Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Water Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Iron County parks staff report E. coli detections at Woods Ranch; commissioners weigh costly chlorination vs. non‑potable conversion
Summary
Parks staff told the commission that Woods Ranch spring samples returned consecutive E. coli and total coliform positives, prompting a Division of Drinking Water order to add chlorination or convert the source to non‑potable use; staff estimated design costs of about $12,000 and installation of $15,000–$20,000 and urged commissioners to decide whether to pursue drinking-water remediation.
John, the parks staff member who presented the department report, told the commission that park revenues are on track but that a public‑health issue has emerged at Woods Ranch: "we've had back to back tea sample[s]. So, E.coli and total coliform both have tested positive up there." He said two positive E. coli results in an operating season triggered a level‑two assessment from the Division of Drinking Water and led the state to order a chlorination system or to reclassify the source as non‑potable.
The parks presentation included preliminary cost estimates for remediation. "Alpha Engineering out of St. George" provided a planning estimate of about $12,000 to draw plans for a chlorinator and staff estimated another $15,000–$20,000 to install equipment. Park staff described a technical constraint: the existing storage tanks have an overflow that ties into a downstream creek, and "you can't have any chlorine in those," so adding chlorination would require secondary tanks and a small building to accommodate dosing and contact time.
Staff said the county is leaning toward converting the supply to non‑potable use for fire suppression and irrigation rather than building a full drinking‑water system, given the expense of chlorination and the increased sampling and recordkeeping required for a chlorinated source. John told commissioners he would consult with the Division of Drinking Water and Alpha Engineering at an upcoming sanitary survey meeting to determine whether a chlorinator or a redevelopment of the spring is feasible.
Commissioners asked practical questions about who uses the spring and the effect on private cabin owners. Staff said the water primarily serves the park (three frost‑free hydrants) and that some cabin owners historically hauled water to fill tanks; there is not a formal hauling arrangement. On alternatives, staff noted options including conversion to non‑potable water with signage, redevelopment of the spring (costly), or installing a chlorination system with the associated infrastructure and operational requirements.
The parks report concluded with staff asking the commission for direction after staff returns with sanitary‑survey information and more detailed cost estimates. The commission did not take immediate action on the capital choice but acknowledged the problem and asked staff to follow up.
