mac hamburgers to meet current demands — when it comes to raw water, we are at the mercy of Mother Nature, and her Climate. So the best we can do is speculate.
But “speculation” has a particularly important meaning in Colorado water law. We’re going to explore that meaning.
The San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board of directors, in a special meeting yesterday evening, did as they have been doing at every board meeting lately — they voted to move into an executive session and close the door (the actual door, or the virtual Zoom door) to the public, to engage in a private discussion about their favorite topic of late: the pending sale of the Running Iron Ranch.
The sale is pending because the co-owner of the Ranch, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) has received, over the past several months, unsolicited written offers from two potential purchasers. After SJWCD — as Ranch co-owner — was presented with one of the unsolicited offers and summarily rejected the offer without even opening a conversation with the prospective purchaser, the PAWSD board voted to officially announce that the Ranch is for sale. PAWSD also initiated a court case to clarify that SJWCD cannot legally prevent such a sale, according to an agreement signed by SJWCD in 2015.
It probably didn’t help matters that SJWCD posted a written statement, on November 1, describing the PAWSD board as “short-sighted.”
SJWCD will work to halt sale plans based on short-sighted and narrow views of current PAWSD board members.
PAWSD board members refuse to share details of its plan with SJWCD, co-owner of the reservoir site, despite a specific request that they do so and a contractual duty to consult SJWCD.
PAWSD has now fully shared the details of its plan with SJWCD and with the community at large. They intend to sell the Ranch and get their customers out from under more than $10 million in unnecessary debt payments created in 2008 by a ridiculous reservoir boondoggle. That’s pretty much the whole plan.
And although SJWCD has been planning the construction of the Dry Gulch Reservoir since at least 2004, it is no closer to breaking ground than it was 20 years ago. SJWCD board members have refused to share details of their plan with PAWSD, co-owner of the reservoir site, but it’s been fairly easy, nevertheless, for PAWSD to discover their plan: prevent the sale of the Ranch by any means necessary. That’s pretty much the whole plan.
The offer that recently rejected by SJWCD, without any attempt at communicating with the prospective partner, would have potentially allowed the construction of a Dry Gulch Reservoir, with the property purchaser assisting in funding the reservoir. It’s my understanding the offer is still on the table, as of today, January 7.
I feel comfortable describing the 2008 Dry Gulch Reservoir proposal as a ‘boondoggle’ because — if you read between the lines of the 2009 Colorado Supreme Court decision written by Greg Hobbs, Chief Justice and noted water rights authority — the Court described the proposal in similarly disapproving terms. As Derek Turner wrote in his analysis of Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District v. Trout Unlimited, the case served to basically redefine Colorado’s anti-speculation doctrine, as it applies to municipal water rights applicants.
Read Part Two, tomorrow…