Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts change to water-supply rules; public commenter warns of farmland loss
Summary
Utah County adopted an amendment to Land Use Ordinance §36-3 that lowers irrigation-exception requirements to 0.85 acre-foot per acre for qualifying subdivisions and raises the uncultivable-land threshold to 45%; public comment included warnings about irrigation-driven farmland loss and debate about aquifer impacts.
The Utah County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt an amendment to Utah County Land Use Ordinance section 36-3 that changes the criteria for an exception to standard irrigation requirements for subdivisions.
Community development staffer Brandon Larson told the commission the amendment grew from a specific applicant’s request. The earlier exception had allowed a reduction from 1.5 acre-feet per acre to 1.0 acre-foot; the applicant returned seeking an exception to 0.85 acre-foot per acre and proposed increasing the proportion of uncultivable land required to qualify for that exception from 35% to 45%, which staff and the planning commission found to balance the change (Brandon Larson, SEG 194-207, SEG 237-244).
Commissioners asked whether the reduced water requirement could affect fire-suppression capability and the county’s groundwater. One commissioner noted concern about draw on aquifers if irrigation requirements are relaxed; the commissioner cited examples of regions where moving away from flood irrigation reduced underground water storage and contributed to ground subsidence (Speaker 2, SEG 371-381).
During public comment, a resident (Speaker 8) opposed the ordinance as not going far enough, arguing that irrigation practices have damaged farmland and advocating for dry-farming techniques. The commenter referenced a UN report and urged commissioners to consider alternatives to requiring irrigation shares (Speaker 8, SEG 274-337). The board engaged the commenter in follow-up questions about whether his objection reflected desire for looser rules or a more radical reform; the commenter said he wanted further reductions and innovation in water use (SEG 339-347).
After discussion, the commission adopted the ordinance amendment as presented. Staff noted the amendment applies to qualifying developments (for example, parcels of five acres or more where hydrants are not required) and that the planning commission had signaled support once the applicant added the uncultivable-land increase to balance the reduced irrigation requirement.
What this means: developers may be able to request exceptions that lower irrigation requirements to 0.85 acre-foot per acre when their site meets the revised uncultivable threshold and other qualifying criteria; commissioners flagged the need to consider aquifer impacts and fire-suppression implications as the amendment is implemented.
Next steps: Community Development will update ordinance language and public records; staff indicated the amendment and its administrative guidance will be available to applicants through the county’s review processes.
