Utah County delays vote on Hobble Creek water ordinance after hours of public comment; schedules state work session

Utah County commissioners continued debate on a proposed amendment to the county land‑use code that would require applicants for building permits to sign a notice about pending state water litigation and, for properties in Hobble Creek Canyon, obtain a professional certification that their water rights are sufficient. The commission scheduled a work session with state water officials and continued the item to the week of Oct. 27–28 to give staff time to refine the language.

The county attorney, Rob Moore, told the commission the measure is meant primarily to put prospective builders on notice about an ongoing adjudication and a recent state engineer order. "The county is not the one shutting off water; it'll be the state if they do that," Moore said, summarizing the county's intent to notify applicants about litigation and potential impacts rather than to directly revoke water rights.

Why it matters: Hobble Creek Canyon is subject to a long‑running adjudication and a new state order that county staff described as prompting an active distribution system overseen by a river commissioner. Staff and the planning commission recommended the change after public hearings to reduce the risk that property owners invest substantial sums to build where water could later be curtailed by state action.

What the ordinance would do: Staff described three main elements — a countywide notification/acknowledgment that litigation and adjudication exist; a clearer requirement that owners must replace water if they lose a domestic supply (bolstering an existing county rule); and an additional Hobble Creek‑specific requirement that applicants obtain an expert (engineer or water attorney) to verify water‑right sufficiency before a permit is finalized. Staff said planning commissioners had recommended the measure by a supermajority.

Residents and property owners strongly objected to parts of the draft. Attorney Joel Farah said the proposed language is more than notice and would amount to a waiver that forces county staff to ‘do the state's job’ of verifying whether water rights are valid and dated appropriately. "It is not just a notice. This is a declaration. This is a waiver," Farah said, urging commissioners to reject the draft.

Several homeowners described long permit processes and rising costs. Jenny Lambert said she and two attorneys told her not to sign the document staff had circulated; she warned that the waiver would encumber land and could lead the county to pull a certificate of occupancy if water were later curtailed. "They said, 'by the way, your permit's ready, but your client's gonna have to sign this waiver to pick up his permit,'" Lambert said.

Other commenters, including owners in the Hobble Creek Cottages subdivision, pointed to recorded maintenance agreements and willing‑to‑serve letters that — they said — promised a fixed annual allotment (2.95 acre‑feet per lot). Richard Eddington said the county appears in the maintenance agreement and should honor those terms or negotiate a remedy, arguing the ordinance as drafted would unfairly single out a small group of lot owners.

Staff response and next steps: Bryce Armstrong of community development acknowledged the hardship concerns and laid out staff’s recommendation to exempt some existing situations from the expert‑certification requirement while retaining notice. He and the county attorney said the waiver form can be modified; one consistent suggestion was to require signatures acknowledging the litigation and risk for anyone who seeks a permit, while limiting the engineering/attorney certification to new builds that would increase water demand.

Commissioners also discussed short‑term permit relief. Staff said the county has in past allowed limited inspections to let owners "close in" structures for safety and to prevent animal intrusion even while a code change is pending; staff indicated they would seek the same accommodation here for homeowners caught in a seasonal construction window.

Rather than vote on the ordinance, the commission asked staff to pursue a private meeting with state water officials and scheduled a work session in late October to bring clarified language and additional information back to the public. The item was continued by unanimous vote.

What happens next: County staff will meet with state engineers and the river commissioner, revise the draft ordinance and the proposed notice/waiver text, and return the matter to the commission after the work session. Commissioners said they would avoid distributing the current waiver form to permit applicants until they have refined the language.