Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Heated public comments as Levan officials defend lawsuit seeking water rights and end to electricity subsidy
Loading...
Summary
The Levan Town Council spent much of its April meeting addressing a long‑running dispute with the local irrigation company; council members said the town filed suit after an irrigation threat and a rate study showed the town was subsidizing company electricity by about $28,000 a year. Residents urged mediation and questioned the cost to the town.
A lengthy and at times emotional discussion over a town lawsuit with the local irrigation company dominated Thursday’s Levan Town Council meeting as council members, irrigators and residents debated decades‑old agreements, alleged subsidies and possible paths forward.
Council officials summarized the dispute for the public: the town notified the irrigation company in December 2021 that it would begin charging a reasonable rate for electricity and end the subsidy, and the irrigation company threatened litigation on Feb. 28, 2025. “The irrigation company threatened to sue the town over the electricity rates, and the town filed the lawsuit on 07/03/2025 to resolve these issues,” the clerk read aloud during the meeting.
The council cited a 2022 rate study showing the town had been subsidizing the irrigation company’s electricity by roughly $28,000 a year, a figure that several speakers repeated in public comment. “All residential customers together used 3,500,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. They paid $360,000. The actual cost of that electricity was only $332,000. So they overpaid by $28,000,” the clerk said while summarizing the study’s results.
Council members said the lawsuit seeks several outcomes, including requiring the irrigation company to transfer water‑generation rights it agreed to convey in 1985, preventing interference with the town’s water system, and recovering money the town contends was owed for decades of below‑market electricity rates. The council stressed that the case is in the discovery phase and that mediation remains a possible future step; no trial date was announced during the meeting.
Public commenters — several of whom identified themselves as irrigators or shareholders in the irrigation company — urged the council to pursue face‑to‑face negotiations and warned about legal costs passed through to residents. One resident noted the timing pressure around other items: “Shay indicated that the CIB had to be on our request by May 1. You guys are planning your work session on May 14 – it will be too late,” Mingleton said, asking the council to keep deadlines in mind if the town seeks grant funding.
Other residents asked how litigation costs were being funded and whether the town had explored alternatives such as buying additional water or pursuing mediation. County and town officials repeatedly asked the audience to avoid litigating the dispute in the public meeting and reminded participants that attorneys and courts would ultimately weigh factual claims about historical agreements.
What happens next: the council and the town’s attorney will continue discovery in the lawsuit. Council members said they remain open to mediation but emphasized the legal process is ongoing and that technical questions about water rights and historic agreements will be decided through counsel and, if necessary, the courts.