Washington City Council members were told Wednesday that county watersheds remain unusually dry and that the city should decide how to spend about $234,000 in excess water-use surcharge funds the Washington County Water Conservancy District is holding in the city’s name.

The update opened the council’s workshop when Bree Thompson, associate general manager for operations and planning at the Washington County Water Conservancy District, presented recent precipitation, soil moisture and river-flow data and warned officials that county conditions remain “dry.” Thompson said the district’s river gauge near Virgin shows flows similar to other historic drought years and that low soil moisture in parts of the county makes it harder to build spring snowpack.

Thompson’s briefing set the context for a staff presentation about the surcharge funds the district has collected from high-usage customers and is holding for Washington City. Jeremy (city staff member) told the council the district’s current accounting shows about $234,000 attributable to Washington City and said, “It will expire in December 2026 unless we commit them to something.”

Why it matters: the council and district say the money is earmarked for conservation, and the city faces a statutory and operational limit on how those funds may be used. Council members debated three main options presented by staff: hire a consultant to model how to meet future mandatory drought-reduction targets, fund additional resident rebates that “piggyback” on the district’s turf-removal buyback program, or spend the money on local infrastructure projects (for example, irrigation connections or pilot turf removal on city-owned properties).

Discussion and options

Thompson and city staff described the region’s water picture: Quail Creek and Sand Hollow reservoirs were reported at roughly 77–80% full at the time of the presentation; Gunlock Reservoir users received roughly 37% of their usual annual allocation because of low reservoir levels; and the Virgin River is under a Division of Water Rights call that limits diversions during dry years. Thompson summarized: “Conditions in the county remain dry.”

Staff framed the council’s specific funding choice as balancing near-term conservation incentives with readiness planning. Jeremy outlined the three options:
- Hire a consultant to identify the most effective, locally tailored actions (for example, which uses or rate changes would most efficiently produce a 10% or 20% reduction). Staff cautioned the city that the study would likely “take up all the money we have and probably then some.”
- Provide “piggyback” rebates that add to the district’s existing grass-removal buyback: the additional city funds would boost the rebate by about $1 per square foot on top of the district program (staff said the piggyback structure would make the combined payment roughly $3 per square foot for the first 500 square feet and step down thereafter).
- Use the money on local projects such as advancing irrigation (reducing culinary water used for irrigation) or targeted turf removal on city-owned properties so the city can showcase conservation and reduce municipal demand.

Council response and direction

Council members said they wanted options that would be visible and practical. Councilman Coates said he favored using funds for projects rather than only rebates, noting the city recently approved an irrigation master plan and suggesting the money could support small, targeted projects. Another council member said a consultant might be useful but expressed reluctance to spend the entire balance on a study. Several council members suggested staff return with a short list of possible projects the $234,000 could fund, and staff agreed to do that homework.

No formal motion or binding vote was taken on how to spend the surcharge funds. Instead, council members directed staff to:
- identify candidate city projects (for example, irrigation conversions or pilot turf removal on city-owned parcels) that the surcharge funds could seed;
- produce cost estimates and an implementation recommendation for the council to consider before the district’s expiration date for the funds; and
- report back to the council with timing, estimated costs and any dependencies (for example, state cost-share opportunities tied to the district’s program).

Quotable

“Conditions in the county remain dry,” Bree Thompson said. “We have water in our drinking water reservoirs that will hold us over and provide supply for the water that’s being provided to our municipalities.”

“Our estimate right now with the district is about $234,000 of those excess fees that they’re holding under Washington City’s name,” Jeremy said. “It will expire in December 2026 unless we commit them to something.”

“I like both of them, but we just approved an irrigation master plan, and I think that’s a critical one to get some of our irrigation online that was conserved culinary water for secondary,” Councilman Coates said; he urged staff to identify possible local projects.

What the council did and did not do

Discussion only — no formal appropriation or ordinance change occurred. The council requested staff return with a set of project options, cost estimates and a recommended use of the funds before the district’s December 2026 expiration. Council members also expressed skepticism about dedicating the entire balance to a consultant study.

Context and technical details

- Fund amount: about $234,000 (district accounting, presented to the council). The district holds the money in the city’s name; staff said the allocation would expire in December 2026 unless the city commits it to a qualifying conservation project.
- Reported reservoir levels at presentation: Quail Creek and Sand Hollow were each about 77–80% full at the time of the briefing; Gunlock Reservoir users received about 37% of their usual allocation for the year.
- Regional constraints: the Division of Water Rights had placed a call on the Virgin River because of low flows; in dry years that call gives higher‑priority water-right holders the first ability to divert water.
- Usage trends: staff showed that overall delivered water in 2025 was roughly 6% higher than in 2021, while equivalent residential connections increased 17%, producing an 8% reduction in use per connection when the two years are compared.

Next steps

Staff will return to the council with a short list of candidate projects or rebate options, engineering or procurement cost estimates, and a recommended timing and financing approach before the district’s expiration date for the surcharge funds. The council retained discretion to select one option, divide the funds across multiple projects or decline to participate in the district’s piggyback rebate program.

Sources: Washington City Council workshop, Aug. 13, 2025 (presentation by Bree Thompson, Washington County Water Conservancy District; staff presentation by Jeremy, Washington City staff).