Photo: Newly-appointed volunteer Candace Jones recites her oath of office at the San Juan Water Conservancy District board meeting, July 25, 2022.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial reflects only my own personal opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the PAWSD Board or staff.
Last week, Josh Pike, reporter for the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN, wrote an extensive article — about 2,800 words — covering the current discord between two of our local water districts: the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) and Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD). The dispute concerns a 667-acre ranch jointly owned by the two districts, purchased in 2008 with a $1 million grant and a $9.2 million loan — both of which are the financial responsibility, and burden, of PAWSD water customers.
SJWCD doesn’t have any customers. But it has constituents, who are also taxpayers, and they fund SJWCD with property taxes to the tune of about $160,000 per year.
Mr. Pike’s article bore the headline:
Water districts clash over possible Running Iron Ranch sale
It begins with this paragraph:
Tensions between the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) continue to grow over their jointly owned Running Iron Ranch.
Tensions over the jointly-owned property date back at least a dozen years, but Mr. Pike is correct in stating that the discord has seemingly grown in recent weeks, after PAWSD received a private offer to purchase the Ranch. PAWSD then sought to confirm that their partner, SJWCD, would be willing to sign over the deed, if a future sale were negotiated. The confirmation request was based on a 2015 three-way agreement between SJWCD, PAWSD and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. SJWCD refused to confirm their willingness to sign over the deed, and accused PAWSD of trying to sell the property without proper community endorsement of the sale.
After the PAWSD Board directed its legal counsel to file a request for a ‘declaratory judgment’ — to have a court clarify PAWSD’s right to sell the property “at its sole discretion” — SJWCD President Candace Jones emailed a harshly-worded statement to the SUN and the Daily Post on November 1.
The statement is available on the SJWCD website, and begins with this paragraph:
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.
Ouch.
The November 1 statement also says:
In 2008, PAWSD issued a Source Water Protection Plan identifying drought as a risk to PAWSD’s water supply. That Plan, available on PAWSD’s website, called for ongoing public education on water conservation and planning for future storage. PAWSD’s current board members are walking away from planning for water storage.
This is, unfortunately, misinformation — something the November 1 SJWCD statement is unfortunately plagued by. In fact, PAWSD is currently engaged in plans to triple the amount of water storage available at the Hatcher Water Treatment Plant.
The statement also says, inaccurately:
In recent weeks, PAWSD’s board voted to sell the Ranch.
This is untrue. The PAWSD board has never voted to sell the Ranch, and anyone can confirm that, by reading the Board minutes.
SJWCD has also criticized the PAWSD board for discussing the sale of public property behind closed doors, in executive sessions. Those closed-door discussions have indeed taken place, as is typical when governments are buying or selling real estate.
The SJWCD board has itself held all its discussions about the Running Iron Ranch sale behind closed doors, in executive sessions, and the board plans to hold yet another closed-door discussion today at 3pm at their Eaton Drive office.
Curiously enough, just as the SJWCD statement was sent out on November 1, a potential purchaser submitted a potentially attractive offer directly to SJWCD, for that board’s consideration.
Curiously enough, that potential purchaser was asked by the PAWSD Board to submit their offer directly to SJWCD. The ball is now in SJWCD’s court, so to speak.
I emailed SJWCD President Jones four days ago, asking her if she wanted to have her board’s harshly-worded statement published in the Daily Post, now that SJWCD has itself been presented a potentially attractive offer for a property purchase.
Ms. Jones has not responded.
The November 1 statement also says:
SJWCD believes planning decisions are best made in open and transparent processes… SJWCD has included PAWSD in many of its public outreach efforts, and SJWCD designated board members to provide a clear channel of communication to PAWSD’s board.
Sadly, until this past summer, none of the planning work done by SJWCD since 2012 has been done in consultation with PAWSD. In fact, previous input into the planning efforts, offered by PAWSD and other community members, has been ignored.
The November 1 statement concludes:
SJWCD encourages the public to reach out to board members of both SJWCD and PAWSD about the potential sale of public property identified years ago as the best available site for future water storage.
Unfortunately, it appears from the published agenda for today’s 3pm board meeting that the SJWCD board will not be allowing public comment, and will be excluding the public from their key discussions about the Ranch.
San Juan Water Conservancy District is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Only the SJWCD Attorney and Directors will be on Zoom during the Executive Session. The public may be admitted before and following Executive Session.
So much for the idea that “planning decisions are best made in open and transparent processes…”
Read Part Two, tomorrow…