|  |
 |
|
Lots of Water, Lots of Debt, Part Three |
Bill Hudson | 7/18/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
In Part Two, yesterday, Post writer Glenn Walsh discussed the decision by the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to express their displeasure with the 35,000 acre-foot reservoir currently planned by Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) in collaboration with the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) on property they recently purchased with a $1 million grant and $8.6 million in loans. The districts are looking at spending millions more purchasing additional Dry Gulch property.
It appears the BOCC is not happy with the way the water districts are proceeding. And they are not the only ones.
 The two water districts have recently been denying that their plan involves such an unnecessarily large, 35,000 acre-foot reservoir, holding that the size of the reservoir will ultimately be decided sometime in the next ten years or so. At least one PAWSD board member, Bob Huff, has expressed his belief that a smaller, 12,500 acre-foot reservoir is much more likely to be built.
Despite those denials, the Water Resource Fee being charged to (currently non-existent) future development at a rate of $7210 per Equivalent Unit continues to be based on a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir. That fee has been the subject of much controversy in recent months; the real estate and construction industries blame overall PAWSD fees for contributing to a serious economic downturn in those two industries.
To date, much of the conversation about the Dry Gulch has been centered upon predictions by the water districts that Pagosa Springs will run out of sufficient drinking water supplies unless it builds some additional water storage — and their claims that the Dry Gulch location is the most economically viable site for that water storage.
That is to say, the conversation has been framed by an assumed need — and the districts’ estimate of what the additional storage and pumping stations will cost. “We need this reservoir and here is the best way to fund it.” PAWSD and SJWCD have framed this discussion and kept it focused in that direction, while they have borrowed more and more money to purchase the land for Dry Gulch.
With the BOCC apparently set to pass a resolution of non-support on July 29, the conversation appears to be taking a shift — and perhaps even passing out of PAWSD and SJWCD control. Now the Pagosa Springs Town Council is also discussing withdrawing its support from the Dry Gulch Reservoir.
PAWSD and SJWCD, in their applications for state of Colorado funding, have claimed that the Pagosa Springs community is firmly behind their Dry Gulch plan. Official expressions of non-support, such as the BOCC is proposing and the Town Council is currently discussing, could conceivably sink the reservoir funding efforts and leave the water districts with 60 acres or so of rather pricey, bone dry land.
SJWCD got a taste of that possibility at its Monday meeting this week — the day before the BOCC expressed its intent to withdraw its support — when Town Councilor Mark Weiler invited them to shift their focus in a new direction.
The Monday SJWCD meeting was chaired by board Secretary Jack DeLange — sitting in the seat normally occupied by the mastermind of the Dry Gulch project, SJWCD President Fred Schmidt. Schmidt’s absence was possibly occasioned by the fact that he was planning to submit his letter of resignation as SJWCD President. (PAWSD Manager Carrie Weiss confirmed on Wednesday that she had received Schmidt’s letter of resignation.) Schmidt’s participation in months of secret negations leading up to $9 million in Dry Gulch land purchases has been made suspect by several recent court cases involving fraud and misappropriation of funds by Schmidt.
(As a interesting side note, the SJWCD meeting began with lecture by an accountant on how to identify fraud in special district bookkeeping.)
With DeLange in the driver’s seat, the SJWCD then began discussing a pending contract with multi-national engineering firm MWH to design the entire Dry Gulch Reservoir including the reservoir, pump station, water treatment plant, and diversion structure (at least ten years before the voters will be asked to approve it, apparently).
When I asked the board if the engineering contract would be based on the full 35,000 acre-foot reservoir, Weiss confirmed that she “believed” would be based on that size project.
“I haven’t seen the contract, but I believe it is.”
But there has not been a final decision about how big the reservoir will be, right?
DeLange affirmed that the final size of the reservoir had not been decided.
“And we won’t decide, for probably twenty years,” added board member Fred Ebeling.
But you are still paying for engineering for a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir?
“Yes, if that is the size that we are ultimately targeting, you are correct,” said DeLange. No one on the board had yet seen the contract, apparently.
DeLange then launched into a ten-minute explanation about why the Dry Gulch Reservoir is a dire necessity — during which he unfortunately never explained why SJWCD and PAWSD would contract for engineering of a 35,000 acre-foot reservoir which the voters have never approved — but which they will, supposedly, be asked to approve. Wishful thinking?
At that point, Town Council member Mark Weiler raised his hand for permission to address the board, and the conversation took a turn — in a direction that I suspect will ultimately have a significant effect on the whole Dry Gulch discussion.
Read Part Four on Monday… |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|