Terry Tippets: Whose to say much water is required on a certain plot of land. It depends on what you are growing. The water designated for the land may not be enough.
Steve Jackson: Historically, the agricultural uses on the land require more water than what would be required once the land is developed.
Clark Hirschi: Does it depend on the zoning?
Steve Jackson: It does depend on the zoning. It depends on what kind of development comes in. That is where the city determines what the requirement for future use is. If you already have water tied to the land that is a credit against the water exaction. That is where the value comes in. You can tell the developer that there already is water tied to the ground. If more is needed then the developer would have to buy that from you or from somebody else to fill the requirement for the development.
Terry Tippets: We sold 10 acres for development and were required to sell the water rights to the city. There were more shares there than they needed for the development now have credit with the city. What are we going to do with that when we can’t control it? We no longer have any ties to the land but we still have water shares.
Steve: If you have water with the city you can sell that water to anyone who is looking for water for their development. That happens all the time. The city doesn’t require more water than what is needed for a development so that maybe was miscommunicated. The developer is given an exaction requirement. If they bring in more water, that can be used on another development in Layton City.
Terry Tippets: So, if another developer needs water, we can sell the water we have on credit with Layton City?
Steve Jackson: Yes, and the City doesn’t get involved with the transaction. All we do is facilitate contact and transfer the credit.
Colleen Mitchell: How much is a share worth these days?
Scott Green: $10,500
Colleen: Wouldn’t it behoove the City to hire you guys and bring your knowledge under their umbrella?
Scott Green: The plan would be that we would train these guys. We have given maps to the City showing all our lines, but they are not always accurate because lines move and roads move, but we would be providing information.
Steve Jackson: Layton City currently has a secondary water department that can absorb the work and there is no intention at this time to hire additional employees. That may change down the road and we can make those staffing decisions at that time.
Scott Green: It would be like Weber Basin. They provided training to the Layton City guys, but they still get calls on some things and provide support.
Alison Bond: The pressurized system on north Fort Lane and north Fairfield above Antelope, is that considered an ag system?
Scott Green: That’s ag.
Alison Bond: So, with the ag users, wouldn’t all the existing costs still apply and would we have to bear that alone if the pressurized users went to Layton City?
Scott Green: Hobbs Dam was rebuilt in 1983 at the cost $650,000. We rebuilt Andy Adams for $300,00 and spent another $280,000 at Hobbs to fix the line going out. The costs were spread out throughout the company. We all help.
Alison Bond: But won’t we have to pay more being shareholders?
Scott Green: Are you on flood or pressurized?
Alison Bond: Pressurized.
Scott Green: Then you would be a customer of Layton City.
Alison Bond: Even though it is ag land?
Scott Green: Yes.
Steve Jackson: Whatever costs that are incurred by the pressurized system required to maintain the reservoirs and ensure the delivery of water to Layton City customers would need to be borne by Layton City back towards Kays Creek.
Jeff Nalder: Is the projected rate shown for 2020 with or without a meter?
Scott: Without a meter. The meters right now have a satellite reader in them and Weber Basin right now has set up towers so that they can read theirs and has said that they will help us read ours when it is necessary. That is why the meters are so expensive.
Jeff Nalder: If you do not use your water shares but rent them to someone else, will that need to be coordinated with the city?
Scott Green: I think Gary will talk about that.
Ed Green: If we have a lot of extra water shares what do we do to protect the value of the shares that are not tied to the ground?
David: The best way to protect the value of the shares is to make sure that the water is being used. If you can lease it to a farmer or somebody else that can put it to use, that would be best. That way it is not subject to forfeiture.
Ed Green: There may not be a need for it. What do we do with that in the meantime? Something needs to be done to protect the shares. Development may not happen fast enough to allow us to sell excess shares.
David Wright: I can’t speak to how fast development is occurring in Layton, but the water will be swallowed up by development one way or the other. Shares in excess of what you need will have value and can be sold. The best way to protect the value is to make sure it is being used. Other than that, hang on to them and let the city now that you have them so that the City can send developers to you and you can sell them in the future.
Ed Green: I have an inventory of shares that I am not using at this point in time, but I definitely have a plan for them.
Clark Hirschi: My understanding is that there is no guarantee on the value of the shares, only on supply and demand in the marketplace. The State of Utah is clamping down more and more and if the water is not being used, they will exercise their right of forfeiture. That is the danger David is talking about. But as far as guaranteeing the value of the shares, the marketplace dictates the value of the shares as we go forward. As there is limited water in the State of Utah, I would imagine that would cause the value to go up, but I don’t know how to guarantee that.
Gary Crane: The State isn’t creating new water, water will always be worth something, there will always be a demand. The greatest threat to you is forfeiture. All of the water that is forfeited and falls out goes to Weber Basin. Those of you who hold shares but don’t put the water to beneficial use for seven continuous years are subject to forfeiture. It is kind of dangerous to hold onto shares and not do anything with them. The company would then have to make a decision as to which shares are not being used and forfeit them. The sooner you put that excess water to use, the better. The best way to protect the shares is the city has a different forfeiture time frame; which is 40 years because the State knows cities need water in the future. Take for example the gentleman that has water on credit with the city. That water is protected for a 40-year period rather than a 7-year period. The best place for it is the city because the city will put it to use.
Mike Hanson: I thought you said the water goes to the land, so if I don’t have any land, I can’t have any shares of water; is that right?
Steve: The point is that if you are using water on land, then that land needs to have the water tied to it. If you have water but no land, that water is free and can move where it needs to for a development. But if you have need for water on land, and sell that the shares off of that land, then you have no access to the water. The City cannot provide water to land that has no water.
Mike Hanson: So if I don’t own land, I can own water?
Steve Jackson: You could purchase water as long as it wasn’t tied to a piece of property somewhere else. If I had a share of water for my home, I couldn’t sell that share to you and then continue to use water at my home.
Scott Green: That is a problem we’ve had before. People have sold ground and kept the water, and a lot of it was just not knowing. We need to be careful not to sell that water off the ground.
Alison Bond: If he is sitting on shares, how can he show beneficial use?
Scott Green: That is what Gary just explained. He has 7 years. If he doesn’t use it he can lose it, and Weber Basin has filed on any forfeited shares.
Unknown: Can we rent it to Weber Basin?
Scott Green: I don’t know.
Unknown: Does that start now or when does that start, the 7 years?
Gary Crane: Whenever you stopped putting it to beneficial use.
Audrey James: I have a share of water, and I used to have a ditch. The ditch was taken away from me, I still have a share, but I no longer have use of the water.
David Wright: How are you getting water to your property?
Audrey James: It’s culinary.
Scott Green: The City gave her a valve with no meter on it.
David Wright: There is a defense against forfeiture. If you cannot use your water for reasons beyond your control then that is a defense.
Audrey James: I do have a contract with Layton City until secondary water can come to me.
David Wright: I would imagine that your shares would be safe under those conditions.
Sue Flinders: Is Layton City going to give some kind of written agreement for people with a water credit?
Scott Green: That is between the person who brings the shares to the City and Layton City.
Todd Nielson: Where will Kays Creek’s operating funds come from for now?
Scott Green: It will come from Layton City. They will pay our wages until maybe we leave or they take over the reservoirs someday. It is a proportional share. We need to maintain the reservoirs or no one will be getting any water.
Steve Jackson: Layton City, as we collect the fees for secondary water, would have a component which we would pay to Kays Creek which would pay for our portion of the operation and maintenance of the dams which bring water into the pressurized system.
David Wright: The city would be a shareholder and be assessed just like current shareholders are.
Gary Crane: Every year the attempt to conserve becomes tighter and tighter. New legislators have new ideas on what conservation measures need to take place. This year there is a proposal to use state-wide a program that has been piloted in three or four other cities. It is a computer program from AWA that calculates water loss and reports real time indications of where water is being used and reports it immediately to the State. The senator that is looking to propose this is saying that this program would provide evidence of non-use, non-beneficial use, in real time. It could be used as a vehicle for forfeiture. The more we try to conserve the more we adversely affect agricultural users and those who have traditional water that they use on their properties. The state is reaching into the city’s pockets and the shareholder’s pockets. That is another reason to use the City’s 40-year window to protect those shares.
Sue Flinders: Is the contract between Weber Basin and Layton City the same kind of agreement that would be between Kays Creek and the City?
Gary Crane: That would be nice but they would be very different. With Weber Basin we have the credit card. We rack up the bill and they pay the bill. They pay for employees, trucks, capital repairs, and a certain amount of money that we need to run the system. With Kays Creek, the City would be absorbing the operation and maintenance costs. In the city’s master plan we are looking at bringing all those sources together. That is the benefit. The city would be able to look at all the sources and where the money is coming in and where it is coming out and what areas we would be able to extend the secondary system. By having a interest in Kays Creek we can balance those interests. Weber Basin recognized the benefit of doing this and that is why we run it today. More and more cities are doing this.
Sue Flinders: How many customers are on Weber Basin and Layton City?
Gary Crane: 4,000
Sue Flinders: How many are on Kays Creek?
Scott Green: 2400
Sue Flinders: What would be the work that Kays Creek employees would do?
Scott: There is a lot of maintenance on the dams that we haven’t done. There is still a lot of work we are doing with the regulators and the ponds. I know people don’t see a lot of things we do but I’ve had four meetings this week and five last week with contractors, the city, and the state. When we come to that point, we’ll have to see what will become of us.
Sue Flinders: Why can’t the city run the reservoirs?
Scott Green: Layton City has no interest in operating the reservoirs at this time or getting water to the farmers who are on flood.
Todd Nielson: Scott, when I have a problem, I call you and get it fixed. Can I still call you in the future?
Scott Green: You can call me, yes. You would call Layton City. They will have to call us until they are trained. There is a lot to learn and it won’t happen overnight.
Clark Hirschi: The city will be able to respond more quickly and efficiently than our two people.
Scott Green: To do the repairs, sometimes we have to wait a day or day and a half while we wait for a contractor. The city has the equipment, the man power, and they own the roads. This is a benefit to customers. Last spring, we shut down 600 people for major breaks and that didn’t just happen once.
Chris Hayes: Trying to understand the credits we would get if we forfeit our water to the city.
Steve Jackson: Let’s clarify what forfeit actually means. Forfeit is the actual taking of your water right by the State of Utah because you haven’t put it to beneficial use. What you would be doing is transferring the water to Layton City in exchange for us providing you that water in perpetuity as a customer of the system. If you have that water on the land and need to develop that property, that credit would be there to say yes, you turned a share of water and that water would be there for them to use when it came time to develop.
Scott Green: Tell us where you live and what you plan to do with your property so that we can help you.
Chris Hayes: I live in east Layton and I have no plans to develop. I’m just concerned about losing my shares.
David Wright: Do you have more shares than you actually put to use.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
David: Then you would fall into that same category that we have been talking about.
Chris Hayes: I guess that’s where I am lost is the idea of credit.
Jon Green: I had a son who built a house and he needed a third share of water for the house, but Davis and Weber only splits to halves. I gave him a half share, and the city held a credit for us of what was left over, between the third and the half share, and held it for a year or two. We later got a call that someone needed that much water to build a house, so we made a deal, outside the city, and sold it.
Chris Hayes: So, my share would basically be called a credit.
Jon Green: I could have sold it for $100,00 or $1,000. That doesn’t matter to the city. My water sat here, and I got a letter from Layton City that said I had so much water here. When somebody wanted to buy it, they contacted me and I sold it.
Scott Green: If you have more water than you need, and an audit comes about, and we have to go through our books and say who is using it and who is not, you could lose that water.
Clark Hirschi: Unless it comes to the city and you get the credit and it is protected for the 40 years. Anything more than what you need for the land, when this goes to the city, it remains with them, protected under their water management, for up to 40 years. And you could turn around and sell it at any point.
Jon Green: And if the water goes up, you get what you want for it.
Chris Hayes: One more question. This beneficial use law: are they going after water shares or water rights?
David: It could be both or either one. Either one is subject to forfeiture. I want to make it clear that the water isn’t taken by the state, but the water right disappears. The water doesn’t leave the system but it is there and available for others to appropriate. Most areas in the State are fully appropriated. There are very few areas where water is available for new appropriation. Any water right that is forfeited stays in the system but is available to use by those who have other existing rights.
Lincoln Adams: Does Layton City buy water shares?
Scott Green: Layton City does not buy them. The contractor does.
Gary Crane: I can’t think of the last time we bought water.
Steve: It’s a rare occurrence. It is usually the contractors who are buying water to fill the water exaction requirements.
Gary: We do expect that we will have enough water in the pressurized system to water your yards and ground. The City is not going to buy a system with no water. We need the water to make this work. That is why you would become a customer; the water would come to you as a customer. You were talking about excess water, but you need to know that we want to have enough water tied to your ground to provide water to your lawn. If you own an acre and a half of water and you only need half an acre to care for your lawn, that acre could be credited to the city and be sold, but the half acre would need to be dedicated to that ground.
Chris Hayes: I have certificate showing that I have two shares. Are we going to give that to the city so it shows we have two shares?
Scott Green: That will be between you and Layton City as to how you work that out.
Steve: If those shares are transferred to Layton City you will get a receipt letter stating the amount that is banked with the city. It would list what you need for your land and what you have in excess. We issue these letters all the time to developers. There are documentations and lists that we keep on file.
Chris Hayes: And that credit would be for me to do whatever I wanted with.
Scott Green: As long as it stays in the area.
Clark Hirschi: You couldn’t sell it outside Layton City.
Jon Green: And you could ask for what you want for that share.
Scott Green: As long as it stayed in the area.
Jeff Nalder: What department of the city would we coordinate with for all this?
Scott: Joanna also keeps a list of those wanting to sell shares and contractors call her to get the list. Then they contact you personally.
Terry Tippetts: So, if you have excess water the best thing to do is bank if with the city, they give you the credit, and you can sell the water to developers.
Scott Green: That is correct. It is a personal transaction and we stay out of it.
Bart Hyde: I own two water shares but I don’t have a lot. Listening to all the people back here, they feel like their question hasn’t been answered. The concern is that this is unethical, that it may have been a certain way in the past but now we have seven years to use the water or lose it. That’s hard to swallow.
David Wright: That has always been the law.
Clark Hirschi: It has been that way for a long time. The law hasn’t been enforced, but the shortage of water has the State paying more and more attention to it, but that has been on the books for a long time.
Bart Hyde: But now you are starting to enforce it.
Clark Hirschi: Not us, the State.
Bart Hyde: But we didn’t know anything about it and now you are bringing it to our attention. That is why everyone is having a hard time swallowing it.
Scott Green: We’re just letting you know.
David Wright: That has always been the law. In every western state, if water is unused it is subject to forfeiture.
Scott Green: We didn’t know it either until the State started passing bills.
Bart Hyde: The other thing that is hard is to hear you say that we have seven years but you as a city have 40.
David Wright: There are good reasons for that.
Bart Hyde: Yes, you are a municipality and you’ve got a lot of things, and you are going to govern this, but I’m just voicing what they are trying to say. What is the answer to all this? We didn’t know that this was going on. The second question is if you have water shares, and you use culinary water, then you can be penalized for using culinary water. So, if the city doesn’t get me pressurized water to my lot, will you pay my water bill, my culinary water bill?
Steve Jackson: Let me clarify that statement. The statement is: if you have access to secondary water, which the city identifies as access to pressurized secondary water to your lot with a service lateral, so if you do not have a service lateral to your lot you are not put into that tiered system.
Bart Hyde: How about the second part of that then. We have been expecting pressurized water, were promised it the last couple of years, and we’re paying $400 a month culinary water bill because we don’t have that pressurized system. Is the city going to try to get us water, take care of some of those areas with this and take care of some of those people that pay that extra amount for culinary?
Steve Jackson: In the locations that have been identified in the master plan, that is part of the cost to spend that $10.9 million to extend the system. Obviously, that will take time, we are not going to spend that money overnight, but there are plans to extend the system into the areas identified in the master plan.
Brad Egginton: Why don’t we just combine the systems like Kays Creek and Weber Basin and have it run under one entity like Weber Basin? Why does the city have to absorb this?
Scott Green: Weber Basin doesn’t want to run a secondary system anymore. They are giving them to the cities. Layton City isn’t the only one that took over Weber Basin’s system, there are other cities that are doing this.
Brad Egginton: So, what you are saying is that you are going to take over Kays Creek and Weber Basin?
Scott Green: Layton City already took over Weber Basin’s lines two years ago.
Brad Egginton: So, are you merging this all into one then?
Steve Jackson: That is the intent of the water master plan that was adopted a few years ago.
Brad Egginton: I don’t see that listed anywhere.
Scott Green: That’s because we have nothing to do with Weber Basin.
Clark Hirschi: This is only Kays Creek. We can’t speak for all the rest.
Brad Egginton: You are asking us to vote on this based on the city taking this, not that the city is taking this and it is going to be merged with everything else. So, you are telling us to vote on apples and you are throwing us into a bag of oranges. You are not listening. It is a bait and switch. You are giving us what you want people to vote on, but that has nothing of any mention of a master plan combining all this stuff, potentially raising all your rates and costs because your merging us with something else. I’m just bringing this up because I’m trying to get a handle on what you are trying to do here.
Scott Green: We are just trying showing you the difference between us staying as Kays Creek Irrigation or transferring to Layton City. We don’t have the facilities, the manpower, or the equipment to stay as Kays Creek Irrigation and if you want us to stay this way your rates are going to have to increase. If you look at the two different plans, it looks a whole lot better on the Layton City side.
Clark Hirschi: Although we don’t have all the details, Layton City is being very transparent. In the long term they would like to manage the water in the city and unify all these small piecemeal pieces into a unified system of culinary and secondary. They are being very transparent and we are trying to be by showing what we know and what will happen if we continue the way we are or if we transfer it over.
Brad Egginton: Fair enough.
Sue Flinders: So, this has been brought up in other meetings about non-stockholders and how many are there and what they are being charged.
Steve Jackson: The people out west are customers based on the shares that Layton City holds. They are stockholders by virtue of being citizens of Layton which holds the shares.
Sue Flinders: They don’t get to vote.
Steve Jackson: No. Layton City votes on the shares that Layton City holds.
Clark Hirschi: And we need to make it clear that if this transfer happens, people in the east who are on the pressurized system won’t get to vote either. We need to be very clear about that. They would become Layton City customers and wouldn’t get to vote on the Kays Creek Irrigation Company board, issues, or anything else. That is exactly what we are talking about. They would become like the west Layton folks in that they are customers of Layton City and they would not get to vote. If they want to vote they vote on the Layton City Council or Mayor or whatever. They would be Layton City customers, not Kays Creek irrigation customers and stockholders.
Sue Flinders: But they only get one vote no matter what right?
Scott Green: Right.
Sue Flinders: So, it would only be the agricultural people who get to vote. I’m confused on this.
Scott Green: The board would represent the people who are on the ditch.
Sue Flinders: So that would be the only people who would be able to vote after this?
Scott Green: They would vote on issues affecting the ditch.
Sue Flinders: So, the pressurized people wouldn’t be able to vote anymore ever again.
Clark Hirschi: We would essentially be splitting Kays Creek Irrigation Company into two pieces: the non- pressurized system would stay and be able to vote, and those who are on the pressurized system that would be transferred to Layton City would become Layton City customers and any connection to Kays Creek Irrigation Company would be severed.
Bud Cox: Does this acquisition or the merger or this transfer require a vote of the shareholders or can it be done by the board without the shareholders?
David Wright: That is an issue that I have been looking into, and I’m not comfortable that I have a final answer on it so what we’ve decided to do at this point is err on the side of caution and put it to a vote. This is what we felt made the most sense so that it didn’t come as a surprise out of the blue. That is how we have been proceeding. I’m not convinced this is required, the code is not exactly clear on this, but this is how we’ve chosen to proceed.
Sue Flinders: Are you saying a vote for the board of directors to vote or a vote for the shareholders?
David Wright: I am talking about the shareholders approving a resolution that would terminate their status as Kays Creek Irrigation shareholders and convert to Layton City customers for secondary water. They would be voting to sever ties to Kays Creek and look to Layton City to deliver their secondary water just as you now look to Layton City for culinary water.
Terry Kendrick: When and how would you do this?
Scott Green: We’ve got to get all the details figured out first. We’re not done.
David Wright: We are still working on an agreement with Layton City. We would lay all this out. This is something you would be able to see. We are just not there yet. That is why this is an informational meeting.
Clark Hirschi: We felt like we should inform you. We’re not ready to make a vote, we don’t have all the details yet or a resolution for you to vote on, but we want you to know what we are recommending, what we think is best, and what we see coming even though we don’t have every detail yet.
Bob Winegar: Layton City already owns 95% of the shares so isn’t this a done deal already?
Scott Green: They don’t own 95%. They own over 300 shares, so they own a lot of it, but they don’t own a majority.
Gary Crane: I think you are confusing the 95% number that was mentioned in the letter. That was referring to the amount of the system that is pressurized. The concept on the board would be keeping separate the two issues. The dams and the agricultural use would be kept separate. There would be individuals that would sit on the board and address those issues. The pressurized system would be controlled by the city. We need to split the board and the board would have to be weighted toward the city whenever an issue regarding the pressurized system came up, and toward the agricultural users whenever an issue affecting them came up. That is how we are thinking of it, but the details aren’t there yet. You can see the wisdom. If the city has to run the pressurized system, but decisions are being made regarding the pressurized system by people that don’t have interest in the pressurized system, that won’t work, and it goes both ways. We would need to work together on most issues. The majority of the cost to maintain the dams will come from the pressurized folks. So, even though Kays Creek does have ownership of the dams, the maintenance will come from the pressurized folks.
Susan Boatwright: So, if we are on pressurized ag, we will turn our shares over to Layton City and so we no longer are shareholders and we no longer have shares in Kays Creek?
Scott Green: That is what we are trying to work out. Are we going to tie the water to the ground and then you hold a certificate for the excess? We need to tie water to the ground so that it can’t be moved anywhere else unless there is excess.
Terry Tippetts: The state is requiring a meter. How much will the meter cost the individual homeowner?
Scott Green: $1000 for the meter with the satellite and $500 to $1000 for install depending on how deep we would have to dig. Weber Basin installed thousands of these in Ogden and that is what we are basing our number off of.
Terry Tippetts: So, it is on the homeowner?
Scott Green: It is the responsibility of the homeowner. That is the $4.5 million dollar number we presented.
Clark Hirschi: That is why we are making an issue that if the State mandates this, somehow it is not an unfunded mandate. Somehow the State needs to help facilitate this if this is what they expect of everybody. Especially in the older part of the city, the individual homeowner can’t be expected to come up with that kind of money for a meter the State is demanding with no financial help from the State. We don’t know how it all plays out.
Terry Tippets: If they are going to mandate it, then they should make some kind of compensation.
Clark Hirschi: Amen.
Scott Green: We’re trying!
Terry Tippets: Thank you.
Mike Hanson: If the city is taking 95% of the pressurized stuff, why do we need to hire two new people?
Scott: We won’t. That is only if we don’t go with Layton City. If we do, we won’t need those two people.
Mike: Hanson: So, we reduce the cost for labor?
Scott Green: Yes. The city will take care of that.
Karen McFarland: We get two bills one in the spring and one in the fall; one for pressurized and one for ag. How would the city bill that?
Scott Green: We believe that Kays Creek Irrigation will be billing agricultural use on the pressurized system because they are larger bills.
Colleen Bailey: Can I make a motion?
Scott Green: This is not that type of meeting.
Colleen Bailey: It’s just that a lot of the same questions are being asked over and over again. Can we get some kind of informational letter?
Scott Green: That is what we are trying to do here, give the information we have and get information from you also. We’re just not going to do this out of the blue.
Clark Hirschi: The letter that called you to this meeting also presented what we knew and what we wanted to discuss, but before you ever vote we will have to present everything in very clear detail what you are voting on and what the implications and ramifications will be.
Norma Cox: You say a meter costs $1000.
Scott Green: That’s for a 1-inch meter.
Norma Cox: What will happen in 5 years. Will it cost more?
Scott Green: I don’t know. Costs for everything have gone up. I used to buy a 1-inch stop and waste valve for $35. Now they are $90.
Norma Cox: Can I buy a meter now?
Scott Green: You can. The meters are guaranteed for life and the batteries are guaranteed for 15 years. You would just need someone to install it.
Norma Cox: Is it on each valve?
Scott Green: It would be installed on the main valve coming into your front yard.
Norma Cox: I’m talking about the farm.
Scott Green: It would be on every valve where you turn. The 4-inch meters are very expensive.
Norma Cox: What’s that?
Scott Green: We’re probably looking at $4 or $5,000.
Sue Flinders: So, you are going to increase our rates for 2020?
Scott Green: If we don’t go with Layton City we will need to hire new employees and we don’t have the money to pay them. If we go with Layton City we won’t have to because they already have the manpower. There are only two of us now:
Unknown: What kind of timeframe are we talking about for transferring to Layton City.
Scott Green: We are hoping in this next year.
Carolyn Weaver: You talk about not using water for 7 years but how do we define that?
David Wright: Somebody who would claim forfeiture would have to prove that. They would have to prove seven consecutive years on non-use.
Clark Hirschi: Not you, the person claiming non-use would have to prove it.
Carolyn Weaver: The State would have to prove that?
David Wright: The State would not. It would be upon whoever sues you in court. They would have the burden of proof for claiming non-use.
Carolyn Weaver: Why would somebody want to sue me?
David Wright: It is not likely, but it is a danger if the water is not being used.
Scott Green: This is all new to us too. We just wanted to let you know.
David Wright: I just tried a case where a client had a small amount of water forfeited, so it can happen.
Gary Crane: I just want to address a question Mike had. There is a difference between water rights and water shares. Kays Creek Irrigation Company owns the water rights and the water shares are what you own. What generally happens in a forfeiture situation is that they would look at the company as a whole and say that maybe there were 2,000-acre feet that weren’t used last year. Kays Creek would then have the responsibility to designate which shares are not being used and which would be available for forfeiture. It’s becoming easier and easier to see if the water is being used or not because of the new audit system.
Jan Hyde: There’s only so much water in the ditch. How will you have enough water to supply new customers.
Scott: We are not taking water that is not there. A developer is required to bring water to a subdivision. The City determines how much water needs to be allocated for that subdivision and the developer buys it from those willing to sell their excess or uses what is already tied to the ground. Once water is gone, it is gone, unless we pull more water off the mountain somehow or bring someone else’s water into our system, which can be done.
Ed Green: Water comes off the mountain and into the pond, and all the water gets mixed up. It’s all in a pool, it’s all in the pond, so whose shares are going down the pipe?
Scott: Kays Creek Irrigation’s.
Ed Green: How do you decide whose shares are moving? You are using every drop of water in that pond pretty much.
Scott Green: We’ve been able to keep it full because of the weather, and we rent water from Weber Basin: 2,000-acre feet.
Ed Green: But there are shares from people who are not using them. That water is getting used.
Scott Green: Yes, basically. Some are not, but they would have to prove, like David said, that it’s not being used.
Ed Green: It’s obviously going down the pipe.
Carolyn Weaver: It would be hard to determine whose shares weren’t being used.
David Wright: It would be up to the company to do that.
Carolyn Weaver: But, how would they do that?
David Wright: It wouldn’t be that difficult. They would look at who is irrigating and who is not. That is how they would do it.
Ed Green: But what if the water is being used on company property like a tank or a pond?
David: If you could prove that, it would be a defense of a forfeiture claim. If you could show that the water is being beneficially used somewhere by someone, lawfully, then you are covered.
Norma Cox: Is Layton City doing anything with the old springs on the mountain?
Scott: Middle Fork and South Fork?
Norma Cox: No, the springs way up above.
Scott Green: I don’t know what they are doing. All I know is we have water rights; we have winter rights and summer rights. We have both to fill our ponds. I’m not sure about the springs at all.
Steve Jackson: We only use Weber Basin water and our own wells to pull out of. The springs run down the creek as far as I know.
Clark Hirschi: And end up in the pond.
Scott Green: The creeks dry up usually around the end of June. Once you get too far up the mountain, then you have to deal with the BLM.
Terry Tippetts: When we have a real large snowfall in the mountains back there, I know that we hold as much water as we can until we realize we need to dump some. Does Weber Basin or Kays Creek dump water to accommodate the runoff?
Scott Green: We have an agreement with Davis County flood control. They gave us money to redo Middle Fork and the agreement is we keep a foot down on the ponds for flood control. We monitor them and read them to make sure they are not overfilling. The only way we fill Andy Adams is through South Fork which comes down through the pressurized system. We have to monitor it, otherwise it will go over the spillway.
Terry Tippetts: Sometimes water has to be dumped and that goes right to the lake.
Scott Green: Yes, or the Nature Conservancy.
Scott Green: This is the beginning of our discussion; nothing is set in stone. We appreciate your feedback and for being here. If you have questions, then send them, but it is on the transfer to Layton City. We’d like to get this done so the rates don’t go to $275 and we have to hire two people and then find out we have to let them go in another year. We’d like to get this done. The billing in the summertime is the hardest of all, trying to collect from people who haven’t paid for two or three years. If you haven’t paid your bill you will forfeit your share or lose your water.
Sue Flinders: When do you propose the next meeting will be?
Scott Green: Right after Christmas we will sit down with the attorneys and have a meeting to iron out some stuff. Hopefully we can all meet again in February.
Clark Hirschi: The goal is to get it done in the first quarter if we can. We don’t know exactly what that means.
Lana Alison: Layton City has these proposed rates? What is the likelihood that the City would stick to it?
Scott Green: That is a study that they did with Bowen and Collins and I think they will stick with that.
Steve Jackson: Those numbers are the actual adopted rates the City would use if we received this as a transfer. They have been adopted by the City Council as part of the rate study that was completed.
Scott Green: We will put information on the website. We want your feedback.
Terry Tippetts: Thank you for offering this opportunity so we can better understand what is going on.
Scott Green: Thank you.
Meeting Closed at 8:04pm