Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Landscaping Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission agrees to start state-mandated water-plan element; delays comprehensive landscaping ordinance rewrite
Summary
Grand County planning commissioners agreed to begin work this summer on a state-required water element of the county general plan but signaled they will not immediately adopt a broad water-efficient landscaping ordinance, favoring a coordinated general-plan and land-use-code update instead.
Grand County's Planning Commission on July 14 gave staff a green light to begin drafting the state-mandated water element of the county's general plan and signaled it will delay adoption of a comprehensive water-efficient landscaping ordinance until that plan and a broader land-use-code overhaul can be coordinated.
Commissioners and staff said the legislature requires the water-preservation element be adopted by the end of the calendar year. Planning staff advised that the element focuses on preserving existing water allocations and aligning local planning with water providers and conservation plans. Contract planner Andrew Jackson and planning staff explained the element must incorporate data from local water districts and the county's conservation planning and that a public-engagement schedule beginning this summer would be needed to meet the statutory deadline.
Commissioners offered several aims for the element: establishing a clear, locally adopted baseline for water use; coordinating with water providers and districts; and linking water availability to development approvals where appropriate. Several members said a clear local baseline would help resolve differing public views about how much water is available.
On water-efficient landscaping, the commission heard public comment from Katie Murphy, who said she had spent a year drafting a comprehensive Grand County landscaping ordinance as a VISTA in planning and urged the commission to "table this" and allow more integration of her draft with staff proposals. Planning staff said the version on the agenda was deliberately limited to a few elements—primarily to allow county residents to access the Utah WaterSavers turf buyback program—and was not the comprehensive rewrite Murphy and others had previously worked on.
Staff and commissioners expressed two linked concerns: limited planning-staff capacity and the land-use-code'integrity risks of piecemeal amendments. Planning staff recommended advancing a short, narrowly tailored amendment to enable participation in the WaterSavers program while deferring a full landscaping-code rewrite to a larger, funded land-use-code update that would include the water element. Commissioners generally supported that approach, noting that ad-hoc code changes can create incompatible sections and legal ambiguity.
Trish, representing the county commission in the meeting's county-commission update, confirmed the state mandate for the water element and said the commission had already discussed required elements, including potential agricultural protections.
The planning commission took an informal straw poll in favor of starting the water-element work immediately and asked staff and the contracted planner to schedule public engagement. Staff said it would use existing water-conservation plans and consult local water districts, aiming for public hearings in October and adoption before the end of the year.
Katie Murphy offered to work with staff and commissioners to reconcile her earlier, more robust landscaping draft with a staff-prepared short amendment if the commission wished to move quickly to enable the WaterSavers program. Commissioners expressed interest in her assistance but emphasized that a comprehensive landscaping ordinance should be coordinated with the general-plan water element and a holistic land-use-code rewrite.
