authorizing water diversion or use for this project, and it instead relied on future reporting and permitting processes.

Intent or future planning does not authorize water diversion or use. By contrast, other large data centers in Utah, including the federal NSA facilities in Bluffdale, NOVA in West Jordan, and MetaBase folks in Eagle Mountain, were all approved in reliance on identified municipal water providers. Holding existing state engineer-administered water rights rather than on future reporting or unspecified permitting. The findings report identified no specific water right, no approved change application, and no determination that lawful water has been secured for this project. The findings rely solely on future reporting requirements, but reporting statutes do not create a right to use water, and the Commission should understand this.

They are transparency tools. Not approval. Without evidence in the record showing how water will be lawfully obtained and used, you as the commission could not possibly make a grounded or data-driven conclusion that the project will not impact local water sources substantially- water resources substantially. And even assuming this use of so-called closed-loop or recycled water systems, those designs do not eliminate impact. They often increase energy demand because more mechanical cooling is required, and they still produce wastewater, including concentrated flowdown of brine that must be managed and disposed of through lawful and expensive means.

These tradeoffs are well known in hyperscale data center operations, yet none are analyzed in the findings report provided by the project app. Water impact determinations require evidence of a lawful water source, analysis of operational water use, and evaluation of cumulative demand. Because the findings report establishes none of these elements in the administrative record, the Commission's reliance on future commitments and generalized assurances did not satisfy the substantial evidence standard required by the Duchenne County Code or Utah law. Finally, the Commission failed to apply conditional use standards and instead treated this project as though it were effectively permitted. Conditional uses are not presumed compatible under Utah law.

Approval requires affirmative findings identifying reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and explaining how those effects will be substantially mitigated through enforceable conditions. Here, the findings largely recycle ordinance language and rely on future compliance without identifying the impacts or mitigation. That is legally insufficient. For the record, regarding procedural preservation, we respectfully request that the Commission issue a single final decision with complete written findings rather than deferring unresolved issues to later permits or later proceedings.