Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews SB 110-required water element; consultant says funding covers plan preparation only
Summary
A consultant presented a draft water element required by SB 110 and advised the commission the state's grant covers creating and adopting the element (deadline 12/31/2025) but implementation—code changes, incentives and enforcement—will fall to the city; commissioners pressed for clarity on reporting, performance ties to funding and incentives available to residents.
The Grantsville Planning Commission on Sept. 18 reviewed a draft general-plan amendment adding a water use and preservation element required by Senate Bill 110 (SB 110). Consultant Devin (speaker in the record) and city staff told commissioners the state required communities to adopt such an element by Dec. 31, 2025.
Devin said the element is a guiding document that sets vision and broad policy direction; it does not itself create code. To keep costs within the state grant, the consultant team relied on existing local studies (capital facilities plan, impact-fee analysis and the city's water conservation plan) and adapted population data and goals where needed. He outlined four mandated sections: water demand (current and future usage), conservation standards for new development, conservation programs for existing development, and reducing water waste in city operations.
Commissioners asked whether the state funding required ongoing reporting or tied performance metrics to continued funding. Devin said he would follow up on exact reporting requirements; he explained the state funding helps prepare the element and the funding typically ends once the element is adopted. Implementation—adopting new land-use ordinances, establishing incentives or tiered utility rates, and enforcing standards—would be tasks for city staff and future council decisions.
The record includes discussion of local and regional goals: several numeric goals cited in the packet were drawn from Grantsville’s existing capital facilities and water conservation plans, and the Commission was reminded that the Division of Water Resources issues regional conservation recommendations staff should consider. Commissioners noted limited city authority over private residential choices (state code constraints) and discussed tools that can be used where local authority exists—landscaping requirements for commercial properties, plumbing fixture standards, and incentive programs.
Staff and commissioners listed grant and rebate programs available to residents and the city, including slowtheflow.org (rebates up to $150 for toilet replacement and $100 for smart sprinkler controllers) and Utah Water Savers (incentives for turf removal and other water-wise conversions). The consultant suggested examples used elsewhere—utility-bill credits or tiered-rate schedules—to encourage conservation, while emphasizing incentives and education are more likely to produce voluntary uptake than punitive measures.
No formal recommendation to adopt or forward the amendment to city council appears in the transcript excerpt provided. Staff framed the commission’s role as reviewing the draft and preparing a recommendation to city council; the transcript records questions, clarifications and guidance requests but does not include a recorded motion or vote to send a recommendation on this agenda item.
Next procedural steps discussed by staff included following up with the state about reporting requirements, proceeding with code amendment drafts that implement the general-plan goals, and returning to the commission or city council with ordinances and implementation options for consideration.
