Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield planners review draft water ordinance, flag irrigation rights and operator, fee questions
Summary
Planning commissioners reviewed a draft water ordinance, discussed historic Fairfield Irrigation Company connection rights, operator certification levels, impact/connection fees and appeals; staff were directed to work with consultants and affected residents before council review.
Planning and Zoning Commission members in Fairfield on Aug. 6 reviewed a new draft municipal water ordinance and directed staff and outside consultants to meet with local residents and irrigation representatives to clarify how historic irrigation connection rights, operator certification and impact fees will be handled.
Commissioners said the draft, prepared by Bowen & Collins, raised unresolved questions about preexisting hookup rights issued by the Fairfield Irrigation Company, how those rights transfer when owners join the town system, and what grandfathering — if any — should apply for descendants who wish to build on parcels with previously banked water rights.
The discussion focused first on a highlighted provision indicating Fairfield Irrigation Company would retain “perpetual responsibility” for certain hookups and that the town would defer to the irrigation company on those matters. Commissioners and several resident participants pushed for clarification on which hookups were connected to the town system, which remained irrigation-only, and how many hookups the company originally held. A commissioner summarized the practical problem: many historic hookups exist on paper but were never physically tied into the town system, creating uncertainty about whether owners may use the rights to build homes for family members.
Commissioners asked staff to gather records, meet with landowners and Walton/Bowen Collins attorneys, and propose specific language to define how previously banked share amounts (for example, acre-feet or municipal gallons) would be applied under the town system. The commission suggested that a follow-up meeting — and then a town council discussion in two weeks — would allow affected residents and consultants to work through the history and technical details.
On operator qualifications, commissioners asked whether the proposed water director should be required to hold a Level 4 water-operator certification. Staff said current state rules require a certified small-systems operator until a population threshold (500) is reached; the town’s current operator (referred to as “LB” in the record) holds a Level 4 certificate and would satisfy the requirement if the council designates that as the expectation. Commissioners requested the ordinance explicitly note whether the director must be certified or whether the director may hire certified operators.
Commissioners also discussed connection and impact fees. They asked staff to consider fee schedules that vary by circumstance — for example, a different fee when a property ties into an existing line versus when a developer must extend mainline infrastructure — and to check whether the existing town fee schedule already covers the listed charges. Commissioners emphasized that residents who paid to install the system originally should not face disproportionate costs for later connections.
Other technical items flagged for revision included: specifying the authority that approves new service-connection plans (building department versus town council), a clear engineering-review requirement (town engineer review), appeals language, how meters and service lines will be handled for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), billing and enforcement steps for unpaid accounts, and whether boring under paved roads should be required for new mains or allowed to be waived in particular circumstances. Commissioners asked that billing, penalties and cross-connection/backflow provisions be more clearly placed in the ordinance or in referenced procedural rules.
The commission closed the water item by requesting staff and consultants (Bowen & Collins and, separately, an engineer referred to as Rowan Collins) work with local residents and the town administrator to produce clarified draft language for council consideration.
The meeting also included routine business (approval of July 2 minutes) and scheduling discussion but no final ordinance adoption; commissioners confined their action to review and direction to staff.
