Friday, January 16, 2026

2026 Legislative Preview

The 2026 General Session of the Utah Legislature begins next week. Below are summaries (written by the water attorneys at Smith Hartvigsen) of the water-related bills that have been released so far. As the session goes along, additional water bills will certainly be released.

HB 13 – Municipal Services Fees and Political Subdivision Lien Amendments
(Rep. Paul A. Cutler)

House Bill 13 seeks to revise Utah Code sections 10-6-106, 10-7-14, 10-8-22 and 17B-1-902.1 to define two new terms and revise various existing terms. The bill also seeks to enact Utah Code sections 10-6-161 and 10-6-162. The new code provisions authorize a municipality or special district to charge interest on past due fees (including water fees), collect a one-time penalty on past due fees as an administrative cost, and place a political subdivision lien on property for certain past due services.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 19 – Drinking Water Utilities Amendments
(Rep. Colin Jack)

The Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Interim Committee recommended House Bill 19, which addresses security concerns at public water facilities. The bill seeks to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, enacting a new section of the Act to require facilities to create an emergency response plan, and requiring the Director of the Division of Drinking Water to ensure that facilities have an emergency response plan. Broadly, the plan must address system security, vulnerability assessment, breach reporting, and compliance with applicable state and federal requirements.

The bill also eliminates an express mandate that the Director of the Division of Drinking Water study and report to the legislature on opportunities for water providers and governmental entities to “find greater efficiencies” related to “water use and conservation” and “administrative and economic efficiencies.” A broader mandate to advise, consult, and cooperate with other government entities in furtherance of the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act would remain.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 60 – Water Rights Amendments
(Rep. David Shallenberger)

House Bill 60, which the Legislative Water Development Commission has recommended favorably, would make several modifications to the change application process. First, it would clarify that the State Engineer may only consider a protest on a water right application “to the extent the protest addresses a basis for which the state engineer may approve or reject the application,” potentially limiting baseless protests.

Second, the bill would clarify that the State Engineer is not required to publish notice of temporary one-year change applications, and that applicants whose temporary change applications are rejected may file a permanent or fixed time change application.

Third, the bill would provide more detail regarding the State Engineer’s ability to determine whether a water right application would prove detrimental to the public welfare. It would direct the State Engineer to “consider only issues directly related to …the beneficial use of water; or...the quantity, quality, or availability of water in the state.” It would also limit the State Engineer from considering or relying upon considerations regarding: (1) a potential detriment to the public welfare if another regulatory agency is better suited to address the potential detrimental effect; (b) the potential detriment is based upon the volume of water on or flow of water across sovereign land, unless directed otherwise by statute; or (c) the factors that would support a finding of a detrimental impact to the public welfare are: (i) not directly associated with the beneficial use of water or the quantity, quality, or availability of water; or (ii) are primarily related to indirect or negligible environmental, economic social, or other effects of the proposed plan.

Lastly, the bill would specify that a person may only seek judicial review of an order of the State Engineer if “the person has suffered or will suffer a particularized injury from an action taken by the state engineer…”

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 63 – Livestock Watering Amendments
(Rep. Scott Chew)

House Bill 63 would establish a new legal framework for obtaining formal recognition of “sub-basin livestock watering claims.” The Bill defines key terms such as “livestock” (domestic animals raised for profit or personal use), “small pond” (water impoundment up to 900 square feet and 5 feet deep), and “large pond” ( all ponds larger than small ponds). The bill allows water right holders to submit sub-basin livestock water right claims to the State Engineer as diligence claims, water user claims in the context of a general adjudication, or change applications, with specific requirements including identifying a sub-drainage area boundary. The claims are subject to forfeiture for nonuse and other requirements related to a diligence claim, water user claim, or change application.

Claimants may only base sub-basin livestock watering claims on privately owned land or public land with a grazing permit, and claims must be based on historically documented livestock watering rights. The bill would restrict water right holders from increasing their beneficial use beyond historical levels, require limits on water depletion, and prohibit moving water between sub-basins if doing so would impair existing water rights. Additionally, the bill would regulate pond construction by allowing small ponds to be built without a change application and requiring approval for large ponds, which must also meet dam safety requirements.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 69 – Drinking Water Restructuring Amendments
(Rep. Carl Albrecht)

House Bill 69 is intended to create new tools which can be utilized by the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to intervene in the management of public water systems with chronic violations of the state’s Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Current law allows the DDW Director to file a civil suit for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction, for violations of the SDWA which could trigger the issuance of a compliance order by the Director. This bill would expand the basis for civil suits to include the enforcement of rules created by the issuance of orders, including orders to a public water supplier to discontinue using unsatisfactory sources of drinking water, to notify the public of the need to boil water, or to take remedial actions to protect or improve a water system.

The remedies available to the Director by initiating a civil suit would also be expanded to allow the court to appoint a receiver to take possession of and manage a public water system when a water system’s violations pose a serious health risk and the water supplier is unwilling or unable to take corrective or remedial action. The court could also require a water supplier to divest ownership of a public water system, if such an action is needed to ensure long-term compliance with the SDWA.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 76 – Data Center Water Policy Amendments
(Rep. Jill Koford)

House Bill 76 seeks to enact Utah Code 73-5-8.3, which imposes new reporting requirements upon large data centers. These requirements include communication with the Division of Water Rights on water sourcing, amount of water to be used annually, projected discharges by type and amount, treatment of discharges, efforts to reduce water consumption, and efforts to protect the public from polluted water. This bill will also allow enforcement of these requirements by daily fines upon the large data center. Additionally, before a land use authority can approve a land use application for a new large data center, the land use authority must notify the Division of Water Rights, Division of Water Quality, and any relevant water supplier.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 154 – Water Loss Study Amendments
(Rep. Doug Owens)

House Bill 154 seeks to require the Division of Water Resources, in conjunction with the Division of Drinking Water, to conduct a study regarding water loss by public water systems. The study would compile and analyze water loss estimates based on system size and would be based on data provided by public water systems from 2015 to 2024. The study would also provide industry standard water loss principles and practices, and would make recommendations on how to improve water loss estimates and how to reduce actual water losses. The Division would report its findings under the study to the Legislative Water Development Commission by October 31, 2026.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 155 – Water Rates Amendments
(Rep. Doug Owens)

House Bill 155 seeks to modify Utah Code section 73-10-32.5 regarding culinary water pricing structures. The bill would require that a retail water supplier that provides culinary water for outdoor use must incorporate at least three increasing block units into the water rate structure for a customer classification that primarily serves residential customers. The structure would include (1) one block unit of water representing efficient indoor water use; (2) one block unit of water representing efficient water use that includes outdoor water use; and (3) one block unit of water representing wasteful or excessive water use. The structure would have to be in place by July 1, 2027. The bill also adds language that the rate increases for block units should be “sufficient to provide a clear price signal or financial incentive to a customer to consider reducing the customer’s water use.”

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 187 – Water Amendments
(Rep. Colin Jack)

Under House Bill 187, water rights owned or leased by a water conservancy district which are diverted or used in the lower basin of the Colorado River—essentially the area which drains into the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam—would be exempt from claims of abandonment or forfeiture under Utah Code Section 73-1-4. Currently, public water suppliers such as water conservancy districts are protected from claims of abandonment or forfeiture so long as their water rights are being held for the “reasonable future water requirement of the public,” evidenced by a 40-year plan for future use of the water rights. In addition, the bill would prohibit filing instream flow change applications under Utah Code Section 73-3-30 where the point of diversion is located in the lower basin.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 247 – Great Salt Lake Funding Amendments
(Rep. Raymond P. Ward)

House Bill 247 proposes a change to the expenditure of revenue generated by the brine shrimp tax. The revenue would be deposited into the Sovereign Lands Management Account, and $125,000 would be used as directed by the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council for the benefit of the lake and the remainder would be used to lease water rights to be deposited into the lake or to fund projects that benefits the brine shrimp population in the lake.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

HB 251 – Diligence Claims Water Amendments
(Rep. Scott Chew)

House Bill 251 seeks to amend Utah Code section 73-5-13 regarding diligence claims. The bill proposes a number of edits to clarify and update the language of the statute. The bill also proposes to add a new section to the statute regarding stockwatering ponds. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a claimant has the right to the use of a stockwatering pond if the claimant files a diligence claim with the State Engineer (with some requirements omitted) and pays the diligence claim fees – so long as the pond is “in support of a homestead parcel” and the pond existed before the patent was issued for the homestead parcel. The presumption may be rebutted by a protesting party who asserts impairment of their water right, but the State Engineer may not consider claims of impairment unless the issue is raised in a timely protest.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

SB 21 – Geothermal Amendments
(Sen. Michael McKell)

The ownership of geothermal resources—defined as the natural heat of the earth and the energy which can be extracted from it—has been a controversial topic in other states with geothermal development, with some courts and state legislatures vesting the right to geothermal resources in the owner of the subsurface mineral estate, and others in the owner of the surface estate. Senate Bill 21 vests geothermal resource rights in the owner of the surface estate, unless the geothermal resource is otherwise expressly conveyed or reserved. The bill also clarifies that a water right is needed to use a geothermal fluid, which is water and steam at temperatures higher than 100 degrees centigrade (down from 120 degrees under current law) naturally present in a geothermal system.

The bill also relaxes requirements for submitting applications, well logs, or other records for wells regulated by the Division of Water Rights by giving the State Engineer discretion on whether to impose such requirements. It also clarifies the procedures and terms for surety bonds and increases the Division’s flexibility in imposing and requiring maintenance of the bonds.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

SB 46 – Water Wise Landscaping Amendments
(Sen. Keven J. Stratton)

Senate Bill 46 seeks to amend Utah law governing landscaping and outdoor water use at state government facilities to strengthen water-efficiency standards and to clarify key definitions. The bill limits the amount of non-functional lawn or turf allowed at state facilities built or reconstructed after May 4, 2022, generally capping such turf at the lesser of 20% of landscaped grounds or the applicable local ordinance and prohibiting it in park strips unless an exemption is granted by the Division of Water Resources. The bill also requires state agencies to restrict overhead spray irrigation during daytime hours and to implement efficient irrigation technologies and maintenance practices. For facilities built or reconstructed on or after May 6, 2026, the bill further requires water-wise landscaping, including canopy coverage of at least 50% of facility grounds (which may include functional turf), subject to local ordinances.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

SB 130 – River Restoration Amendments
(Sen. Lincoln Fillmore)

Senate Bill 130 seeks to modify how the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands expends money on Jordan River improvement projects. The bill proposes that each year, at least 2% of the Outdoor Adventure Infrastructure Restricted Account will be used by the Division for Jordan River recreational access grants. The bill also proposes a new code section under which the Division may expend money for enhancing safety, recreation, and conservation along the Jordan River; create partnerships to increase access to recreational activities on the Jordan River; contracting with law enforcement to provide patrol, security, and law enforcement along the Jordan River; and provide trail maintenance, invasive species removal, environmental education, and other services associated with the Jordan River. The Division is mandated to consult with the Jordan River Commission on proposed expenditures.

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

Monday, December 29, 2025

Nielsen v. Cronquist

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in Nielsen v. Cronquist. The case addressed the issue of awarding attorney fees in water cases.

The Nielsens and the Cronquists were neighboring landowners in Smithfield, Utah. The parties sued each other over a number of issues, including boundary issues and water issues. The Nielsens' parcel included a retention pond that stored water from Swamp Springs, where "all parties enjoy[ed] established water rights." Two water lines extended from the pond across the Nielsens' property to the Cronquists' property. One line provided water for irrigation and the other line provided water for a horse trough. The Nielsens' parcel also included a water pump that pulled water from Miles Spring. This pump and associated water line provided culinary water to the Nielsens' home and to the Cronquists' home. The Cronquists paid the Nielsens for the electricity required to pump the spring water to the Cronquists' home.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Nielsens disconnected the water line to the Cronquists' horse trough and also intermittently turned off the valve controlling the irrigation water. The parties brought competing claims against each other related to the water, including the Cronquists alleging that the Nielsens had interfered with their water rights and the Nielsens alleging that the Cronquists were "illegally diverting water" from Miles Spring and wrongfully installing water lines across the Nielsens' property. 
Following a five-day trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the Nielsens. The court concluded that the Nielsens had wrongfully interfered with the Cronquists' water rights in Swamp Springs and that the Nielsens' claims regarding the Miles Spring water were "without merit" and "improperly motivated." The district court also awarded attorney fees to the Cronquists based on Utah Code section 73-2-28 (which allows for attorney fees in cases involving "injuries caused by a diversion of water in violation of an existing water right) and Utah Code section 78B-5-825 (which allows for attorney fees in cases where a claim is found to be "without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith). The Cronquists' attorneys filed affidavits and time records supporting their claimed attorney fees. Because the Cronquists could only collect attorney fees on the water claims (and not the boundary claims and other claims in the case), the attorneys noted that some time entries (related to work solely on water issues) should be collected at 100% while other time entries (related to work on water issues and other case issues) should be collected at 33%. The court determined that the Cronquists' attorneys had "made reasonable efforts in calculating attorney fees" and granted the award of fees.
The Nielsens appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. The Nielsens asserted that the district court had incorrectly determined the amount of reasonable attorney fees. The Court noted that the Nielsens did not challenge the determination that the Cronquists were entitled to attorney fees, but rather the amount of the fees that were awarded. The Court determined that the affidavits and time entries provided by the Cronquists' attorneys provided a reasonable and rational basis for the fees awarded. The Court therefore concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion on the amount of attorney fees awarded.
To read the full opinion, click here.

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Online Application Portal

The Utah Division of Water Rights has announced a new "Application and Filing Payment Portal" that allows for online filing of water applications. The following applications can now be filed online:
  • Application to Appropriate
  • Change Application
  • Exchange Application
  • Report of Conveyance
  • Segregation Request
  • Consolidation Request
The filing portal can be accessed by clicking here.

Monday, October 20, 2025

Water Horse Resources v. Wilhelmsen

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the case of Water Horse Resources LLC v. Wilhelmsen. This case focused on a proposal to divert water from the Colorado River system in Utah and to use the water in Colorado.

Water Horse filed an export application with the Utah State Engineer to divert 55,000 acre-feet of water from the Green River in Daggett County, Utah. The water was to be piped across Wyoming and used somewhere along the Front Range in Colorado. The application received numerous protests, and the State Engineer held an administrative hearing on the application. The State of Colorado sent a letter stating that it believed that Water Horse was required to follow Colorado's laws and procedures for water rights administration. The Utah State Engineer ultimately concluded that the application did not meet the approval criteria contained in Utah's water export statutes (Utah Code sections 73-3a-101 to -109), and the State Engineer therefore issued an order rejecting the application. Water Horse requested reconsideration, which the State Engineer did not grant. Water Horse appealed to the district court.

In the district court, Water Horse and the State Engineer filed competing motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Engineer. Water Horse appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

Water Horse argued that the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact ("Upper Compact") preempts Utah's export statutes. Specifically, Water Horse cited the Upper Compact language that states that "no State shall deny the right of another signatory State, any person, or entity of any signatory State to acquire rights to the use of water ... or regulating water in an upper signatory State for consumptive use in a lower signatory State, when such use is within the apportionment to such lower State." The Court determined, however, that the Upper Compact and Utah's export statutes do not conflict. The Court noted that the Upper Compact allowed Water Horse to file for the water use but did not guarantee that the water use would be approved. "The Upper Compact only prohibits a state from denying a right to acquire rights to the use of water; it does not guarantee that an applicant will acquire the particular right it seeks." The Court further concluded that the export statutes do not "impede the congressionally ratified purpose of the Upper Compact," but actually further that purpose.  

Water Horse further argued that it had satisfied the criteria of the export statutes. The Court disagreed. The statutes require an applicant to show that "the water can be transported, measured, delivered, and beneficially used in the recipient state." The Court concluded that Water Horse could not meet this requirement because Water Horse had not filed any application or received any approvals from the State of Colorado for the beneficial use of the water in Colorado. "The reason to believe standard may be low, but it is not so low that an applicant can present a 'we'll figure it out as we go' proposal and obtain an appropriation."

The Court also reviewed and rejected several other minor arguments made by Water Horse. The Court therefore affirmed the district court and upheld the State Engineer's rejection of Water Horse's application.

To read the full opinion, click here.

Friday, August 15, 2025

Marriott v. Wilhelmsen

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the case of Marriott v. Wilhelmsen. This case focuses on the following question: If a person dies while they are challenging the State Engineer's denial of their Application to Appropriate, does their legal challenge die with them?

In 1997, Randy Marriott filed an Application to Appropriate, in which he sought the right to divert and use outflow water from a treatment plant for irrigation and stockwatering uses. In 2018, the State Engineer rejected the Application and also denied Randy's request for reconsideration. Randy then filed an action in district court seeking judicial review of the State Engineer's decision. While the case was pending in the district court, Randy passed away. Randy's attorneys filed a motion with the district court to substitute Kami Marriott, who was the personal representative of Randy's estate, as the plaintiff so that the case could continue. The district court, however, denied the motion and dismissed the case. Kami appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

Rule 25(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides that substitution of a deceased party is allowed only if "(1) the claims survived the party’s death; (2) the proposed substitute is a proper party; and (3) the motion is timely." The Court began its decision by noting that Kami had the burden to demonstrate that Randy's legal claims survived his death. 

The Court first examined if Randy's claims survived his death under common law. Kami asserted that Randy's claims "related to real property or property rights," and therefore survived under common law. The Court disagreed because Randy never had a perfected water right and that the Application to Appropriate created no right to water. The Court declined to extend the common law to protect Randy's claims because Randy had "no present property interest."

The Court then examined if any statutory provisions allowed Randy's claims to survive his death. Kami asserted that because the Utah water code allows Applications to Appropriate to be assigned to new owners, that claims related to the denial of an Application to Appropriate should survive death. The Court disagreed and noted that assignability and survival are not the same thing. The Court held that because Kami could not point to any statute that would allow for Randy's claims to survive his death, the district court was correct in dismissing Randy's claims following his death.

In the end, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision that Kami could not be substituted as a plaintiff for Randy and that the case should therefore be dismissed.

To read the full opinion, click here.

Monday, August 11, 2025

Hall v. Springville City

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in the case of Hall v. Springville City. This case focuses on Springville City's ownership claims to water rights that were included in the Proposed Determination for the Hobble Creek area. 

The case concerns water rights that were originally associated with the Anderson Ranch and Clark Ranch in Hobble Creek Canyon. The ranches were homesteaded in the late 1800s, and water rights were established by diligence (i.e., by diversion and use of surface water prior to 1903). In 1928, the Springville Irrigation Company was formed, and the Andersons and Clarks conveyed irrigation water rights to the Company in exchange for water shares. In the 1940s, the City determined to buy water rights in Hobble Creek Canyon in order to expand its water system to serve its growing population. The City acquired the Anderson Ranch and the Clark Ranch, along with all water rights and all Company water shares associated with the ranches. A few years later, the City sold the ranches to Ralph Phillips. The land deed noted that "All water and water rights heretofore used on the aforesaid granted premises have been separately sold and transferred and this conveyance is made subject to the reservation of all water rights excepting only a flood water right to which the cultivated or improved part of the aforesaid granted premises shall be entitled when and as long as such flood water is available." The City and Mr. Phillips subsequently entered into agreements allowing Mr. Phillips to use the water rights and water shares until the City needed the water for its own purposes.

Decades later, the subsequent owners of the ranches filed Diligence Claims and Water Users Claims asserting year-round rights from springs for irrigation, domestic, and stockwatering purposes. These asserted water rights were included in the Proposed Determination published in 1986. The City filed objections to the Proposed Determination, asserting that the water rights were invalid because (among other things) the City was "the owner of the entire flow of water from the sources given" for the water rights. 

In 2020, the City filed motions for summary judgment on its objection, in which the City sought to have the district court declare the water rights invalid because the landowners' predecessors had deeded all water rights to the City in the 1940s. The landowners opposed the motions and argued, among other things, that the "flood water" language in the 1940s deed gave them a legitimate basis for their water rights. The Special Master ruled in the City's favor, which the district court later confirmed. The landowners appealed the case to the Utah Court of Appeals.

The Court began its opinion by determining that when the City acquired title to the ranches, the City also acquired all water rights and all water shares. The Court then examined the "flood water" language from the 1940s deed and determined that the language did not convey any water rights from the City to Mr. Phillips but, instead, granted Mr. Phillips the ability to take advantage of any natural flooding that occurred; i.e., any water that naturally escaped the stream channel during periods of high flow. The Court further noted that even if the interpretation of "flood water" was ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence supported the City's assertion that it did not convey any water rights to Mr. Phillips. Additionally, the Court noted that the Utah Constitution prohibits municipalities from selling or conveying away its water rights, which further confirms that the City did not convey any water rights to Mr. Phillips. Finally, the Court disagreed with the landowners' assertion that the City and Mr. Phillips entered into an exchange of water rights.

The Court also examined the landowners' claim that they had been denied due process rights because they had not been given "adequate notice" of the City's claims of ownership of the water rights. The Court determined that the City's objection was satisfactory under the relevant statutes at the time and that the landowners were given sufficient opportunity to engage in discovery and litigate the relevant issues in the adjudication. 

Based on these determinations, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the water rights were invalid.

(The attorneys at Smith Hartvigsen were proud to represent Springville City in this case.)

To read the full opinion, click here.

New Proposed Fee for Public Water Systems

The Utah Division of Drinking Water has issued its proposed new fee policy for public water systems. The fee is based on water delivered for human consumption and other domestic uses, including landscaping, and is set to go into effect in July 2026. The proposed fee is $0.0331 per 1,000 gallons. It is estimated that the fee will be about $0.38 per month, or $4.59 per year, per connection. 

There are several exceptions to the fee, including water wholesaled to another public water system, water used only for agricultural purposes that is not delivered through a public drinking water system, and water delivered to an end user for industrial use. There are also conservation incentives that may reduce the fee by up to 10%. 

There will be several public meetings to discuss the fee, including the following:

Monday, August 18, 2025 at 2:00 pm (DEQ board room, 195 N 1950 W, Salt Lake City)

Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 2:30 pm (virtual meeting online)

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 at 11:30 am (presentation at Rural Water Association of Utah's fall conference)

The official fee hearing will be held on Thursday, September 11, 2025, but the time has not yet been determined.

For more information about the proposed fee and the planned meetings, click here.

To read the draft fee policy, click here.



Monday, August 4, 2025

Adoption of the Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan

The Division of Water Rights has published notice of its intent to adopt the Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan on October 1, 2025. A copy of the draft Plan can be viewed by clicking here.

For additional information regarding the notice, click here.

Monday, June 23, 2025

Public Meeting to Discuss Draft Distribution Plan for Great Salt Lake

The Utah Division of Water Rights has set a public meeting to discuss a draft of the Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan. Information about the public meeting is included below.

In accordance with Chapter 73-33, Utah Code Annotated, the State Engineer has been directed to 'regulate the measurement, appropriation, apportionment, and distribution of water within the Great Salt Lake meander line' through the creation and adoption of a Distribution Management Plan for the Great Salt Lake The public is invited to attend a public meeting wherein a draft of the Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan will be presented and the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments. 

The meeting with be held at the Utah Department of Natural Resources building (1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City) on July 31, 2025 at 6:00 pm.

Agenda: 

1. Introduction: Teresa Wilhelmsen, P.E. - State Engineer

2. Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan presentation: Blake Bingham, P.E. - Deputy State Engineer

3. Public Comments and Questions

For more information about the meeting, click here.


Monday, June 2, 2025

Open House Events for General Adjudication in Benjamin Area

The Utah Division of Water Rights recently initiated a general adjudication of water rights in the Benjamin area of Utah County. (Click here for more information.) Due to the public interest in the general adjudication process, the Division is holding a series of open house events to assist the public during the Water User's Claim filing period. Division staff members will be available to meet individually with members of the public in and discuss any questions they may have about filing a Water User's Claim in the general adjudication.

The open house events will be held in the Heritage Room of the Spanish Fork Library (80 South Main Street) at the following dates and times:

  • Tuesday, July 8, 2025 from 2:00 to 6:00 pm
  • Thursday, July 10, 2025 from 11:30 am to 3:30 pm
  • Wednesday, July 16, 2025 from 3:00 to 7:00 pm