Castle Valley council backs environmental complaint, approves invoices and water-plan comments; tables water‑agent hiring

The Castle Valley Town Council on April 16 approved a resolution supporting a legal complaint against the U.S. Forest Service, voted to pay multiple invoices for town projects and equipment, approved submission of a set of comments on a state total maximum daily load (TMDL) report for local creeks, and tabled a hiring and job‑description change for the town water agent while proposing budgeted training funds.

The council unanimously approved Resolution 2025‑2, which expresses municipal support for a complaint filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies against the U.S. Forest Service concerning the “Manjil La Salle National Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction prescribed fire project,” a matter several council members said affects Castle Valley and neighboring lands. Council members discussed first contacting the local Forest Service field office before wider public circulation of the town action; some members said they preferred outreach to local staff before broader publicity.

Council members also approved several finance actions during the meeting. The council authorized payment of a Johnson Mills (Jones Industrial) invoice for $36,740 so the town can submit a reimbursement request to NRCS and keep the multi‑phase drainage project moving. The council approved a purchase order for replacement tractor tires and related services (total amount reported in the meeting packet as $2,25 98) after a road‑department representative described a tire failure that could have caused injury. A donation of $1,325 from the Gorge Festival was accepted and designated for emergency operations radios and related equipment. The council additionally approved regular payment of the bills on the meeting agenda.

On water issues, the council voted to approve a package of comments prepared by local staff and collaborators for submission to the Utah Division of Water Quality on the draft TMDL for E. coli in Castle Creek, Mill Creek and Pack Creek. Pam (water committee member) told the council the designation relates to recreation exposure (people swimming and similar contact) and “this TMDL designation for E. Coli is not regulatory.” She noted Castle Creek’s exceedance is relatively small — about 14% over the baseline described in the draft — and urged collaborative work with county and state agencies. Council members authorized Pam and town staff (via Sam, identified in meeting discussion as a staff/consultant contact) to submit the comments through the formal online system on the town’s behalf.

Separately, the council discussed updates to the water‑agent position and succession planning. John, identified in the meeting as the town’s water agent, is expected to retire at the end of 2026; council members and staff described the need for an extended training overlap and proposed budgeting $16,000 next fiscal year to cover both training time for John and part of the new hire’s pay during the transition. After discussion, a motion to table changes to the job description passed; council members asked for a revised job description and associated edits to return at a future meeting (staff said they could provide an edited draft within a month).

Other business the council handled included approving a town‑submitted set of more limited editorial and technical comments on a long watershed report and establishing that the town will seek reimbursements through NRCS for engineering and cultural‑survey bills as part of the larger drainage/culvert project. The council also agreed to add maintenance of the paid cemetery to the janitor/groundskeeper job description and approved sending two letters supporting federal field workers and cooperating staff when appropriate.

The council’s actions were taken during a regularly scheduled meeting that included reports from the roads department, planning and land use discussion, and town administrative updates. Several items — including the water‑agent job description edits and further outreach to Forest Service staff on the fuels‑reduction plan — were left for follow up at a subsequent meeting.