Durst Water Company was formed due to an inability or lack of interest on the part of Mountain Green Secondary Water Company to work side by side with other parties for cooperation and mutual community benefit when incorporating future phases. MCCWDG Members with interest in the upper zone made an official offer to cooperate and join forces with Mountain Green Secondary Water Company, among several other individual informal inquiries over a period of years, which were ignored. It became necessary to incorporate, combine and leverage efforts together with interested parties in the upper phases, in order to operate our own secondary system.

Letter to MGSWC 1.14.22

Durst wants as much information available to the public in one spot.   Mountain Green Secondary Water company is very secretive.  We figure if you are here you are either a concerned shareholder of Durst Water Company, Cottonwood Mutual Water Company,  Mountain Green Secondary Water Company, or a lawyer for Rulon Gardner looking for a libel suit justification.     The information gathered is hard to come by, once we find it, we don’t want it lost or forgotten about.

If any information posted is incorrect please contact Ray@ rooftopdevelopers.com and I will either correct, delete, or update the record.  From first publication on 9.23.23,  I will attempt to highlight new or modified information in the FAQ titles.  I will even apologize if I got something wrong.

No, to the extent that Durst Water Company water rights are not infringed upon by the existing network, the existing service will not be affected. Durst pledges to work toward transparency and efficient delivery of water for all members of the community.

Water is precious and should be conserved, but generally an acre of farmland in alfalfa will consume more water than an acre of residential development.   This is partially due to areas that are hardscaped such as the roads, driveways and building footprints.  When members of Durst develop their subdivisions, they will include options and requirements for xeriscaping and natural areas on their lots in the Code Covenants and Restrictions Associated with their neighborhoods.

Durst is also proposing a bulk delivery policy to CMWC.  This will allow both MGSWC and Durst to use up to .20 acre-feet per residential connection from the Weber Basin Conservancy District Leases that most developers provide with their lots or other water rights that might be acquired.  This water could be delivered to either of the secondary company storage locations from the CMWC distribution system and wells and then distributed through the respective secondary water system from that location.     This water is also the first to be curtailed if culinary water is in jeopardy due to drought or operational restrictions.

Bulk Water Connection Policy and Resolution V1 7.13.23

Durst is planning to implement a progressive billing system. This proposal is not finalized but it may look like this.

Each lot comes with a stated number of gallons per irrigation season which may be reduced proportionally in a drought.    Lot owners who embrace conservation and xeriscaping that use 20% less than their allotment on a sustained basis will pay a reduced amount of maintenance and overhead. Their 20% water savings will then be made available at a premium to users with larger lots or greater needs.  This premium will pay for the subsidized share of the maintenance and overhead from the users that conserve and donate their share to other users in the system.   Durst will not profit from this voluntary exchange of water and water use data will not be published.

Durst Water Company plans to utilize an advanced online billing portal.  Water meters will be read electronically 5-6 times per season.  The actual use will be tracked against the gallons of water allocated to each residence for the season.  A custom report will be generated.   Notifications can be customized by the user and sent if trends indicate that a particular residence is going to exceed their allowance or if a spike is detected which may indicate a leak behind the meter.   An all-electronic billing system like this will save money from reduced overhead and may be a requirement for connection as a condition of a lot purchase.

Durst will also work to display system data on the website such as current and projected water storage capacity, daily demand, and peak seasonal demand.  This is not too difficult with modern meters, instrumentation and control systems if they are designed to do this from the beginning.

Durst has no paid employees. Directors volunteer their time for the benefit of system maintenance.  This will remain true until the first residential user is using the system

Yes, we believe unification would ultimately be in the best interest of the community.   Combining 3 companies would be more efficient and will reduce overhead and overall cost, however; we believe it would be difficult for all parties to consent and this could be used as a delay tactic for settling current issues.

MCCWDG stands for Morgan County Cottonwoods Water Development Group.    They are the current owners of Phase 6, 8 and 9 of the Cottonwoods Development Agreement and Morgan County Cottonwoods LLC, which is the property east of the Cottonwoods and have joined together to co-develop waterworks infrastructure at cost to members, and to cooperate on access and other issues.  Most members of Durst are also members of MCCWDG.   * MCCWDG created a doing business as “Upper Cottonwoods Cooperative” or UCC.     This is easier and we will use this going forward in public.

No, generally speaking MCCWDG will be building infrastructure capacity for only their own anticipated needs. They did inquire of adjoining land owners if they wanted to join in water infrastructure participation, including Gardner Development, and these neighbors declined.  If extra capacity exists after the MCCWDG members land development has been completed, then members may opt to sell any excess capacity at market rates.

9.8.23 Restated offer to purchase Silverleaf

Please see attached.

Durst Rebuttal r1

It is our understand that a CMWC board member reached out the Rulon to float the idea and this concept was rejected.  (9.24.23)

Yes.  Durst would consider a co ownership with ownership %  determined by the water delivery agreement and or water rights that Utah Department of Natural Resources – Division of Water Rights recognizes.

The attached Bylaws for MGSWC appear to be written such that the Class C share holder can always control the vote.  The Class C share holders shares are not diminished when they sell a lot with associated water shares.   To answer this for sure we would need a copy of the up-to-date shareholder register.   If anyone would like to supply one we can post it.

The reality is that even if the class A and class B share holders had enough votes getting them to participate and vote is unlikely.

MGSWC Bylaws 4.6.10

We don’t know exactly but according to Bill Chipp in a recent CMWC board meeting he is aware and approves of all content from “the board”.

Unfortunately, this appears to be true.  It appears that somebody from MGSWC cut and pasted information from a emailed letter from the state and omitted other sections and presented it to the “other capacity claimants”

The section of the doctored documents had to do with state requirements for metering residential secondary water use.   Agricultural users are not required to meter water.   MGSWC wants Durst to meter agricultural use.

Durst plans to meter in 2024 without coercion from MGSWC.

See attached comparison of the original and altered documents.

*update 9.24.23  Durst emailed Brandon Mellor to see if he could tell us if his email was modified.   We will update the community with a response.

** Update 9.26.24.   It is confirmed somebody from MGSWC did modify the email   I have this in writing from Brandon on 9.25.23.   He states   “The email seems to be modified.   They left off Utah code  (73-10-34)” .  I am waiting for his permission to post the entire thread.

MODIFIED EMAIL 11.16.22

Mountain Green Secondary Water Company paid the lease rate on the Wilkinson Family Farm’s water for one year per the WDA.   They have not paid any since.

Please review the attached.   It is extremely suspicious that the Time and Material back up for the washed out pipe is  almost the same amount as the material charge for the changes to the outfall from the diversion dam.   The engineering charges and total charges appears out of line for the work done.     Durst has requested the engineering and additional back up to review the charges.   MGSWC has only denied that Durst is legitimate and has not provided any of the requested documents.

Disputed bills for dam

*  (9.24.23) Durst recently received a copy of the structural drawings for the reservoir and some of the invoices from Epic Engineering through a volunteer MGSWC Board Member trying to resolve this dispute (not staff of MGSWC).   We have not seen the calculations, the civil drawings, correspondence, bids or the demolition drawings of the existing dam if they exist.  All of this would have been so much easier if MGSWC had followed the WDA from the agreement before starting the project.

Some comments on the attached files:

1.)On the drawings the long wing wall was never replaced, so the elevation and structural capacity was sufficient to do the job of funneling the water to the intake point.

2.) Why all the change orders and overlapping contracts?

DiversonDamn_Summary received 9.22.23

Diversion Dam structural drawings 2022-12-01

Per the attached the value of Northside Creek lots may be as high as $47.5 million.  Would you buy into a ski lake not being full of water in the summer?

See attached.

http://durstwatercompany.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NORTHSIDE-CREEK-INFORMATION.pdf

Per the Northside Creek dam safety records, water right 35-8247 is listed  Northside Creek Reservoir and MGSWC owns that water right.

Update 11.30.23    During a meeting between the boards of Durst and MGSWC.   MGSWC indicated that 35-8247 was used to fill Northside Creek initially but it is now being filled from well water.    The residents of Northside do get their irrigation water from MGSWC.

water right 35-8247

Northside Creek Dam Safety Info 7.30.23

This is a good question.  Water rights, water law, and change applications are very difficult to track and understand.   A simple yes or no from Mike Johansson would help answer this question.    We would also like to see the pipes and valves from the MGSWC system to prove that there is no way that water from a CMWC asset can be diverted into the Northside Creek Reservoir.    Durst will post anything we can find.

No, Northside Creek is in an exclusive gated community.

We understand this was partially paid through public grants. How much did it cost and who paid?   Was the construction competitively bid? If anyone has an accurate statement for posting please provide it and we will post it.

*9.24.23 update – a GRAMA request has been filed for this information

** From the GRAMA request no funds from the Utah Water Board were used to finance Northside Creek.    We did discover that the Utah Water Board did pay a significant amount towards the Cobble Creek Reservoir.  Some detail is available on the Utah DNR website.

Yes, the waves from the boats will splash onto the hot rocks on the shore where it will quickly evaporate.   The effective wetted surface of the reservoir will greatly increase with each pass of the boat.

We do not know the operational philosophy of Mountain Green Secondary Water Company, but welcome their written policy on this topic and we will post it.

CMWC owns the ground beneath the reservoir.  The Cottonwood Master HOA owns the shoreline and property to the west and Gardner Cottonwood Creek LLC owns the shoreline and property to the east.  The reservoir is landlocked by these 2 parcels.

According to the Utah State Department of Natural Resources the water in Silverleaf is mostly owned by Durst Water Company, followed CMWC and MGSWC.  This will be updated with actual percentages at a later date when the ownership records are updated. (7/30/23)

According to the state dam safety database the hazard rating was high as of 7/24/23.  NW Irrigation Reservoir is also rated high.   Critical is the next category above high.    See inundation map below and information from a recent inspection and logs on the state website.

Silverleaf Dam Safety Inspection 5.10.23

Our understanding is that the insurance policy which previously did not prohibit recreational use lapsed or was not renewed.   The new policy prohibits semi-public recreational use.   The CMWC Board is currently investigating recreation options. If more detailed information becomes available, we can provide an update.  (7.30.23)

Durst will try.  There are lots of obstacles, such as algae blooms, liability concerns, and parking,  but if we were to figure out the parking, limit the hours, maybe restrict it to Saturday and a couple other days per week during the summer perhaps we could make this work.  Durst will obtain multiple options for insurance.     We will quote a standard policy that does not allow for Cottonwood Residences to use the reservoir and we will get a quote for a policy which does allow for recreational use of the reservoir.    If the Cottonwoods MOA wants to fund the difference and works with Durst to police the reservoir, Durst would support this use.

In addition to the recent offers on 9/8/23,  Durst made an open offer at a CMWC board meeting and offered to pay $40,000 to help cover expenses in selling.   MGSWC wanted to enter a letter of intent for a purchase agreement for $100, but demanded secrecy.

Durst has pledged to expand and improve safety of the reservoir by moving the headwall to the south and raising the level by approximately 3 feet.  Modern engineering, materials, and quality control will improve the safety of the dam.  Durst will seek public grants if available.    This could increase the total community storage to ~375 Acre-feet from 260 acre-feet.     Durst members through MCCWDG will pay for the balance of this safety driven upgrade.    Durst will then have rights to the new capacity as required to serve their needs.   Any excess storage will be made available to others including MGSWC at the net cost plus overhead of the expansion on a proportional basis.  This accounting will be transparent.

Durst needs to work in good faith with the 3 affected neighboring parcels.  Hopefully everyone will see the benefit of this expansion and cooperate and the water rights can be legally adjusted to fill the reservoir from the spring run-off.

*9.26.23 Update

Durst Sent the following to the CMWC Board prior to their working meeting.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Silver Leaf Reservoir – South Expansion to 375 AF

Directors have fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company and its stockholders.     You must put the interest of the company and its stockholders over your own personal interest in making decisions for the Company and evaluating opportunities.

If a board member or officer brings about or causes a lawsuit that does not benefit the shareholders of a company but does further a personal interest at the expense of the shareholder.   This is an example of a breach in fiduciary duty.

If a president of a non-profit gets the non-profit in a legal entanglement in order to ensure that his private multimillion dollar ski lake is full of water which may belong to other 3^rd parties without their consent.

A class action is a legal proceeding in which one or more plaintiffs bring a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, known as the class. Any proceeds from a class-action suit after legal fees, whether through a judgment or a settlement, are shared among all members of the class.

• A class action refers to a legal course where the plaintiff brings forward a lawsuit for the benefit of a larger group of affected people.
• This group, or class, must attest that they were affected by the defendant’s actions, but only the lead plaintiff will try the case in court.
• Class actions are often the only way for individuals to pursue their claims as it lowers the cost of the legal pursuit.
• If the plaintiff wins, awards are paid out among members of the class, though not necessarily in equal amounts.
• In finance, class-action lawsuits are often brought against companies where the class is the company’s shareholders.

A de facto monopoly is a monopoly not created by a government.

A discriminatory monopoly is when the supply is constrained and different prices are charged to different people.

The bylaws of Cottonwood Mutual Water Company (and we think MGSWC) are set up so that the developer pays for all improvements required to expand the system to accommodate their development interest. This includes storage, water rights or water leases, and wells and pump stations to deliver the water.  It may also include water leases that are on the nonprofit companies’ paper, but the developer has been reimbursing the water company for leases paid, so they retain the preferred older lease terms.      When the infrastructure is built and deeded to the water company the developer is issued “developer credits in the system for the capacity that is not being used.  The water company then starts to maintain the asset at no expense to the developer. (unless standby fees are charged).  Usually, the developer applies their credits in exchange for Will-Serve letters when they develop a new phase of the development that they own, but they may have excess beyond their needs and may sell them to people in the service district that wants to hook up.

Yes, a resident was charged $18,000  to hook up a single-family lot in the lower zone of the Cottonwoods.  This is in addition to the administrative fee charged by CMWC which is transparent and fixed and the water lease they purchased independently.

By our conservative estimate a gallon of storage cost $5 and a GPM of well water delivery cost $600.   So, 283 gallons required per residence x $5 and .27 GPM per residence @ $600 per GPM is $1,577.  (This resident brought his own water lease).   We could add the fire storage, but this amount was caused by the first lot in the pressure zone.   Nonetheless we will round up the cost incurred by the developer to be $3200 to cover the fire water storage and carrying cost.    $18,000/$3200 is 562% mark up with no other option to purchase capacity.

Paid developer credits 7.6.23.pdf

Yes

Not that we are aware of.  The developer can charge whatever they want.

We are not aware of a published rate chart for either company.

Not to our knowledge.

1. Entitlements and zoning.
2. Access to property in the right place and size.
3. Will serve letters for Culinary Water (water storage, water rights, shares or leases, and well capacity)
4. Proof that secondary water use will not affect culinary use. (Secondary will serve letter)

Gross sales would be approximately 300 lots x $300,000 average sales price or $90 million dollars.  Net profit could be 20% of gross sales or $18 million.

Theoretically yes.

Yes.  See snip below.  Durst is most of “the other capacity claimant”.  The entire agreement is also provided.

Reservoir storage Capacity Agreement 7.17.14-7.17.24.pdf

We are looking for rationale that we can publish.   The signature is difficult to read for Cottonwood Mutual Water Company. If anyone knows this individual, please come forward.    Rulon Gardner signed for MGSWC.  Some follow up questions would be who authored the lease document and the Water Delivery Agreement?

One way would be to make it so you were the only entity that could build and connect new infrastructure to a nonprofit water company.

You could do this by setting up the Articles of Organization and Bylaws of a nonprofit water company so that it had an all-volunteer transitory board and a paid Manager or President.     Then you could install someone that you could influence to limit any outsider from attempting to build infrastructure.  This could be done by withholding information or delaying information required to build on and connect to the system.   Since the board is volunteer and don’t have any real access to company information, they rely on the paid manager to provide this information.  They don’t have time with family and business obligations to fight with a full-time paid manager.  Further you could ensure that the board and the manager/president were protected by the company from lawsuits.  The board would find it difficult to fire the manager and force cooperation with outside parties because this would only cause expense for the company and shareholders.  It would be a catch 22.

We are not saying this is happening, but it would be very effective.

Yes. Mark Nelson and Duane Johnson attempted to connect to CMWC but got frustrated and started their own water companies.  This further complicated the water situation in Mountain Green.  Infrastructure projects take years of planning and private parties need certainty that their investments will get connected in a fair process.

As of 9/14/23 CMWC does not have such a document.  Despite numerous requests to the manager of CMWC to prepare a roadmap it has not been provided.   Members of Durst have been asking for such a document since 11/18/21 per the attached.

11.18.21 Letter Cottonwood Mutual – tank build

As of 9/14/23 CMWC does not have such a document.  Despite numerous requests to the manager of CMWC to prepare a roadmap it has not been provided.   Members of Durst have been asking for such a document since 11/18/21 per the attached.

11.18.21 Letter Cottonwood Mutual – tank build

To date, yes.

Heidi and Sean Dorius are both members of the community, shareholders, and serve on the CMWC Board.  They are related to the Wilkinson Family.   * Sean Dorius resigned from the board.

Hearsay is that Mike Johanson was a former mission companion and friend of Rulon Gardner.  We need someone to confirm or deny this.    * I spoke with Mike Johanson and he indicated he was not a mission companion of Rulon Gardner.  (There is a significant age difference)

Robert McConnel is a current Morgan County Commissioner.   He is also part of the law firm of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless which represents Gardner Development and Mountain Green Secondary Water Company.   He is also a resident and concerned citizen.   To the best of our knowledge Robert has recused himself from votes involving Gardner Development.

We don’t know all the other relationships and if any side compensation has been paid.  If there are any facts here, please let us know so they can be disclosed.