By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
A public meeting to gain input on a proposed change
water requirements for building permits drew only a
handful of interested citizens to council meeting in
Mona.
Bryce Lynn, mayor, explained to those attending
that the city currently requires those building to
provide one-half acres foot of water per permit or pay a
fee.
"Those buying building permits are paying the fee,"
said Lynn.
Doran Kay, council member, said the Impact Fee Act
requires that such a fee be substantiated and that it be
fair to all.
Cory Squire, council member, was given the
assignment, some months ago, to re-write the ordinance
dealing with the way water should be required for those
building homes in the community.
He has been working, since then, on writing that
ordinance amendment.
He said, requiring all who build to provide
one-quarter share of irrigation water, dedicated to the
property it will serve, may be the best way of assuring
the town has an adequate water supply.
"We need to do something to bring water to the
town," said Squire. "At some point, we are going to need
the water."
The question asked at the meeting was how many
shares of irrigation water were available for sale and
whether or not those seeking building permits could
purchase irrigation water at all.
"There is water available for sale," said Harry
Newell, council member. "I do not have water for sale,
but others do."
The problem could be that the price of water shares
could skyrocket if the city made it a requirement to
bring a quarter share to the city with each building
lot.
Some council members, however, thought that the
market should allow a farmer to make money on irrigation
water shares. After all, a businessman can raise the
price of any product to meet the demand for that product.
A farmer should have the same right.
"It is not right, in my opinion, to penalize those
who do have water for sale," said Newell.
If water shares are not required, said Squires, the
other recourse would be to require water rights come into
the community with all property developments.
"I'm not in love with seeking share prices go any
higher," said Gordon Young, representing Mona Irrigation
Company.
Nevertheless, he said, the quarter share
requirement would be the best option open. If the city
did not require some water, it would no longer have
sufficient culinary water for development and future
residents would be kept from building in the community.
Water development projects, by the city, would be very
costly.
"I'd rather see the open market dictate the price,"
said Young.
Presently, he said, the community ordinance was
saying to the developer: "Come in, we'll give you water."
That was not right.
Kerry Lynn, interested citizen, said he though,
when the price went up on the water shares, that everyone
would sell to the developer rather than a single home
owner.
Allen Pay, water master, said water is being
promised to a power pant being proposed for the area. If
the open market was not allowed to dictate the price, in
the community, for water shares then those selling would
sell to the power plant because it would be willing to
pay a high price.
Another problem could be, that if the price went
up, those who had purchased water for irrigation of their
lots would sell it.
Essentially, said Young, that event would not be
possible because the irrigation company would stamp the
water share as non-transferable and, when the share came
before the company as being offered for sale, they would
see the stamp and would refuse to allow such a
transfer.
"Basically, water rights are transferable to the
drainage system they are located in," said Young.
Traditionally, those having water in a stock company,
like Mona Irrigation Company, kept the water in that
company.
The point-of-use can be changed.
Young said state representatives&emdash;Senator
Leonard Blackham and Representative Darin
Peterson&emdash;signed a bill that can force a share
company to transfer water. Water from a pond can be
changed from surface to well with the loss factored
in.
"In my personal opinion, they benefited
personally," said Young. That was a form of fraud.
Kay said, the nature of use could be changed.
When Mona City applied for a transfer of water
right several years ago, from the point of diversion
because of the purchase of Ostler water which was
transferred to city water, the city filed for 168-acre
feet of water right.
"One Hundred Seventeen acre feet was approved, a
lot was dropped," he said.
Wet ground, land with water shares, or dry ground,
land without water shares, are not bound to stay the way
they are, said Young. One can dry up to provide water at
another. Wet ground can be sold without the water.
"If I were leasing a water share, I would be
looking at purchasing that share with the water being
devoted or dedicated to the building lot," said
Young.
