96 South Main Street, PO Box 77, Nephi, Utah 84648 - Voice: 435 623-0525 - FAX: 435 623-4735

On our front page this week

  • Mona Irrigation says that Mona City should not get involved in water dispute


By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent

Mona City should not get involved in an on-going dispute.

Gordon Young, representing the irrigation company, told council members that it was entirely inappropriate for the mayor, Bryce Lynn, to have signed a letter which Young alleges was written by an individual other than the mayor.

"We have contemplated filing suit against the town for interference," said Young.

In addition, said Young, approval for the mayor's signature was never in the minutes because he had reviewed them. There was not reference to allowing a signature.

"We didn't agree to pay assessments on water that we have to pump," said Lynn. "That was the objection."

He said that the conditions of use were what the city objected to and why the letter had been signed.

Young said he had received from the state division of water rights a copy of a letter dated April 4, 2006, that was sent to them from the city with the mayor's signature.

The letter was in regard to Mona irrigation Company, Mt. View Estates, Blue chip Investment Trust and Mona City Change Application No. 53-110 (a310610.

"I contacted Mayor Lynn about this," said Young.

He said he contacted Harry Newell, council member, about the letter and he said he had never seen it. Newell then contacted a couple of other council members and they said they had never seen the letter either.

"There was no where in the minutes that we could find anything about it," he said.

Young said, when he discussed the inappropriate signing of the letter, Lynn had seemed confused about the actual content and the implications of the letter.

"According to Councilman Cory Squire, the letter was actually written by Pat Painter," said Young.

He said he thinks the council members never saw the letter and that it was kept hush-hush.

"Let me explain something to you, Pat Painter is not responsible for signing change applications," said Young. "His water rights are a part of Mona Irrigation Company."

The interests of share holders needs to be protected, he said.

"Mona Irrigation Company has the authority and responsibility for filing that right to change the application," he said.

Lynn said he did not appreciate Young's accusations.

"We signed what we thought was best for the town," he said.

Lynn said he did not care if the water got transferred or not and hoped that it would not be.

"But, if it does, we don't want to get stuck with paying assessments on water we have to pump," Lynn said. "The change application he (Pat Painter) proposed would be to change it and it would go into our well."

Young said he would like to have the city write and send another letter to the state division of water rights stating their objections being that they did not want to pay assessment fees on water they would have to pump.

"I am asking for you to write a letter of clarification," said Young. "The letter you signed just muddies things up. It made it look like you objected and not that you did not agree with just one condition."

At any rate, said Young, any assessment would not be the responsibility of the city. He said the mayor was mislead.

The irrigation company had worked long hours with their legal counsel to come up with the wording and had submitted it.

Young said if the mayor was not willing to send a letter of clarification there must be something else on his agenda.

"All we need to do is clarify our stand," said Newell.

However, Lynn said the council signed the letter they got from the state and then found there were conditions imposed.

Young said that at the very end, the council would still have the right to object to conditions. At this point, a letter of clarification was needed because the letter the mayor had signed made it look as though the city objected to the entire action.

"We have done things according to the law," said Young. "You were silly enough to sign the letter."

He said that, one by one, all but Squire had been ruled out as having seen the letter or approved the signature of the mayor.

Lynn objected to the idea that he was doing anything on the side and resented the implication that he was not being honorable because he had the interest of the city at heart.

The signature had far-reaching implications and was considered interference.

"Write down what you want to say; write down your objections; clarify what you object to," said Young.

Squire said that he thought it would be possible to write a letter of clarification on the way the change application conditions are composed explaining the objection.

They will be willing to allow the help of the irrigation company in writing the letter of clarification which is to state, unequivocally, that the city does not want to pay assessments.