Duchesne County adopts oil-and-gas zoning changes after months of hearings; industry presses for clearer fee language

Duchesne County commissioners voted unanimously Nov. 18 to adopt ordinance 24-409, a set of changes to Title 8 (chapters 2, 6 and 13) of the county zoning code that define and regulate oil-and-gas drilling and production sites and narrow how conditional-use permits will be handled.

The action concluded a multi-month process that began in March and included planning‑commission hearings, several county work sessions and a reopened public hearing. County staff summarized edits made in response to stakeholder input, including industry requests to change terminology (“off‑site owner” to “impacted owner”), clarify what constitutes a drilling or production site, and reference federal safety standards for H2S handling and notifications to nearby property owners.

“We think the ordinance strikes a balance between what the county feels is needed to protect our landowners, yet let the industry continue to thrive to the benefit of our economy,” county staff summarized during the hearing.

Industry groups and operators urged the commission not to adopt the ordinance as drafted without clearer language on the transportation or road‑mitigation fee that the commission intends to adopt separately. Several industry speakers said the omission of a defined fee in this ordinance creates investor uncertainty and could affect capital decisions. “Ambiguity is the enemy to the investor,” resident and operator Thomas Wilmington told the commission, saying he had heard investors decline opportunities because of the ordinance’s cost uncertainty.

Representatives from the Utah Petroleum Association and local operators requested additional time to review a late draft and urged coordination with state regulators. Bart Kettle of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining asked the county to coordinate on sections that overlap state regulation to avoid conflicting rules.

County commissioners acknowledged the concerns but said the transportation fee belongs in a separate ordinance and that technical road‑cost modeling (conducted by Jones & DeMille) will inform that later step. Jones & DeMille presented revised roadway-cost estimates and reported a per‑well, per‑mile figure used in the county analysis.

Commissioner Miles moved to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law and approve ordinance 24-409; the motion carried unanimously in roll call (Commissioners Miles, Killian and Hanson voting aye). The commission noted it will return later with a separate ordinance to set the transportation/impact fee based on the Jones & DeMille analysis and staff recommendations.

The ordinance, as adopted, keeps compressor stations and water‑handling sites within the conditional‑use framework but leaves transportation‑fee mechanics, timing and final dollar figures to a subsequent ordinance. Commissioners asked staff to streamline conditional‑use permitting and to solicit operator feedback on implementation.

Next steps: the commission will schedule the transportation/road‑mitigation fee for a future agenda, informed by the county’s roadway study and public input.