Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County holds work session on Hobble Creek/Backcountry development as residents raise water‑rights and access concerns
Summary
A work session on a proposed Backcountry development in the Hobble Creek/Upper Whittemore area drew numerous residents and stakeholders who raised water-rights adjudication concerns, questioned whether roads should remain public, and asked the county to help broker solutions among neighboring property owners.
The Utah County Commission held a work session on a multi-party proposal in the Hobble Creek/Upper Whittemore area that centered on access, existing road conditions and unresolved water-rights issues.
Commissioner Lee framed the meeting as an initial discussion among stakeholders — including the Cottages, Backcountry Estates, Route 66 developers and multiple homeowners associations — and invited public comment. Dionne Baron, representing the Cottages, expressed appreciation for county engagement and said the Cottages support moving toward an agreement. “We support it in its — there’s some discussion, I’m sure, that will come forward,” Baron said.
Janice Reeb, a downstream resident, urged the commission to consider the water-rights implications of any development agreement. She said a provision in the draft agreement (Article 1.4) that addresses reduced shares in the Hidden Creek Water Company raises legal and practical concerns: she argued those rights are embroiled in adjudication and cannot simply be subordinated. “My concern is this contract and the implications that are in it regarding easements and other issues,” Reeb said, emphasizing downstream impacts and that the adjudication could be decided soon.
Developers Richard White and Leah White said they had tried to negotiate with neighbors and preferred a cooperative outcome without litigation. “We just don’t want it to be ugly,” Leah White said, describing efforts to reach compromise and noting the developer would like the county’s facilitation to resolve access requirements for approval.
County Public Works and legal staff noted separate roles: the county can address road‑standard and access questions but is not a water-rights adjudicator. County counsel and staff advised that if the development is approved the county would map any public road segments and that vacating rights-of-way could complicate trail access and future connectivity to the South Fork Trail.
Commissioners emphasized that the work session was an initial step and that engineering, adjudication outcomes and broader stakeholder input would determine next steps. No final votes were taken; the item was advanced as a working discussion and will return for further consideration once outstanding issues are analyzed.
