Council questions data in preliminary UGS water-budget presentation; final report expected in November

Council members at the Sept. 17 Castle Valley Town Council meeting raised questions about the data and methodology used in a preliminary water-budget presentation by the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) and discussed next steps, including a fuller presentation of the final report expected this fall.

Council members and several residents said the slides shown at a recent public meeting relied on historical estimates of how much water holders actually use compared with their water-rights paper amounts. The presentation was preliminary and not yet public, staff said; multiple agencies are still reviewing the draft before UGS publishes a final report, council members said.

Erin, who presented in place of a sick colleague, told the audience the UGS slides were an early look at a draft water budget; council members and residents said they were not given links or detailed sources because the report has not completed agency review. At the meeting the draft was described as relying in part on a historical Division of Water Rights study from the early 1990s that used totalizers on selected wells to estimate actual pumping. One resident and well owner identified himself as participating in that 1990s sampling and said the study monitored about eight or nine wells and found actual annual use on sampled wells was roughly half of the water-rights volumes in some cases (example given: a well with a 6.05 acre‑foot right showing about 3.3 acre‑feet used in a year).

Council members said such historical measurements are useful but questioned treating them as definitive for current conditions. Staff and the UGS presenter said groundwater levels and inflows appear stable for now, though surface flows (the creek) were reported low; UGS noted groundwater age may be relatively young (on the order of decades) and that future population changes or drought could alter the budget.

The council also received an update on the town’s vacant water‑agent position. Staff said a preferred candidate declined the offer and that the council will revisit the job description and duties before re‑advertising. Members said the town needs clearer procedures for measuring and reporting actual water use, and one council member asked staff to ensure any numbers quoted publicly are traceable to data sources.

What was said about data and attribution Council members were explicit that if the study’s draft uses older or limited sampling, that should be noted when the numbers are quoted. One council member asked staff to ask the UGS presenter to attribute the 50–60% usage estimate to its original source rather than presenting it as current fact. The UGS presenter and staff said they would seek to ensure proper attribution when the final report is released.

Ending UGS staff and the council said a fuller presentation of the final, agency‑reviewed water budget is expected around November; council members said they will schedule a separate presentation because the topic requires more time than a regular council meeting typically allows.