Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rangely staff warn water court may cancel decades‑old conditional wastewater rights; recommend focusing on absolute rights
Summary
Town engineers told the council that a water‑court response questions Rangely's 1976 conditional wastewater rights and that attempting to perfect them would be costly and uncertain; staff recommended surrendering conditional portions and investing to protect the town's larger absolute rights.
Rangely officials told the town council on April 28 that the Yampa‑White‑Green Basin water court has signaled skepticism about the town's ability to perfect conditional wastewater water rights dating to 1976, and that pursuing the court process would be expensive and uncertain.
"The Rangely sewage treatment plant discharge water right was 1st appropriated on 10/01/1976," Jocelyn, the town engineer, read from the court memo. "The fact that this water right has not been perfected is telling as to the likelihood of the water right ever being perfected up to its decreed amount." She told trustees the court may consider cancelling remaining conditional portions unless the town can show substantial probability that necessary facilities will be completed with diligence.
Jocelyn and Michael, a supervisory official, explained the technical limits that complicate perfection of the conditional rights. The wastewater plant currently discharges at roughly 0.23 cubic feet per second (CFS) at normal operating times and the plant is designed to handle a peak of about 0.77 CFS, far below the 3.1 CFS of conditional rights claimed at the plant site. Attorneys estimated legal fees around $15,000 plus another $7,000–$8,000 in engineering consulting to prepare the required documentation, with no guarantee of success.
"If we are going to spend capital on building water infrastructure, it should be for the purpose of diverting and using part of that 30.95 CFS that we already hold," one presenter said, urging investment to demonstrate consistent use of Rangely's larger absolute rights rather than to litigate the conditional wastewater rights.
Council members asked what information they needed to decide whether to relinquish the conditional rights. Staff said they would circulate the presentation and the water‑court letter, and trustees agreed to place the item on the next meeting agenda to allow time for counsel to weigh in. Staff noted a June 15 deadline for responding to the water court's list of concerns.
What happens to any cancelled conditional portions was described as governed by water‑law priorities; staff said relinquished conditional rights would not be taken back upriver but could be subject to appropriation by senior users and the court's scrutiny. The council did not take a final vote on the conditional rights at the April 28 meeting; staff recommended pursuing protection of the town's absolute rights and considering surrender of the conditional portions after further review.
