Grantsville Irrigation asks council to decide who should hold 1,559 secondary-water shares

Representatives of Grantsville Irrigation Company asked the Grantsville City Council on March 19 to give direction on how to handle about 1,559 irrigation shares that were transferred to the city over the past two decades. Doug Williams, speaking for Grantsville Irrigation, said some shares were transferred to the city in the early 2000s and returned to the company in 2010, but that roughly 1,559 shares now sit in mixed ownership and the company wants clarity on whether the shares should be held in the city’s name and billed under the city’s secondary-water ordinance or remain recorded to homeowners.

Williams said about 600 of the shares date to the early 2000s and were returned in 2010; about 1,000 additional shares have been turned over to the city since 2010, bringing the total in question to 1,559. He told council irrigation shares are currently valued in secondary market listings at about $9,000 per share, which would represent roughly $14 million in market value if transferred en masse to homeowners; using current impact-fee rates, Williams said the same pool could imply a substantially larger notional amount (he cited an illustrative $49 million figure using impact-fee calculations). Williams volunteered to do the administrative work to straighten titles but asked the council for formal direction.

Staff and council discussed recording methods (plats with a blanket note that secondary water is attached to lots) and noted legal limits under state law. A staff speaker read the Utah constitutional principle on municipal water rights: a municipality that “owns, acquires, or controls water rights or sources of water supply to supply water to the public may not directly or indirectly lease, sell, or dispose of any of those water rights or sources of water supply,” a constraint the irrigation company cited as one reason the matter is complicated.

Council asked staff and the irrigation company to map which shares are still attached to lots, which homeowners are paying current irrigation assessments, which shares have been sold or converted, and to return with a proposal. Council suggested a phased approach starting with shares already in the city’s name and acknowledged the work could take one to two years to resolve. A follow-up report and proposal date of May 1 was discussed for additional direction.