Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears public‑hearing presentation on proposed water‑use and preservation element to the general plan
Summary
At a Nov. 10 public hearing the county planner presented Ordinance 2025‑12 to add a water use and preservation element to the Iron County general plan, citing statutory requirements, population projections, recharge projects and a menu of conservation strategies; commissioners discussed conservation easements, recharge crediting and possible next steps.
County planner Brett (speaker 15) briefed the commission at a public hearing on Ordinance 2025‑12, a proposed amendment to the Iron County general plan to add a water‑use and preservation element required by Utah code 17‑27a‑403 (referred to in the presentation).
Brett described the element as advisory: “the general plan is... it’s an advisory guide for land use decisions. It’s not trying to create new policies,” and said the draft addresses four statutory criteria: the effect of permitted development on water demand and infrastructure; methods for reducing water demand in existing development; methods for reducing demand for future development; and opportunities to modify county operations such as wastewater reuse.
The presentation included data and projections: the planning team used Kempsey Gardner Policy Institute population projections that estimate roughly 28,000 additional residents by 2060 (about 98,000 total) and discussed groundwater management plans and safe yields for Cedar, Parowan and Escalante valleys. Brett highlighted county and Water Conservancy District conservation programs — turf removal rebates, smart controllers, low‑flow fixtures, tiered pricing, AMI metering and agricultural sprinkler upgrades — and stressed recharge projects already under way in Cedar Valley and Perilwan as key tools to reduce net groundwater withdrawals.
Commissioners and staff asked practical questions about implementation, crediting recharge activity and county authorities. Brett noted the county could replicate successful Water Conservancy District programs and described optional zoning overlays to protect natural recharge areas. The draft also proposes using newly expanded rollback‑tax authority (House Bill 237, referenced in the draft) to fund conservation easements or acquire water rights to preserve agricultural water uses.
Reid (speaker 16) urged the commission to develop a program to buy and preserve water rights for agricultural use, describing a model akin to conservation easements for land: “we can buy a conservation easement on water… compensate the owners of a water right for the development right of that water so that it could then only be used for agriculture.” Brett and other commissioners discussed options for incentives and monitoring but did not adopt policy during the hearing.
The public‑hearing presentation concluded with the commission flagging additional analysis and outreach; a future formal decision on adoption was implied in the ordinance timeline but not taken at the Nov. 10 meeting.
