Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bicknell delays final well permit sign‑off as landowner refuses land‑use agreement
Summary
Kelly (town staff) told council the new well and controls are built but the Division of Drinking Water requires signed land‑use agreements from landowners in defined source‑protection zones; at least one landowner (David) has declined to sign, and council agreed to arrange a site stakeout and meeting with state staff and trustees to resolve concerns.
Town staff member Kelly (speaker 8) updated the council on March 5: construction of the new well and system controls is complete and the system can be switched to automatic operation, but the state Division of Drinking Water requires a signed land‑use agreement from adjacent owners before issuing an operating permit. Kelly said some neighbors signed an earlier "intent to sign" document but that at least one affected landowner, David (private landowner), is unwilling to sign the final agreement now that the source protection zones were refined after drilling and testing.
Kelly described how the source‑protection process works: preliminary reports estimate zones before drilling; once the well is drilled, tested and equipped, the zones are refined and land‑use agreements are finalized. Kelly told the council the town asked for an exception but the Division of Drinking Water responded that the agency expects stronger compliance: "they really want the land use agreement," Kelly said.
Council members pressed for clarity about what activities the land‑use agreement would restrict. Kelly explained that ordinary grazing usually does not meet the regulatory definition of an animal feeding operation, but concentrated feedlots and a list of roughly 59 prohibited activities (examples cited: dry cleaners, chemigation wells, boat refinishers) would be restricted within the protection area.
Because the majority of the protection overlay is on BLM land, council members explored ownership boundaries and county records; they agreed that an on‑site staking of Zone 1 and Zone 2 would help avoid misunderstandings. Council members asked Kelly to arrange a site visit and to invite the affected landowners (David, Daniel and the trustee names referenced) plus a state representative (John) so landowners can hear restrictions directly from the Division of Drinking Water. A tentative follow‑up date discussed in the meeting was March 25 for a meeting/stakeout and a daytime site visit was preferred so the state representative could attend.
What’s next: staff will arrange an on‑site staking of the refined source‑protection zones, invite affected owners and state staff to the meeting, and report back to council so the town can secure the well operating permit without litigation or loss of grant funding.
