Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights County Assets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County discusses Clark Water Company stake, votes to enter closed session for legal advice
Summary
County staff briefed commissioners on the Clark Water Company (the county holds 76 shares), outlined operational and water-rights uncertainties and potential buyers, and the commission voted to enter a closed session under Utah Code §52-4-205(C) to discuss purchases and legal strategy.
County staff told the Davis County Commission that the county is the largest shareholder in the Clark Water Company and summarized the company's history, current operational use and legal complexity.
The staff presenter said the county acquired 16 shares in 1988 and an additional 60 shares in 1990, for a total of 76 shares tied historically to irrigation on the west side and to water serving the Western Sports Park. Staff said the company had been largely inactive since the early 2000s, that many shareholders have not actively used their rights, and that the county has been supplementing irrigation at Western Sports Park with a portable pump.
"We have a majority share in this water company," the county staff presenter said, and explained that ambiguity over diversion structures and how many acre-feet are allocated per share requires further review. Staff said they estimated current operations used roughly three to four shares historically but that the historic allocation may not reflect current water-right realities.
Staff said a shareholder meeting was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. that night and that the county intends to assign a proxy ("which is Jeff," staff said) to represent Davis County at that meeting. County staff reported they had engaged outside counsel (Emily Lewis of Clyde Snow & Sessions) to advise the county on options and next steps.
County legal staff warned that pursuing changes could produce shareholder disputes or litigation, and recommended legal advice. A commissioner moved that the commission go into a closed session under Utah Code §52-4-205(C) to discuss purchases and related legal matters; the motion was seconded and the commission verbally voted "aye" and entered closed session.
The record in the open session does not show a formal vote tally with names, an actual proxy assignment, or a sale; staff said additional actions and potential litigation would be addressed in closed session or in subsequent meetings.
Next steps: County staff said they will pursue counsel advice, confirm proxy arrangements for the shareholder meeting and return with recommended options after legal consultation.
