The Summit County Council wants to determine whether proposed developments have an adequate water supply before greenlighting new projects, but the county’s legal counsel says developers are responsible, not local officials. County councilors pushed for a broader conversation about the future of water in Summit County after the Mountain Regional Water Special Service District warned last month of a potential shortfall if major developments continue to request annexation into the district.  Officials’ concerns were further exacerbated when the Junction Commons redevelopment said it was struggling to find a water provider that could accommodate the project’s infrastructure needs despite the County Council’s approvals. “There are several things you hear in the public space that might even be characterized more as a belief system, and I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, but some people will say, emphatically, they believe there’s a water crisis or we don’t have water,” said County Council Chair Canice Harte as he addressed a handful of water district officials during last week’s meeting. “Maybe we do, or we don’t, but we’re hoping what you can do as a group is shed some light on this. What’s the reality of our water situation?” Water and development Developers need to consider water access as soon as they submit an application with the county. The Planning Department requires proof of a willing-to-serve letter from a water provider, which signals availability and that the project is within the district’s boundaries, before the County Council considers approval. However, Summit County Chief Civil Deputy David Thomas said the willing-to-serve letter is not a legal commitment to actually provide the water in question. Developers must obtain a second document, which Thomas referred to as a commitment-to-serve letter, from a provider to trigger the legal process to access water. Thomas said the commitment-to-serve letter is acquired when the development team is ready to pull permits and begin construction, which is often years after the County Council greenlights the project. But with the second letter in hand, developers can sign a legally binding contract with the water district to pay for and receive water. Thomas said it is likely unrealistic to ask a developer to obtain the commitment-to-serve letter during the county’s negotiation process because developers would need to start paying for water years before the project comes online. The willing-to-serve letter gives the County Council confidence that the property’s provider has a surplus of available water, but it doesn’t indicate the company’s amenability regarding a legal contract. Other factors, like additional infrastructure, may make providing the water too costly. Those situations leave development teams with an approval thanks to the willing-to-serve letter but without an actual water provider if the company declined to issue a commitment-to-serve letter or sign a contract. If that happens, the developer will likely contact another water district in the area to request an annexation into its boundaries instead. Thomas said that’s where oversight from the County Council comes into play, as councilors serve as the governing body for many Snyderville Basin water providers and have the authority to direct them to accommodate growth. The County Council expressed frustration with the process last week, with multiple councilors calling the letter system a “chicken-and-egg situation.” “Structurally, how do you make a decision around approving or not approving a project, whichever way you go, if you’re basing it off a belief, or what you think is an understanding of water availability, if we can issue unlimited letters willing to serve when that’s obviously not the same thing as the agreement to serve?” Harte asked. Thomas responded that the county will “always … have that gap” and that the responsibility to ensure a project has water access lies with the development team. Summit County’s concurrency program The Health Department’s “concurrency program” is a key part of the water process in the Snyderville Basin. The program, which is one-of-a-kind in Utah, ensures water companies are not overextending their offerings and can distribute the water committed in legal contracts with developers and homeowners. Summit County Chief Civil Deputy David Thomas said the process is akin to evaluating a “water bank account.” Water companies submit an annual report to the Health Department with information on their water sources, with a 15% drought reserve subtracted from the total. Future commitments, like approved developments within the water district’s boundaries that haven’t been built yet, are also subtracted from the total. “The balance is the surplus water you have that you can serve new developments with,” Thomas said. “Each water company that is concurrency compliant has a (surplus) balance.” If a water company is found to be “nonconcurrent,” it means the district does not have enough water to serve future customers and is restricted from issuing any letters to serve future developments. However, the concurrency program is only applicable to the five water districts in the Snyderville Basin — Summit Water Distribution Company, High Valley Water Company, Gorgoza Mutual Water Company, Summit County Service Area #3 and Mountain Regional — and not all of Summit County. Thomas said the state Legislature changed the law after Summit County created the program, allowing it to be grandfathered in, but there is no comparable program for the East Side. He did not clarify if the Legislature amended the code because of Summit County’s program or if the bill was unrelated. All water districts in the Basin must participate in the annual exercise. What happens if Summit County runs out of water? Thomas repeatedly told the County Council that the Wasatch Back is not currently at risk of running out of water with its current growth trajectory, especially when considering the Health Department’s concurrency program, but he said there is a plan in place to create an importation program if necessary. The plan, known as the Lost Canyon Importation Project or Western Summit County Water Project, is an agreement between Summit County, Park City and a handful of water districts, including the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. The agreement allows municipalities and water districts to contribute surplus water to a communal pool that participants may use if other water sources dry up. The project also has stipulations allowing the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, the regional agency overseeing the initiative, to import water from the East Canyon Reservoir to Summit County water districts if the Basin runs out of water. “We have not reached that trigger point at this time,” Thomas said. “There is water to be had.” However, the importation project would likely require a $200 million infrastructure investment to move the water over the mountains and into the Snyderville Basin, according to Weber Basin Water Conservancy District General Manager Scott Paxman. “We are really hoping to stretch that surplus water out as long as we can, delaying that huge project,” Paxman said. Paxman added that the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District would be responsible for upfront infrastructure costs, but other water districts would reimburse the organization afterward through customer payments and impact fees. The high cost to import water would likely result in increased bills for Summit County residents. Last week’s discussion was informational, and councilors did not make any water-related decisions. The post What role does Summit County play in ensuring water access for new developments? appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less