|  |
 |
|
EDITORIAL: Red Herrings in the Reservoir |
Bill Hudson | 4/28/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“red herring, n. 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.”
The central issue, in several Post articles already published and in several yet to be published, is the controversial Water Resource Fee and other related fees recently instituted and increased by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District to help fund a massive reservoir in Dry Gulch.
The red herrings have been spawning freely in that reservoir project.
I use the term “massive reservoir” because various current PAWSD documents call for a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir. One of the more popular red herrings, foisted upon the public at recent public meetings, is the claim by PAWSD board members that “We don’t really know what the final size of the reservoir will be.”
 At a recent PAWSD meeting, local realtor Mike Heraty asked PAWSD board members and staff, “How much water are we talking about? I’m trying to get a grasp on the potential size of this reservoir and how many people you’re projecting to serve with it.”
In response to Heraty’s question, various board members and staff, including Assistant Manager Gene Tautges, board chair Karen Wessels, and board members Windsor Chacey, Bob Huff and Steve Hartvigsen spoke for approximately 16 minutes without anyone telling Heraty what he wanted to know: the projected size of the reservoir.
This is curious. On February 11, 2008, PAWSD legal council Evan Ela submitted a “Finding of Fact” to the District 7 Water Court. This legal document describes in detail the reasons why PAWSD and the San Juan Water Conservancy District need additional water rights in order to serve the people of Archuleta County. Here is a quote from that document:
“[PAWSD Manager] Carrie Weiss testified that the PAWSD Borad of Directors enacted a water resources fee, initially set at $6,343, that is being imposed on each new equivalent unit of water demand added to the PAWSD water system by residential and commercial growth. The funds generated by this fee will be used for development of the Dry Gulch Reservoir. [Water engineer Steve] Harris testified about his participation in the development of the water resources fee and stated that the amount of this fee is predicated on the development costs of a reservoir with a 35,000 acre-foot capacity at Dry Gulch Reservoir site with diversion rates of 180 cfs.”
Translation: the original PAWSD $6,343 Water Resource Fee was predicated on the cost of a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir. That fee has since been increased, with board approval, to $7,211.
How much water does a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir hold? Enough water to serve over 150,000 people, according to PAWSD's own figures. PAWSD is currently serving less than 10,000 people.
But you will not hear those figures quoted by PAWSD. The PAWSD board and staff prefer to distract the public — even when they are sitting in a public board meeting — with non-essential “facts” such as:
- The press is misquoting us and distorting our figures.
- What about the 600 vacant homes on the real estate market?
- We had a terrible drought in 2002.
- Our existing infrastructure — especially the Snowball Pipeline — needs upgrading.
- We cut the construction industry a deal in 2006 by letting them pay a mere $1,000 per EU Water Resource Fee.
- Our Water Resource Fee is not to blame for Pagosa’s current economic meltdown.
Let me state very clearly that I do not for a minute blame the PAWSD Water Resource Fee for Pagosa's current economic meltdown. Our current problems are extremely complex and closely tied to the national economic situation.
Yes, there are 600 vacant homes on the market. Yes, we had the worst drought on record in 2002. Yes, some of our existing pipelines need attention, desperately. Yes, PAWSD did sell new EUs in 2006 for a “mere” $1000 each.
But is the $7,211 per EU Water Resource Fee — a fee that can total $100,000 or more for new commercial buildings — contributing somewhat to our economic slow-down?
No doubt about it.
Is the projected 35,000 acre-foot reservoir — upon which the Water Resource Fees are predicated — monstrously oversized?
No doubt about it.
Has PAWSD gotten itself into a serious financial bind — by requesting a loan for $12.3 million for the Dry Gulch property, without any voter approval, right at the beginning of an economic recession?
That certainly appears to be the case.
Is PAWSD tossing us red herrings and refusing to give us clear, honest answers to our many questions?
You be the judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|