Spring City planning commissioners approve annexation policy change requiring irrigation shares on annexation

Spring City Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 3–1 to accept corrected wording to the city’s annexation policy that would require owners to transfer specified irrigation water shares when property is annexed into city limits.

The change, discussed at the commission meeting, is meant to create a standard approach to how irrigation shares are treated at annexation rather than leaving decisions to case-by-case negotiation, commissioners said.

Randy, a representative of Horseshoe Irrigation who addressed the commission, described how the exchange would work. He said the irrigation company currently holds a half-acre-foot domestic water right that supplies springs the city uses; under the proposed arrangement the city would accumulate enough irrigation shares, deed them to the irrigation company, and the irrigation company would then convey the right to the city, allowing the city to file the usual change application with state water authorities. “So it’s that water right and that’s what this exchange agreement would do: the city would eventually build up enough shares… the irrigation company would deed that to the city, and the city would file the change application,” Randy said.

Randy and commissioners discussed technical conversions used by local irrigation companies: he said Horseshoe shares equate to about 0.9 acre-foot and that one acre-foot corresponds roughly to 450 shares; a half-acre-foot therefore would be about half that. Commissioners also discussed long-term water supply and state-level emphasis on water conservation and planning.

Commissioners who supported the policy said the agreement gives the city a predictable, lower-cost option to secure water rights than buying shares on the open market. One commissioner said doing the transaction by agreement with the irrigation company is financially preferable; the same speaker said, however, that the amount represented on the open market would be large (the transcript records an estimate of “about $3,200,000,000”).

A dissenting commissioner said the objection was not to the substance of the agreement but to the process: commissioners had limited time to review multiple revised drafts sent to them in a short span and requested more review time on major changes.

A motion to accept the corrected annexation policy language addressing irrigation shares was made and seconded; the commission voted 3 in favor, 1 opposed. The commission’s recommendation moves the corrected wording forward for the city’s legislative process and public review; commissioners noted subsequent steps would include any required filings and a city-level ordinance or administrative action as appropriate.

The commission also noted that a city council public hearing on related land-use changes is scheduled in June and that some items may be handled next by council staff. Commissioners asked staff to confirm next steps and to provide a clear timeline and final ordinance text for review before any council hearing.

Evidence cited at the meeting included the draft annexation-policy wording and the Horseshoe Irrigation explanation of how irrigation shares convert to acre-feet and would be transferred under the proposed exchange agreement.