The Iron County Commission voted to approve a written response supporting the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District’s adjudicated Pine Valley Water Supply Project after a public exchange between county staff, a district representative and an environmental advocacy group.

Commissioners said the project stems from a long adjudication and settlement process that granted water rights to the water district and included statutory safeguards. Chair (unnamed in transcript) and Paul (on the phone), a district representative, told the commission the district’s engineers have tested wells and the settlement contemplates groundwater management measures if pumping negatively affects existing users.

The disagreement centered on a letter read into the record from Advocacy for Community and the Environment, an out‑of‑state group representing several neighboring counties, which argued the project is technically and financially unsound and risks large drawdowns and ecological harm. The commission also read a staff/district response that defended the settlement process, noted legal adjudication of rights, and urged Beaver County to reconsider alignment with the advocacy group’s position.

During the hearing, Paul said the water rights were granted after litigation and settlement and that the district has invested in hydrologic studies and environmental review. “These are water rights that were issued by the state engineer, went through a long, lengthy court process,” he told the commission, adding the rights are now court‑decreed and the district has moved forward with the EIS and implementation planning.

The staff response cited the settlement language and Utah law that allows the state engineer to adopt groundwater management plans and to regulate withdrawals. The response warned that opposing the adjudication could threaten water rights that parties — including Beaver County and SITLA — accepted under the settlement.

Commissioner Speaker 4 moved to approve the county’s response letter; Speaker 5 seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote and was recorded as carried. The commission did not direct immediate funding or construction action at the meeting; rather, the vote approved the county’s formal response to the opposition letter as read into the record.

What’s next: The water district and state agencies will continue environmental and engineering work required under the project approvals. The commission’s vote documented the county’s official posture in the inter‑county correspondence; legal and technical reviews remain the controlling processes for any future implementation or permit decisions.