Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City engineer to reintroduce temporary water‑rights rule; seeks discretion to refuse unusable rights
Summary
Paul Hansen briefed the council March 4 on reintroducing a temporary Title 7-26 ordinance (replacement for 2025-10) that would let the city refuse water-rights conveyances that lack sufficient quantity, flow, or a developed source, and staff will send the draft to planning commission for review.
Paul Hansen, the city engineer, told the council on March 4 that staff will reissue a temporary land‑use ordinance on water rights (replacing ordinance 2025‑10) and will present it with a new 2026 ordinance number.
Hansen said the ordinance language would require that "water rights proposed for conveyance to the city shall be municipal or municipal type water rights" and that, "prior to acceptance of such water rights, the city shall evaluate the water rights proposed for conveyance and... may refuse to accept any right which is determined to be insufficient in annual quantity or flow rate and suitable for municipal use" or that is not reasonably likely to be approved by the state engineer for change to municipal uses.
Hansen told the council the measure is intended to prevent the city from acquiring "paper" water rights that cannot supply real water to residents. He explained that the state engineer has divided the valley into zones and that some eastern areas have been effectively overallocated on paper, so the city wants discretion to accept only rights with an actual usable source, sufficient historic yield, and acceptable water quality.
As an example, Hansen said the city would be reluctant to accept rights that exist only as unproven permit applications in an overallocated zone, but would consider rights associated with an existing developed well that could be piped to the city.
Hansen said staff will take the same text back to the planning commission (because it is a Title 7 action), work with the city attorney's office to give the ordinance a new number, and bring it back to the council after the required public hearings. He said the prior 2025 ordinance lapsed after administrative follow‑up stalled when the city attorney retired, and staff wants to formally re‑enact the temporary rule.
Council members agreed with returning the draft to planning commission and asked for the ordinance text to be provided to the council before the follow‑up meeting.
Staff did not take a vote; the council instructed staff to refile the ordinance, route it through planning commission, and return with a public‑hearing schedule and recommended ordinance number.
