Castle Valley officials weigh groundwater‑management plan, expand monitoring after UGS study

Members of the Castle Valley council spent much of the meeting discussing whether to pursue a groundwater management plan and expanded monitoring after a recent UGS presentation and report.

The council’s chair opened the discussion by summarizing the UGS presentation and report, saying the work reinforced concerns that “we needed water coming down to keep bad water at bay,” and urged follow‑up to clarify implications for streamflow and quality. Staff member explained that the report documented stream–groundwater connections and that reduced recharge or increased withdrawal could worsen TDS and nitrate concentrations.

Presenter (S4) recommended using existing tools in the state code to press a groundwater management plan and described the typical petition route: “They petition more than two‑thirds of water users in the area… I think you only require one‑third of the water users to petition,” while noting the statutory thresholds can be ambiguous and the state engineer’s office has sometimes resisted initiating such plans. Presenter also suggested leaning on a water‑quality rationale (elevated nitrate/TDS) as an acceptable statutory basis for triggering a management plan.

On monitoring, staff reported that the owner of an identified abandoned well (WAP 194) near Shafer Lane has agreed to allow use of that well for ongoing static‑level monitoring. Staff said the feature could provide a regular static‑level measurement close to Castle Creek to better understand aquifer–stream relations and that, under the current MOU, UGS agreed to include routine spring and autumn measurements at no charge. The council discussed whether chemistry sampling would require a different well top or permission to sample from an adjacent household tap; Presenter noted a single nitrate sample’s cost is modest (“nitrate’s $10”) and recommended confirming practicalities with the property owner.

Members flagged political and institutional constraints: the state engineer has, in some cases, refused to pursue groundwater management plans, so the council agreed to first approach the state engineer’s staff and to pin down technical clarifications with Jim Reese (referenced as a presenter at a water users conference) and with the Division of Water Rights. Staff said they would follow up with those contacts and share the statutory citations included in prior emails.

Next steps recorded at the meeting: staff will confirm technical feasibility and sampling permissions for WAP 194, ask UGS for a schedule and details of the monitoring they can provide under the MOU, and contact Jim Reese and the Division of Water Rights for guidance on petition thresholds and whether a water‑quality argument is the most effective route.

The meeting ended the topic with a request for staff to distribute the UGS materials and relevant statutory citations so the council can decide whether to seek outside legal guidance and whether to initiate a petition or other formal step.