Utah County adopts countywide grazing zone after extensive West Mountain testimony

The Utah County Board of Commissioners voted to amend the county general plan and add a countywide grazing zone, adopting the ordinance after more than two hours of public testimony and debate.

Supporters, including farmers and local residents, said the zone is intended to protect orchards, small farms and long-term agricultural uses. “Once it’s gone, it’s gone,” Chair (Speaker 1) said as he described the proposal’s purpose of protecting natural resources and agricultural production.

The public-comment period produced sharply divided testimony. Debra Brozovich (Speaker 16), a West Mountain resident, presented numeric estimates of water needed if mines expand at Kilgore’s site, saying, “They would need to truck in 10,400,000 gallons of water a year,” and warning existing private wells could be impacted. Multiple residents described heavy dust, truck damage to county roads, and harm to orchards and bees. Julie Sainsbury (Speaker 11), who represents South Utah County Community Voice, urged the commission to keep mining from being allowed as a conditional use in sensitive subzones and suggested creating two grazing categories so some areas could prohibit mining entirely.

Opponents warned of unintended economic effects and higher construction costs if local mineral resources are constrained. Robert Stevens (Speaker 22) argued limiting extractions could raise building-material costs and risk monopoly-like market effects, calling the proposal’s language “shady” in places. Todd Cusick (Speaker 10), representing CMC, said federal and BLM-managed land complicate how county zoning would interact with mineral leasing, and urged careful parcel-level analysis.

Commission debate emphasized tradeoffs. Commissioner (Speaker 6) expressed concern about countywide application and potential effects on housing costs; Commissioner (Speaker 5) described the measure as a needed “time out” to address road, water and mitigation questions and proposed an amendment to ensure fish hatcheries would be explicitly allowed. The board adopted the ordinance with that modification; the motion passed 2–1, with Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Ivey/Ivy recorded in the affirmative and Commissioner Graves opposed.

The ordinance is framed as a countywide zoning tool that can be applied to protect grazing and agricultural uses. Commissioners and staff discussed next steps including parcel-level exemptions, identifying protest letters, and working with the BLM and state agencies on mining permitting and mitigation. Commissioner (Speaker 6) successfully moved to continue a related zoning-map item (Item 5) for one week to review protests and agricultural-protection areas.

The action changes policy at the county level but does not directly change federal or BLM leases; several commenters and the commission noted that the BLM retains authority over federal lands and that the county will need to coordinate with federal and state agencies on implementation. The commission directed staff to continue outreach and to clarify potential exemptions and technical language where necessary.

The ordinance’s approval signals the county’s preference to create a zoning mechanism to protect agriculture and limit where new extractive operations may locate, while commissioners said they intend to follow up with parcel-specific work and interagency coordination. The commission listed no immediate implementation deadlines at the meeting; additional administrative or ordinance language adjustments were discussed as follow-up items.