Council briefed on water-court threat to conditional rights and urged to prioritize town’s absolute water rights

Rangely town staff on April 28 told the Town Council that a recent water court response casts doubt on the town’s ability to perfect conditional water rights tied to the sewage treatment plant and recommended redirecting scarce capital toward protecting the town’s larger absolute water rights.

Town engineer Jocelyn, who presented the court memo and technical analysis, said the wastewater-plant conditional rights total 3.1 cubic feet per second (CFS) while the town already holds about 30.95 CFS of older absolute rights at the main water plant. Reading from the court memo, Jocelyn said, “The Rangeley sewage treatment plant discharge water right was first appropriated on 10/01/1976,” and quoted the court’s concern that the conditional portions could be canceled given the long period without full use.

Why it matters: the court’s review, combined with drought conditions, could lead to loss of conditional rights that the town has not proven it can use. Staff warned that pursuing due diligence to perfect those conditional rights would be expensive and uncertain, and that failing to demonstrate consistent use could invite further scrutiny of other rights.

Jocelyn told the council attorneys estimate about $15,000 in legal fees plus roughly $7,000–$8,000 in consulting engineering to assemble the documentation the court is demanding; she said consultants cannot guarantee success. She recommended the town consider relinquishing remaining conditional portions and instead invest capital to demonstrate and protect beneficial use of the 30.95 CFS the town already holds.

The council was also told the water court expects a formal response by June 15 to the items in the court’s memo. Staff said they would circulate the legal memo and the presentation to council members and requested the item be placed on the next meeting agenda for formal direction.

What the town can do: staff outlined three practical constraints that limit the town’s ability to perfect the conditional rights: instantaneous discharge limits at the wastewater plant (roughly 0.23 CFS normal; 0.77 CFS design peak), the pump and storage capacity required to divert and beneficially use 3.1 CFS (estimated 1,500–2,000 GPM), and the legal standard the court applies to avoid hoarding rights.

What’s next: the council agreed to receive the full presentation and the legal memo, and scheduled the item for the next meeting for a possible policy decision on whether to pursue or relinquish the conditional rights. Staff will work with town attorneys on the June 15 response deadline.

Quotes: Jocelyn said staff’s priority is to protect existing absolute rights: “As your town engineer, I can’t in good faith recommend that we spend a lot of money to build infrastructure to perfect a conditional right when we have absolute rights that need protecting more so.”

Ending: The council did not take a final vote on the water-rights strategy at the April 28 meeting; members asked for the packet materials and legal analysis to inform a formal decision at a future meeting.