The Washington City Council held concurrent public hearings Nov. 12 to discuss potential eminent‑domain acquisition of two parcels needed for a proposed water storage site and pipeline serving the southern Washington Fields.

Lester Dalton, assistant public works director, described the project as a phased water‑tank farm and pipeline corridor that must meet strict elevation requirements for gravity-fed pressure. Dalton said the site will accommodate three tank pads over time but that the city would construct only the immediate elements it is funded to build, starting with a single tank and a 16‑inch pipeline; additional pipelines and tanks could follow as demand and funding allow.

Property owners and their attorney urged pause and mediation. Attorney James Purcell, representing Bernie and Kathy Burris, asked the council to table any eminent‑domain decision and said the owners would prefer mediation and a second appraisal. Co-owner Terry Seifer read an attorney’s opinion on record that argued Utah law bars condemning property beyond an immediate public need and asserted that condemning seven acres of their 10‑acre parcel would be excessive if the city currently plans only one tank.

Seifer and co-owner Robert Wagner also raised concerns that a fee‑simple taking of road right‑of‑way could landlock their remaining property unless the city explicitly preserves owner access, and they criticized the city's appraisal as too low. The council and city attorney explained the statutory process: owners may obtain a second appraisal (paid by the city) and use the state ombudsman for mediation. Council members expressed a preference to negotiate and avoid litigation but emphasized the need to secure land so the city can design and construct infrastructure to meet growth and fire‑flow needs.

Blake Konsbeck, public works director, said the city’s capital facilities plan anticipates multiple tanks and that acquiring the full site now is more cost‑efficient than repeatedly buying smaller portions later. Council indicated staff should continue negotiations and that owners should pursue the second appraisal and mediation if they choose.

No eminent‑domain resolution or vote was taken at the hearing; the item remains under discussion pending further appraisal and negotiation.