Utah Division of Water Rights Hearings on Three Ogden Valley Applications
By The Ogden Valley News Staff - 25 July 2026
During the summer of 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened a series of public hearings at the Ogden Valley Branch Library to review significant and highly contested water applications. Presided over by Assistant State Engineer Eric Jones, alongside Regional Engineer Ryan Broadbent, the hearings addressed proposals that could potentially impact the region's aquifers and surface water. The applications—filed by Nordic Village Venture LLC, Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, and the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District—drew formal protests from local water suppliers, irrigation companies, and Ogden Valley residents concerned about potential impairment to existing water rights, infrastructure, and ecological health.
State Hears Contested Nordic Village Application to Shift Irrigation Water to Groundwater Well
On June 30, 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened a public hearing to consider change application A 53980, filed by Nordic Village Venture LLC. The applicant was represented by Nathan Schellenberg of Nordic Village Ventures, Jared Nelson of Dorsey Whitney, and geologist John Files of Cascade Water Resources. Formal protests were filed by the Liberty Pipeline Company, which did not have representatives present, and Eden Waterworks, represented by Tina Allred and David Hansen.
The proposed change application seeks to modify the use of 120 acre-feet of water diverted from Coal Creek, which was historically utilized to irrigate a 35.5-acre golf course alongside 10 acre-feet designated for snowmaking. The applicant proposes retaining the exact same quantity and source while adding an underground point of diversion, specifically a newly constructed well. Under the new application, the water would be reallocated to support the commercial operation of a ski resort, with approximately 40 acre-feet dedicated to irrigation and 80 acre-feet allocated for snowmaking and pond evaporation. Schellenberg and Nelson argued that the transition from summer irrigation to winter snowmaking represents a less consumptive use of the water, as the water is stored on the mountain as manufactured snow during the colder months and returns to the hydrologic basin through spring runoff. Nelson stated the well provides necessary flexibility and asserted the change would not impair existing rights.
To address potential impairment, Files presented geological data and estimated potential impacts on existing water rights based on pump tests conducted in October 2023. Files stated that the Nordic Village Well operates in a shallow unconfined aquifer and demonstrated minimal interference with neighboring sources. According to his presentation, pumping the Nordic Village Well at 511 gallons per minute for 24 hours resulted in only 0.67 feet of drawdown at the Nordic Mountain Water Company well located 1,000 feet away from local private wells. Furthermore, Mr. Files predicted an estimated drawdown of just 0.1 feet after one year of pumping at the Eden Waterworks Clark East well, which is located over 10,000 feet away in the same aquifer. Files also clarified that Liberty Pipeline’s well, and Eden Waterworks' reservoir well operate in entirely different aquifers, mitigating interference concerns.
Despite the modeling, Broadbent raised significant concerns regarding the transfer of a variable surface water right to a highly reliable groundwater well without inadvertently enlarging the water right. Broadbent noted a lack of historical flow measurements for Coal Creek to confirm the water is consistently available to fulfill the 120 acre-foot right year-round. Files acknowledged that recent spot checks showed only about 20 gallons per minute flowing out of the collection pipe and roughly 45 gallons per minute in the creek. Broadbent emphasized that capturing water from a well when surface flows naturally fluctuate or taper off could constitute an enlargement of the historical right, requiring the applicant to provide additional data to prove how effectively the golf course was historically irrigated.
Speaking on behalf of Eden Waterworks, Allred emphasized the entity's responsibility to protect the water sources supplying the valley's critical infrastructure, including the junior high, elementary school, fire department, and central business district. Allred pushed back against the applicant's proposal to ensure compliance by installing telemetry and solar-powered monitoring equipment. She argued that state-mandated monitoring is a non-solution, citing a recent application by Elkhorn LLC where required monitoring equipment was allegedly never installed and the state river commissioner failed to enforce the conditions due to a lack of time or funding.
Presenting remotely, Hansen expanded on the protestant's concerns regarding the transition from a seasonally dependent, historically unmeasured, surface source to a secure groundwater well. Hansen argued that the historical surface water rights are dependent on climate variability and that moving them underground eliminates stream leakage and natural recharge. Based on the recent spot flow measurements provided by the applicant at the hearing, Hanse n calculated that the creek yields approximately 104 acre-feet annually, arguing that the surface waters cannot sustain the full 120 acre-foot value of the rights. Hansen requested that if the state approves the application, it should require monitoring at the historical locations and strictly limit the well's volumetric withdrawal to the actual stream volume available during any given year.
During the public comment period, local resident Elizabeth Keswick questioned the efficiency of the ski resort's snowmaking equipment, noting that the lower elevation of the resort causes snow to melt frequently during warm winters, which could require greater water usage to maintain the runs.
Following the presentations and public comments, Jones concluded the proceedings without issuing an immediate ruling. The applicant agreed to submit supplemental historical data regarding the golf course's irrigation and stream flows to address the enlargement concerns. Jones noted that once this supplemental information is submitted, all involved parties will be granted a twenty-day period to review the data and file written responses before the State Engineer’s office issues a final order.
Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company Faces Opposition at Water Rights Hearing
On July 14, 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened at the Ogden Valley Branch Library, where the central focus of the public hearing was a contested water right application filed by the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company. During the proceedings, it was clarified that the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company and Eden Crossing PWC, LLC are the same entity, having simply changed its name after converting from a limited liability company to a nonprofit organization. Eden Crossing PWC, LLC is a different entity from Eden Crossing, LLC which is a development entity within Eden Valley Opportunity Utah (EVOUtah). EVOUtah has multiple development interests.
This is the second time Eden Crossing (as the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company) has applied for direct access to hundreds of acre-feet of water from the same aquifer that the community relies on. Their previous application was rejected by the State Engineer after data showed pumping from their artesian well directly interfered with senior water rights at Patio Springs, and the company lacked a sufficient plan to replace that lost water. Returning with a new application, the company seeks approval for shallow wells and the artesian well known as EC5, this time incorporating an explicit mitigation plan for Patio Springs. The hearings drew formal protests from local water districts, irrigation companies, Ogden City, and community members concerned about the potential impact on the local aquifer.
Representing the applicant, Matt Jensen and hydrogeologist Neil Burk presented the mitigation plan. Jensen stated the company is prepared to deliver up to 0.61 cubic feet per second and a volume cap of 136.96 acre-feet of water from shallow wells to replace any loss or diminution of flows in Patio Springs. Burk noted that an eleven-day flow test in 2024 showed a combined increased flow of 212 gallons per minute from local spring and well sources when Well EC5 is pumped. Burk added that the region receives an estimated 5,300 acre-feet of recharge per year out of almost 18,000 acre-feet of mountain block recharge for the entire valley. This value was disputed by the Protestants during early hearings.
Protesting the application, David Hansen, representing Eden Waterworks and Ogden City, voiced concerns regarding potential impacts on Burnett Springs and the Clarke East Well. Hansen argued that there is no agreement with the applicant to replace water should Burnett Springs be affected and characterized the continuing addition of water withdrawals as death by slices for the aquifer. Local resident Shana Francis echoed these ecological concerns, observing that wetlands and springs have diminished over recent years, which science shows continues to increase the chance for wildfire.
Representatives from the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District and Wolf Creek Irrigation Company also heavily contested the application. Van King, representing Wolf Creek District, presented an analysis estimating that the EC5 Well extracted 33 acre-feet of water during testing, which he argued resulted in a one-for-one capture and loss to the Warm Springs complex. King explained that the existing Warm Springs Well has a liner, cannot be equipped with a pump, and cannot be drilled deeper because the lowest screened interval does not produce much water. Impacts to this well would mean the well would have to be redrilled at considerable expense to Wolf Creek District.
Ogden City also formally protested the application, represented by Shane Stroud and David Hansen. Stroud noted that the applicant proposes new wells located approximately 5,000 feet closer to Ogden City’s six municipal wells than prior applications. Stroud argued that the new wells sit up-gradient of the city's wells and will intercept water to which the city is entitled year-round. Several private citizens, including Rodney Carver and Hugh Shaum, requested the application be denied protecting their personal farm and residential wells, noting changing water levels over the past year.
The hearings concluded without a final decision on the application. The state engineer's office announced that all involved parties will have a twenty-day period to review the submitted information and respond in writing before the file is closed and a decision is made by the State engineer.
Wolf Creek Water District Seeks Backup Sources and Storage
On July 14, the Utah Division of Water Rights held a public hearing at the Ogden Valley Branch Library to consider exchange application E6757, filed by the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District. Assistant State Engineer Eric Jones presided over the proceedings alongside Regional Engineer Ryan Broadbent, while representatives Jonathan Schutz, Van King, and Miranda Menzies appeared for the applicant. The proceeding addressed a proposal to exchange 303 acre-feet of water from Pineview Reservoir, drawing from 16 underground wells and five spring sources for municipal use, while also incorporating 122 acre-feet of reservoir storage. All but two of the sources are already listed on existing Wolf Creek District water rights.
Formal protests were raised by the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company, represented by Chris Bramhall, as well as the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, represented by Matt Jensen, Neil Burk, and Shane Dunleavy. In the proceedings, it was noted that the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company and Eden Crossing PWC, LLC are the same entity, having simply changed names after converting from a limited liability company to a nonprofit organization.
Representing the applicant, Schutz and King outlined that the exchange serves largely as a housekeeping measure to update mapping and replace a former application without adding new aquifer system demands. They emphasized that the filing provides needed operational flexibility, allowing the district to divert from multiple existing or replacement sources—such as Warm Springs Well #2 and the Wedding Garden Well—while capping total extractions under the requested right at 303 acre-feet.
Menzies and Schutz explained that including Patio Springs and adding storage serves as a protective measure to ensure the district can continue meeting its long-standing delivery obligations to the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company under a 1983 agreement, particularly amidst ongoing litigation and forfeiture attempts by neighboring developers. Additionally, Menzies noted that including storage was a direct response to a 2024 state enforcement action requiring formal storage rights for exchange water passing through the district's 10-AC Lake reservoir.
Speaking on behalf of protestant Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, Jensen argued that the application raises serious interference concerns regarding pending water rights in the valley and could undermine the beneficial use of Patio Springs. Jensen expressed concern over the contract restrictions with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District regarding surface water exchanges and questioned whether unmetered evaporative losses from the reservoirs had been adequately calculated. Furthermore, Jensen criticized the inclusion of 16 underground points of diversion, asserting that listed wells have remained undeveloped for decades and suggesting the expansive application attempts to box out other local users from accessing the aquifer rather than establishing genuine flexibility.
Representing the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company, Bramhall voiced support for the district's efforts to shore up its water supply and maintain its historical delivery obligations under the 1983 contract. However, Bramhall cautioned that approval should not interfere with the irrigation company's pending change application for the same spring sources or create a conflict over the physical control of the 122 acre-foot reservoir, which the irrigation company has historically utilized to store its water right. The 122-AC reservoir facility is shared between Wolf Creek Irrigation Company and Wolf Creek District but is owned by the District. In response, Schutz and King clarified that the application operates strictly within the state's priority system, cannot block prior applications, and simply provides the public utility with redundant backup sources to reliably serve its community. Jones concluded the proceeding without an immediate ruling, taking the matter under advisement for future determination by the State Engineer's office, with the same 20-day filing period for supplemental information.
By The Ogden Valley News Staff - 25 July 2026
During the summer of 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened a series of public hearings at the Ogden Valley Branch Library to review significant and highly contested water applications. Presided over by Assistant State Engineer Eric Jones, alongside Regional Engineer Ryan Broadbent, the hearings addressed proposals that could potentially impact the region's aquifers and surface water. The applications—filed by Nordic Village Venture LLC, Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, and the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District—drew formal protests from local water suppliers, irrigation companies, and Ogden Valley residents concerned about potential impairment to existing water rights, infrastructure, and ecological health.
State Hears Contested Nordic Village Application to Shift Irrigation Water to Groundwater Well
On June 30, 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened a public hearing to consider change application A 53980, filed by Nordic Village Venture LLC. The applicant was represented by Nathan Schellenberg of Nordic Village Ventures, Jared Nelson of Dorsey Whitney, and geologist John Files of Cascade Water Resources. Formal protests were filed by the Liberty Pipeline Company, which did not have representatives present, and Eden Waterworks, represented by Tina Allred and David Hansen.
The proposed change application seeks to modify the use of 120 acre-feet of water diverted from Coal Creek, which was historically utilized to irrigate a 35.5-acre golf course alongside 10 acre-feet designated for snowmaking. The applicant proposes retaining the exact same quantity and source while adding an underground point of diversion, specifically a newly constructed well. Under the new application, the water would be reallocated to support the commercial operation of a ski resort, with approximately 40 acre-feet dedicated to irrigation and 80 acre-feet allocated for snowmaking and pond evaporation. Schellenberg and Nelson argued that the transition from summer irrigation to winter snowmaking represents a less consumptive use of the water, as the water is stored on the mountain as manufactured snow during the colder months and returns to the hydrologic basin through spring runoff. Nelson stated the well provides necessary flexibility and asserted the change would not impair existing rights.
To address potential impairment, Files presented geological data and estimated potential impacts on existing water rights based on pump tests conducted in October 2023. Files stated that the Nordic Village Well operates in a shallow unconfined aquifer and demonstrated minimal interference with neighboring sources. According to his presentation, pumping the Nordic Village Well at 511 gallons per minute for 24 hours resulted in only 0.67 feet of drawdown at the Nordic Mountain Water Company well located 1,000 feet away from local private wells. Furthermore, Mr. Files predicted an estimated drawdown of just 0.1 feet after one year of pumping at the Eden Waterworks Clark East well, which is located over 10,000 feet away in the same aquifer. Files also clarified that Liberty Pipeline’s well, and Eden Waterworks' reservoir well operate in entirely different aquifers, mitigating interference concerns.
Despite the modeling, Broadbent raised significant concerns regarding the transfer of a variable surface water right to a highly reliable groundwater well without inadvertently enlarging the water right. Broadbent noted a lack of historical flow measurements for Coal Creek to confirm the water is consistently available to fulfill the 120 acre-foot right year-round. Files acknowledged that recent spot checks showed only about 20 gallons per minute flowing out of the collection pipe and roughly 45 gallons per minute in the creek. Broadbent emphasized that capturing water from a well when surface flows naturally fluctuate or taper off could constitute an enlargement of the historical right, requiring the applicant to provide additional data to prove how effectively the golf course was historically irrigated.
Speaking on behalf of Eden Waterworks, Allred emphasized the entity's responsibility to protect the water sources supplying the valley's critical infrastructure, including the junior high, elementary school, fire department, and central business district. Allred pushed back against the applicant's proposal to ensure compliance by installing telemetry and solar-powered monitoring equipment. She argued that state-mandated monitoring is a non-solution, citing a recent application by Elkhorn LLC where required monitoring equipment was allegedly never installed and the state river commissioner failed to enforce the conditions due to a lack of time or funding.
Presenting remotely, Hansen expanded on the protestant's concerns regarding the transition from a seasonally dependent, historically unmeasured, surface source to a secure groundwater well. Hansen argued that the historical surface water rights are dependent on climate variability and that moving them underground eliminates stream leakage and natural recharge. Based on the recent spot flow measurements provided by the applicant at the hearing, Hanse n calculated that the creek yields approximately 104 acre-feet annually, arguing that the surface waters cannot sustain the full 120 acre-foot value of the rights. Hansen requested that if the state approves the application, it should require monitoring at the historical locations and strictly limit the well's volumetric withdrawal to the actual stream volume available during any given year.
During the public comment period, local resident Elizabeth Keswick questioned the efficiency of the ski resort's snowmaking equipment, noting that the lower elevation of the resort causes snow to melt frequently during warm winters, which could require greater water usage to maintain the runs.
Following the presentations and public comments, Jones concluded the proceedings without issuing an immediate ruling. The applicant agreed to submit supplemental historical data regarding the golf course's irrigation and stream flows to address the enlargement concerns. Jones noted that once this supplemental information is submitted, all involved parties will be granted a twenty-day period to review the data and file written responses before the State Engineer’s office issues a final order.
Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company Faces Opposition at Water Rights Hearing
On July 14, 2026, the Utah Division of Water Rights convened at the Ogden Valley Branch Library, where the central focus of the public hearing was a contested water right application filed by the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company. During the proceedings, it was clarified that the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company and Eden Crossing PWC, LLC are the same entity, having simply changed its name after converting from a limited liability company to a nonprofit organization. Eden Crossing PWC, LLC is a different entity from Eden Crossing, LLC which is a development entity within Eden Valley Opportunity Utah (EVOUtah). EVOUtah has multiple development interests.
This is the second time Eden Crossing (as the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company) has applied for direct access to hundreds of acre-feet of water from the same aquifer that the community relies on. Their previous application was rejected by the State Engineer after data showed pumping from their artesian well directly interfered with senior water rights at Patio Springs, and the company lacked a sufficient plan to replace that lost water. Returning with a new application, the company seeks approval for shallow wells and the artesian well known as EC5, this time incorporating an explicit mitigation plan for Patio Springs. The hearings drew formal protests from local water districts, irrigation companies, Ogden City, and community members concerned about the potential impact on the local aquifer.
Representing the applicant, Matt Jensen and hydrogeologist Neil Burk presented the mitigation plan. Jensen stated the company is prepared to deliver up to 0.61 cubic feet per second and a volume cap of 136.96 acre-feet of water from shallow wells to replace any loss or diminution of flows in Patio Springs. Burk noted that an eleven-day flow test in 2024 showed a combined increased flow of 212 gallons per minute from local spring and well sources when Well EC5 is pumped. Burk added that the region receives an estimated 5,300 acre-feet of recharge per year out of almost 18,000 acre-feet of mountain block recharge for the entire valley. This value was disputed by the Protestants during early hearings.
Protesting the application, David Hansen, representing Eden Waterworks and Ogden City, voiced concerns regarding potential impacts on Burnett Springs and the Clarke East Well. Hansen argued that there is no agreement with the applicant to replace water should Burnett Springs be affected and characterized the continuing addition of water withdrawals as death by slices for the aquifer. Local resident Shana Francis echoed these ecological concerns, observing that wetlands and springs have diminished over recent years, which science shows continues to increase the chance for wildfire.
Representatives from the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District and Wolf Creek Irrigation Company also heavily contested the application. Van King, representing Wolf Creek District, presented an analysis estimating that the EC5 Well extracted 33 acre-feet of water during testing, which he argued resulted in a one-for-one capture and loss to the Warm Springs complex. King explained that the existing Warm Springs Well has a liner, cannot be equipped with a pump, and cannot be drilled deeper because the lowest screened interval does not produce much water. Impacts to this well would mean the well would have to be redrilled at considerable expense to Wolf Creek District.
Ogden City also formally protested the application, represented by Shane Stroud and David Hansen. Stroud noted that the applicant proposes new wells located approximately 5,000 feet closer to Ogden City’s six municipal wells than prior applications. Stroud argued that the new wells sit up-gradient of the city's wells and will intercept water to which the city is entitled year-round. Several private citizens, including Rodney Carver and Hugh Shaum, requested the application be denied protecting their personal farm and residential wells, noting changing water levels over the past year.
The hearings concluded without a final decision on the application. The state engineer's office announced that all involved parties will have a twenty-day period to review the submitted information and respond in writing before the file is closed and a decision is made by the State engineer.
Wolf Creek Water District Seeks Backup Sources and Storage
On July 14, the Utah Division of Water Rights held a public hearing at the Ogden Valley Branch Library to consider exchange application E6757, filed by the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer Improvement District. Assistant State Engineer Eric Jones presided over the proceedings alongside Regional Engineer Ryan Broadbent, while representatives Jonathan Schutz, Van King, and Miranda Menzies appeared for the applicant. The proceeding addressed a proposal to exchange 303 acre-feet of water from Pineview Reservoir, drawing from 16 underground wells and five spring sources for municipal use, while also incorporating 122 acre-feet of reservoir storage. All but two of the sources are already listed on existing Wolf Creek District water rights.
Formal protests were raised by the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company, represented by Chris Bramhall, as well as the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, represented by Matt Jensen, Neil Burk, and Shane Dunleavy. In the proceedings, it was noted that the Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company and Eden Crossing PWC, LLC are the same entity, having simply changed names after converting from a limited liability company to a nonprofit organization.
Representing the applicant, Schutz and King outlined that the exchange serves largely as a housekeeping measure to update mapping and replace a former application without adding new aquifer system demands. They emphasized that the filing provides needed operational flexibility, allowing the district to divert from multiple existing or replacement sources—such as Warm Springs Well #2 and the Wedding Garden Well—while capping total extractions under the requested right at 303 acre-feet.
Menzies and Schutz explained that including Patio Springs and adding storage serves as a protective measure to ensure the district can continue meeting its long-standing delivery obligations to the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company under a 1983 agreement, particularly amidst ongoing litigation and forfeiture attempts by neighboring developers. Additionally, Menzies noted that including storage was a direct response to a 2024 state enforcement action requiring formal storage rights for exchange water passing through the district's 10-AC Lake reservoir.
Speaking on behalf of protestant Ogden Valley Mutual Water Company, Jensen argued that the application raises serious interference concerns regarding pending water rights in the valley and could undermine the beneficial use of Patio Springs. Jensen expressed concern over the contract restrictions with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District regarding surface water exchanges and questioned whether unmetered evaporative losses from the reservoirs had been adequately calculated. Furthermore, Jensen criticized the inclusion of 16 underground points of diversion, asserting that listed wells have remained undeveloped for decades and suggesting the expansive application attempts to box out other local users from accessing the aquifer rather than establishing genuine flexibility.
Representing the Wolf Creek Irrigation Company, Bramhall voiced support for the district's efforts to shore up its water supply and maintain its historical delivery obligations under the 1983 contract. However, Bramhall cautioned that approval should not interfere with the irrigation company's pending change application for the same spring sources or create a conflict over the physical control of the 122 acre-foot reservoir, which the irrigation company has historically utilized to store its water right. The 122-AC reservoir facility is shared between Wolf Creek Irrigation Company and Wolf Creek District but is owned by the District. In response, Schutz and King clarified that the application operates strictly within the state's priority system, cannot block prior applications, and simply provides the public utility with redundant backup sources to reliably serve its community. Jones concluded the proceeding without an immediate ruling, taking the matter under advisement for future determination by the State Engineer's office, with the same 20-day filing period for supplemental information.