Committee asks city to support water-rights moratorium
by John Hales
The Times-Independent
Mar 01, 2018 | 2026 views | 0 0 comments | 106 106 recommendations | email to a friend | print
​ The Moab Water Conservation and Drought Management Advisory Committee is asking the Moab City Council to back a moratorium on granting new water rights out of the Moab-Spanish Valley aquifer.

​ The committee forwarded the wording of a proposed resolution of support for the idea at a meeting on Feb. 14.

​ “Continuing to perpetuate the impression that abundant groundwater resources are available for unchecked development is misleading and a disservice to valley residents,” states one paragraph of the proposed resolution.

​ The resolution, if adopted by the council as currently worded, would formally request that the Utah Division of Water Rights cease issuing new water-right allocations out of the aquifer, at least until completion of a groundwater management plan is developed.

​ Short of that, the city would ask DWR to strictly limit that amount of water rights issued out of the aquifer until the same time.

​ “Proactively addressing adequate water resources is fundamental to our community’s financial stability and livability,” the draft resolution states.

​ The plan is one prong of a several-pronged approach to making sure the area has enough water for decades to come.

​ Another prong is a process by which DWR will align and correlate documented water rights with the actual amount of water being used. The process is called adjudication, and it’s an attempt to correct a rampant problem throughout the state: On paper, more water is allowed for use than actually exists.

​ That doesn’t mean we are out of water, but it’s not certain how much water can be allowed for new development in the area.

​The adjudication process is slated to begin within a few weeks.

​ But while the water over-allocation issue is a broadly recognized one and hardly (if at all) disputed, the committee used the opportunity to take its own shots at views on climate change.​

​ The resolution uses that term — climate change — three times.

​ “Does it need to be said more than once?” asked committee member Kara Dohrenwend. She felt once was enough.

​ But other members of the committee pushed back.​Committee member Jeremy Lynch said he felt “normalizing” the term was important. He told The Times-Independent later that he felt it was important to insist on using the terminology, rather than giving in to negative political imputations.

​ “There has been a deliberate attempt, and deliberate actions taken to eliminate certain terms and certain connotations from the dialogue,” Lynch said.

​ Committee member Kyle Bailey noted that even such a conservative politician as Gov. Gary Herbert had used the term “climate change” while decrying its negative impacts on the state’s ski-tourism industry.

Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.