The Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) met yesterday to consider a tentative agreement concerning the 660-acre Running iron Ranch. Following a closed-door executive session with the District’s attorney, Marcus Lock, the PAWSD Board met in open session and approved the following statement for release to the public. The statement was composed by the District’s Policy and Compliance Manager, Renee Lewis.
PAWSD Statement
On March 13, 2026, representatives for the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District Board of Directors and the San Juan Water Conservancy District Board of Directors engaged in a mediation process aimed at resolving the current litigation pertaining to the Running Iron Ranch. An outline of terms was agreed to by both entities.
Today [March 16], we discussed the outline of terms in executive session. Because the terms are not final and subject to approval by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, PAWSD and SJWCD agreed to keep these confidential at this time.
We look forward to cooperation between all of the entities to reach a final settlement at which time the outline of terms then agreed to will be discussed in an open public meeting.
Renee Lewis
Policy and Compliance Manager
The tentative agreement was forged collaboratively by the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) Board of Directors and two representatives from the PAWSD Board of Directors — Glenn Walsh and Alex Boehmer — on March 13. The separate attorneys for the Districts also participated, as did District staff. The mediator was Gene Dackonish from Grand Junction.
I understand that SJWCD will also be publishing a similar statement about the intention of the two district to cooperate in the future.
As many Daily Post readers know, the ownership of the Running Iron Ranch has been a point of contention between the two water districts since October 2024, when PAWSD received two unsolicited offers to purchase the Ranch.
One of the two offers included an allowance for a large reservoir to be built in the center of the ranch, to provide an additional water storage location for the community.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer Board member for PAWSD, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily those of the PAWSD Board or PAWSD staff.
The Running Iron Ranch had been purchased jointly by the two districts, in 2008, as the site for a future reservoir. SJWCD had contributed a $1 million grant, and PAWSD had borrowed $9.2 million to fill out the $10.2 million purchase price. Legal wrangling over water rights for the reservoir eventually resulted in a decree for a reservoir up to 11,000 acre-feet.
However, neither district had the financial means — in 2008 — to actually build a reservoir.
Over the next four years, new members were elected to the PAWSD Board, and these new Board members concluded that the purchase of the Ranch had been a mistake, and that the proposed reservoir was neither necessary nor feasible.
The SJWCD Board also saw members come and go, but has consistently held fast to the belief that the Dry Gulch Reservoir — as it was named — was not only feasible but also desperately needed to ensure the community’s water security.
In order to preserve the ownership of the property, at least temporarily, and in order to stretch out the payments on the $9.2 million loan made to PAWSD, the two districts entered into an agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) — the agency that had provided the loan and the grant. The agreement lowered the annual payment coming from the PAWSD customers, while granting SJWCD time to move the project forward. This agreement was signed by the three parties in 2016, anticipating that the reservoir would be under construction by 2036.
Due to the limited amount of tax revenues collected annually by SJWCD — at that time, around $60,000 a year — everyone understood that SJWCD would need to find a government or private partner to help fund the construction of the reservoir, which was estimated at perhaps $60 million.
The PAWSD Board made it clear that PAWSD would not be that partner, but also agreed that PAWSD customers would be responsible for continuing to repay the CWCB loan.
This was in 2016.
Eight years later, when the two unsolicited purchase offers were received by PAWSD, SJWCD had not yet found a government or private partner… nor had they acquired the additional land that would be needed for an 11,000-acre-foot reservoir… nor had they done the engineering for a reservoir… nor did they have a cost estimate for the project… nor did they know for sure who would be using the water stored in the proposed reservoir…
But SJWCD was very clear that they had no interest in working with a wealthy individual who was offering to help them build a reservoir on the Ranch, so long as his family could use the rest of the 660 acres as their private property.
SJWCD published a public statement in November 2024 that read, in part:
The San Juan Water Conservancy District opposes the Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District’s sale of public property held as a future reservoir site in a private deal to a land developer. 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.
SJWCD calls upon PAWSD to work cooperatively with SJWCD and the public to secure our water future. SJWCD also calls upon the public to demand from PAWSD an open and informed discussion of water needs and conditions that affect our future water supply…
Once it became clear that SJWCD had no interest in a proposal that would have completely eliminated, for PAWSD customers, the annual debt payments on the property, the PAWSD Board authorized their attorney to file a motion with District court, asking to have the 2016 three-way agreement clarified. Did PAWSD truly have the right to sell the Running Iron Ranch “at its sole discretion” as indicated in the agreement? Or did PAWSD need to wait until 2036 to sell the property?
Read Part Two… tomorrow…