Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunrise outlines phased options for Mona’s pressurized irrigation system, recommends reuse as first phase
Summary
A Sunrise consultant presented alternatives to expand Mona’s pressurized irrigation system, including reuse from the treatment plant, a new upper‑zone pond sourced from the Barnes well, or full system replacement; initial estimates range from about $340,000 for a small upper‑zone pipe to more than $20 million for full replacement.
A Sunrise representative told the Mona City Council at a Nov. 18 work session that the city’s pressurized irrigation system is pressure‑limited east of 400 East and cannot reliably serve higher elevations under current configuration. The consultant outlined a set of alternatives to add water and expand service, ranging from a reuse‑based lower‑zone project to a full replacement of the irrigation network.
The consultant said the reuse option would involve constructing a pump house and piping treated effluent into the irrigation system; under current permit conditions the reuse source could add about 240 gallons per minute year‑round. Sunrise estimated the lower‑zone reuse project — including pump house, valves, metering and piping — at roughly $1.2 million. For an upper‑zone solution, purchasing the Barnes well and constructing a pond with piping under the overpass was estimated at about $2.6 million, while a smaller pipe taking the city well to a pond was estimated near $340,000. The consultant cautioned the Barnes well purchase price is a guesstimate and could be higher or lower.
Sunrise presented two higher‑cost pathways if the city wants greater ownership: installing city distribution lines to reduce reliance on the irrigation company (rough figure: $11 million) or replacing the entire irrigation network (rough figures: $21 million to $26 million depending on scope). The consultant emphasized these are large capital undertakings and would require coordination with the irrigation company and a political decision about ownership and operations.
On funding, Sunrise recommended phasing work and said reuse projects are often competitive for WaterSmart grants and the Bureau’s funding priorities. Councilmember Jonathan observed that a WaterSmart grant could cover a high share of costs, with one member saying, “I think you could get a 75%” award in a favorable scenario. Sunrise also listed other potential sources, including Community Impact Board (CIB) funds, USDA rural programs, state revolving funds, and potential DEQ support for reuse work. Sunrise recommended starting with a reuse project as Phase 1 and packaging subsequent improvements in later phases to spread costs and take advantage of grant matches.
Council members asked technical follow‑ups about well capacity, whether pipes could be run under the freeway, and how water rights would constrain culinary‑for‑irrigation policy changes. Sunrise said project teams would coordinate with the city’s funding specialist and the Division of Drinking Water and offered to return for additional work sessions to answer detailed questions. The council directed staff to continue refining costs and funding plans and to schedule follow‑up work sessions.
