Editors Note: This article was originally published in the April 10, 2024 issue of the Chronicle Progress. Some information may be outdated.
Fillmore City officials recently hit pause on a number of pending annexations into the city.
Over a few meetings, city council members repeated concerns about a looming Utah Geologic Survey groundwater study that might impact the city’s ability to provide adequate water service in the future should the state reduce water consumption in the Pahvant Valley.
Also, a review of undeveloped parcels already inside city limits show the potential for resource-stretching growth even if no new land is annexed into the city anytime soon.
During a March 7 work session, city council members heard from Sunrise Engineering’s Devan Shields that currently about 1,642 undeveloped acres sit idle within Fillmore City limits.
That’s enough property that should all those acres be developed—calculated to consume at least four acre feet of water per acre of land—then the city would quickly exhaust its current water supplies.
“That is probably higher than what we would see,” Shields told council members, later citing a more conservative two-acre-feet per acre average water usage for comparison. “But if it was, that would be 6,568 acre feet…With that, it is easy to see we could quickly get into trouble with annexations.”
The city owns about 6,000 acre feet of water.
Shields also noted a 2009 master water rights plan created by the city that suggested the municipality would be short 100 acre feet of water by 2050.
City Attorney Elise Harris urged council members to consider pausing annexations and begin mulling new resource policies for future land developments.
“You have four pending annexations right now, totaling approximately 350 acres. You have hundreds of acres of undeveloped property in the city already,” Harris told council members, adding that any number of projects could be developed within the city limits that could impact utilities in a number of ways. “You have a lot to consider beyond even your pending annexations.”
Harris said the city should build a method for calculating impacts on local resources as projects either seek zone changes or annexation into the city.
“That’s when the city should be looking at whether they have water or not,” she told council members, noting these are legislative actions where officials are able to exercise considerable leeway in their decision-making.
Later, during a regular council meeting the same day, Councilman Eugene Larsen brought up another concern—namely that the city’s water pumps are nearing capacity as is.
He said the city has plenty of water on paper, but that being able to deliver that water is a “whole different story.”
City maintenance officials told Larsen the only solution is likely drilling a third well and building a new water tank.
Councilman Dennis Alldredge has been most vocal about the pending Utah Geologic Survey study of the groundwater situation in the Pahvant Valley—a study was supposed to come out in January, but has not yet seen the light of a day. He said depending on the results of the study, the city might not have any available water even if it drilled a third well.
Millard County commissioners were alerted to the study’s pending release by a Utah Division of Water Rights regional engineer in November. The engineer, Terry Monroe, said water authorities have measured considerable land subsidence in the Pahvant Valley due to over-drafting groundwater, which could signal the aquifer is collapsing. Historically, state authorities have said the rate of groundwater mining is twice the size the aquifer’s natural recharge rate. This means any significant effort to curtail over-drafting could result in cutting the amount of current consumption in half, Alldredge predicted.
The councilman said he once believed the city’s water supplies were safe from any cuts the state engineer might propose for the valley. But during a March 19 city council meeting, he said he was told the city’s newer water rights could come under threat.
“I thought our water rights, Fillmore City, were protected. But in a different discussion with someone else, the indication was no. Our water rights aren’t protected,” the council member said.
The council held public hearings on multiple annexations during the March 19 meeting, but paused them all except for one the city previously moved to accept.
“We’re looking at all annexations a little bit differently right now,” Alldredge said.
Councilman Curt Hare said repeatedly over the course of more than one meeting that the city needed new policies in place to better manage utility-level resources, such as water, sewer and electrical infrastructure. He also embraced the idea that every future annexation into the city come with an “enforceable” agreement that spells out the impact of the project, whether residential, commercial or industrial, on city resources.
“Frankly, I don’t think any of us are ready. We have four annexations that are coming before the city right now…I don’t know we are comfortable any of us approving any annexations into the city right now,” he said during the city council’s March 7 meeting.
By its April 2 meeting, the city council was ready to begin deliberating on a new ordinance requiring future land developers to bring water with their projects. The proposed ordinance was tabled, but is expected to be brought back in the near future.
