Council weighs giving two‑season notice to end effluent lease as city advances plan to treat and reuse wastewater

Cedar City Mayor and councilors discussed a request Feb. 19 to give formal notice under a contract with Clarkland and Livestock that would begin the two‑growing‑season countdown to end the lessee’s exclusive use of wastewater effluent for irrigation.

Mayor Wilson Edwards framed the issue as part of a multi‑year effort to make beneficial municipal use of wastewater. The mayor said the city is building a cloth‑pile filter project at the wastewater treatment plant to produce higher‑quality (Type‑1) reclaimed water for irrigation and that the city is pursuing pipeline options and state and federal funding to bring treated effluent to municipal parks, schools and ball fields. “We have basically $50 million worth of water value that was going through our treatment plant,” the mayor said during the council discussion, describing the potential municipal value of the effluent when treated and distributed to city sites.

Timing and notice: the lessee’s contract, acknowledged by both parties, allows the city to give notice to end the lease with two growing seasons’ lead time. The mayor and several council members said that if the city intends to use the treated effluent for municipal irrigation by a specific season, it needs to give notice now in order to meet the contract’s timing if the planned pipeline and distribution are on a two‑ to three‑year timeline. Several council members emphasized they do not yet have certainty on funding or construction timing for the pipeline.

Farm interests and grant projects: Jennifer Clark Guymon (representing the Clark family) and others asked the council not to issue notice while pipeline funding and scheduling are uncertain. She said a shorter, more targeted notice or a negotiated standby arrangement would be fairer if city plans are not yet certain. Jake Benson, who said he worked with city staff on an Ag Water Optimization project, urged the council to preserve existing agricultural uses of the effluent because discharging winter effluent to farm pivots and idling deep irrigation wells can produce a high “water‑in‑the‑ground” benefit and preserve downstream water rights. Benson told the council that the Clark operation produces marketable agricultural products (lamb and wool) and that the effluent supports those operations.

Staff and legal context: staff said the city already has a cloth‑pile filtration project under way (the mayor said the treatment project’s budget is roughly $5 million and that a Division of Water Quality contribution helped move the work forward). City staff said the pipeline and distribution work would be additional capital beyond the treatment project and that several potential pipeline routes (including connections to the Water Conservancy District’s west line) are under study by the city’s consultant. Council members asked whether the state or federal grant applications for pipeline funding could be jeopardized by giving notice; staff said they were not certain and would need to confirm whether grant approvals require that treated effluent be dedicated to municipal reuse or specify distribution details.

Public comments and balance: councilors and residents debated whether the city should prioritize municipal turf irrigation (parks, ballfields, golf course and cemeteries) or adopt a mixed solution that continues agricultural pivots while building city connections. Staff and several councilors noted that the city lacks the full distribution network to use all effluent immediately and that, until pipelines and on‑city hookups are installed, some treated water or winter flow would need to be spread on land or stored.

Outcome and next steps: no final termination was executed at the meeting. Council members directed staff to return with clearer pipeline timelines and funding status and asked for communication with the Clark family and the Water Conservancy District; one councilor asked for a written advisory from the conservancy district. Council agreed to schedule the matter for action at a subsequent meeting after staff has better information about pipeline funding timelines and the state/federal grant applications’ requirements.

Ending: the council did not unilaterally terminate the lease at the Feb. 19 meeting; instead, it directed staff to gather grant and schedule details and to seek additional coordination with agricultural lessees and regional water partners before deciding whether to issue notice under the two‑growing‑season clause.