At its March 16 meeting, the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) Board of Directors discussed progress and challenges in its efforts to obtain grants to fund work on its reservoir project at Running Iron Ranch.
SJWCD board member Charles Riehm explained to the board that the board had “a lot of positives” from the money spent on planning work done by engineering consultant RJH Consultants Inc to prepare the board to apply for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) grant funds, including increased clarity on steps for obtaining funding.
SJWCD board member Randy Cooper, who was involved in meetings with the BoR, explained that the BoR did not accept the feasibility study created by RJH and identified four areas that need additional work, including studies of the market that would utilize the reservoir, alternative plans for water supply outside of building a reservoir, an economic analysis of these alternatives, and a detailed plan for project implementation and nonfederal funding for the project.
SJWCD board member Rob Hagberg asked if the board is “anywhere close” to having a plan for nonfederal funding for the project.
Riehm replied that the board would have to prioritize and look at state funding opportunities.
Cooper added that RJH did not believe the board was “screwed” due to these issues and that it had recommended partners for the SJWCD to work with to address these deficiencies.
He recommended that the board continue using a subcommittee to prioritize issues to focus on and to allocate the efforts of various board members.
Cooper also commented, in response to a question from another board member, that this work had narrowed the cost estimates for the project and made it more feasible for the board to study specific funding opportunities.
Riehm added that the RJH study looked at two specific reservoir sizes — 4,000 and 11,000 acre feet — which narrow the range of estimates.
SJWCD board member Joe Tedder commented that the market studies, alternative plans and economic analyses for these alternatives would have to be done before nonfederal money would be committed, potentially presenting a hindrance to the completion of the project.
Tedder suggested that the board determine how to move forward with these priorities with RJH as quickly as possible to ensure that federal funding does not go away in the meantime.
Cooper explained that it is “too late” for the SJWCD to apply for the grant that it had planned to apply for given the work that needs to be done.
SJWCD board president Candace Jones commented that the board has frequently discussed elements of the steps that the BoR raised and that the board needs to “press ahead,” both for the benefit of the district and the overall community.
She added that the board would also need to build a holistic understanding of what needs exist and what funding sources are available.
Riehm commented that setting concrete goals and projecting “positive movement” would be key to moving forward.
Jones commented that the board needs to be prepared for the possibility that additional federal funding will become available in the future and to be ready to apply for it.
Cooper commented that moving forward on the items that the BoR suggested is easier due to them having detailed criteria and steps to follow.
“What we’ve always been lacking is the knowledge of what information to get to that next point,” Tedder said. “Now, we’ve got it.”
The board then discussed the balance of moving projects forward while not exhausting the district’s financial reserves and its ability to match grants.
Riehm commented that, if the district had been ready to apply for the grant it was attempting to obtain this spring, its project would have qualified to receive funding and would have fit the grant criteria.
SJWCD board member John Kappelman asked why the items that the BoR felt were missing were left incomplete if RJH indicated that they were already aware they would be issues.
Cooper explained that the district did not have the capacity and community relationships to complete certain items, like a new water demand analysis, in the allotted time and was compelled to use older and less-complete work.
Jones commented that this application process was a learning opportunity and a chance for the district to find out what information it might need in the future.
She added that the district was aware that the chances of succeeding with the grant were small.
Cooper commented that the areas the BoR requested more information for will likely also be areas of interest for any other funding partner.
Cooper and Jones also clarified that the process was intended to secure funding for additional engineering, not for construction, and was highly dependent on how the SJWCD’s project compares to others.
Kappelman emphasized that the district needs to know what information another potential funder might require and to be prepared with that information, even if it differs from that requested by the BoR.
Cooper reiterated that the questions asked by the BoR would be basic questions asked by other funders, as well.
Jones commented that RJH could also help with determining what information other funders might need.
Tedder questioned if the board could move forward with working with RJH to gather the necessary items for three analyses requested by the BoR to avoid wasting time.
Cooper commented that he would like to have the board authorize board members to work with RJH to develop a request for proposal to do the work requested by the BoR.
Riehm added that the board should ask RJH about its opinions on what work should be prioritized before making a final decision.
SJWCD board member Bill Nobles commented that the board has made significant progress on the project and that filling the gaps identified by the BoR will help it prepare for new opportunities in the future.
Cooper also explained, in response to a question, that the district’s previous water demand studies were not sufficiently detailed and did not include things like detailed analyses of potential water use customers and potential public barriers to the project moving forward.
Tedder commented that he believes that the board should move forward with a proposed water study to get a more concrete analysis of water demand in the community and the need for the reservoir.
Jones stated that Archuleta County and the Town of Pagosa Springs are also now interested in water supply due to new community planning requirements.
Cooper added that the board was aware of the potential deficiencies in the water demand study, but that it gained new and highly detailed guidance through the BoR grant process.
He also expressed satisfaction with the progress the board had made through the grant submission process.
Tedder reiterated his desire to not delay on moving forward with the process.
Jones concluded the discussion by stating that the board would consider next steps at its April 20 meeting once it has had more time to gather cost and budget information.
josh@pagosasun.com
>