Utah County reviews proposed drinking-water source protection changes amid heated public comments from Covered Bridge Canyon

Utah County commissioners held a work session to review a proposed amendment to Utah County Code 10-8 that would change how the county protects drinking-water sources and how it treats certain wastewater systems in source-protection zones. Ben van Noy of the county attorney’s office, who drafted the revision with staff and public input, told the commission that the session was for gathering input and not for a final vote.

The draft trims or clarifies several definitions, removes the county’s responsibility to maintain its own source-protection maps (instead relying on the state’s technical map), and proposes that in Zone 2 areas where wells or springs could be affected the county require alternative, controlled wastewater systems rather than conventional septic systems. Van Noy said the changes are intended to “get people more options to build, all the while protecting drinking source protections.”

Why it matters: The ordinance affects property owners on pre‑2010 platted lots, developers and downstream public-water suppliers. Several homeowners in Covered Bridge Canyon said county interpretation, not the ordinance text, is blocking building permits and has driven down property values and retirement plans.

Residents press for grandfathering, lower costs

Dave Jackson, speaking for many Covered Bridge residents, said the canyon’s long-term nitrate monitoring shows levels at or below 0.1 parts per million — far below the EPA goals and limits cited by state guidance — and argued that technical, hydrologic and density conditions make mandatory alternative systems unnecessary in his neighborhood. “The cost over 50 years is approximately $70,000” per home, Jackson said, and he estimated the total price tag for his community at about $5 million. He asked the county to align its grandfathering interpretation with the state’s reading and to allow monitoring or case-by-case exceptions.

Legal and technical voices urged different fixes

Jill Taylor, a retired attorney and former county planning commissioner, told the commission that the ordinance text already allows pre‑existing legally established uses to continue and that the problem has been an internal change in interpretation. “Your problem is not your current ordinance. Your problem is the interpretation of that ordinance,” she said, urging staff to certify qualifying lots rather than impose new requirements retroactively.

Conversely, Robert Beers of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Quality warned that the draft omits references to his division and does not specify which wastewater pollutants or treatment levels the county expects alternative systems to address. “The ordinance needs clearer links to state expertise,” he said.

Deidra Beck of the Utah Division of Drinking Water explained how state rules and zone maps work and cautioned that the state regulates public-water systems — not septic systems — and that springs are not treated as "protected aquifers" in the same way deep groundwater sources are. She said state maps remain the authoritative resource but that map data sometimes requires correction, and that requests to revise maps are reviewed by licensed state professionals.

County next steps

Commissioners emphasized this was a work session meant to solicit feedback and told residents and staff they expected further drafting. Commissioners asked staff to preserve mechanisms for map corrections and to craft exception processes that balance countywide public-health concerns with property-rights issues. Ben van Noy and environmental‑health staff said they would continue refining language and consider how to incorporate exceptions or concurrence from downstream water systems.

The commission took no final action on the ordinance at this meeting; staff will return with revisions and additional analysis.