Johnson Canyon Meeting

December 9, 1998


Summary of hydrogeology and water rights structure of Johnson Canyon

Presented by Jared Manning

The water that occurs naturally in Johnson Canyon has historically been used for irrigation. The water is diverted from surface sources, such as the Johnson Wash and its tributaries, and from the underground aquifer. The surface water rights generally have the earliest priority dates.

The main aquifer from which groundwater is withdrawn in the canyon is the Navajo Sandstone Formation. The joints, fractures, and loose to moderate degree of cementation of the Navajo Sandstone means that it is a good water bearing aquifer compared to other rock formations. It does not, however, store or transport water as well as an unconsolidated alluvial aquifer that consists of sand and gravel.

The Johnson Canyon geology mainly consists of two layers of Navajo Sandstone overlaid by alluvial sand and gravel deposits. The sandstone layers are separated by a thin layer called Tenney Canyon Tongue that essentially prohibits groundwater flow between the sandstone layers. The formations dip three to five degrees to the northwest. The lower member of the sandstone, called the Lamb Point Tongue, is visible in the southern part of Johnson Canyon while the upper member, or the main body, outcrops in the northern part of the canyon.

Most of the base flow in Johnson Wash comes from the Navajo Sandstone, particularly the Lamb Point Tongue. The Lamb Point Tongue is also where most of the wells in the canyon pump their water from. That means that the groundwater and surface water diversions in the canyon have essentially the same source. Pump tests have shown that withdrawing water from wells decreases the amount of flow in the Johnson Wash. There is a strong connection between the surface water and groundwater in Johnson Canyon.

Johnson Canyon is also part of a regional groundwater system. The Lamb Point Tongue receives recharge, in the form of precipitation, to the east where the sandstone is exposed. The general direction the groundwater moves is to the northwest which follows the natural dip of the formation. Some of the groundwater goes to the Johnson Canyon/Kanab Creek area while some migrates to other parts of the region. It is likely that much of this water makes its way past the Sevier Fault and into the East Fork of the Virgin River. There are still a lot of things, though, that are not known about the Sevier Fault as it relates to groundwater movement. If the groundwater levels in Johnson Canyon were lowered substantially, more flow would be induced into that area and the amount of water flowing to other areas in the regional system would be lessened.




Summary of Water Rights policy and its history

Presented by Kerry Carpenter

Following an explanation of the statutory criteria that govern the review of Applications for Permanent Change, with specific reference to how these apply in cases proposing a change from a surface source to a groundwater source, an abbreviated history of the evolution of policy in Johnson Canyon was presented. The manner in which the current policy is affecting residential development in Johnson Canyon was presented. It emphasized that the issue under consideration before the State Engineer was the manner in which present and future applications proposing to convert early-priority (Chidister Decree) surface water rights to domestic/municipal uses should be handled.




Summary of questions and comments made by attendees

Compiled by Bill Schlotthauer

Note: Because this meeting was not tape recorded, no effort is made to identify those asking questions, making statements, or responding thereto.

Question #1: Are the "Chidister" wells being used? Yes, as recently as last year. Are there any water rights left in those wells? Yes, only a few, old change applications which "slipped through" the system have been approved.

Statement #1: The priority dates of the original Chidister rights and Chidister wells ranges from 1890 to 1901. The priority of change of the individual Chidister wells is determined by when those change applications were filed.

Statement #2: A segregation or change application carries the priority date of its parent water right. The priority of the change comes into effect when deciding questions of interference after the change is accomplished.

Question #2: Is there sufficient water in the sandstone aquifer to satisfy all of the water rights? As near as we can tell at this time, no.

Question #3: What are the drainage boundaries within which changes are allowed? The drainage of Johnson Wash in Utah; although each application is considered on its own merits.

Question #4: Wells below the mouth of Johnson Canyon draw water from the Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation; How is this related to the Navajo Sandstone? The Shinarump is a ground-water source, but each formation is considered a separate aquifer.

Question #5: What brought this study about? Previous studies by Utah International and the United States Geological Survey indicated that the water resources of the area are limited. Recently, protests have been filed on change applications seeking to change the use of Chidister rights from irrigation to domestic.

Question #6: Will Johnson Canyon be opened to new appropriations? No.

Question #7: Will transfers of Chidister rights from irrigation to domestic use be allowed? That's why we're here.

Statement #3: The conversion from irrigation to domestic use is ongoing and has effects up and down the canyon. It has progressed to the point where Chidister rights are being involved. If water rights need to be cut off, it will be done strictly by priority date.

Statement #4: Phreatophytes and evaporation are draining the creek in the late season; the State Engineer needs to look at these and other factors as part of his study.

Statement #5: There are few good quality wells above the highway bridge and the phreatophyte issue needs to be addressed.

Statement #6: There is concern about the effect new change applications will have on the canyon's hydrologic system.

Statement #7: New change applications have brought the issue to a head. There is concern about the loss of agricultural lands to development and long term effects of development.

Question #8: Will the safe yield of the system be acceded and overdrafts allowed? No.

Question #9: What is the difference between diversions and depletions? Diversion is the amount of water taken from the natural source and applied to a beneficial use. Depletion is the amount of water lost to the system by the beneficial use.

Question #10: What water rights are being changed the most? The most senior priority rights are those being changed the most.

Question #11: How do return flows effect water use? Return flows from upstream uses go to fill the water rights of downstream users. The effect of changing return flow patterns are considered in evaluating change applications.

Question #12: Can water rights be transferred up the canyon? Yes.

Statement #8: The canyon was rezoned to a 10 acre minimum lot size. There is not enough water in the canyon to serve all the 10 acre parcels.

Question #13: Would a change in the State Engineer's policy make smaller lot sizes likely? That is for the zoning commission to decide.

Question #14: Who changed the zoning? Kane County.

Statement #9: Planning for growth is an issue that needs to be addressed on the local level.

Questions #15: How does the Johnson Canyon fault effect the ground water? The fault offsets the beds of the Lamb Point Tongue of the Navajo Sandstone and makes the hydrologic connection more restrictive, but the exact amount is uncertain. Test pumping of the Bald Knoll well by Utah International effected ground-water levels on the west side of the fault, but not on the east side.

Question #16: Will the State Engineer approve changes to move water rights from areas where pumping is heaviest to areas of lesser demand? Yes.

Statement #10: Artificial recharge or something similar may be a better way to maintain creek flows and ground-water levels.

Question #17: What is the difference between priority date and priority of change? The priority date is when the water was first put to beneficial use (in the case of Diligence Claim) or when the Application to Appropriate was filed and is used to determine "first in time, first in right". Priority of change is the date when the change application was filed and is used to determine priority if there is interference between the new point of diversion and existing ones.

Question #18: Can a water right be lost through non-use? If the water right has not been placed to beneficial use for a period of five consecutive years it may be terminated by the court through a civil proceeding or by the State Engineer as part of an ongoing adjudication. Filing of an Application for Extension of Time in which to Resume Use can preserve the water right during that five year period. During the development of an approved change application, the previous uses must be maintained until the new uses come on line. During an adjudication, the applicant can petition to have a non-used right restored within 15 years of the date he was served.

Question #19: Is Johnson Canyon being adjudicated? The canyon is currently under an adjudication order. A Proposed Determination of Water Rights was published and distributed in 1974.

Question #20: What is the standing of unperfected water rights? They are good as long as the applicant is being diligent in developing his project.

Statement #11: The system of water appropriation and water right forfeiture was explained. (Please see other portions of this website for a more complete explanation.)

Question #21: Are there objections to allowing changing of Chidister rights from irrigation to domestic? Kane County Water Conservancy District (KCWCD) owns such rights and wishes to change them for the development of a water system in the canyon.

Statement #12: Well water levels in the canyon will be monitored.

Statement #13: Local planning needs to be done to determine how development will proceed in the canyon.

Question #22 & 23: What are the KCWCD plans for the canyon? KCWCD will provide information on their planning efforts. Currently, they plan to construct a water system in Johnson Canyon, but it is still on the drawing boards.

Statement #14: KCWCD will work to improve communication with canyon residents.

Statement #15: Local planning should include the State Engineer.

Statement #16: Agriculture is uneconomical in Kane County unless an agricultural trust system can be established.

Statement #17: Developers should rely on ground-water first for their projects.