Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town engineer warns water court may cancel conditional rights; staff recommends protecting existing absolute rights
Summary
Town Engineer Jocelyn told the Rangely Town Council the water court has questioned nearly 50 years of unused conditional sewage-treatment water rights and suggested the court “may want to consider canceling all remaining conditional portions.” Staff recommended focusing limited funds on protecting and demonstrating use of the town’s larger absolute rights before pursuing costly perfection of conditional rights.
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rangely Town Council heard a detailed briefing from Town Engineer Jocelyn and Supervisor Michael Dilley on April 28 about the water court’s response to the town’s six‑year due‑diligence filing for conditional water rights. Jocelyn said the court’s memo notes the sewage-treatment conditional right was first appropriated in 1976 and stated the court “may want to consider canceling all remaining conditional portions of the water right.”
Jocelyn and Michael reviewed the town’s holdings: about 30.95 cubic feet per second (CFS) in absolute rights at the water plant/Camper Park locations and smaller conditional rights tied to the wastewater plant (3.1 CFS). They estimated attorney and engineering support to attempt perfection could be in the order of $15,000 in legal fees plus another $7,000–$8,000 in engineering, and said success would not be guaranteed. Jocelyn recommended against spending scarce capital to try to perfect conditional rights when the town has substantial absolute rights that could be defended and put to use.
The council did not approve a final policy change at the meeting but set a near-term timeline: the town must respond to the court by June 15. Staff said they will circulate the attorneys’ memo and the presentation graphics to council members and bring the item back for possible future action. The discussion emphasized tradeoffs—legal expense and uncertain success versus directing limited capital to infrastructure that demonstrably uses and protects existing absolute water rights.

