Photo: The Running Iron Ranch, 2024.
I had high hopes for the community’s future water demands following a 90-minute presentation and discussion at the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board meeting on May 29. I thought maybe — now that the interesting reservoir proposal from Zipper Valley LLC was finally out in the public — that the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) board might be willing to consider a rational approach to developing a reservoir on the Running Iron Ranch, after SJWCD’s utter failure to accomplish anything at all since 2008 in spite of spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
Alas. I was once again sorely disappointed, yesterday.
But before we get to the reasons for my disappointment, let’s finish the report on the May 29 presentation.
When presenter Trey Fricke completed his public presentation to the PAWSD board of directors, PAWSD board president Gene Tautges opened the floor to questions and comments.
As we’ve noted, the proposal involved an offer to purchase the Running Iron Ranch from PAWSD — thus relieving PAWSD customers of perhaps $13 million in future loan payments on the 2008 Ranch purchase — and the creation of an easement on the Ranch for a future water reservoir, to be constructed by PAWSD or SJWCD… or by the two districts working together. Zipper Valley LLC would also contribute funding to assist with the project.
You can download the May 29 presentation here.
Four members of the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) had attended the presentation, and SJWCD board member Randy Cooper had asked about public access to a future reservoir located on a private Ranch. Mr. Fricke stated that the reservoir would not be accessible by the public for recreation.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer member of the PAWSD board of directors, but this editorial series reflects only mu own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of the full board or the PAWSD staff.
One of the people in the public audience was Pagosa businessman JR Ford, who oversaw the development of a water reservoir in Hidden Valley in the 1990s. That reservoir had originally been envisioned as a source of raw water for PAWSD, but the project got entangled in a lawsuit over the issue of public recreational access, and PAWSD lost its access to the raw water.
Mr. Ford serves as a volunteer on the Southwestern Water Conservation District board.
“I’m not speaking on behalf of the Southwestern board… but everybody keeps saying ’17 years’… and I want to remind people, this has been going on since 1990, and [PAWSD and SJWCD] had a similar offer in Hidden Valley. And these two boards played around and demanded public access, and filed all kinds of weird motions in court… and they lost that deal, where the land was going to be given to them… and free water rights.
“And now, to be listening to these same stories, and here is someone willing to step forward to help… I know some people are considering other options for the land [at the Ranch] but the reality of it is, the two boards are not ‘recreation boards’. These two boards are for water rights, and water storage.
“You don’t look a gift horse in the mouth — twice. I mean, it would be sad to see [SJWCD] walk away from that again.
“This isn’t 17 years. This is 35 years, of dinking around, playing the same game, and every couple of years, a couple of new people get on the board and have a new vision, and they lose sight of the original intent, which was for water storage.
“I don’t know what the right size [for the reservoir] would be, but this sounds like the right size to me.”
Size matters. The SJWCD board has been aiming for an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir, because that’s the size of the water storage right they hold on behalf of the community. Unfortunately, a reservoir that size will not fit on the 660-acre Ranch; additional land outside the Ranch would need to be obtained.
Mr. Fricke, in his presentation, was promising an easement that would accommodate perhaps 3,000 acre-feet — roughly twice the size of Pagosa’s largest existing reservoir, Stevens Reservoir.
Local resident Carl Young, who ran unsuccessfully for the PAWSD board in the May 2025 election, posed three questions to Mr. Fricke.
1. How will Mr. Fricke and his company, Zipper Valley Ranch LLC, make a profit from the proposal?
2. How can the public guarantee that Zipper Valley will fulfill its responsibilities following a sale?
3. Would Zipper Valley resume the gravel mining and crushing on the property that the previous owners — the Weber family — conducted over the past decades?
Mr. Fricke stated that he didn’t expect to make a profit with the Ranch. “That’s an easy question. Ranches are not profitable. I’ve operated ranches ever since I was 22 years old, and I think I ran a profit one year. It’s kind of a hobby. Call me crazy, but I work [at a separate business] so I can have cows and horses…”
“As far as holding me accountable? The contract I have presented has a management agreement attached to it, and an easement agreement, so it all flows together. Those agreements can be filed as a record, with the property… so I would say, through the water districts’ attorneys, we can make everyone comfortable that this isn’t just a letter. This will be filed in the court records…
“I’m not here to outsmart anyone. I’m here to get something done.
“The gravel? That one is also easy… It’s my understanding that there’s no gravel left. I know Andy Weber; he’s done work for me in the past, and I think he’s mined all the gravel you could mine on the Ranch. ”
As a PAWSD board member who has been following the gravel issue these past few years, it’s my understanding that the primary veins of gravel have been mined out by the Weber family. A few small veins may remain, and it’s typical for a ranch operation in Archuleta County to mine and crush their own gravel for the maintenance of the ranch roadways. But mining gravel to sell requires a highly-regulated operation, monitored by the state government.
“If the property itself needed some road work, then it’s very practical to try and harvest your own gravel for your own roads. But to mine and sell gravel or rock? Absolutely not.”
I presume a “no gravel sales” guarantee could be written into a sales contract?
As noted previously in this editorial series, Mr. Fricke approached SJWCD last winter, asking to give them essentially this same presentation and begin negotiations. The SJWCD board voted unanimously that they did not want to hear from, or negotiate with, Zipper Valley.
How is that going for them?
Read Part Five… on Monday…