Grand County may be on a collision course with the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration: The county wants SITLA to abide by its land-use ordinances; the agency says it need not comply.

Both sides say they'd like to avoid a battle over a proposed site for disposing of brine water produced by oil and gas wells. But neither side seems to want to give much.

"It was a surprise," said County Council Chairwoman Audrey Graham, "because in the past [on other matters] they have agreed to go by county zoning laws."

Drilling for oil and natural gas also brings up water -- the kind unfit for drinking -- and that's a big concern in Grand County, where officials have placed a moratorium on "produced water" disposal sites.

Despite that, SITLA notified Grand County that it had leased land near Cisco, northeast of Moab, to Park City-based Summit Operating LLC to create an injection well for the disposal of water from oil and gas wells.

The county has no jurisdiction over the development of such wells on SITLA land, said John Andrews, the agency's chief legal counsel.

Summit Operating still must seek a permit from the state Division of Oil, Gas & Mining, which has authority from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to oversee such wells. EPA regulations guide the permitting process, said Clint Dworshak, the division's compliance manager.

Grand County has spent several years developing an ordinance to regulate "produced water" disposal sites to ensure they don't affect drinking water supplies or the Colorado River, explained County Councilman Chris Baird.

"My major concern is that in this area there is a long history of noncompliance" with federal regulations, Baird said. "Basically, we'd be overseeing [disposal sites] to make sure they maintain compliance of EPA regulations."

But for Graham, the "produced water" disposal issue is part of a broader concern when it comes to county regulations: Is SITLA a private land owner or a state land owner?

Todd Jenson, a Salt Lake City-based attorney retained by Grand County, advised the council that SITLA's authority supersedes county ordinances. Nonetheless the council appears set to negotiate conditions for the proposed injection well.

SITLA may be willing to comply with county ordinances above the surface, Andrews said. But not underground.

"If there are things the county would like to see on the well site, we'll sit down with them and see what their concerns are."

csmart@sltrib.com