Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corn Creek Dam topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kanosh, Corn Creek Irrigation continue months‑long talks on dam SOP and cost sharing
Summary
Town officials and Corn Creek Irrigation representatives debated a revised Standard Operating Procedure that would clarify who is responsible for operation, maintenance and emergency actions at Corn Creek Dam; commissioners want focused meetings to define 'irrigation purposes' and cost splits under a 1985 agreement.
Town officials and representatives of Corn Creek Irrigation spent the meeting negotiating a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Corn Creek Dam and the adjacent debris basin, focusing on who bears maintenance and emergency costs.
Kanosh officials said they had returned a marked‑up version of the town’s SOP and asked the irrigation company to clarify language in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of a 1985 agreement that discuss payment responsibilities. Irrigation representatives and the town both said the key disagreement is whether the irrigation company is responsible for all maintenance and operation or only for components tied to irrigation purposes.
Town staff and council members proposed a three‑part division of duties in a revised draft: responsibilities for the owner (Kanosh Town), Corn Creek Irrigation Company and a dam tender. The town’s draft lists Kanosh’s duties to inspect, keep the dam in compliance with applicable law, maintain the Emergency Action Plan (EAP), and communicate with state dam safety and emergency management agencies. The irrigation company’s duties in the town draft include appointing and training a dam tender, directing irrigation releases (in coordination with the town), and routine maintenance tied to irrigation needs. The dam tender role would be recommended by the irrigation company and confirmed by the town; the dam tender would initiate emergency actions and communicate conditions to public safety officials.
Council members and irrigation officials said many details remain undefined, including how to divide costs for flood control vs. irrigation, what triggers shared vs. irrigation‑only responsibilities, and whether shared work requires prior approvals. The town’s attorney recommended stronger contract language and a redraft to make the town’s counterproposal clear; the town said it would return a simplified counteroffer to Dixie Power and to irrigation representatives. Both sides requested smaller working meetings (one town and one irrigation representative, plus technical staff) to refine the dividing line and reporting/audit language.
Council members also flagged that FEMA and state flood maps and future floodplain requirements could change obligations and regulatory exposure; several participants said town involvement is important to keep the town eligible for federal programs. Neil (surname not specified) said the town should be able to audit claimed irrigation company expenses before contributing funds.
No final agreement was reached; the council designated Neil as the point person to coordinate further revisions and requested additional drafts be circulated as “working drafts” (labeled rough draft) to avoid premature expectations.
