Rangely trustees weigh surrender of conditional water rights as drought tightens

Rangely — Town engineers and supervisors told the Rangely Town Council on April 28 that a water‑court response to the town’s six‑year due diligence filing raises a material risk to the town’s conditional wastewater discharge water rights and will require the council to decide whether to spend to defend them.

Jocelyn, the town engineer, said the town holds roughly 30.95 cubic feet per second (cfs) of absolute water rights and about 3.1 cfs of conditional rights tied to the wastewater plant. The court’s memo, Jocelyn said, notes that the wastewater discharge right has not been perfected since it was decreed in 1976 and “the court may want to consider cancelling all remaining conditional portions of the water right.” She told the council the town has a June 15 deadline to respond to the court’s list of concerns.

The practical problem, Jocelyn said, is capacity: “3.1 cfs is kind of an overall bucket. If we are using, for example, 1.0 cfs to irrigate the park by the wastewater plant that means we only have 2.1 left that we can use for anything else of the approved uses,” she said, underscoring pump and storage constraints. Staff estimated outside legal fees at about $15,000 and consulting engineering costs of roughly $7,000–$8,000 to assemble the documentation needed to try to preserve the conditional right, with no guarantee of success.

Town supervisor Michael told trustees the water court is applying a strict interpretation of the “can‑and‑will” standard that requires showing a substantial probability that infrastructure will be completed and used in a reasonable time. “The substantial probability standard is employed to curb indefinite speculation,” he said, reading from the court memo and adding that the court’s scrutiny has increased amid the regional drought.

Staff recommended the council focus limited capital toward diverting and consistently using portions of the town’s 30.95 cfs of absolute rights, rather than spending heavily to perfect small conditional slices that the town may never be able to demonstrate are likely to be used. “If we are going to invest any money, it should be towards those 30 cfs rather than that 1.1,” Michael said, referring to the town’s remaining conditional irrigation amount.

Trustees debated trade‑offs. Some members warned that surrendering conditional rights might invite further scrutiny of other rights; others said the legal and engineering costs and low probability of success made a defensive fight imprudent. Andy Schaefer pressed staff on whether relinquishing conditional rights would end state scrutiny; staff responded that it likely would not and that the long‑term strategy should emphasize demonstrating beneficial use of existing absolute rights.

Council members asked staff to circulate the engineers’ presentation and the water‑court letter before the next meeting and to place the item on the next agenda for a formal decision. Jonah, the town manager, confirmed staff can prepare further analysis and cost estimates. The council did not take a final vote on surrendering any rights at the April 28 meeting.

The meeting also included a broader drought update: staff reported snowpack of roughly 26 percent and said river flows had recently spiked after rain but remain well below historical averages for this time of year. Michael outlined a four‑stage shortage plan that ranges from voluntary curtailment and public outreach (Stage 1) to tiered pricing and mandatory watering schedules (Stages 2–3) and full curtailment of nonessential outdoor use (Stage 4). He noted contingency steps—renting a package treatment plant, hauling potable water, and coordinating releases from Kenny Reservoir—if water quality or quantity falls below the town’s ability to produce safe drinking water.

Next steps: staff told the council they must prepare a response to the water court by June 15 and will return with more detailed cost estimates and options for council consideration.