Irrigation leader warns untreated stock water is being plumbed into rural homes

Greg Johansson, president of the Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company, told the Emery County Planning Commission on April 2026 that parts of the county’s stock-water network are being repurposed into household culinary systems without treatment or proper approvals.

Johansson explained that his company manages two types of water shares: A shares (primary water rights usable for multiple valley purposes) and B shares (project water from Jills Valley Reservoir that, under contract, may be used only for agriculture). "B shares are all project water from Jills Valley Reservoir, and they can only be used for agriculture," Johansson said. "They cannot be transferred to the city. They can't be transferred to the power company."

Why it matters: Stock-water lines deliver raw, untreated water from the creek directly to farm connections. Johansson said some homeowners outside city limits have obtained stock-water hookups and then plumbed that raw water into homes for culinary use, which raises public-health and regulatory questions because those connections are not treated by municipal systems.

Commission staff and members pressed for clarity about which approvals and checks apply. One commissioner noted the subdivision checklist requires "a letter from a culinary water system operator verifying water connection ownership for each individual lot," but commissioners acknowledged that the checklist does not explicitly refer to A versus B share distinctions and that water companies sometimes change connection requirements.

Johansson said the irrigation company’s contracts with nearby cities require the company to preserve a share for irrigation and, in many cases, to supply a second share so outside connections do not deplete agricultural water. "So now they have to issue an A share to Orangeville City and a share to the irrigation company for outside connections," Johansson said, urging clearer language in county checklists and ordinances so buyers know what water rights transfer and which connections are permitted.

Commissioners discussed enforcement gaps and the role of the health department. Staff said the health department must approve culinary systems and that building permits generally require documentation of culinary water availability; commissioners asked whether homes were being built without permits or with incorrect representations about water availability. Several members recommended tightening the minor-subdivision checklist and adding explicit requirements that the water operator document whether proposed connections rely on transferable A shares, nontransferable B shares, or only haul/cistern arrangements approved by public health.

What’s next: Commissioners asked Johansson and staff to work on specific ordinance and checklist language clarifying when A/B shares are acceptable for culinary hookups and when project water is restricted. The commission indicated it will review proposed wording during the ordinance-update process.

Representative quote: "It's all raw water. It comes directly out of the creek into the system. No treatment whatsoever," Johansson said, underscoring the health concern if raw stock water is installed in residences.

The commission did not take formal action on this matter at the April meeting; members instead asked staff and the irrigation company to help draft clearer subdivision and permitting language for a future meeting.