Wasatch County strikes mitigation deal while challenging state law allowing Daniels Canyon mine

Wasatch County Administration Building. Photo: Townlift // Will Scadden

WASATCH COUNTY, Utah — After months of legal battles and contentious public meetings, Wasatch County says it has secured new protections for a proposed Daniels Canyon mine while continuing to challenge in court the state law that prevented local officials from stopping the project.

County officials announced Monday that they’ve made an agreement with Maverick Rock, the company behind the mine expansion in Daniels Canyon, that adds environmental and safety protections.

The county emphasized that the agreement is not an approval of the mine. Instead, officials say state law already allows the expansion to move forward, leaving the county’s role largely limited to seeking mitigation measures.

“Under current Utah law, Wasatch County does not have the authority to approve, deny, or stop the mine,” the county said in a statement. “State statute says mine expansion is presumed permitted as long as the operator follows state and federal laws.”

The announcement comes after a failed appeal from the county last year and a public hearing in May in which county council members questioned Maverick Rock representatives about potential impacts to Daniels Creek, Highway 40 traffic, air quality, noise, erosion, and reclamation.

County says state law tied its hands

The dispute centers on Maverick Rock’s proposal to expand mining rights associated with its existing Goshen operation onto approximately 426 acres near Highway 40 in Daniels Canyon.

The company argues the expansion is allowed under Utah’s vested mining statute because the Daniels Canyon property contains the same mineral trend as its existing mine.

Wasatch County disagreed with that interpretation and initially refused to process the application. Maverick Rock sued, and a district court ruled the county must follow the procedure outlined in state law. County officials have appealed that decision.

At the May public hearing, council members repeatedly expressed frustration that the project was not subject to the county’s normal conditional use permit process.

The council ultimately voted unanimously to find there was sufficient evidence of potential imminent risks to public health, safety and welfare, a procedural step under state law that would have required Maverick Rock to submit a mitigation plan.

Settlement replaces next step in process

Rather than continuing through that process, the county and Maverick Rock reached what officials describe as a limited settlement agreement.

According to the county, the agreement secures protections that Maverick Rock otherwise would not have been required to provide under the vested mining statute.

Those protections include:

• Oversight of permits and licensing requirements.
• Water resource protection and baseline monitoring.
• Safeguards for Daniels Creek, nearby culverts and flood-prone areas.
• Compliance with state air quality requirements.
• Noise limits tied to state permits.
• Highway 40 traffic safety measures coordinated with UDOT.
• Pre-mining photographic documentation to assist future reclamation efforts.

County officials said community feedback and technical input from mining and environmental experts helped shape the agreement.

The county also said the settlement reduces the financial risk of continued litigation while preserving its legal challenge to the district court’s interpretation of the law.

“This limited agreement provides the maximum safeguards allowed under state law,” the county said.

Maverick Rock: Mine is already heavily regulated

Throughout the May public hearing, Maverick Rock representatives maintained they are operating within state law and that mining operations are already subject to extensive oversight.

Owner Marty White told council members the company is regulated by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, air quality and water quality agencies, federal mine safety regulators, and UDOT.

“We are probably the most regulated operation in the state of Utah,” White said.

Company officials also disputed suggestions that the project would immediately resemble a large open-pit mine, explaining they intend to begin under a small mine permit before potentially expanding under a larger state permit if exploration proves successful.

Maverick Rock argued the county had not presented the “clear and convincing evidence” required under state law to show the project would imminently endanger public health, safety, or welfare.

Appeal continues

Although the settlement establishes mitigation requirements for the Daniels Canyon project, it does not resolve the larger legal dispute.

Wasatch County said it will continue appealing the district court’s interpretation of Utah’s vested mining statute, arguing the law improperly limits local governments’ ability to regulate mine expansions that cross county lines and bypass traditional land-use review.

County officials said the appeal remains active as they seek to restore greater local authority over future mining proposals.