Commission tables proposed long-term water lease after residents raise water-rights and transparency concerns

At a meeting of the Daggett County Commission, the board voted to table consideration of a proposed lease tied to the Echo Canyon development after multiple public commenters raised questions about the project's water rights, prior enforcement actions and transparency of meeting materials.

Residents and advocates told the commission they feared the development's water supplies were uncertain and that approving a long-term lease could commit the county to a project still embroiled in litigation. John Weise, speaking for Living Rivers, said transfers of water rights to neighboring counties and past unauthorized well use raised red flags and urged the commission to "be very, very cautious." Laura, who identified herself as speaking for Hank Creek Development Watch and Cambridge Development Law, said the King Creek project rebranded as Echo Canyon and "got a state law that allows them to incorporate... which allows them to skirt around all of our land use regulations," and added that the development was red-tagged by the Division of Water Rights in May 2024.

Why it matters: Commenters argued the proposed lease could enable a development dependent on contested water supplies and public subsidies, with potential consequences for local housing affordability and county exposure to litigation. Kyle Kaiser, a Moab resident, asked whether the lease was annual and said he was concerned that a development reliant on a short-term lease could leave the county exposed if the lease later were not renewed.

County staff (name not stated) told the commission the payment structure would be annual but that the proposed lease term is long. "60 years is the term that's proposed," the staff member said. Staff also stated that payments would begin when the county signs the agreement (they said signing was scheduled for November), would be prorated for December and 2025, and that annual payments would begin in 2026. Staff further said the water under the lease would remain "subject to approval and availability under governing laws, rules, regulations, agreements, and priority of the waterway."

Commission discussion focused on the absence of key documents in the meeting packet and whether the commission had adequate time and information for a deliberative decision. Commenters and at least one official urged the board to seek legal or state-engineer advice about whether the project would require a change of point of diversion to access the Colorado River. County staff said a water-rights attorney had been consulted in drafting the lease but could not immediately locate the referenced documents in the packet.

What the commission did: An unidentified board member moved to table agenda item number 7 to a future meeting to allow time for posting materials and further review; the motion carried by voice vote. The chair declared the meeting adjourned at 12:58.

Outstanding claims and next steps: Public commenters alleged unauthorized well use, cited a May 2024 red tag from the Division of Water Rights and asserted the development secured state-level measures to alter local land-use authority; those claims were presented by residents and advocates in the meeting and were not resolved on the record. The commission tabled the lease to allow more information and did not adopt the proposed agreement during the session.