Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County considers water-rights disclosure and expert-certification for Hobble Creek as state adjudication advances
Summary
In a work session commissioners reviewed a proposed ordinance that would require a recorded disclosure for all building permits and — within a state-designated Hobble Creek distribution system — an expert statement certifying an applicant's water-right sufficiency; staff and residents warned replacement water in the canyon may be infeasible.
Community development staff and the county attorney briefed commissioners Sept. 1 on a proposed ordinance designed to address risks from a long-running state water-rights adjudication, particularly the Hobble Creek distribution system where the state has signaled it may curtail junior water users.
Under the proposal, every building-permit applicant in unincorporated Utah County would sign and record a disclaimer acknowledging the adjudication and the risk that a water right might be reduced or curtailed in the future. For properties inside a state-created Hobble Creek water-distribution system, the county would require an additional expert statement — prepared by a licensed engineer or attorney — certifying that the applicant’s water right or replacement source will support the proposed use. The planning commission narrowed the expert-statement requirement to the Hobble Creek distribution area rather than countywide after public comment.
Speakers, including a Hidden Creek Water Company representative and multiple residents, warned the practical mechanics of ‘replacement’ paper water rights in Hobble Creek are limited and could leave canyon lot owners unable to obtain suitable replacement rights. Rob Moore, county attorney, said the ordinance’s primary aim is to inform and protect future permit issuers and the county from liability; he clarified that loss of water would require a replacement source rather than demolition and that the county could limit retroactive assessment exposure. Staff noted a pending-ordinance period means some permit applications since April are effectively subject to the proposed rule unless the board acts within the statutory window.
Commissioners asked staff to continue refining text and to explore options to avoid creating an unintended moratorium for applicants already in process. No final ordinance vote was taken; staff expects further discussion before a formal decision.
