Duchesne County commissioners press planners to revise water-element numbers, delay adoption

Duchesne County commissioners held a public hearing on Dec. 8 on a draft water element required by state law and stopped short of adopting the document after commissioners and residents raised questions about population counts, supply estimates and the plan's scenarios.

Mike Godfrey of the county planning staff summarized the draft prepared with Sunrise Engineering, saying the document addresses water-demand scenarios, water-conservation strategies and coordination with state stakeholders. Godfrey told the commission the draft used Department of Natural Resources connection figures and that some numbers were preliminary: "This I don't know, how you characterize these scenarios as they are now, but this is the current trajectory of what they're estimating using this approach," he said.

Several commissioners said the population and supply figures on pages 2'03 need revision before the county gives the draft any formal approval. One commissioner warned that hard numbers could be used against Duchesne County in broader Colorado River negotiations and said, "I'm really scared of giving any numbers whatsoever," asking staff to avoid presenting unverified counts.

Commissioners asked planning staff to strike or mark the contested data (pages 2'03) as "to be determined," verify irrigation-duty numbers and consult with local water users and district stakeholders before returning a cleaned-up draft. Planning staff agreed to draft clarifying language and to pursue additional verification; the planning office said they will update maps, consult the Utah Geologic Survey and the Department of Natural Resources and return to the commission in spring for follow-up.

Public commenters and several commissioners also pressed for clarity on conservation targets in the draft (an 18% per-capita reduction was cited from state guidance), private-well accounting and whether water-supply scenarios should include potential data-center or tech-site demand. Planning staff emphasized the draft is preliminary and nonbinding and proposed sending a letter to the state explaining the county is revising sections to ensure accuracy.

The commission closed the public hearing and did not adopt the water element at the meeting; staff will revise the draft and the commission expects a follow-up review in the spring.

The public hearing began with the planning presentation and related discussion and concluded after public comment and further commissioner questions. The county said it will pursue additional stakeholder engagement and data verification before any final adoption.