Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers metering south of the river; retains contingency for other project uses
Summary
After lengthy discussion of funding, ownership of water rights and meter costs, the council voted to postpone installing irrigation meters on the south side of the river. Staff said about $300,000 remains in project contingency and the state requires project closeout by Dec. 31.
The Gunnison City Council on March 19 voted to defer installation of irrigation meters on the south side of the river after staff and council members weighed cost, responsibility and funding timelines.
Kelly, a project contact participating by phone, told the council the overall project must be completed and closed out by Dec. 31 to meet state funding conditions and that about $300,000 remained in contingency. "Right now, about 300,000," Kelly said when asked how much contingency remained.
Staff and council members discussed who is responsible for metering under the state mandate; project staff noted the obligation generally falls on water‑right owners and the irrigation purveyor rather than the city where the city does not own the water right. Staff said the state has expanded leniency for waivers in some circumstances and that the city could choose to meter connections on its own if it wished.
Council members estimated the cost to meter all south‑of‑river connections could range from roughly $350,000 to as much as $500,000 depending on whether farm (3‑inch) connections are included; meter costs and installation estimates were described as approximations. Staff suggested alternatives for using remaining contingency, including purchasing spare meters for inventory, installing a master meter at the pond to monitor inflow/outflow, or installing a portion of meters on the south edge of the system.
After discussion, Councilman Craig moved "that we do not meter in the south side of the river" based on cost, ownership and the availability of remaining contingency funds; the motion was seconded and passed on the record. Council directed staff to consider alternative ways to use contingency funds before grant close‑out, and to return to the council if circumstances change (for example, expansion of pond storage or a change in ownership that would trigger city responsibility).
