Duchesne County working session debates $14,250-per-well-per-mile road fee as residents and industry push back

Jones & DeMille Engineering and county staff presented a draft transportation mitigation formula at a Dec. 2 Duchesne County working session that produced a proposed fee of $14,250 per well per mile for paved roads and $3,500 per well per mile for gravel roads, intended to cover the county’s share of asphalt work when industry traffic shortens pavement life.

The Jones & DeMille engineer summarized the technical basis for the number and said the county’s assumptions (including cores, lane-mile assessment and an assumed 2-inch mill plus 2-inch overlay on 50% of impacted lane miles) produced the fee: “we're left with a fee of $14,250 per well per mile,” the engineer said.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the county’s rural road network is increasingly strained by heavy truck traffic associated with drilling and production activity, moving much of the industry’s impacts off federal corridors and into local neighborhoods. County staff and an independent financial reviewer presented a step-by-step accounting of pavement costs and legal considerations designed to show the fee reflects direct county costs rather than a general tax.

An independent analyst asked by the county to review the numbers told commissioners the analysis met statutory requirements and was, in his judgment, conservative: “this analysis is more than fair,” he said, adding the county had reduced the fee from an amount it legally could have justified under different assumptions.

Residents described near-miss crashes, noise at night, and narrow curves that they said require urgent fixes. “I don't think it's right for any person on a county road to have to pull over, get out of the way of a truck,” said resident Bonnie Spade, who pointed to a sharp curve on County Road 29 and urged the county to treat it as a safety priority.

Industry groups welcomed the reduction from earlier engineering estimates but asked for more time and refinements before the fee is finalized. Jamie Kessler, an attorney representing the Utah Petroleum Association, said the most recent engineering document had been circulated only hours earlier and requested additional review and follow-up meetings: “it was only provided to us a couple of hours ago,” Kessler told the commission, and he urged more tailored treatment for different facility types—vertical wells, multi-well pads, compressor stations and water-handling sites—rather than a single per-mile fee for every installation.

Debate over scope: Industry and some independent operators asked that the ordinance differentiate between production scenarios. Several speakers urged the county to treat vertical wells and horizontal multi-well pads differently because construction and truck volumes vary by well type. Other commenters urged safeguards to ensure fee proceeds go to the impacted roads (a recurring concern raised by producers and residents alike).

Commission response and next steps: Commissioners framed the session as a working meeting and emphasized the fee would be revisited. County staff said they would refine the formula, provide clearer documentation about notice and application procedures for administrative conditional-use permits, and return with revisions. The commission did not adopt the fee at the meeting; it asked staff to continue stakeholder negotiations and to bring updated materials back to a future working session.