Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Watershed Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodruff Irrigation asks Rich County to co‑sponsor Wood Creek watershed design, county to have attorney review
Summary
Representatives of Woodruff Irrigation asked Rich County commissioners to authorize county co‑sponsorship and signatures on the Wood Creek Watershed Management Plan (design phase) so the project can advance for NRCS/USDA funding; commissioners agreed to delay ratification until the county attorney reviews contract language that appears to obligate the county on property acquisition and long‑term liabilities.
Representatives of the Woodruff Irrigation Company appeared before the Rich County Commission to request that the county act as a co‑sponsor for the Wood Creek Watershed Management Plan’s design phase and authorize signatures so the plan can be forwarded to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and USDA for funding.
OC Frasier, president of Woodruff Irrigation Company, said the binder the irrigation company submitted documents the design phase, includes maps, and records of public comments and agency review. "This went to the Salt Lake office, the NRCS, and then to Washington, D.C.," Frasier said, adding the Utah NRCS has approved the project to proceed to the design stage and that Washington review and another comment period mean "we're probably a couple, three months" from an initial federal decision.
Commissioners and company representatives focused on language in the application that could be read to require sponsors to "acquire such real property as will be needed in connection with the works of improvement." Wall Schultz, the company's secretary‑treasurer, said the company owns some of the land and does not intend the county to take property. "We would never be interested in using eminent domain," Schultz said, urging precise contract language that clarifies the county will act as a pass‑through sponsor rather than a property acquirer or long‑term backstop.
County officials described the intended pass‑through role: the irrigation company and engineers will submit invoices, the county will request the funds from USDA, and when the county receives them it would reimburse the company. "There shouldn't be any other bills other than what's already included in this," a commissioner said, adding that the design phase is 100% funded and that the county would not pay out money during design.
Commissioners repeatedly asked for time for the county attorney to review the application binder and suggested the commission delay ratifying its signatures. "I think we just need to clarify that," one commissioner said. The company offered to leave a copy of the binder for the county attorney; commissioners asked staff to obtain either a physical or digital copy from NRCS.
The company also noted that the design phase will produce a 100% design, total project cost and an engineering package that will later be put out to bid. "We still have the authority as a company to make the decision after they come through with 100% design," Frasier said, noting the irrigation company can decline to proceed to construction if the cost is unacceptable.
Commissioners said they would not rush the decision and will have the county attorney review the document before signing. The commission and company agreed to revisit the item and attend a later session at 1:45 p.m. to continue discussion. The commission did not ratify signatures at the April 8 meeting.
Next steps: county staff will request a copy of the Wood Creek watershed plan binder from NRCS for attorney review; the commission will defer authorizing signatures until that review is complete.
