Case study
Rebuilding how a county's data-center rules were written: testimony, deliberation and two drafts
The rules a data-center developer would have to meet in unincorporated Utah County, Utah, were shaped in a hearing recording, a commission's motion, two successive drafts and county reports that no single document connects. Klasen Development connected them and checked each claim at its source.
The question Why do a county's proposed data-center rules read as they do, and which way were they moving between two drafts?
Before the October 20 meeting. Both drafts on this page are proposed rules, not law. The Planning Commission takes the item up again on October 20, 2026, and the County Commission decides whether to adopt it. The example site near the end is hypothetical: no application for it exists.
In September the draft had no fixed cap on cooling water: 600,000 gallons a year only triggered a new water study. Five days after a hearing at which residents of Goshen spoke about water, a new draft, dated September 20 in its title, set a cap of 300,000 gallons a year. The county's own summary calls this a reduction "from 600,000 gallons to 300,000 gallons", though the September draft held no 600,000-gallon cap to reduce.
The question
A list of permits says what a site needs. It does not say why the rules read as they do, or which way they are moving. For Utah County's proposed data-center ordinance, that answer is spread across two redlined drafts, two county reports, an agenda and a hearing recording of more than two and a half hours, and no one document joins them.
What changed between the drafts
Six provisions changed between the September draft and the October one. Four tightened, one loosened, and one was rewritten in a property owner's terms. Each row links to the page of each draft and, where someone asked for the change, to that moment in the recording.
| Provision | September draft | October draft | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooling water | No fixed cap. Annual use is whatever the approved water study allows; 600,000 gallons a year only triggers a new study. | A fixed cap of 300,000 gallons a year, and the 600,000-gallon study trigger is struck. Moved by the motion's water instruction, after Goshen residents spoke about water. | September draft, PDF, page 11, the study trigger; September draft, PDF, page 11, annual use; October draft, PDF, page 15; Second county report, PDF, page 3; Hearing recording at 1:34:21, a Goshen resident; Hearing recording at 2:25:01, the motion |
| Well assessment radius | Wells within half a mile of the property. | Wells and users within one mile, including for the initial fill. | September draft, PDF, page 12; October draft, PDF, page 16; Hearing recording at 2:25:01, the motion |
| Mitigation plan deadline | 90 days after an adverse impact is found. | 30 days. | September draft, PDF, page 13; October draft, PDF, page 18 |
| Re-notice to neighbours | New notice for any significant change, including a change in ownership. | New notice only for listed changes; transfers of title, control and financing are exempt where the obligations are taken on. The property owner's wording, taken in on the commission's instruction. | September draft, PDF, page 4; October draft, PDF, page 5; Hearing recording at 26:19, a county planner; Hearing recording at 33:46, a county planner; Hearing recording at 2:24:35, the motion; Second county report, PDF, page 3 |
| Traffic and road impact study | May be required, for construction traffic. | Shall be required, stamped, for construction and operations. Asked for by Fairfield's mayor. | September draft, PDF, page 15; October draft, PDF, page 20; Hearing recording at 1:28:17, Fairfield's mayor |
| Water-use reports (loosened) | Every six months, for the life of the operation. | Every six months for the first two years, then once a year. | September draft, PDF, page 13; October draft, PDF, page 18 |
Where the changes came from
Water, from the motion, after Goshen spoke. At the hearing, a Goshen resident said the town had long restricted new building because its water supply could not support even one new house a year. When the commission continued the item, the motion's fourth instruction was water, and in particular the initial filling of the cooling reservoir. The October draft that followed sets the fixed cap, widens the well assessment to one mile and extends it to the initial fill, and cuts the mitigation deadline to 30 days.
Re-notice, from a prospective owner. No data-center application had been filed. At the hearing, a county planner said that one of the county commissioners had met a property owner interested in a data center, and that the county had sent the owner its final draft. By the planner's account, the owner generally thought the proposal positive but wanted to change its section on re-notice. Showing the owner's wording, the planner called it "probably a little bit better" than the county's. The motion asked the county to take in the owner's amendment, and the county's second report says it did. Neither record names the owner.
Traffic, from Fairfield. Fairfield's mayor asked that the draft's "may" require a road impact study become "shall". The October draft makes the study mandatory, prepared by a qualified traffic engineer, and widens it from construction traffic to operations as well.
What the county declined. Its second report says it did not take up requests that would effectively prohibit data centers. On the County Attorney's Office's advice, it also left out requirements to obtain approvals from other jurisdictions.
The record
On September 15, 2026, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 on a roll call to continue the item to October 20, with six instructions to the county and written comments due by October 2. The documents below mark the main steps; the comparison above links the rest.
-
Utah County Community Development (first report to the Planning Commission)
The county's first report on item 2026-09, dated June 16 on its face and posted with the September packet, says the County Commission directed the county to prepare a data-center ordinance for unincorporated Utah County.
-
Utah County, the September draft (redline dated 2026-09-04)
In the September draft, 600,000 gallons a year of refill and annual use is the point at which a new water study is due. It is a trigger for a study, not a cap.
-
Utah County, Planning Commission (hearing recording)
A Goshen resident says the town has long limited new building because its water supply could not support even one new house a year.
-
Utah County, Planning Commission (hearing recording)
On a roll call the Planning Commission votes 4-1 to continue the item to October 20, with six instructions to the county and comments due by October 2.
-
Utah County, the October draft (redline titled 2026-09-20)
The October draft sets a fixed cap of 300,000 gallons a year for the cooling system, and strikes the September draft's 600,000-gallon study trigger.
-
Utah County, Planning Commission (agenda for October 20)
The October 20 agenda, noticed on October 9, lists the data-center item as continued from September 15, among the items not subject to a public hearing.
-
Utah County Community Development (second report, for October 20)
The county's second report, posted October 14, says it did not take up requests that would effectively prohibit data centers, and, on the County Attorney's Office's advice, left out approvals from other jurisdictions.
What it would mean for a site
Take Section 10 of T9S R1W, in Goshen Valley, as a hypothetical example; no application exists for it. It lies in the Planned Community zone, and neither draft adds data centers to that zone, so the proposed rules alone open no route to it. Whether a rezone or a community structure plan would come first is for the county to say. About 150 of its 645 acres fall within the October draft's 1,000-foot separation from property in a residential zone, where no data-center structure could stand. The state's water policy for the area says all surface and ground water is fully appropriated.
Reading. This is interpretation, not a finding of the record. The direction is to permit data centers under standards, not to prohibit them. The commission split on timing, and requests for a ban were outside what the county would carry. Water moved more than anything else under deliberation, so 300,000 gallons should not be treated as final. The re-notice rules a lender cares about are objective in the October draft: a transfer of title, control or financing, with the obligations taken on, would not by itself call for full re-notice.
What to watch
On October 20 the Planning Commission may recommend the ordinance as drafted, as the county's second report recommends, or with changes. It may also continue the item again, recommend denial, or send it on without a recommendation. Every path ends at the County Commission, which may adopt, reject or revise the ordinance. The county's code lets the County Commission assume a favourable recommendation if none comes within 65 days of the Planning Commission receiving the amendment, but no record fixes the day it was received, so that deadline cannot be dated. The minutes of the September 15 meeting, once approved, become the official account of the hearing.
What the record does not show
- The written comments from Fairfield, Goshen and the property owner are not posted with the meetings' files, so this page relies on how the county's reports and the hearing describe them.
- The property owner is not named in the record, and this page does not guess who it is.
- Quotes from the hearing come from a machine transcript of the county's recording; the key passages were listened to again, but the wording is the transcript's.
- The minutes of the September 15 meeting are not yet approved; the recording is the only account of the hearing until they are.
- The October draft's title dates it September 20, before the October 2 comment deadline, so the record does not show which later comments shaped it.
- In the October redline the 300,000-gallon line is not marked as new: it is in the colour of the September text, though the posted September draft has no such line. That the cap is a new figure rests on reading page 11 of the September draft against page 15 of the October one.
- The county's soil map and Genola's annexation plan were not read, so whether either bears on the example site is open.
- This is research, not legal or permitting advice. Both drafts are proposed, not law, and may change on October 20 or at the County Commission.
How it was done
The county's drafts, reports, agendas and notices were collected from its planning site, and the hearing recording was transcribed by machine. Every claim was kept in a ledger with its source, checked again by a separate reader against the original page or the recording, and then reviewed by a skeptic reading the work as a diligence analyst would. The page names public bodies only; the people who spoke or voted are in the recording, and they are left there. The full research is available on request.