Mona work session examines water limits for subdivisions, annexation leverage for developers

Mona officials, residents and representatives of Mona Irrigation Company met in a city work session April 8 to discuss how the town should handle water for proposed subdivisions and annexations as development interest grows.

The discussion centered on limits in the town’s pressurized irrigation (PI) and field-share systems, how state changes to culinary-water measures affect residential requirements, and whether annexation should be used to require developers to fund upgrades or provide independent water sources. No ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting; council members voted only to open and then to close the work session.

Why it matters: attendees said the town’s irrigation and culinary systems are near capacity and that allowing developers to rely on existing field shares or small subdivision ponds could reduce service for existing customers. Council members and residents said annexation gives the city leverage to require developers to show how they will supply water before zoning or development approvals.

Discussion highlights

- System capacity and types of water. Participants described two distinct systems: the town’s pressurized irrigation (PI) system, designed to deliver smaller, more frequent allocations for domestic use, and separate agricultural “field” systems that operate differently and were not designed to serve expanded domestic demand. A Mona Irrigation Company representative explained the PI infrastructure was sized for the originally planned town service area and that growth has exceeded those expectations.

- Limits on sharing and transfers. Attendees repeatedly emphasized that field shares cannot simply be moved into the PI system without addressing pipeline capacity and the risk of reducing water available to existing shareholders. A company representative warned developers that converting field shares into PI service “would dry up the people that’s already in here dependent on it.”

- Developer proposals and ponds. Several participants said some developers propose on-site ponds to serve subdivisions. City and irrigation representatives cautioned that even larger ponds would not help if there is not enough flow or pipeline capacity to fill them, and that multiple small, uncoordinated ponds could produce long-term maintenance and safety problems (for example, who maintains a failed homeowners association pond).

- Annexation as leverage. City staff and council members discussed using annexation conditions to require developers to demonstrate water supply and infrastructure upgrades prior to approval. Participants noted that once property is annexed, the city’s leverage is reduced, so the preferred approach would be to require solutions before annexation is finalized.

- Quantities and rules mentioned. Attendees referenced earlier local requirements that once required roughly 0.5 acre-foot of culinary water per lot and noted the state later set a 0.45-acre-foot minimum; they discussed the quarter-share model used when PI was extended and said a developer who thinks they “own” field shares for a subdivision may still be unable to use them for domestic PI service without system upgrades or state transfers. A speaker said transfers from field (agricultural) water to culinary water are possible but typically result in a substantial reduction in usable volume after the state conversion process.

Quotes and attributions

Dennis Gardner, a meeting participant who led much of the discussion, said: “I know we can't stop the growth in Mona, but my goal is to try to control it in the best way we can.”

A representative of Mona Irrigation Company (identified in the meeting as Greg) cautioned about shareholder impacts: “If you open it up and let it go out, the money will buy all them quarter shares with people already, and you will dry up the people that’s already in here dependent on it.”

Decisions and next steps

No policy changes were adopted. Attendees agreed the city should compile a clear history of relevant ordinances and codify annexation conditions that require developers to show how they will provide water (for example, by funding system upgrades, building a privately owned pond system that does not impair shareholders, or by securing converted culinary water rights). Staff and council members said they will schedule additional work sessions to develop specific language and options for annexation and development conditions.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to open the April 8, 2025 work session — moved by Dennis Gardner, seconded by Duran; council voted to open the session (vote recorded as “Aye” in the meeting record).

- Motion to close the work session — moved by a meeting participant (name recorded in the transcript as the third speaker), seconded by another participant; council voted to close the session (vote recorded as “Aye” in the meeting record).

Context and background

Participants said the town’s secondary/PI infrastructure was designed decades ago to support the original service area and that growth and annexations have increased demand beyond original projections. The meeting referenced prior ordinance changes, the town’s annexation policy and multiple development proposals that have already been denied because developers could not show an adequate water supply or system upgrades. Speakers also mentioned that metering of secondary water use is becoming more common at the state level and that legal or regulatory changes could affect future policy choices.

Ending

Staff and council members said they will reconvene to translate the work-session discussion into draft annexation conditions and possible ordinance language. No final vote on annexation policy or new requirements was taken at the meeting.