Utah County commission backs nonbinding step toward Bridal Veil Falls state-monument nomination over funding concerns

The Utah County Commission voted 2–1 on Feb. 23 to adopt a nonbinding resolution signaling support for the state’s process to consider Bridal Veil Falls for designation as a state monument. The measure does not bind the county to any future action but asks the state to present a plan and identify funding sources to maintain the site.

County Attorney Rob Moore told the commission the State Monument Act requires the state to produce a plan that includes an analysis of the financial costs to maintain a proposed monument and to identify ongoing funding. “That language is actually in the statute,” Moore said, describing the resolution as a way to support the process without committing county funds.

Commissioners debated whether county funds already set aside for Bridal Veil Falls—discussed in the meeting as roughly $1.5 million in prior allocations—should be spent now or held pending the state’s plan. Commissioner Ainge said he was concerned that the county could be asked to match state resources or pause work while the state studies the site; he opposed the resolution, saying he did not want county work to stall. Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Sakovich voted to adopt the nonbinding resolution.

Richard Nelson, director of Public Works, told the commission there is a potential outdoor recreation grant that could provide about $150,000 toward trail, parking and restroom work, with a 50% match requirement and a completion window of roughly two years from award. Nelson said that coordination with Central Utah Water and timing around avalanche season are practical constraints on when crews can begin work.

Brigham Daniels, a volunteer with nonprofit Conserve Utah Valley, urged the commission to support the nomination and noted he had delivered a petition of “about 625 people” backing protection of the canyon. “The state has experience ensuring that the sites are protected,” Daniels said, urging the county to weigh expertise and resources the state might provide.

The adopted resolution expressly requests the state’s proposed plan and report on maintenance costs and available funding. The measure passed with Commissioners Lee and Sakovich in favor and Commissioner Ainge opposed.

Next steps: the commission’s action is a signal to the state and does not trigger any immediate transfer of authority; the county will review the state plan if and when it is presented and will decide at that time whether to commit to a management approach or to designate county funds as matching contributions.