[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6593534,"mediaKeyId","3380764-04cdd78417f7cdf238fbdcb413663e34","parentId",3380764,"title","Water district proposes lower impact fee for ultra‑water‑efficient homes, drawing city questions on enforcement and equity","audioSeconds",2593,"startMs",17000,"endMs",2610000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3380764-04cdd78417f7cdf238fbdcb413663e34&start=17&end=2610","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6593534/Utah/Water-district-proposes-lower-impact-fee-for-ultrawaterefficient-homes-drawing-city-questions-on-enforcement-and-equity","mediaUrl","author","Hurricane City Council","date","2025-04-17T15:30:00Z","article","A water district representative on April 16 described a voluntary “ultra water efficient” development standard that would let developers pay a smaller regional water impact fee if new single‑family homes reduce potable water use roughly one‑third compared with current practice. The district official said the program would be optional in city limits and mandatory where the district is the expected retail water provider for unincorporated areas.

The district representative, identified in the meeting as Doug, told the Hurricane City Council and planning commissioners the program is not a new code or regulation and “would work in the exact same way with your planning commission and with all the codes and standards and processes you already have in place.” He said the reduced impact fee would reflect the smaller expected burden on regional treatment and conveyance infrastructure and could be “a third less than whatever the standard impact fee winds up being” after the current impact‑fee study is complete.

Why it matters: Impact fees fund regional water infrastructure such as treatment plants, pipelines and recycled water projects. Council members pressed the district on whether a discounted fee is appropriate in unincorporated county areas where infrastructure needs can be greater, and asked how the district would prevent the discount from shifting costs onto existing customers.

Key details from the presentation and discussion

- Target and mechanics: The program aims to encourage new single‑family homes that use about 33% less water than the district’s current standard. The district would create a new fee class for developments meeting the standard; developers or cities that approve projects meeting the standard could pay the lower fee when they connect to the regional system.

- Where it applies: Doug said the discount would be available “either place, a city or within unincorporated,” but clarified it would be mandatory in county areas where the district is expected to serve as retail provider and voluntary inside municipal boundaries.

- Performance and protections: To ensure homes perform to the standard, the district would require developers of subdivisions to create homeowners associations (HOAs) that include the landscaping and irrigation standards in CC&Rs and would implement surcharge mechanisms similar to those now used for homes that have only culinary (potable) water indoors and separate irrigation supplies outdoors.

- Landscaping and amenities: The draft standard would generally limit irrigated private yards to roughly 2,000 square feet of drip‑irrigated planting adjacent to homes on typical 6,000‑square‑foot lots, discourage private swimming pools (allowing shared community pools instead), permit freestanding spas up to 100 square feet and allow 25‑square‑foot ornamental water features already in code. The standard also envisions community parks sized so that a neighborhood of 15 houses could provide about 1,500 square feet of active recreation area.

- Softener and wastewater concerns: The district asked builders to avoid offering salt‑based water softeners as part of buyer packages because salt brine is a key contaminant for downstream water recycling facilities. The district suggested alternatives such as potassium‑based systems or template assisted crystallization, citing research from Arizona State University as an example.

Council concerns and staff clarifications

Council and planning commissioners repeatedly pressed the district on several points: whether the discount is an incentive if the program will be mandatory in county service areas; whether regional infrastructure costs actually decline for low‑use homes that still require pipelines and treatment; how the district will reconcile municipal requirements such as required secondary systems; and whether the reduced fee would meaningfully lower the purchase price for new homes.

- Fee examples: The district said the prior single‑family impact fee was about $13,500 (scaled by lot size), and home builders reported secondary‑system hookups cost roughly $3,500 per household. The district told the council it would seek to price the new fee commensurate with the expected reduction in regional demand.

- Surcharges and existing customers: Doug stressed the district would implement surcharges and monitoring to ensure homes actually meet the performance standard. He also clarified a billing concern for long‑time homeowners: the district’s surcharge for homes built before 2023 is currently $1 per 1,000 gallons for usage above 35,000 gallons in a month; the district calculated that even very high month‑to‑month use yields relatively modest monthly surcharge amounts.

- Municipal discretion: The district emphasized it would not substitute for city land‑use review or require cities to change ordinances. Cities retain discretion to require parks, secondary systems or other features through their planning and subdivision processes; the district’s role would be to offer an alternate fee for developments that meet its water‑use standard.

No final action taken

The discussion was informational and part of outreach while an impact‑fee study is under way. No ordinance or fee schedule was adopted; the district indicated it will continue outreach with cities and developers, refine the standard and incorporate feedback before any formal proposal returns for local action.

Ending

City officials said they will continue to review the district’s draft, ask staff to coordinate on implementation details and raise questions at future meetings about how to protect municipal interests — including equitable cost allocation and enforceability — before any fee changes are adopted.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Hurricane City Council - 04-17-2025-CCR1","oneSentenceSummary","A water district representative on April 16 described a voluntary “ultra water efficient” development standard that would let developers pay a smaller regional water impact fee if new single‑family homes reduce potable water use roughly one‑third compared with current practice.","taxTitle","Hurricane, Washington County, Utah","taxId",80031,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6593529,"Joint agency drought survey finds broad support for a common staged response; parks and golf courses remain contentious",1180,2508000,3688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3380764-04cdd78417f7cdf238fbdcb413663e34&start=2508&end=3688","/articles/6593529/Utah/Joint-agency-drought-survey-finds-broad-support-for-a-common-staged-response-parks-and-golf-courses-remain-contentious","A water district representative presented results of a joint agency drought contingency survey April 16 that shows widespread support among local elected officials and technical staff for a single, region‑wide staged water shortage plan — but also highlighted disagreements over parks, golf courses and the timing of high‑impact restrictions.

Doug, the district presenter, told council members that the survey reached about 56% of the region’s city council members and included mayors, city managers and technical advisory staff. The district outlined a four‑stage shortage framework that ranges from a voluntary Stage 1 caution to a Stage 4 emergency that would restrict outdoor watering entirely and focus supply on human health and fire protection.

Why it matters: Washington County’s primary supply is the Virgin River; the district warned that this year’s snowpack is extremely low and a mid‑term forecast anticipates streamflows possibly as low as 30% of normal. The county relies on stored water in Sand Hollow Reservoir, which the district described as the community’s key backup to Quail Creek.

Survey takeaways and debate

- Consensus for coordinated action: Respondents gave the statement “all cities in the region should implement equivalent measures during drought” an average score of 8.7 on a 0–10 scale, indicating strong preference for a common approach rather than ad hoc city‑by‑city responses.

- Stage definitions and intended actions: Stage 1 (currently in effect per the presenter’s description) asks residents to exercise caution; Stage 2 introduces regulatory measures; Stage 3 is labeled “alarm” and could affect plant treatment capacity and building permits; Stage 4 would restrict outdoor use to human health and fire protection only.

- Points of disagreement: Elected officials tended to favor earlier implementation of some measures than technical staff; respondents split on whether decorative lawns should be restricted before community parks or athletic fields, and views diverged on the speed and degree to which golf courses should be curtailed. Many respondents recommended delaying measures with large economic impacts until later stages.

- Loss, monitoring and conservation work: The district noted typical system water loss of 10–15% and said it is running a workshop for the eight communities it serves on addressing water loss. The district said Sand Hollow is the primary buffer for Quail Creek and that Sand Hollow’s liner and other construction work mean it will take several years to become fully functional.

Presentations, outreach and next steps

The district said the Advisory Agency Committee (AAC) — which includes mayors, city managers and council representatives from the eight member communities — will review the draft and forward recommendations to the district board. The district intends to develop incremental measures tied to each stage and to pursue additional public outreach, including meetings with the golf industry and workshops on water‑loss mitigation.

No formal declarations or regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting; the presentation was informational and intended to gather feedback before the AAC and the board consider final language.

Ending

Councilors and the district agreed to continue the outreach: the AAC will review the draft plan, the district will host technical workshops on water loss and staff will return with recommended stage‑by‑stage measures for local officials to consider.","A water district representative presented results of a joint agency drought contingency survey April 16 that shows widespread support among local elected officials and technical staff for a single, region‑wide staged water‑shortage plan, while exposing disagreement on parks, golf courses and timing of high‑impact restrictions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Water district proposes lower impact fee for ultra‑water‑efficient homes, drawing city questions on enforcement and equity

Joint agency drought survey finds broad support for a common staged response; parks and golf courses remain contentious