Mona council examines tight water supplies, costly regional option and local fixes

Mona City council members spent the work session weighing near-term and long-term options to serve irrigation and culinary needs as demand approaches the limits of the town’s existing systems.

The most immediate point raised was capacity: an irrigation-system representative explained that the secondary system was originally sized for the town’s roughly 640-acre footprint and is approaching the limit of what its pipes and taps can handle. “There’s just too many taps going out for the capacity of the size of pipelines,” the representative said. Council members repeatedly warned that routing additional field shares into the secondary system would quickly overload it.

The conversation examined three broad approaches: approve developer-funded on-site pond/HOA schemes; stretch the culinary system to supply secondary uses; or invest in infrastructure to move and treat other supplies. Council cited a Sunrise Engineering report that gave a low-end option to pump treated wastewater up to Main Street at about $1.2 million (pump station and chlorination) and a full upper-zone system overlay at roughly $26.6 million. “We filed a water reuse permit with the state engineer, so we’ve got 388 acre feet,” one council speaker said, noting there would still be costs to lift and treat that water for irrigation.

Council members expressed practical worries about seasonality and storage. Several speakers noted that treated wastewater or reuse water would be most valuable during the irrigation season and that storage and winter disposal pose logistical and cost questions. One councilor asked whether the city would pay “$1,200,000 for four months of water use” without adequate winter storage.

Members also discussed acquiring local groundwater assets. Staff reported a nearby Barns well currently pumping about 30 gallons per minute that could be retrofitted and connected; an estimate to buy and build transmission for that well was discussed at about $2.6 million.

Beyond local fixes, councilors reviewed the Central Utah (NEBO/CUP) project as a potential long-term supply. The district has committed to some delivery to Juab County but estimates given to the council ranged from 7,000 to 8,000 acre-feet (down from earlier 10,000 commitments). Cost estimates quoted by presenters were in the range of $20,000–$40,000 per acre-foot ‘‘in perpetuity,’’ which the council discussed as a steep price for agricultural or broad residential uses; one member calculated that, spread across decades, the cost might translate to roughly $67 per home in a simplified example. The project’s target window for delivery discussed in the meeting was about 2032.

Council members highlighted legal and procedural pressures tied to development applications. Staff explained the state-mandated review cycles that allow up to four review rounds (30 days on initial review and up to 120 days total). If developers present complete plans and the city denies without substantiated reasons, the city faces litigation risk. Council members said they recently used an additional 30-day review cycle for a subdivision application to allow more time for the engineering review.

What comes next: councilors asked staff to schedule a dedicated briefing with Roger Pearson of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to see maps, participation options and detailed cost scenarios; Sunrise Engineering will be asked to finalize pipeline and capacity modeling for culinary and secondary systems. The council did not adopt any ordinance or formal long-term funding commitment at the session.

The work session closed with the mayor’s office and staff agreeing to schedule the Central Utah briefing and to keep monitoring the current subdivision review cycle.