Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duchesne County pauses on adopting water-element numbers after lengthy public hearing
Summary
Commissioners heard a detailed presentation on a state-required water element, raised concerns about population and supply estimates and asked staff to correct data before adopting the measure; public commenters and water-district representatives urged caution given regional Colorado River negotiations.
Duchesne County commissioners opened a public hearing Dec. 8 on a draft water element of the county general plan required by state law (SB110 and SB76), but declined to adopt the element pending corrections and further consultation.
Planning staff and a consultant from Sunrise presented a draft that models several growth scenarios and seeks an 18% per-capita reduction in water use from 2015 levels. The consultant told the commission that the draft relies on Department of Natural Resources connection estimates and headline metrics compiled for 2024, and cautioned that the figures are preliminary. "We are required by law to comply with our general plan," the consultant said, adding that some numbers on pages 2–3 should be struck and replaced while staff verifies supply and population inputs.
Commissioners and county stakeholders pressed for clearer sourcing and for removal or revision of specific language that could be misinterpreted outside the county. One commissioner asked whether the county should declare a moratorium or simply pursue an ordinance cleanup; staff recommended code fixes rather than a moratorium and offered to draft a letter to the state explaining that the county is working toward a final submittal.
Public commenters and local water-district representatives raised concerns about giving hard population and supply numbers in the draft while larger Colorado River negotiations are underway. A water stakeholder said the county should be cautious about publishing figures that might be used in interstate negotiations, arguing that inaccurate or incomplete supply estimates could disadvantage the county. The consultant acknowledged discrepancies in portions of the draft mapping and irrigation-duty allocations and proposed marking those areas "TBD" until verified.
Commissioners tasked planning staff to pull pages 2–3 for refinement, to verify irrigation-zone assignments and to prepare corrected language for commission review. The commission closed the public hearing and returned to its regular meeting without adopting the element; staff said they aim to present an updated version in spring 2026 and can send the state a letter indicating the county is working toward compliance.
What’s next: staff will revise the draft water element, correct the cited data and return to the commission for further review ahead of state deadlines.
