ReWater wastewater recycling facility expansion proposal. That deficiency is the failure to evaluate the environmental risks inherent in large-scale, long-term wastewater storage and to make the findings required by the code before approving that type of use. Under Duchesne County Code, County Zoning Ordinance Section 8-13-4, the commission is required to make an affirmative determination based on evidence in the record that this expanded produced wastewater facility will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. That determination must be grounded in the foreseeable risks associated with the type and scale of use being. It is not enough to conclude that a project proposes mitigation measures or complies with other regulatory programs.

Produced water recycling and disposal facilities are widely recognized by state and federal agencies as posing elevated risk to surface water, groundwater, air quality, and wildlife, particularly when they involve long-term storage in lagoons. Those risks increase as the number of ponds increases. As storage capacity grows, the physical footprint expands, and the operational lifespan lengthens; those are precisely the elements that were expanded by the April 2nd approval. The findings acknowledge that this approval authorizes the storage of almost 1.8 billion additional barrels of produced water. They also acknowledge reliance on multiple large lined ponds for long-term containment, the use of stormwater diversion systems, and the installation of leak-detection sumps to capture fluid that leaks beneath the liners.

What is missing is any finding evaluating how well understood risk pathways, such as liner failure, overtopping, extreme storm events, seepage, or operational upset, affect public welfare when the facility expands from 2 to 5 ponds. Instead, the findings rely on generalized assurances that the ponds are designed to regulatory standards, that automation and monitoring systems are in place, and that compliance with state rules will continue. Utah law is clear that a conditional use permit cannot be approved based solely on engineering descriptions. The commission was required to make a land-use determination that the expanded risk profile associated with the Five Pond Industrial Wastewater Facility is acceptable for this specific location. That includes evaluating whether such a use is appropriate in an A-5 agricultural district that also functions as a recreation corridor and wildlife use area, not merely whether the facility can be technically engineered to operate.

The same deficiency appears in the treatment of watershed and stormwater impacts. The findings conclude that federal Section 404 permitting does not apply because no discharge is occurring. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, and it applies to construction activities such as pond excavation, berms, stormwater diversion structures, and emergency spillways, regardless of whether wastewater is retained. Federal guidance confirms that creation or expansion of stormwater management facilities and water impoundments may require Section 404 authorization where they intersect jurisdictional waters or wetlands.

Here, the administrative record establishes that the facility diverts stormwater, relies on construction containment infrastructure, manages emergency overflow scenarios, and is located within a broader watershed draining towards shared public lands and downstream resources. Yet the findings contain no jurisdictional determination and no analysis of whether these activities or foreseeable failure scenarios interact with waters of the United States. Equating the absence of routine discharge with the absence of Section 404 applicability leaves a threshold land use issue unresolved. The Commission made no findings that jurisdictional waters or wetlands are present, and it did not evaluate whether storm events, liner failure, or emergency pumping could result in interaction with surface waters under foreseeable conditions.

Instead, the findings equate the absence of routine discharges with the absence of watershed risk. That conclusion is not supported by- is not supported by the record. Air quality analysis suffers from the same deficiency. The findings state that odor is minimal and that enforcement relies on complaints. Produced water facilities are known sources of volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, and other emissions associated with oil and field wastewater handling and storage, especially where water is held in open ponds for extended periods.

The record contains no air dispersion modeling, no measurable odor thresholds, no enforceable performance standard, and no analysis of how tripling storage capacity increases exposure. Exposure duration and emissions potential, under Section 8-13-4, the