Castle Valley water advisory committee weighs metering, monitoring and options to protect water rights
Loading...
Summary
At its monthly meeting, the Castle Valley Water Advisory Committee debated a plan to meter town water‑right diversions, heard that state funding is mainly loans (estimated at 4–5%), reviewed DEQ TMDL findings for Castle Creek, and agreed to pursue low‑cost monitoring and legal options to protect surplus rights.
The Castle Valley Water Advisory Committee spent most of its meeting debating how to ensure accurate reporting and long‑term protection of the town’s water rights, with members weighing a phased metering policy, low‑cost monitoring alternatives and possible legal tools to bank or lease surplus rights.
Chair John Drew opened the discussion by framing the issue as both a management and compliance matter: the town must be able to “account for water being used under town water rights” and to provide trustworthy data to the state, he said. “It’s all it’s just a matter of time before the state’s gonna require everybody to measure their diversions of water,” Drew added, urging the town to plan a less costly, locally appropriate approach before a state mandate arrives.
Members described outreach to the Utah Division of Water Resources, which confirmed funding exists but is mostly loan‑based; one committee update cited a typical cost estimate, saying the division “would normally charge is, like, $400 per connection plus 250 installation fee.” That conversation led members to favor pursuing lower‑cost, noninvasive options — for example, monitoring the electrical usage of well pumps combined with periodic pump‑flow tests — rather than installing in‑line meters that committee members said can clog because of local sediment conditions.
Committee members agreed on a phased approach if metering is adopted: require meters for new wells drilled under town water rights, then phase in existing users who operate under town rights, while leaving privately issued rights optional to opt into the program. Several speakers emphasized the town should avoid imposing a large up‑front cost on property owners; others noted a state requirement for metering already applies to many new change‑of‑use applications.
The meeting also reviewed monitoring and water‑quality work. Members reported efforts to reestablish a USGS stream gauge near Castleton to better track inflow to the valley, and discussed the DEQ TMDL (total maximum daily load) study for Castle Creek, which found impairments for total dissolved solids and occasional coliform exceedances in parts of the valley. Committee members recommended following up with DEQ staff and multi‑agency partners to determine whether grant funding (including nonpoint‑source or drinking‑water funding streams) or watershed projects can address identified impairments.
On monitoring, the committee said the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) continues twice‑annual sampling of a set of monitoring wells; UGS covers roughly half the sampling cost, the committee was told. The advisory group identified an abandoned well near Shaper Lane that its owner has permitted the town to use as an additional, low‑cost UGS monitoring stop, and UGS indicated it could add the stop without increasing contract costs.
Members also discussed a nonpotable cistern/fill‑station concept as a way to provide irrigation or fire‑protection water. Participants agreed the idea is worth exploring but noted legal and operational constraints: any public distribution would likely require treatment, a protection zone and routine testing, and the state’s drinking‑water rules would govern design. The committee favored exploring options that piggyback on existing wells or easements rather than drilling a large new public well.
On policy, the group distinguished between local division‑of‑appropriations fine‑tuning (limits on future appropriations) and pursuing a state groundwater management plan (a broader tool that could consider quality and quantity but may be politically sensitive). Members agreed to consult with the state regional engineer on the pros and cons before deciding whether to seek a groundwater management plan.
Finally, the committee discussed options to protect surplus water rights — including short‑term leasing or banking arrangements that could keep rights active and potentially partner with local conservation organizations. The group asked a water attorney (Emily Lewis) to present to the committee on legal pathways for water banking and leasing.
Next steps included: follow‑up with the Division of Water Resources and the state drinking‑water program on funding and regulatory constraints; ask UGS to add the identified abandoned well to the monitoring route; schedule a presentation from the water attorney; and keep the metering discussion on the next meeting agenda with additional cost and implementation details. The committee adjourned after the scheduled business was completed.