Loafman Springs fee called into question

Warren Crawford approached the Sundance City Council last week to question a contract that would require him to pay $100 per month to tap into a city line and make use of water from the Loafman Spring. Why, he asked the council, should he be required to pay the city for water to which he already holds the rights?

Crawford initially brought up the idea of making use of the water last year, when he asked the council to monument within its minutes that it will not challenge his right to do so. The spring is one of two that date from the early 1900s and is situated on a couple of acres of city property within the borders of the Crawfords’ private property.

Use of the spring was discontinued more than three decades ago and for the last few years the pipeline leading to it has been leaking heavily. The city ceased to use the spring when it was mandated that surface water had to be chlorinated, according to Mayor Paul Brooks; meanwhile, the well field had come online and the city had access to other water sources, so it was decided that the spring was no longer necessary.

At December’s meeting, the council approved a lease for $100 per month for the Crawfords to exercise their water rights by tapping into the old water line. However, the contract drawn up by the city is unacceptable, Crawford said, because it puts all the responsibility on the Crawfords to maintain the spring and lines in good condition and charges $100 per month to use the facilities.

The problem is, he told the council, those facilities are not good and have been leaking for many years.

“That water has been wasted for a heck of a long time,” he said, explaining that the waste was part of the reason for suggesting a portion of it be diverted for the Crawfords’ use.

The infrastructure is so bad, he said, that it’s not outside the realms of imagination that all they will find when they dig down to it is the echo of the line that once existed.

Crawford understands that the city does not want the liability of anyone drinking untreated water, he said, but does not think it’s fair to charge for water that’s been wasted for all these years and to which he already has the right.

City Attorney Mark Hughes explained that, while Crawford does have a right to the water, it is also on the Crawfords to provide the facilities to convey that water. In this case, the city is actually providing those facilities.

Hughes stated that his understanding of the council’s thinking was that the monthly payment is for ensuring the water can get to the Crawfords, not for the water itself. Council Member Callie Hilty confirmed that the idea was to provide funding for the city to repair that infrastructure if it breaks.

Crawford commented that his family is not expecting the city to do any fixing of hardware.

The conversation turned aside briefly as Mayor Brooks and a representative of the State Engineers’ Office discussed the requirements of water rights. Brooks expressed his adamant opinion that the city must keep hold of its share of the active water rights at the spring and said this had been requested at the state level, where there is concern over the loss of Wyoming’s water rights.

Following this discussion, the council agreed to Crawford’s request to sit down with Hughes and Public Works Director Mac Erickson to talk through the contract. A motion was made to permit this conversation and to come up with an agreement all can live with, with the council providing guidance that Hughes should ensure liability and maintenance are addressed.