Image: Map of a proposed reservoir in the Dry Gulch Valley northeast of downtown Pagosa Springs.
Serving as a volunteer member of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board of directors, and as board secretary, I sit to the left of our board president, Jim Smith, at our monthly board meetings. (Or viewed from the audience. to his right.)
Jim occasionally clips articles out of the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN newspaper, when they relate to water issues and, especially, to PAWSD. He’d brought along just such a clipping to our special meeting last Thursday, October 24. A ‘Letter to the Editor’ written by local activist Lee Stopher.
I’ve spoken with Ms. Stopher on occasion, because we’re both often in attendance at Archuleta Board of County Commissioners meetings. In fact, we sat down together over coffee and discussed local water issues, a few months ago.
PAWSD President Smith was concerned about her published letter, I believe, because it contained some misleading information, along with some implied (and perhaps unfair?) criticism of the PAWSD board.
Disclosure: This editorial reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD board or staff.
Ms. Stopher’s letter began:
Dear Editor:
An article in the Pagosa Sun (Oct. 10) regarding the proposed sale of Running Iron Ranch by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) has caused me some concern. This property was slated to become a reservoir for our future water needs but with the debt at $10 million, the board of PAWSD has now opted to sell.
I can understand Ms. Stopher’s concern, although she seems to believe PAWSD “has now opted to sell” the Running Iron Ranch. In fact, the PAWSD board has received offers to purchase the property, but has not yet made any final decision to sell. The Ranch is partly owned by the San Juan Water Conservancy District, and it’s possible SJWCD will play a role in a future sales agreement, if one is eventually reached.
The Running Iron Ranch was purchased in 2008, without voter approval, as the site for a proposed 32,000 acre-foot reservoir — the so-called Dry Gulch Reservoir — to address water shortages that PAWSD would soon begin experiencing due to population growth. Or so we were told.
The size of the reservoir grew from its original design of 4,000 acre-feet — about three times the size of Lake Hatcher — to 12,500 acre-feet… and then to 32,000 acre-feet… about 19 times the size of Lake Hatcher.
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected PAWSD arguments for a 32,000 acre-foot reservoir, and the project was downsized to about 11,000 acre-feet in a stipulated agreement with sportsmen’s organization Trout Unlimited.
Around that same time, a volunteer work group — the Water Supply Community Work Group, consisting of about 25 local citizens — was convened by PAWSD to analyze the need for, and the best location for, a future water reservoir. Following a year of research and discussion, a 17-page WSCWG report concluded that PAWSD did not need an 11,000 acre-foot reservoir within the foreseeable future, because other, less expensive measures for increasing the community’s water security were available. You can download the report here.
From that report, written by retired university professor John Ramberg:
Over the last decade, while PAWSD focused attention on Dry Gulch Reservoir, alternative solutions to future water requirements, including the reduction of water loss were ignored. Forecasts of future water requirements were radically over stated for this reason, and through the unorthodox use of a little understood term, equivalent unit (EU). Population, the accepted measure for prediction of future demand, was ignored. Unfortunately, EU values, while useful in assessing water charges, can be and were manipulated, to create inflated forecasts for the treated water production requirements.
A local leader [Fred W. Schmidt], determined to create a problem for which he had the land solution, promulgated ”chicken little” paranoia in the community. He did this following a negative vote on the proposition by the community. He procured a forecast (Harris, 2003), based on false assumptions. When the PAWSD board did not properly review the forecasts, decisions based on fear, not fact, resulted. The board ignored community input, and proceeded to purchase the Dry Gulch property.
Elected and appointed boards do occasionally ignore community input. That’s a fact.
In this case, however, a year’s worth of research by a 25-member community work group was seriously considered by the PAWSD board, and the construction of a Dry Gulch Reservoir was removed from PAWSD long-range planning documents.
SJWCD, however, ignored the input from this citizen work group, and continued planning to build the Dry Gulch Reservoir, without any evidence of community support.
In Ms. Stoper’s SUN letter, she correctly states that PAWSD and SJWCD jointly own the Running Iron Ranch, which was purchased with loans (plus a grant) from Colorado Water Conservancy Board (CWCB).
She writes:
According to the article, SJWCD does not want to sell [the Ranch] but PAWSD claims it has the sole discretion to decide to sell, according to the 2016 three way agreement between PAWSD, SJWCD and CWCB. It sounds like litigation is in the future if parties cannot agree.
She is again making an accurate statement. PAWSD claims to have the right to sell the Ranch at its sole discretion, under this paragraph of the 2016 three way agreement:
5.2.1. PAWSD agrees to make every effort to retain the Running Iron Ranch during the Planning Period made possible by this Agreement. In the event that PAWSD, in its sole discretion but after consultation with SJWCD and CWCB, does sell the Running Iron Ranch during the Planning Period, the following terms shall take effect…
This paragraph has created controversy between the two districts — and the potential for litigation. The SJWCD board denies that this paragraph gives PAWSD the right to sell the Ranch “in its sole discretion” following consultation with SJWCD and CWCB.
The 2016 agreement has been shared in past Daily Post articles, and in PAWSD meeting documentation. You can download it here.
Ms. Stopher also wrote, in reference to the SUN article:
According to the article, CWCB representatives, at a special meeting,”questioned if PAWSD has other plans for ensuring sufficient water supply if the reservoir project does not move forward” and “PAWSD representatives stated that the district has other more cost effective approaches to increasing its water supply but has not pursued them due to work on the reservoir project”. I would like to hear about these other plans. I think that PAWSD should include the community of customers and stakeholders in making decisions about our water future. They should be presenting their future water plans, with data to back it up, and offering a public comment period prior to selling the only large scale reservoir site left in the county.
Unfortunately, there’s bit of misinformation in this paragraph. For one thing, Dry Gulch is not the only large scale reservoir site left in the county. And for another thing, PAWSD has indeed included the community in its decision-making processes, as illustrated by the thoughtful data shared in the 2011 Water Supply Community Work Group report. Additionally, the PAWSD board regularly engages in lengthy give-and-take conversations with its customers at regular board meetings.
PAWSD could be more aggressive in clarifying its policies and positions, in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN, for example, so that citizens who — like Ms. Stopher — do not typically attend PAWSD meetings would have access to better information, such as the information from the WSCWG report. But it’s my understanding that the SUN does not accept those types of “policy” submissions from government boards.
That said, the Pagosa Daily Post has published literally dozens of articles about local water issues, including the Dry Gulch reservoir, with links to relevant PAWSD and SJWCD documents. The truth is out there, if you look for it.
Read Part Two, tomorrow…