Grand County, UT
Housing, jobs, water, deposits and federal obligations for this county, each figure with the release it came from. Internal point 38.97, -109.57.
Assembled 2026-10-06. Read the brief.
- 95th pct · 127th of 3,063 US counties · median $234,566
- 85th pct · 5th of 28 Utah counties · median $450,730
- 11th pct · 2,706th of 3,063 US counties · median +2.9%
- 0th pct · 28th of 28 Utah counties · median +2.9%
- US counties: not published this period
- Utah counties: not published this period
- 44th pct · 1,787th of 3,221 US counties · median 8,232
- 42nd pct · 17th of 29 Utah counties · median 8,951
- 26th pct · 2,350th of 3,221 US counties · median $1,039
- 25th pct · 22nd of 29 Utah counties · median $1,042
- 98th pct · 43rd of 3,063 US counties · median 4.3
- 85th pct · 5th of 28 Utah counties · median 8.3
Typical home value divided by the average annual wage of one covered job.
A percentile here is a min-max scaling of average rank: the smallest published value in the cohort is 0 and the largest is 100, and tied values share the average of the ranks they span. It is not the share of entities below the value, so 0 means smallest, not none below. Entities that did not publish the metric are outside the cohort entirely and are counted in neither the rank nor its denominator.
Home values #
Typical home $573,269 (Aug 2026), -1.6% over one year, +12.1% over five
- 95th pct · 127th of 3,063 US counties · median $234,566
- 85th pct · 5th of 28 Utah counties · median $450,730
| Item | Value | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| Grand County, UT | $573,269 · -1.6% 1-yr |
Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), typical value of homes in the 35th to 65th percentile, smoothed and seasonally adjusted; a model estimate of value, not a sale price. Data through Zillow Research.
Rents #
Zillow publishes no rent index for this area (ZORI covers about 1,400 counties)
- US counties: not published this period
- Utah counties: not published this period
Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI), smoothed, all homes and multifamily; price-to-rent = typical home / (typical rent × 12).
What the typical home costs to carry #
Principal and interest of $3,138 a month on $573,269 at 7.28%, against an average weekly wage worth $4,069 a month: 77.1% of one job’s pay.
- payment = P·r / (1 − (1+r)^−n), P = $573,269 × 80% = $458,615, r = 7.28%/12 (Freddie Mac PMMS via FRED, 2026-10-01), n = 360 → $3,138/mo principal and interest
- wage share = payment / (avg weekly wage $939 × 52 / 12 = $4,069) = 77% of one average job's pay (BLS QCEW 2026 Q1, all covered jobs)
- years of wages = $573,269 / ($939 × 52) = 11.7
The wage is one covered job’s average, not a household’s income, so this is the share of a single paycheque and not a mortgage underwriting ratio.
Estimate. Principal and interest on the typical home with 20% down over 30 years at this week's Freddie Mac average rate; compared with the average weekly wage of all jobs covered by unemployment insurance in the area (BLS QCEW), which is pay per job, not household income.
Jobs & wages #
6,553 jobs at 684 employers (2026 Q1); -3.7% jobs and +2.8% average weekly wage over the year
- 44th pct · 1,787th of 3,221 US counties · median 8,232
- 42nd pct · 17th of 29 Utah counties · median 8,951
| Item | Value | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| Grand County, UT | 6,553 jobs · $939/wk · -3.7% YoY |
| NAICS sector | Jobs | Avg weekly wage | Location quotient | Jobs over the year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accommodation and food services | 2,346 | $627 | 3.98 | -0.8% |
| Retail trade | 791 | $723 | 1.24 | -1.7% |
| Health care and social assistance | 517 | $1,436 | 0.52 | -5.1% |
| Construction | 283 | $1,006 | 0.82 | -3.4% |
| Arts, entertainment and recreation | 280 | $583 | 2.60 | +10.2% |
| Professional and technical services | 250 | $1,257 | 0.55 | -10.4% |
| Real estate and rental | 147 | $673 | 1.46 | -7.0% |
| Transportation and warehousing | 106 | $1,028 | 0.38 | -28.4% |
| Wholesale trade | 100 | $1,112 | 0.40 | -17.4% |
| Finance and insurance | 99 | $1,250 | 0.37 | +5.3% |
| Manufacturing | 95 | $1,291 | 0.18 | +0.0% |
| Other services | 94 | $964 | 0.48 | +0.0% |
BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, all ownerships, total covered employment in the quarter's third month; over-the-year changes as published. Suppressed cells stay blank.
Drought #
D2 severe drought
Sites found: 5, searched within 0 km of this place’s internal point. That is a disc around a point, not the area itself: sites outside the boundary are included, and sites inside it further than 0 km away are not.
US Drought Monitor current week; the highest class of any polygon containing the point.
Reservoirs #
1 USGS reservoir gauges, no capacity figures to weight
Sites found: 1, searched within 150 km of this place’s internal point. That is a disc around a point, not the area itself: sites outside the boundary are included, and sites inside it further than 150 km away are not.
| Site | Reading | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| FRUIT GROWERS RESERVOIR NEAR ORCHARD CITY, CO | 79.5 Acre-ft (USGS, no capacity on file) | 141 km |
Σ(capacity × percent full) / Σ capacity over TWDB reservoirs within 150 km. Texas only; elsewhere USGS reservoir elevation/storage is listed without a capacity to normalise by.
Stream gauges #
27 gauges · 0 flooding · 11 with quality panels averaging 70 % · 7 stale
Sites found: 27, searched within 75 km of this place’s internal point. That is a disc around a point, not the area itself: sites outside the boundary are included, and sites inside it further than 75 km away are not.
| Site | Reading | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| SAN RAFAEL RIVER NEAR GREEN RIVER, UT | flow 15.1 ft³/s · quality 50 % (2) | 70 km |
| PRICE RIVER AT WOODSIDE, UT | flow 16.8 ft³/s · quality 50 % (2) | 74 km |
| SALT CREEK NEAR MOUTH NEAR MACK, CO. | flow 86.7 ft³/s · quality 33 % (3) | 64 km |
| COLORADO RIVER NEAR COLORADO-UTAH STATE LINE | flow 1,840 ft³/s · quality 70 % (5) | 50 km |
| SAN RAFAEL RIVER AT MOUTH NEAR GREEN RIVER, UT | flow 16.5 ft³/s · quality 50 % (2) | 55 km |
| BIG SALT WASH AT FRUITA, CO. | flow 19.7 ft³/s · quality 67 % (3) · STALE | 74 km |
| GREEN RIVER AT GREEN RIVER, UT | flow 2,730 ft³/s · quality 80 % (5) | 50 km |
| COLORADO RIVER NEAR CISCO, UT | flow 2,100 ft³/s · quality 83 % (3) | 30 km |
| CASTLE CREEK BELOW CASTLE VALLEY NEAR MOAB, UT | flow 4.56 ft³/s | 35 km |
| DOLORES RIVER NEAR CISCO, UT | flow 148.0 ft³/s · quality 100 % (2) | 38 km |
USGS latest readings screened against EPA freshwater criteria (DO ≥ 5 mg/L, pH 6.5–9, conductance, turbidity, temperature); NWS flood categories where a NWPS gauge is co-located.
Groundwater #
2 wells in 1 named aquifer: Colorado Plateaus aquifers
Sites found: 2, searched within 75 km of this place’s internal point. That is a disc around a point, not the area itself: sites outside the boundary are included, and sites inside it further than 75 km away are not.
| Site | Reading | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| (D-26-22)22aab- 1 | depth 29.3 ft · 1986-12-05 | 50 km |
| Colorado Plateaus aquifers | depth 15.4 ft · 1987-01-09 | 50 km |
USGS latest daily water levels. A single latest reading says where the table is, not which way it is moving; select a well for its 365-day trace.
Water stress #
moderate (0.43)
Σ wᵢ·termᵢ / Σ wᵢ = 0.35×0.50 + 0.2×0.30 / 0.55
Banks & federal dollars #
$190.5 m in deposits at 2 offices of 2 banks (SOD June 2026); HHI 5,119, highly concentrated. $132.1 m federal obligations in FY2026 (contracts $61.5 m, direct payments $61.4 m), $20,160 per covered job
| Item | Value | Distance |
|---|---|---|
| Zions Bancorporation, N.A. | $109.9 m · 57.7% share · 1 office | |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association | $80.6 m · 42.3% share · 1 office | |
| Grand, UT | $132.1 m FY2026 · $20,160/job | |
| NORTH WIND PORTAGE, INC. | $59.1 m · top recipient FY2026 |
| Institution | Deposits | Share | Offices |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zions Bancorporation, N.A. | $109,947,000 | 57.7% | 1 |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association | $80,551,000 | 42.3% | 1 |
Deposit concentration is 5,119 across 2 banks, which the 1995 Department of Justice bank merger screen calls highly concentrated.
HHI = Σ (share %)² over 2 banks with deposits in the county = 57.7² + 42.3² = 5,119
FDIC Summary of Deposits: deposits at every insured office as of June 30, annual; HHI is the sum of squared county deposit shares (DOJ 1995 bank merger screen: 1000 / 1800). USAspending: obligations by place of performance for the latest complete federal fiscal year (Oct 1 to Sep 30), what agencies committed, not what they paid out; recipients are legal entities. Per-job divides obligations by BLS QCEW covered employment.
Federal obligations #
USAspending place-of-performance obligations for FY2026, by awarding agency.
| Awarding agency | Obligations |
|---|---|
| Department of Energy | $59,292,604 |
| Social Security Administration | $50,499,049 |
| Department of Transportation | $11,150,686 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs | $4,691,596 |
| Department of Agriculture | $2,837,751 |
| Department of Health and Human Services | $1,508,111 |
| Department of the Interior | $1,289,125 |
| Department of Housing and Urban Development | $722,761 |
| Railroad Retirement Board | $80,196 |
| Department of Education | $25,585 |
| Federal Communications Commission | $10,346 |
| Small Business Administration | $0 |
That is $20,160 per covered job, against 6,553 jobs in the 2026 Q1 QCEW quarter.
per job = FY2026 obligations $132.1 m / 6,553 covered jobs (BLS QCEW 2026 Q1, all ownerships) = $20,160
USAspending obligations are recorded where the work is performed, so a prime award performed here is counted here even when the recipient is headquartered elsewhere. Recipients are legal entities, never people.
National context, not this county #
These are United States, single-gauge, single-state and port series. None of them is keyed to this county.
| Series | Latest | As of | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi River at Memphis, stage · ft | not published | not published | |
| Mississippi River at St. Louis, stage · ft | not published | not published | |
| Ohio River at Louisville, stage · ft | 12.69 | 2026-10-05 | +3.3% |
| Missouri River at St. Joseph, stage · ft | not published | not published | |
| Colorado River below Hoover Dam, flow (Hoover releases) · ft³/s | 5,170.00 | 2026-02-05 | -25.3% |
| Texas reservoirs, statewide percent full · % | 72.60 | 2026-10-06 | +0.0% |
| Laredo truck crossings, monthly · trucks | 258,700.00 | 2026-08-01 | -0.4% |
| Los Angeles + Long Beach container volume, annual · TEU | 10,513,167.00 | 2023-01-01 | -13.5% |
| Containerships waiting for a berth, all US ports · ships | 6.00 | 2026-09-22 | -14.3% |
| Shanghai to Los Angeles container rate · $ per 40 ft box | 6,830.00 | 2026-08-01 | +7.4% |
| US diesel retail price · $ per gallon | unavailable | not published | |
| WTI crude oil, spot · $ per barrel | 96.16 | 2026-09-29 | -3.2% |
| 30-year fixed mortgage rate · % | 7.28 | 2026-10-01 | +3.6% |
| Housing starts, annual rate · thousands of units | 1,275.00 | 2026-08-01 | -2.6% |
| Building permits, annual rate · thousands of units | 1,403.00 | 2026-08-01 | -2.1% |
| Case-Shiller US home price index · index, Jan 2000 = 100 | 337.31 | 2026-07-01 | +0.1% |
| Unemployment rate · % | 4.20 | 2026-09-01 | +2.4% |
| US goods and services trade balance, monthly · $ millions | -105,572.00 | 2026-08-01 | -13.7% |
| Retail sales excluding food services, monthly · $ millions | 646,347.00 | 2026-08-01 | +1.1% |
The indicator registry has no county-keyed series and no geographic selection: every entry is national, a named gauge, a single state or a port. They are here as the backdrop the county's own numbers move against, and they are never this county's readings.
What changed #
Grand County, UT: 14 findings, 1 at an alert level, 5 at a watch level and 8 noted
alertGrand County, UT's covered employment is -3.7% against a year earlier, an alert level here: covered employment at least 3 percent below the same quarter a year earlier (BLS QCEW over-the-year percent change, as published; convention chosen for this dashboard, not an official level). The previous published period is not in this table, so this is a standing level rather than a change.
Period 2026 Q1.Show the arithmetic
- test: jobs.yoy.emp = -3.7 <= -3
BLS QCEW over-the-year percent change, as published; convention chosen for this dashboard, not an official level
watchGrand County, UT's years of wages of 11.7 ranks 43rd of 3,063 US counties, a watch level here: years of wages in the top tenth of US counties (position among the counties that published both a ZHVI value and a QCEW average weekly wage; not an official level). The previous published period is not in this table, so this is a standing level rather than a change.
Period 2026-08.Show the arithmetic
- test: yearsOfWages percentile = 98.62834748530372 >= 90
- typical home value / (average weekly wage × 52); one average covered job, not a household
position among the counties that published both a ZHVI value and a QCEW average weekly wage; not an official level
watchGrand County, UT's covered employment is -3.7% against a year earlier, a watch level here: covered employment below the same quarter a year earlier (BLS QCEW over-the-year percent change, as published; not an official level). The previous published period is not in this table, so this is a standing level rather than a change.
Period 2026 Q1.Show the arithmetic
- test: jobs.yoy.emp = -3.7 < 0
BLS QCEW over-the-year percent change, as published; not an official level
watchGrand County, UT's years of wages is 11.7, a watch level here: typical home value worth 10 or more years of one average covered wage (typical home value / (average weekly wage × 52), one average covered job rather than a household; convention chosen for this dashboard, not an official level). The previous published period is not in this table, so this is a standing level rather than a change.
Period 2026-08.Show the arithmetic
- test: yearsOfWages = 11.74057834452396 >= 10
- typical home value / (average weekly wage × 52); one average covered job, not a household
typical home value / (average weekly wage × 52), one average covered job rather than a household; convention chosen for this dashboard, not an official level
watchGrand County, UT's typical home value is -1.6% against a year earlier, a watch level here: typical home value below a year ago (arithmetic on Zillow ZHVI, county and metro files; not an official level). The previous published period is not in this table, so this is a standing level rather than a change.
Period 2026-08.Show the arithmetic
- test: home.yoyPct = -1.6199816734295052 < 0
arithmetic on Zillow ZHVI, county and metro files; not an official level
Read all 12 findings in the full brief
Every finding is produced by a fixed rule table and a fixed sentence for each rule. Nothing here is generated prose.