Gunnison Council presses ahead with Tar Canyon test well amid farmers' concerns about groundwater impacts

Gunnison City officials outlined progress on a proposed secondary groundwater source in Tar Canyon and said the city will continue to pursue funding and final design, while dozens of nearby landowners pressed for stronger protections and independent monitoring to guard against potential impacts to local irrigation and domestic wells.

City staff and council members described a series of studies and test wells drilled in late 2022–early 2023 that identified a Tar Canyon site as the preferred location for a production well. The city filed a change application with the Division of Water Rights in March 2024 to add the Tar Canyon point of diversion to existing municipal rights; staff said the application was approved in November 2024. A 2023 city master plan shows the municipal system is short about 518 gallons per minute of source capacity in a peak-day scenario, the presenters said.

Why it matters: Gunnison relies heavily on one primary culinary source (Bartholomew Well) and has limited redundancy. Council members said a new well would provide backup supply for residents and essential services if the primary well fails; area farmers and residents say drilling and pumping a new deep well could lower local groundwater levels and damage irrigation wells, threatening livelihoods.

Officials summarized technical and regulatory context. City staff said the Tar Canyon test well reached about 1,000 feet, with surface casing to roughly 750 feet and production screening below that; the test bore used an 8-inch casing for evaluation. The treatment-plant–adjacent test well had much lower flows and poorer water quality (elevated arsenic, chloride and nitrates at or near MCLs), so the Tar Canyon site outperformed the treatment-site test well on yield and led the council to move that site forward. The Division of Drinking Water’s accounting of “peak day” demand drives the city’s source-capacity calculations, staff said.

State and legal limits were explained. Terry (State engineer) described the change-application review and said the state engineer concluded the proposed Tar Canyon point of diversion could be approved without causing “quantity impairment” as defined in Utah code. Terry also told attendees, “The state of Utah does not protect groundwater levels. Statute requires people to chase their water,” meaning property owners who lose well depth must generally deepen or repair wells or pursue judicial remedies.

Farmers and nearby well owners pushed back. Several speakers who identified themselves as local ranchers and farmers described well-level drops, sand and pump failures they say followed earlier city test pumping. Jarvis (resident/farmer) asked what the legal remedy would be if the city’s well caused neighbors’ wells to go down; Terry replied that an impaired well claim would be a civil action in district court and that proving impairment in groundwater cases is difficult. Russell (resident/farmer) said his well fluctuated about two feet between 2018 and 2025 but that he observed a larger drop after the city’s short-duration test pumping.

Requests for monitoring and concrete commitments. Neighbors repeatedly requested an independent monitoring program that would sound wells at regular intervals, collect a shared dataset and trigger an agreed action plan if downward trends were detected. City leaders responded that they are willing to pursue a jointly funded independent monitoring program similar to one used west of Cedar City, and they offered connection opportunities to properties along the proposed pipeline alignment (not free water; users would pay for consumption). Council members emphasized they want a partnership and year-to-year data-sharing, while stating they cannot unilaterally promise to undo actions by future councils.

Funding, schedule and next steps. City staff said roughly half of the project funding is secured; remaining federal funds were described as likely to arrive in the next fiscal year (beginning July 2025) but are not finalized. Environmental assessment is complete pending U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence. Next tasks the city listed are easement acquisition for the pipeline, final design, securing remaining funding and obtaining operating permits. Staff cautioned that final production-screening details and pipeline alignments are not yet set.

What was not decided. There was no formal vote recorded at the meeting on construction or operation of the Tar Canyon production well. No binding mitigation agreement (for example, guaranteed repair or replacement of affected private wells) was approved; council members said such a guarantee would require separate actions and possible future council votes.

The meeting concluded with agreement to continue dialogue: council members and many attendees endorsed a jointly funded independent monitoring program and further meetings to develop concrete response triggers if monitoring shows adverse trends. The city said it will continue project planning and funding work while seeking to keep farmers and residents informed and engaged.