Pojoaque Valley board hears options for hooking schools to regional water system; decision window set for April

At its Feb. 11 meeting the Pojoaque Valley Public Schools board heard a presentation from Santa Fe County project manager Scott Casey and staff from the Office of the State Engineer about options for connecting district campuses to the planned PBRWS regional water system.

Casey told the board the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is leading design, construction and the project budget while the county’s role includes acquiring easements and encouraging customers to hook up. Office of the State Engineer presenter Tomas walked the board through three settlement options for public entities: (A) fully transfer groundwater rights and hook up; (B) retain use but accept a roughly 15% reduction in permitted groundwater pumping (with later hookup options); or (C) negotiate a bespoke agreement with the settlement parties.

“The settlement gives you some choices,” Tomas said, adding that option C offers the most leeway but requires negotiations with attorneys, engineering review and buy‑in from multiple stakeholders. Scott Casey said the project team needs the district’s recent metered water‑use data to refine how much water the schools actually use and to model costs under each option.

Board members pressed presenters on the distinction between surface and groundwater rights. Tomas said historical surface rights for the district were moved into combined groundwater permits to allow pumping from wells; he offered to review the district’s abstracts with board members and counsel. Presenters confirmed that a 15% reduction referenced in the settlement would be applied to the district’s total groundwater allocation, which they estimated at about 45.3 acre‑feet (roughly 7 acre‑feet at 15%).

Cost estimates presented to the board included a BOR per‑foot estimate of about $200 to place main transmission line; for an illustrative 1,700‑foot run that would amount to roughly $170,000 (presenters said contractor bids and BOR overhead assumptions can change the final figure). The district would be responsible for the hookup from that tie‑in to campus meters and for meter/service fees. Tomas recommended the board annualize large one‑time infrastructure costs to compare long‑term options.

Presenters repeatedly urged the board to provide a decision within about 60 days — effectively by the end of April — so BOR crews can include the district’s tie‑in while crews are actively installing lines. “In the next 60 days we need a decision so that when they start coming down through there they can put that line in,” a presenter said, warning that missing the current construction window would make a later hookup more expensive.

Quintana and other board members asked staff to gather six years of usage data and to prepare the documentation needed for a well‑election question the board must approve to move forward. The board did not take a formal vote on which settlement option to adopt; presenters said formal action will follow once staff compiles usage data and the board decides whether to pursue option A, B or a negotiated C.

What’s next: presenters offered to meet with district staff and counsel to review permit abstracts and metered usage; staff said the board needs to approve a well election by the end of April if it wants the project to place the tie‑in during current construction activities.