Mona planning commission tables East Hills Meadows subdivision amid water‑supply and rights concerns

The Mona City Planning & Zoning Commission on Feb. 4 voted to table preliminary approval of the five‑lot East Hills Meadows subdivision after residents, the irrigation company and city staff raised concerns about the proposal’s water supply and long‑term operations.

At a public hearing and subsequent commission discussion, Gordon Young, president of the Mona Irrigation Company, said the company identified a streamflow allocation that could be diverted to a pond for the subdivision but cautioned it might be insufficient in practice. "In theory this would be sufficient to serve the homes, [but] I’m not sure that realistically that would work," Young said, noting ditch losses, carrier‑water issues and evaporation. He asked who would operate the pond and what would happen if it ran dry.

Developer representatives and property owners proposed several alternatives, including tapping a nearby high‑pressure line and installing booster pumps so each home could be metered. "Every option that they approach seems to get shot down," Richard Hatfield said, describing earlier attempts to access the high‑line system and to qualify water rights for the pond. He said the intention was to pull water from the high‑line system to fill a pond and that the developer had explored metering so unused water could flow back into the network.

City water expert Jonathan Jones and Secretary Lori Henrie pushed back on relying on the culinary system for irrigation. Jones said the culinary system is chlorinated and therefore not suitable for the proposed irrigation use, and Henrie said the City is not inclined to exchange irrigation shares for culinary shares because the secondary system is outside Mona’s water system and does not meet code for continuous 24/7 service. Chair Dennis Gardner told the applicants that using culinary water for outdoor irrigation would require 12.56 acre‑feet of culinary water shares and would need City Council approval.

Representatives of the private high‑line system disputed the developer’s ability to use that pipeline. Rick Kay said the high‑pressure line was installed with private funds and a right‑of‑way that provided one connection; he described the pipeline as sized historically for specific acreage and warned that additional connections could create shortages. Young echoed those concerns, saying the pipeline and high‑line system were built with finite resources and that mixing field and town shares had not worked in past attempts.

Secretary Henrie also raised legal and administrative hurdles, noting HOA documents submitted by the developer appeared to protect the developer more than the City; she said the City Attorney had a draft HOA form the developer could use and suggested the developer add an addendum to their declaration. Henrie reminded the applicants that state rules allow the City up to four preliminary review cycles and that tabling would return the application to the developer for revision and resubmittal.

Commissioners said they were reluctant to approve the subdivision without clearer water‑rights documentation, revised HOA language and confirmation of who would be responsible for long‑term operations. Commissioner Frank Riding moved to table preliminary approval; Commissioner Wayne Hellyer seconded and the motion passed on a 4–0 roll call (Commissioner Jack Boyd absent).

What happens next: tabling restarts review options and gives the developer time to revise engineering and legal documents. If the developer pursues the culinary‑water option, City Council approval would be required; if the developer revises the pond plan, the irrigation company’s written consent and clearer operational plans will be required before commissioners will grant preliminary approval.