Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orangeville council weighs irrigation contract overages and metering proposal amid risk of supply cuts
Summary
Councilors reviewed a long-standing arrangement with Cottonwood Irrigation Company after reporting an annual usage above the city's allocation and discussed requiring meters for large secondary-water users to curb overages and avoid potential shutoffs.
Orangeville's city council spent a substantial portion of its Nov. 13 meeting examining an irrigation arrangement and recurring overages tied to secondary-water use, and it discussed whether to require property owners who irrigate more than half an acre to install private meters at their expense.
The discussion began when staff and council members summarized a 2002 lease with Cottonwood Irrigation Company that allocated 1,150 acre-feet of water to the city. Staff reported that Orangeville used about 1,239 acre-feet in a recent year and currently holds roughly 998.4 class A shares and 64 class B shares, leaving the city short by an estimated 189 shares relative to what it needs.
Why it matters: council members said the canal company has not provided a clear written guarantee for overages and that the city's historical "gentleman's agreements" may not protect Orangeville if consumption remains above allocation. Councilors expressed concern that, as a possible ramification for continued overages, the canal company could limit or shut off both culinary and secondary supplies to the city.
Council members relayed options the canal company and staff suggested, including stricter enforcement of watering schedules, asking outside (non-city) users who request new hookups to surrender or pay for additional shares, and asking owners of large irrigation connections to install individual meters so the city can track and bill or manage usage more precisely. Staff said they currently know of nine secondary connections that irrigate pastures or alfalfa and that installing a meter could cost a property owner about $2,500.
One council member framed the risk plainly: if overages continue unchecked, "they have said that as a possible ramification, we'll just shut the water off to the city," prompting colleagues to discuss whether the city should bear meter costs, require owners to pay, or seek a different water-selling arrangement to secure supply.
Councilors also described governance and voting constraints at the canal company: voting power on the canal board is weighted by water shares, which some council members said favors large shareholders and makes turnout by small-share holders essential when canal-company votes occur.
What's next: council members said no final decision would be made that night; they asked staff to gather more data (multi-year usage records, number and size of large secondary connections) and to solicit possible solutions before the canal company's next vote. The council asked residents with water shares to attend the canal-company meeting to protect Orangeville's voting position.
Ending: councilors framed the problem as urgent but unresolved and requested additional information and community participation before adopting a metering requirement or other enforcement steps.
