Castle Valley advisory committee weighs metering, monitoring and options to protect town water rights

The Castle Valley Board Advisory Committee spent its monthly meeting debating how to measure and protect the town’s water rights, including a proposed plan to require meters on new wells using town water rights and to phase in additional meters over time.

Chair John Drew, who led the discussion, said the committee’s aim is “to secure our water rights and our ability to manage them effectively” and warned that “it’s just a matter of time before the state mandates that all diversions of water must be metered.” The committee discussed funding options, technical alternatives and regulatory steps before any requirement would be imposed.

Why it matters: Committee members said accurate, defensible accounting of diversions is central to preserving Castle Valley’s senior water rights as regional and state water policies evolve. The conversation combined technical questions about meter reliability with policy questions about who would pay and how the town should phase any requirement.

Technical and cost concerns: Members flagged sediment and quality issues that make inline flow meters problematic in Castle Valley’s wells. One member summarized the concern: “inline meters… are not a starter” in the valley’s sediment-heavy system. A committee presenter described state funding as largely loan-based and said typical costs discussed by state staff included “$400 per connection plus [a] $250 installation fee,” a figure that the group called potentially expensive once bonding and engineering costs are included.

Alternatives to inline meters drew strong interest. Dave Burley emphasized a noninvasive approach that estimates use by measuring pump electrical draw combined with periodic pump-flow tests; as Burley put it, the method is appropriate where “sediments do clog up these meters and aren’t worth putting in the money or the effort.” Chair Drew said he had received preliminary approval for electrical/pump-run monitoring from a former regional supervisor and that the committee will explore the approach further.

Castle Creek water-quality and monitoring: The committee reviewed a DEQ TMDL study showing impairments for total dissolved solids and some coliform exceedances in places. Members agreed to follow up with DEQ contacts (Sam and Amy) for clarifications and sampling details; the chair also noted a passage in an earlier draft that was later removed, saying, “It was taken out of the report for reasons that I can’t believe are healthy,” and urged staff to speak with the study authors.

Expanding monitoring: Committee members reported progress on aquifer monitoring with UGS (Utah Geological Survey). The UGS twice-yearly sampling program is expected to continue and the committee identified an abandoned well (Lock 194) near Shafer Lane and Castle Creek that the owner has permitted the town to use for static-level and field-parameter monitoring, avoiding the immediate cost of drilling a new monitoring well.

Policy options and next steps: Members debated whether to pursue a local appropriations policy, a state groundwater management plan (which can include water-quality protections), or a mix of measures. The chair said he will meet with the state engineer (referred to as Cash) to clarify implications and that the group invited water attorney Emily Lewis to brief the committee on options for water banking, leasing and other legal mechanisms to keep surplus rights active.

Other items: The committee discussed small-scale creek-restoration techniques (including beaver-dam analogs) to slow runoff and increase groundwater recharge, and an update that Grand County is preparing a watershed protection overlay district that will include Castle Valley if adopted by county planners and the council.

What happens next: Committee members will (1) seek a meeting with the Division of Water Rights for clarification on groundwater-management options and potential mandates; (2) pursue technical evaluation and pilot testing of pump-run monitoring as a lower-cost metering alternative; (3) coordinate with UGS on adding the Lock 194 location to the monitoring route; and (4) schedule a legal briefing on water-banking and leasing options.

The committee adjourned after taking a motion to close the meeting.