“This is a moral question that requires a moral compass.”

MONTE VISTA– In the midst of a two-hour cordial conversation, elected officials and stakeholders nonetheless did not mince their words when describing to Douglas County Commissioner Abe Laydon the tremendous impact exporting 22,000 acre feet of water each year into perpetuity would have on the farmers, ranchers and communities of the San Luis Valley.

After an on-again-off-again promised appearance to speak with residents of the Valley, Laydon, along with water attorney Steve Leonhardt, were at Nino’s Restaurant in Monte Vista over the weekend to meet and discuss with a small group of invited elected officials and others RWR’s water export proposal.

In his opening comments, Laydon said Douglas County had received water proposals totaling more than $240 million, but they chose to do a “deep dive” on RWR because RWR’s facts were “180 percent different” from facts presented by water experts in the valley.  “It’s been challenging,” he said.

Laydon also said he had met with a group of farmers earlier in the day.  who had expressed concerns about potential backlash from other farmers if they expressed support for RWR’s proposal. “I heard from people wanting to succeed,” he said, adding farmers on smaller farms feel they’re out of options, implying that the RWR purchase of water rights would give them options “to move away and trying something different” they don’t currently have.

Laydon also repeated a claim made by RWR that the San Luis Valley is experiencing a  “net migration” with more people leaving the valley than are moving to the area. (Note: 2020 census data does not support RWR’s claim as two of the six counties in the valley reported a decrease of population while the remaining four reported an increase.) He followed up by asking how much the $50 million community fund proposed by RWR would help local county budgets.

Laydon then reminded the group of his family’s roots in the SLV, adding, “I have a commitment to do no harm to people or a community. I would resign before I’d do harm to others.”

State Representative Donald Valdez opened the comments by thanking Laydon for his visit and willingness to see issues from “the valley perspective”, emphasizing challenges presented by low levels in the aquifers and watersheds impacted by climate change. “We want to see the next generation be able to farm in the San Luis Valley.”

Alamosa Mayor Ty Coleman picked up on Laydon’s stated commitment. “If your intention is to do no harm…” Coleman began, “then it’s important to know water is crucial here. It’s crucial. If that water is depleted, it will have significant negative impact on our communities and our economy.”

Alamosa City Council member Michael Carson addressed the comments Laydon heard about tensions in the community, countering with a description of how the people in the valley come together in “incredible ways” whenever a crisis occurs. “Any animosity stems from the lack of resource,” he said.

Karla Shriver, president of the Subdistrict 2 board took on a salient point in the entire discussion – farmers being able to sell their water rights and what that sale could mean to their families. “The bill SB22-028 that just passed will provide money for that and for those mom and pop farmers that may be on the outskirts.”

SB22-028, sponsored by Senator Cleave Simpson, will bring $30 million of one-time American Rescue Act Plan funding to the San Luis Valley specifically to buy and retire well permits and irrigated acreage.

“How is that not buy and dry?” Laydon asked.

“Because the water will stay in the valley,” responded several at the same time.

Rio Grande Commissioner John Noffsker was a little more confrontive in his comments.

“This project is taking from somebody to benefit yourself. That’s all it is, and it’s wrong. The water belongs here – ecologically and economically. Economic growth here won’t happen without water.  Go to Las Animas County, go to Ordway. Look at those places – they’re some of the poorest in the state. That’s what happens when cities take water.

“I don’t care if Douglas County grows,” he continued. “This is us being dictated to by the Front Range. Taking our water displaces our authority. But I’ll tell you what. You give us all your tax revenue off Park Meadows and we’ll give you some water,” he said, equating the entitlement in asking for tax revenue off a hugely profitable mega shopping wall with asking for water from the valley.

Alamosa Commissioner Lori Laske was one of the last to speak, starting with a letter written on behalf of all three Alamosa commissioners. “As commissioners…we would be very hesitant to expend time, money, and other county resources to pursue a project which is not only detrimental to a neighboring community, but also unlikely to produce any fruit.

“While we understand the desire to do something impactful and beneficial for your constituents, we don’t understand why, after opposition from the entire San Luis Valley, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Ag Commissioner, multiple State Senators and Representatives, and others…that you would gamble Douglas County’s ARPA funding on the RWR plan.”

Laske then addressed Laydon directly. “Honestly, we’re offended at the money and using it to sway people’s opinions. To dangle money in front of a community that needs it…it’s offensive and will cause irreparable damage. Sure, it will be good for two or three years but what will happen ten years from now? This is a moral question and it requires a moral compass to make the right decision. What legacy do you want to have in the valley? Because that’s what this is. This is a legacy and a moral question that requires a moral compass.”

Marisa Fricke wrapped up the comments with a simple statement. “This is going to destroy our way of life. We have a lot of next generation farmers – farmers in their thirties who want to farm in the valley. If you do this, they won’t have a chance.”

Laydon thanked all in attendance and then wrapped up the meeting by saying, “I think the winner in all this is the process.”

With that, Laydon brought the seventh of seven due diligence meetings to a conclusion.