A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Commissioners weigh notifying applicants about water adjudication and drop expert-review requirement in proposed Sec. 6.04

October 27, 2021 | Utah County Commission Meeting Minutes, Utah County Commission, Utah County Commission and Boards, Utah County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commissioners weigh notifying applicants about water adjudication and drop expert-review requirement in proposed Sec. 6.04
Utah County staff presented a revision to Section 6.04 of county code that would require builders and applicants who rely on a water source to record an acknowledgement and disclaimer notifying them that state adjudication or court action could reduce their water quantity or pressure. The draft also would require a replacement source of water if a source is later reduced, with several enumerated exceptions. A third element proposed by the planning commission — requiring an engineer or attorney opinion for certain Hobble/Hobble Creek Canyon permits — drew strong opposition.

Bryce Armstrong, community development staff, told commissioners the proposed subsection (c) would add time and cost and may be redundant with other replacement rules; staff recommended approving subsections (a) and (b) and removing (c) to avoid imposing expert fees. Several residents and attorneys representing Hollow Creek HOA said (a) and (b) notification and replacement mechanisms are generally acceptable but warned that the proposed recorded covenant and some waiver language could strip value from lots served by private water companies or require homeowners to sign away rights they do not own.

Corbin Gordon (representing The Cottages HOA) explained that many homeowners are customers of private water companies (Hidden Creek Water Company) and cannot verify or pledge water rights the ordinance would seem to demand. He recommended the county require transparency from private water suppliers, consider audits or a water-advisory board that includes irrigation representatives, and ensure that replacement mechanisms protect customers. Albert Harmer (Springville Irrigation) and others described long-running adjudication and BLM/water complexities and urged coordination with state processes.

Commissioners asked staff to continue community-development discussions and to return with revisions; they ultimately voted to continue the item for one week to allow additional stakeholder input and drafting changes.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee