This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Though the site of a proposed gravel pit near Torrey is surrounded by county lands zoned for agricultural and residential use, Wayne County may not have much authority to regulate what happens on that parcel, according to legal advice fielded by county authorities as they decide whether to approve the controversial project.

Even though the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration itself insisted the county should consider whether to rezone the property for industrial uses, according to Commissioner Newell Harward, the conditional use permit the County Commission is expected to approve Monday may not mean much.

"No matter whet we do, I suspect it will wind up in court. It has become a way bigger issue than this gravel pit," he said. "We are getting conflicting advice and we don't want to offend SITLA."

The commission recently agreed, after much back-and-forth, to not act on a rezone request after being told that land owned by federal and state governments is exempt from local zoning ordinances, Harward said.

The gravel operation is tiny by SITLA standards, but it is exposing a legal nuance that state trust lands officials have danced around as they go about their business negotiating deals that optimize revenue from the 3 million acres of trust lands, checker-boarded across the state. Some observers now predict the controversy will prompt intervention from the Legislature or the Utah Supreme Court.

When it comes to state lands, counties have no legal basis for asserting a zoning preference. Yet for years, trust lands officials have insisted their permittees obtain zoning variances and conditional use permits from the counties.

"SITLA has gone to as great a length as we can to give local government input on land use. We tried to give the counties as much say as they feel they need," said John Andrews, general counsel for the agency, which manages 3 million acres to support Utah schools. "If the county says this is not the place for it, we take no for an answer."

A few years ago, for example, Wayne County commissioners objected to the sale of a conservation easement on Parker Mountain, and SITLA pulled the deal off the table.

SITLA parcels usually share the use — agricultural or industrial — of the public lands they're embedded in. But sometimes these state sections are in places where a proposed use is incompatible with adjacent zoning.

That's the case in Teasdale, where longtime Loa-based contractor Brown Brothers Construction is developing a gravel pit east of the historic ranching hamlet, home to artists and alfalfa fields just upwind from the picturesque tourist destination of Torrey.

Wayne County's zoning board in April recommended granting both a variance and conditional use permit. The Utah Association of Counties stepped in, challenging whether the counties have such jurisdiction.

The County Commission agreed to not consider the rezone request, but will move ahead on a conditional use permit, which governs hours of operation, dust control and other operational concerns.

Andrews believes crafting that permit — which regulates a private activity on land that happens to be publicly owned — is within the power of the county.

But Harward is not so sure.

"Some of the council we have is: We don't have authority to zone. A conditional use permit is a sub-issue of zoning, so here we are," he said. "I suppose it will be tested in court, which I believe it ought to be," he said.

Brown's current pit near Loa has been depleted, so it is looking for another place to quarry gravel for its upcoming road-work contracts on nearby State Routes 12 and 24.

Many in the west part of Wayne County support the project because it would sustain employment opportunities, and Brown is a respected local business with a great track record of supporting the community. Torrey and Teasdale residents say the project would undermine the county's tourism base and make a mockery of Wayne County's zoning ordinance and county plan.

SITLA's own 2006 plan for its Wayne County holdings identifies this 120-acre parcel, which is strewn with lava boulders, as a "high priority for privatization," meaning it should be sold for residential development.

But water hookups have proven scarce in Teasdale, and local road projects have since created a need for the parcel's gravel, a low-value fill material that must be mined near road projects to make such quarries economically viable.

"Sand and gravel is all about haulage costs," Andrews said. "If you are concerned about truck traffic, do you want to be hauling gravel much farther?"

But the site is on windswept rise above the Fremont River, and many nearby residents fear dust would blow around. Testing indicates the soils here contain dangerous levels of radioactivity, according to Brian Moench of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, which opposes siting gravel pits near homes.

Children who live nearby would be especially at risk, because they "have longer for developing a cancer than an adult," Moench said, and the particles would "blow around and settle on people's yards" when winds rise above 10 mph."

The project would require an air-quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Quality.

Brian Maffly covers public lands for The Salt Lake Tribune. Maffly can be reached at bmaffly@sltrib.com or 801-257-8713.

Twitter: @brianmaffly