|  |
 |
|
EDITORIAL: Funny Smelling Water Facts, Part Seven |
Bill Hudson | 12/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
The first six parts of this article, I ran in our news section. They dealt with some old news, as well as some new news — including some new “facts” that had been brought forth at last month’s November 20 Town Council meeting — “facts” that I, as a Town citizen and as a Post reporter, found myself unable to swallow.
I could not swallow the “fact” that the Springs Resort was already using eight times as much geothermal water — pulled from our shared community aquifer — as its competitor across the street, the Spa Motel. I could not swallow the “fact” that the Resort’s new 29-room hotel would, all by itself, use 2 ½ times as much water as the entire Spa Motel complex.
 These were among the “facts” that the Town Council heard from the Resort’s attorney, Jim Anesi, at their November 20 meeting. Of the six Councilors present at that meeting, no one questioned any of attorney Anesi’s claims. And no one questioned whether the Town’s geothermal resources were being used efficiently. No one asked how much water the Resort's proposed $250 million expansion would ultimately use — or whether anyone thought there was, in fact, more water available in the Great Pagosa aquifer.
I also heard Matt Mees — the designer of the attractive Springs Resort pools, and its interconnecting water system — claim, in so many words, that the Resort’s recreational bathing pools were part of the Town’s “municipal heating system,” just as the Town’s water rights attorney, Janice Sheftel, had claimed back in May of this year. None of our elected representatives on the Town Council questioned that claim, either, at last month’s meeting.
In spite of the undisputed fact that the Town of Pagosa Springs drilled the PS-5 Well in 1980 for the express purpose of extracting heat from geothermal water for a municipal heating system, and in spite of the fact that the water rights decree and well permit make it very clear that the Town is permitted to use the water only for municipal heating, and only during the winter heating season — thereby allowing the Great Pagosa aquifer to recover during the summer months — the Town Council has continued to deliver up to 200 GPM to the Springs Resort, year round.
The Town Council has also spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, and encumbered countless hours of staff time, negotiating an even more radical 50-year lease that would deliver 400 GPM to the Resort — again, year round.
An equally unsettling event has been the Council’s failure to even acknowledge Spa Motel owner Marsha Preuit’s repeated request for a thorough study of the geothermal aquifer before any new leases are signed — based at least partly on her own resort’s loss of water pressure in recent years.
Although the Council has declined to question a single “fact” claimed by Anesi, Mees, Sheftel or Resort representative Bill Whittington during many months of public discussions, the Council did spend a good portion of the November 20 meeting discussing possible ways to amend the Town Charter — or circumvent its requirements — so they might be able to sign a 50-year lease agreement with the Springs Resort. When no clear way to justify a 50-year lease could be found, the Council tabled the discussion until a later date. It appeared from the directions given by the Council, however, that the Town’s attorneys will continue to meet with the Resort’s attorneys — still striving to hammer out a lease agreement.
In the first six parts, I have tried to report the facts as I have heard them explained and as I have found them in various Town and Water District records.
This final article — looking at one final question — is running as an "editorial," because I have no “facts” to present. I have only assumptions — possible answers — to share.
My final question is this one:
Knowing that the current summertime delivery of geothermal water to the Springs Resort is almost certainly illegal, and knowing that attorney Jim Anesi’s estimates of Resort water useage are very likely exaggerated, and knowing that the Town Charter forbids any geothermal lease to extend beyond 10 years — why would our Town Council continue to pay its lawyers to negotiate a 50-year lease of 400 GPM, year round, to the Springs Resort?
First assumption: Our Town Council takes it to be an essential part of its municipal responsibilities to help revive the struggling Pagosa Springs economy — in the midst of a nationwide recession. Oh, what the hell, let’s just go ahead and call a spade a spade — it’s a depression, one that will very likely rival the Great Depression, back in the ‘30s. Some towns and cities across America are suffering far worse economic conditions than we are seeing here in Pagosa — but some, even some nearby towns like Durango and Cortez, appear to be weathering the financial storm somewhat more successfully than Pagosa Springs.
I read through the 45-page Town Home Rule Charter today, and could not find any indication that our Town government is, in any way, charged with reviving town businesses during an economic depression. Nevertheless, I can understand the feeling of our Council members — a feeling that has also been clearly expressed by business and community leaders at recent public meetings — that Town Council must do all it possibly can to encourage economic activity in Pagosa Springs. I understand the Council’s feeling that their actions must be bold and not hesitating, and, possibly, their feeling that — well, mistakes will be made, but we have to be a bit daring in times like these.
Tourism is by far the largest segment of Pagosa’s economy. The next two largest economic sectors — at least, up until the recent economic meltdown — were real estate and construction. Real estate and construction are in turn driven, in large part, by development — the slicing up of large parcels into smaller, more affordable parcels, and building homes and commercial buildings on those smaller parcels.
Development has come to a virtual standstill over the past two years, even though the Town has several approved Planned Unit Developments already on the books. Only a handful of commercial buildings are currently under construction — and one of the largest is the Springs Resort’s new 29-room hotel. Although a new hotel buildings does little for a slumping real estate industry, it does promise a boost to the tourism industry. Plus, it looks quite majestic, towering over the San Juan River and the five new recreational bathing pools nearby.
When nothing else is happening — and when the Town Council assumes partial responsibility for fixing a broken local economy — the Springs Resort is the only real player in the game. To deny them even a drop of water is unthinkable, given the current state of affairs.
Assumption Two: The natural water level of Great Pagosa Hot Spring is dropping, and that could cause difficulties for both the Springs Resort and the Town — so it is being covered up.
According to a study conducted in the late 1990s, the water level had remained fairly stable from 1990 through 1994. During those years, the Springs Resort, then known as the Spring Inn, was gradually adding new recreational bathing pools, and gradually increasing the amount it drew from the Great Pagosa Hot Spring. Then in about 1995 the geothermal discharge from the Resort nearly doubled — due to increased water use. The following chart shows what happened to the Great Spring water level in 1995 and 1996:
One day, several years ago, I was walking past the Great Spring and noticed that water was pouring through large plastic pipes into the ancient pool. I stood and watched for a moment. Why would anyone pour water into an artesian spring? It didn’t make any sense.
I do not know how much water the Springs Resort has been dumping into the Great Spring. Perhaps they don't themselves know for sure. The area around the Great Spring is not currently open to the public, due to construction of the new hotel — but from memory, I would estimate that the water I saw pouring into the Great Spring compared favorably with the amount pouring out of the Spa Motel’s big white discharge pipe and into the locally famous “Hippie Hole” beside the bridge. According to the records I’ve seen, that Spa Motel discharge has been consistently about 100 GPM.
Earlier this year, I told that the water going into the Great Spring came from the Town’s leased geothermal water, and that its purpose was to “cool down” the Great Spring — to make the water more readily useable for recreational bathing pools.
A few weeks ago, another piece of a possible explanation arrived. I was told by a person involved in local water issues that the Town had made an agreement, back in 1980, to cease pulling water from its PS-5 Well if the Great Spring water level dropped below a certain point. This person assured me I could locate this old agreement if I looked hard enough. To date, I have not found such an agreement.
The Great Pagosa Hot Spring provides the only visible indicator of our community aquifer’s health. Numerous wells pump water from that same aquifer — and Marsha Preuit reports the pressure on her wells has declined since 1980. But the wells do not provide an easily viewed water level to compare, year after year.
If the water level of the Great Spring were to drop noticeably, serious questions would certainly be raised. Is it possible that the water flowing into the Great Spring is preserving an "artificial" water level?
The Springs Resort — which has legal rights to draw water from the Great Spring — has replaced all of the old pipes going to and from the Great Spring during the construction of its new hotel and its five new recreational bathing pools. I don’t expect to see any pipes visibly pouring water into the Great Spring when we get our next look; I expect any new pipes going into or out of the Great Spring to be below the water surface — out of sight and out of mind.
What are the honorable actions open to the Pagosa Springs Town Council at this point? Everything I have heard and read suggests that even the current 200 GPM lease with the Springs Resort does not allow summertime water delivery. Meanwhile, development in town is stagnant, tourism seems to be falling off, foreclosures are on the rise.
Do we abide by the law, and by our earlier promises, even in hard times? Or should our Town leaders throw its previous promises and agreements out the window, and make new ones with folks who are willing to build new hotels and hand us dubious “facts”? What shall we choose — profitability, or integrity? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|