Five problems. One fix.

The five problems

The headings are the words of the Wasatch County report, adopted with Resolution 26-11 on September 2, 2026. The county wrote the report about the draft study. The state released the final study on September 11, 2026. For the limits that the law does set, see What the law does require.

1. "Regional infrastructure is not a statutory consideration"

   The study counts the cost of public services at the level that the area around the land gets today, and it asks whether there will be enough water. Part 5 does not require a finding that the wastewater can be treated, a traffic study, or an evacuation plan.

   Wasatch Highlands: the plan has a hotel with 200 rooms in the first five years. The final study assumes onsite septic systems, so it counts no sewer costs. In its comment letter, the county wrote that it does not believe septic systems are feasible at this scale. The study notes the concern and keeps the assumption of the sponsor of the request.

   Utah Code 10-2a-501 to 10-2a-510, and 10-2a-504(3) in particular. Final study, Sections 3, 4, and 6, Appendix A, and the county's comment letter in Appendix E

2. "The process can worsen, not improve, affordable housing availability"

   The owners must intend that at least 10% of the homes are affordable. Part 5 has no step that checks that they get built.

   Wasatch Highlands: the development plan in the final study lists home values from $1.5 million to $10 million, and no affordable homes.

   Utah Code 10-2a-501(1) and 10-2a-502(2)(e). Final study, Appendix A

3. "Perverse incentives cloud regulatory oversight"

   Until residents elect a mayor and council, a board of five runs the preliminary municipality. The owners designate the chair and three other members in the petition, and the lieutenant governor appoints them. The county appoints the fifth member within 30 days, or the four appoint the fifth. Before it asks to become a town, the board selects the independent third-party engineer who reviews and approves all building permit applications.

   Utah Code 10-2a-501(7), 10-2a-507(1)(f), 10-2a-508(1)(b)(i), and 10-2a-509(1) and (7)

4. "The feasibility study cannot test the plan it approves"

   The budget test treats the land as a town of 100 people.

   Wasatch Highlands: the study uses the development plan of the sponsor, in which a homeowners' association keeps up the new roads. In that case, the study reports a margin above 5%. If the new city kept up the new roads, the margin would be below 5%. See the first test below.

   Utah Code 10-2a-504(3) and (5). Final study, Table 3.1

5. "The law creates self-entitlement with no enforceable backstop"

   If residents do not elect a mayor and council in time, the roads and infrastructure go to the county, and the owners are liable to the county for damages. The owners post a bond for the main roads and pipes, but the bond is in favor of the preliminary municipality, not the county. The county report adds that an owner that is a limited liability company can dissolve or declare bankruptcy. This page makes no claim about the plans of any owner.

   Utah Code 10-2a-507(1)(h), 10-2a-507(2), and 10-2a-507(3)

Read the Wasatch County report

Test 1

Who keeps the roads?

Test 2

Whose lights are on?

The plan of the sponsor, as the study projects it, assumes that 75% of the new homes will be lived in full time. The county's comment letter, printed in the final study, says that the county as a whole runs about 60%, and that comparable high-end developments may run about 5% to 10%. Each house below is one of the 128 homes in the plan for the first five years. A lit window means that someone lives there full time.

Residents can elect a mayor and council only when more than 99 people live there.

Until residents elect a mayor and council, the board, on which the owners name four of five members, makes the decisions. If residents have not elected a mayor and council four years after the first home is finished, or six years after the owners file the petition to incorporate, the state dissolves the preliminary municipality.

Fewer full-time residents do not mean less property tax. A second home pays tax on its full value, without the primary-residence exemption. The consultant told the county that lower occupancy would bring "both reduced revenues, as well as reduced expense estimated on a per capita basis".

These figures scale the study's own projections (Table 3.2) to the share that you pick. They count full-time residents, as Table 3.2 does. Part 5 speaks of the population. Wasatch Highlands feasibility study, Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Utah Code 10-2a-507(3) and 10-2a-510. Utah Code 59-2-102(35) and 59-2-103(3) to (6) limit the residential exemption to a primary residence.

In court

Is Part 5 constitutional? A court case asks.

Two Grand County groups say that it is not. In February 2026, they sued four defendants in the Seventh District Court in Moab. The defendants are the Lieutenant Governor, the developer (Kane Creek Preservation and Development, LLC), Craig Weston, and Echo Canyon. The caption of the counties' brief also names the Kane Springs Improvement District and two officials. The groups are Friends of the Abajos, doing business as Kane Creek Development Watch, and Living Rivers. Wasatch County and Kane County have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the groups. news The court has not ruled.

Four claims in the complaint

Each card gives the words of the constitution, what the complaint of February 10, 2026 says, and what Part 5 says.

1. 1. A special law

   "No private or special law shall be enacted where a general law can be applicable."

   "The Legislature may not create cities or towns by special laws."

   The complaint says that Part 5 uses arbitrary classes. It says that Part 5 applies only in counties of the third to sixth class and ends in 2031. It also says that "no more than two applicants can complete the process each year." The complaint also says that Part 5 "confers special privileges on a select and finite number of property owners." It says that the law "exempts them from regulation by democratically elected county governments."

   What Part 5 says: Part 5 sets these rules, among others. The land must be in one piece and at least half undeveloped. It must be outside the first and second class counties, and at least a quarter mile from any city or town. Three or fewer owners must hold it, and all of them must agree. No one may file a request in a year after two requests are already filed. The pilot ends on January 1, 2031.

   Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section 26, and Article XI, Section 5. Complaint, first cause of action. Utah Code 10-2a-502(2) and (6)

2. 2. Cities and towns by population

   The Legislature "shall provide for the incorporation, organization, and dissolution of cities and towns and for their classification in proportion to population."

   The complaint says that a preliminary municipality is a new kind of government, neither a city nor a town. It also says that Part 5 needs no population. In its words: "There is no requirement that anyone actually live within the preliminary municipality's borders."

   What Part 5 says: Title 10 counts a preliminary municipality as a municipality. Part 5 says that the Title 10 chapter on the classification of municipalities does not apply to it. It becomes a town only after more than 99 people live there. If it does not become a town in time, the state dissolves it.

   Utah Constitution, Article XI, Section 5. Complaint, second cause of action. Utah Code 10-1-104(5)(c), 10-2a-507(3), 10-2a-509(8), and 10-2a-510

3. 3. The ripper clause

   "The Legislature shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power ... to perform any municipal functions."

   The complaint says that the board is a "special commission." It says that no voter elects its members, that they need not live there, and that private owners choose four of the five. It says that Part 5 gives this board "nearly all municipal functions, including full control over land use and zoning."

   What Part 5 says: A preliminary municipality has the powers and duties of a municipality, but it may not impose a tax or use eminent domain. The county appoints one board member, or the other four do if the county does not act in 30 days. Members need not be residents. After the first residential certificate of occupancy, the owners must replace one member with a resident. The deadline is the next general election at least 30 days later.

   Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section 28. Complaint, third cause of action. Utah Code 10-2a-509(1) to (4)

4. 4. The right to petition

   "All persons have the inherent and inalienable right to ... petition for redress of grievances."

   The complaint says that before Echo Canyon, residents petitioned the elected Grand County Commission about the development. It says that this right is gone, because no voter elects the board that now decides.

   What Part 5 says: The Lieutenant Governor holds a public hearing on the feasibility study, and the public can speak. Residents elect a mayor and council after more than 99 people live there.

   First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 1. Complaint, fourth cause of action. Utah Code 10-2a-506 and 10-2a-510

The counties' brief

On October 16, 2026, Wasatch County and Kane County filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in support of the groups. news Lawyers for both counties are listed on it, and a Wasatch County deputy county attorney signed it.

The brief centers on the ripper clause claim. It says that Part 5 "transfers consequential municipal functions to a landowner-designated governing body while leaving elected county government exposed to the consequences." It gives three concerns.

• Control apart from final responsibility. If a preliminary municipality does not become a town in time, its roads and infrastructure go to the county. The owners are liable for damages, but the brief says that "that remedy does not guarantee sufficient assets to reimburse the county." It also says that no development fee pays the county's cost to object to a feasibility study.
• Zoning before voters. The brief says: "One county appointment does not give elected county government control over the governing majority or authority to override its zoning decisions." It calls the later change to a resident member "an appointment, not an election of the board." It says: "Later electoral control cannot supply resident representation during the earlier planning and development decisions."
• Planning across the region. The brief says: "County land-use planning is necessarily regional." It adds: "The external consequences of development do not stop at the preliminary municipality's boundary."

The brief gives Willow as an example. It says that the developer first worked through the county process, and that Kane County approved a development for the area. It says that the developer then wanted "something much denser" and asked for a preliminary municipality instead. The developer is not a party to the case. This page has not checked these statements against county records.

The brief answers the 2022 Inland Port case, in which the Utah Supreme Court upheld zoning rules that "do not delegate power to any outside group or entity." The brief says that Part 5 differs, because it "transfers the power to make governmental choices to that body."

The brief also sets limits on its own argument. It says that the safeguards of Part 5 "are important." It says that its concern is "possible unrecovered public expense, not automatic county liability for every developer debt." It says that the counties "do not contend that every appointed public body is unconstitutional," and that "the Counties claim no perpetual zoning control within a valid municipality." It says that the three concerns "warrant the PML be found unconstitutional under the Ripper Clause's limits on the delegation of municipal functions."

Wasatch and Kane County's Joint Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs, Case No. 260700008, October 16, 2026, pages 4 to 25. Utah Code 10-2a-507(3). KPCW, October 23, 2026. Kane County Commission agenda, October 13, 2026, item 7

Each county has a request inside its borders, filed by private sponsors. Wasatch Highlands, in Wasatch County, has a state hearing on October 27, 2026. Willow, in Kane County, has a revised petition with no decision yet. The state rejected the first Willow petition on September 17, 2026, because of the bond.

The hearing

The court record holds motions for summary judgment in the Echo Canyon case. This page has not read them. The court calendar sets oral arguments on the motions for October 29, 2026, in Moab. This page reports the arguments. It does not predict the result.

Sources: the complaint, as posted by Moab Sun News. The Utah Constitution: Article I, Section 1, Article VI, Section 26, Article VI, Section 28, and Article XI, Section 5. Lieutenant Governor, incorporations. Utah Courts calendar, October 29, 2026