Landowner requests irrigation easement across county rail-trail; staff and commissioners favor buried pipe, not open ditch

A west-side landowner asked Weber County commissioners on July 21 for an irrigation easement across a county-owned former railroad embankment currently used as a recreational rail-trail. County staff and commissioners said they will not support an open-channel ditch along the rail bed and instead recommended the applicant either install a buried pipe or return with a piped design and costs.

The Nut Graf: Riker Wells asked for a 10-foot irrigation easement spanning nearly 3,000 feet across the rail corridor and adjacent embankment; county staff said the rail bed27s construction materials and decomposed soils make an open channel unsuitable and pose long-term maintenance and seepage risks, and recommended a contained, corrosion-resistant pipe (plastic or concrete) with engineering and a purchase of a perpetual easement at market value.

County staff described the rail corridor as built of historic ballast and "slag" and said the soils are collapsible and corrosive, which will quickly undermine an open ditch. Sean (county staff) reported on an on-site visit and said the landowner wanted to use the north slope of the embankment as one bank of a channel and to pile fill to create the other bank. Gary (county staff) said a-bulge/low point along the alignment raised hydraulic concerns about whether gravity flow in an open channel would be feasible without additional works.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly favored a fully piped solution. "My recommendation would be... pipe the conveyance system," Gary told the commission. Staff advised that a durable pipe (plastic or concrete) be specified because historic metal pipe corroded in these soils. County staff suggested 12-inch to 18-inch diameters as plausible starting points for the applicant27s engineer to evaluate for conveyance, but said the applicant27s engineer must confirm sizes based on his water-rights flow rate.

Commissioners and staff also discussed acquisition cost: staff said a perpetual easement is typically valued using a fraction of the parcel27s assessed value, and that they would calculate a purchase price for a permanent easement (staff estimated an approach using about 50% of the tax-valuation-derived land value for the easement as a working method). Staff said the applicant would likely be expected to pay easement purchase costs and the cost of piping.

There was no final vote. Commissioners directed staff to tell the landowner the county will entertain the request only if the applicant returns with an engineering design calling for a buried pipe and with cost estimates and a proposed legal description so staff can calculate an easement price and review construction details.

Ending: Staff will request engineered plans, a proposed perpetual-easement legal description and cost estimates from the landowner; until then the county will not approve an open, unpiped irrigation ditch across the rail-trail.