The Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors heard concerns from area resident Randall Davis about the proposed Pagosa West subdivision and its impact on local water supplies at its Aug. 13 meeting.
Prior to appearing at the meeting, Davis submitted an email outlining his concerns to the board.
In this email, he explains that the Colorado River Basin is experiencing historic drought conditions, which are also being felt locally.
“After investigating the Town of Pagosa Springs and PAWS’s role in regards to the 100 acre development proposal east of the hospital it seems to me that you all are limiting your concerns to the developers following established codes and design requirements,” he states. “I feel that it is critical to consider broader consequences of major development proposals as well.”
He comments that he would like assurance from PAWSD that it is anticipating the possibility of having to deal with significant water restrictions on the San Juan River.
“I would hope you can consider downgrading the scope and impact of this development based on the ongoing needs and requirements of those who are already here,” he states. “Developers know what to present to entice local decision makers into thinking their money-making ideas are what we really need.”
At the meeting, Davis opened by expressing his concerns about conditions on the Colorado River system and that water shortages on the river would eventually impact the Pagosa area.
“I think it’s dangerous to assume that there’s always going to be plenty of water here because we’re up close to the mountains of the San Juan,” he said.
He reiterated the concerns that PAWSD and the Town of Pagosa Springs are only assessing the development from the perspective of their infrastructure requirements and not considering the impact of these developments on available water.
He added that the developers of Pagosa West are not local to the area and will likely leave as soon as they make a profit with the development.
“I would just rest a little more assured if you guys were keeping track of that and being able to, at some point, just realize that we’re getting to the end of just relatively unchecked development in terms of not just land usage, but water availability and needs,” Davis said.
He added that other governmental entities in the community are struggling with having enough revenue to sustain their operations.
PAWSD board chairman Gene Tautges replied to Davis, explaining that, because Pagosa West is located within PAWSD boundaries, it is owed one equivalent unit (EU) of water service.
However, he stated any request for more water than this, such as the 50 to 100 EUs that Pagosa West might seek, triggers a water modeling assessment which uses software to assess whether enough water is available with the district’s existing water rights and plants for the new project if all the lots in district are being served.
This assessment also helps determine if the current infrastructure can provide the necessary flows to the development for needs like fire suppression, he indicated.
Tautges stated that, if the water model shows that the development would overtax PAWSD’s water supply, the district might require that the developer obtain additional water rights for PAWSD’s use before allowing it to enter the district.
He added that this would also apply to any infrastructure shortcomings identified by the model, which would have to be addressed at the developer’s expense.
“Our goal has always, always been growth has to pay its way,” Tautges said. “I feel personally that we’re pretty conservative and take the obligation we have to all our customers, which includes all of us in this room, … we have a promise and an obligation to, and I think we’re pretty serious about protecting that.”
He commented that Pagosa West would not be the last development added to the district, with changes like Aspen Springs being added to the district possibly occurring in the future.
PAWSD board member Bill Hudson noted that there are “fabulous” water rights available in the community, such as rights associated with local ranches, that could be purchased by a developer to provide more water to PAWSD.
“So long as it keeps snowing in the high country,” Davis said.
“Well, there’s still water, right?” Hudson replied.
“Well, yeah, but the water rights don’t do you much good if there’s not water available,” Davis countered.
“Well, if that happens, we’re all in big [expletive],” Hudson said.
PAWSD District Engineer Justin Ramsey clarified that PAWSD’s water modeling does not consider water supply and only considers impacts on the district from its water plants to the development.
PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh commented that controversy over the project is unfolding at several different venues, including the Town of Pagosa Springs’ and Archuleta County’s planning review processes.
“They came forward to us because they were getting preliminary approval because it was a very dramatically big plan,” he said. “It’s not our responsibility once the county and the town and the planning boards approve a project to decide we don’t personally like this project. I mean, boards can do that, and I don’t think it’s transparent and I don’t think that’s honest for a utility board to put their own preferences in and pick and choose amongst projects. That’s for the community to do through the commissioners and the Town of Pagosa Springs.”
He added that, to ensure the project is “responsible development,” PAWSD generated a preliminary figure of the costs of the development that would be imposed by PAWSD and provided it to the developers.
“And we’ve not really heard from them since,” he said.
Walsh commented that PAWSD does not provide tax rebates or other incentives to promote growth and that he believed much of Davis’ argument needed to be made to the Town of Pagosa Springs or Archuleta County.
Davis replied that he started with the town and the town told him to discuss the issue with PAWSD.
Walsh explained that, over a 20-year build-out process, the number of EUs added by the development each year would be relatively low compared to the total number of EUs added by other construction in the community.
“How do we pick and choose and say, ‘Well, the 120 lots that are developed here are good growth, but the eight units over here are the growth we prefer not to have even though it might have affordable housing, workforce housing, might have dense apartments that make efficient use of that water than say 120 single-family homes on a half acre,’” Walsh said.
Davis commented that he understood Walsh’s point and had been struggling with finding a solution on how to manage growth.
“We just have to keep a mindful eye on what our resources are,” Tautges said.
Walsh commented that PAWSD is potentially the “most dangerous board in the community” due to the potential that it could approve large projects like reservoirs and fund them by raising rates or sabotage growth with the approval of only three board members.
He added that boards like the Pagosa Springs Town Council or the Archuleta County commissioners are likely better venues for such discussions and decisions to occur.
Walsh also stated that water is potentially not the largest issue with growth since PAWSD is currently selling the same amount of water as in 1999 despite 30 percent growth due to increases in water use efficiency.
Davis commented that he was thinking that growth should be managed by a broader cooperation between various entities in the area.
Walsh added that PAWSD recently dramatically increased capital investment fees, which are paid by customers entering the district, to help support regulatorily required upgrades to its treatment plants.
He commented that this led to some people thinking that PAWSD is trying to prevent growth, but that the raises were split evenly between increased rates for current customers and increasing capital investment fees with the goal of preventing larger increases in rates for customers.
Tautges commented that part of why development is occurring in the community is because it is more economical to do so here than in places like California.
Walsh added that he suggested talking with the county or town because their potential contributions of sales and property taxes to support developments are a key piece of development that is not responsible or controlled.
“Hold us to this, but I think we’re pretty fair,” Walsh said.
“I’m glad to hear you say that you’re keeping the people in mind when you’re making decisions,” Davis said, adding that this approach helped him in his time on the Archuleta School District Board of Education.
Tautges stated that Archuleta County is currently updating its comprehensive plan, which includes issues like future water supply, and that he felt that Davis should voice his concerns to the committee drafting this plan.
“I would say all of our efforts should be focused there,” Tautges said.
Hudson added that this plan covers all unincorporated areas of the county and that the Town of Pagosa Springs has its own comprehensive plan for its jurisdiction.
He commented that the county is currently soliciting input on the strategic plan through a variety of venues.
Davis asked if the county’s plan would incorporate PAWSD’s input.
Hudson stated that the plan would include PAWSD’s input on water.
Tautges added that it would also incorporate input from others, including outdoor recreationalists and agriculture interests.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer commented that he would vote to support Pagosa West if it does not negatively affect existing PAWSD customers.
“But what is that going to take to make it not affect our customers?” he said. “I think it’s going to take a lot. And if they’re not willing to play ball, I’m not interested in giving them anything for free or even just taking their money without getting the proper upgrades that are necessary.”
“Thank you so much,” said Davis.
josh@pagosasun.com
>