Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees ask staff to develop policy for using water‑augmentation certificates in annexations
Summary
Trustees discussed a staff proposal to create a points‑based framework for when the town would accept Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District augmentation certificates to support annexations. No policy was adopted; staff will return with a draft policy and recommended limits tied to well capacity and enforceable community benefits.
Trustees on July 22 reviewed a staff proposal to evaluate annexation requests that might rely on water‑augmentation certificates issued by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD). The board did not adopt a new policy but asked staff to develop an approach that would be referenced in code or policy and returned for consideration.
Why it matters: Annexation requests sometimes lack an on‑site municipal water right. Town staff proposed that the board consider a structured, points‑based system to evaluate whether the town should accept UAWCD augmentation certificates (which mitigate impacts on surface and groundwater when new wells pump) in lieu of an on‑site town water right. The proposal aims to balance the town’s water‑supply limits, legal risks and community benefits.
Staff outlined the complexity: augmentation certificates require engineering to quantify diversions and depletions, annual storage and maintenance fees, and the town must ensure that accepting certificates does not exhaust permitted well capacity or leave the town exposed if certificates are curtailed. Staff said the town would also need to secure enforceable commitments from developers — for example, infrastructure, deed‑restricted affordable housing, trail connections or other public benefits — that could be verified in an annexation agreement.
The proposed procedural framework would ask petitioners to provide a narrative and commitments tied to trustee priorities (for example, housing, infrastructure or recreation). Staff would score commitments in a matrix, and applicants meeting minimum thresholds would be eligible for consideration of augmentation certificates. Trustees asked for additional safeguards: require no outdoor‑watering allowances tied to certificates unless explicitly approved, require a homeowner‑association or developer to pay annual UAWCD maintenance fees, limit the town’s exposure by testing well capacity before acceptance, and require enforceable, contractible public benefits rather than letters of intent.
No vote was taken. Trustees directed staff to prepare a draft policy that could be referenced in code or council policy and to return with clarifying language on well‑capacity tests, limits on how much of the town’s portfolio could be reserved for augmentation certificates, and recommended language to put certificate fees and restrictions on future property utility bills or covenants.
Ending: Staff will draft a policy for trustee consideration that addresses well capacity, enforceable public benefits, fee pass‑throughs for maintenance, and limits to annual or portfolio share of augmentation certificates. The draft will return to the board for debate before any annexation‑specific approvals.
