HOUSE BILLS
HB 60 - Water Commissioner Amendments
Rep. Scott Chew
Rep. Scott Chew
House Bill 60 exempts the State Engineer from the Utah
Procurement Code with respect to the Water Commissioner Fund, but requires the
State Engineer to make administrative rules governing the use of the Fund. The
bill also clarifies and expands the items that can be paid from the Fund,
including benefits for commissioners, expenses approved by a distribution
system committee, and administration expenses of a distribution system
committee. This bill is nearly identical to HB 225 that was introduced in the
2017 legislative session, but did not pass.
HB 66 - Local Government Modifications
Rep. Stephen G. Handy
Rep. Stephen G. Handy
This bill seeks to eliminate the need for a local district
board of trustees to have an odd number of board members if the local district
has more than nine board members. For improvement districts, this bill
requires that the number of municipalities in an improvement must be the number
of municipalities in the improvement district if there are more than nine
municipalities in the district or there are an odd number of municipalities in
the improvement district. This bill also requires the number of included
municipalities in an improvement district plus one if there is an even number
of municipalities included and there are less than nine municipalities.
Finally, the bill requires the number of municipalities plus two if there are
an odd number of municipalities in the improvement district and the total
number is less than nine municipalities.
HB 73 - Instream Flow Water Rights Amendments
Rep. Tim Hawkes
Rep. Tim Hawkes
House Bill 78 would remove the current sunset provision the
Legislature enacted when it created Section 73-3-30(3), which authorized
fishing groups to file fixed time change applications to provide instream flows
for the Bonneville cutthroat, the Colorado River cutthroat, and the Yellowstone
cutthroat. The program is currently set to expire on December 31, 2018.
HB 103 - Water Conservation Amendments
Rep. Gage Froerer
Rep. Gage Froerer
House Bill 103 modifies water conservation plan requirements
in Utah Code section 73-10-32. Each water conservancy district, each water
district that provides culinary or secondary water to 500 or more connections,
and each retail water provider that provides culinary or secondary water to 500
or more connections is required to have a water conservation plan. These plans
must include goals for reduction in residential, commercial, and industrial uses,
as well as water conservation measures for these same uses plus landscaping.
The bill also changes some recommended components of a water conservation plan
into required components, such as information regarding the installation of
water efficient fixtures and appliances; retail water rate structures designed
to encourage conservation; and existing or proposed regulations designed to
encourage conservation, including restrictions on grass landscaping. Districts
and retail water providers cannot receive State funds for water development
unless they have a compliant water conservation plan in place. This bill is
similar to HB 304 that was introduced in the 2017 legislative session, but did
not pass.
HB 124 - Water Holdings Accountability and Transparency
Amendments
Rep. Kim Coleman
Rep. Kim Coleman
This bill would require cities and special service districts
that supply water outside of their jurisdictional boundaries to post the
following information on their website and provide it to the State Engineer:
(1) a legal description and map of the service are served; (2) the cost of
water assessed from users; and (3) other information regarding the water right
(decree number, certificate number, point of diversion, approved uses, etc.).
Rep. Coleman has indicated that the legislation is intended to implement, in
part, some of the recommendations in the 2017 Utah Water Strategy, which called
for improved water data and information. She also reports that the legislation
seeks to provide greater transparency regarding surplus water contracts in
which cities, particularly Salt Lake City, allow users outside of their
boundaries to contract on a temporary basis for the use of municipal water
rights. Some have expressed concern about the use of temporary contracts to
supply water for permanent developments. The use of surplus water contracts,
however, stems in part from Article XI, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution,
which prohibits municipal corporations from selling or permanently disposing of
their water rights. Notably, although HB 124 would apply to special service
districts, as currently drafted it would not apply to the other types of local
districts that supply water.
HB 135 - Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Amendments
Rep. Mike Noel
Rep. Mike Noel
HB 135 would remove longstanding municipal authority under
Section 10-8-15 to enact protections outside of their boundaries to protect
waterworks and prevent pollution. Currently, under Section 18-1-15, cities of
the first class can exercise this extraterritorial jurisdiction over the entire
applicable watershed. Smaller cities have extraterritorial jurisdiction for 15
miles above their point of diversion and for a distance of 300 feet on each
side of the watercourse. The legislation would authorize the Department of
Environmental Quality to establish standards and administer controls to
maintain water quality in watersheds to protect human health and for the
construction and operation of municipal waterworks located outside of a city's
limits. According to Rep. Noel, this extraterritorial jurisdiction is no longer
needed and is a duplicative regulation in light of state and federal
environmental protection programs, which were enacted decades after cities
received the extraterritorial jurisdiction embodied in Section 10-8-15.
Property rights advocates have also accused cities, particularly Salt Lake
City, of using this authority improperly to stop or limit development.
Officials from the Department of Environmental Quality, however, indicated at a
recent meeting of the Executive Water Task Force that they lack the land
management authority cities have under the current law to protect municipal
water sources.
HB 142 - Impact Fee Amendments
Rep. Derrin Owens
Rep. Derrin Owens
House Bill 142 adds "natural gas facilities" to
the list of facilities for which impact fees may be collected under Utah's
Impact Fees Act. The Bill refers to Section 58-55-308.1 of the Code for
the definition of "natural gas facilities," which defines such
facilities as "one or more natural gas mains [or] one or more natural gas
service lines" or a combination of both. It also includes "any
necessary appurtenant facilities." The "service lines" are
the laterals that run from a main line to a customer's meter. So, under
this amendment, if "natural gas facilities" are included in the duly
adopted impact fees facility plan, analysis, and enactment, then impact fees
may be assessed, collected, and expended on those natural gas facilities, up to
the meters of the ultimate consumers.
SENATE BILLS
SB 28 - Local Government and Limited Purpose Entity Registry
Sen. Deidre Henderson
Sen. Deidre Henderson
SB 28 would require all government entities that are not part
of the state executive, legislative, and judicial branches, including all
counties, cities, and local districts, to register with the lieutenant
governor. In turn, the lieutenant governor would establish registration and
renewal fees to create, administer, and maintain the registry. The bill would
also authorize the state auditor to withhold certain state funds and property
tax disbursements, as well as prohibit access to certain funds, for
noncompliance with the registry requirements.
SB 29 - County Listing of Local Government and Limited
Purpose Entities
Sen. Deidre Henderson
Sen. Deidre Henderson
SB 29 is a companion bill to SB 28. Starting on July 1,
2019, it would require each county to list on its website the following
information regarding the local government entities that operate within the
county's boundaries: (1) the entity's name; (2) the type of entity; (3) the
entity's governmental function; (4) the entity's contact information; (5) the
members of the entity's governing body; (6) the entity's sources of revenue;
and (7) if the entity is an assessment area, information regarding the
assessment area's creation, purpose, and boundaries.
Senate Bill 34: Legislative Water Development Commission
Amendments
Sen. Margaret Dayton
Sen. Margaret Dayton
This bill seeks to remove a statutory "sunset
provision" for Title 73, Chapter 7 of the Utah Code, which governs the
Utah Legislative Water Development Commission. The current repeal date is
December 31, 2018, but this bill would remove the repeal date entirely. The
bill also allows the Commission to meet up to six times per calendar year
without requiring approval from the Legislative Management Committee.
Senate Bill 35: Water Right of Trout Habitat Repeal Date
Extension
Sen. Allen Christensen
Sen. Allen Christensen
This bill seeks to extend a statutory "sunset
provision" for instream flow water rights for trout habitat established
under Utah Code section 73-3-30(3). The current repeal date is December 31,
2018, but this bill would extend the repeal date until December 31, 2019.
SB45 - Diligence Claims
Sen. Margaret Dayton
Sen. Margaret Dayton
Those who file diligence claims in the future will be well
advised to provide as much evidence as possible of pre-1903 beneficial use if
SB45 becomes law. SB45 amends UCA §73-5-13(5)(b) to
require the State Engineer to opine on whether the water under the diligence
claim was actually put to beneficial use prior to 1903. This opinion will be
included in the report the State Engineer prepares for the diligence claim.
What this means is if you are filing a diligence claim you
should provide all available information as to pre-1903 water use with the
diligence claim. You should not expect the State Engineer to undertake an
exhaustive investigation of your historic water use. Such an expectation is
wholly unrealistic and will likely result in a damaging determination that
pre-1903 beneficial use did not occur.
As we get farther from 1903, diligence claims are becoming
both rarer and more suspect. Unless the claimant provides detailed information
supporting pre-1903 water use, the expected conclusion in the state engineer's
report is most likely going to be that there is no evidence of pre-1903
beneficial water use, the basic requirement for all diligence claims. This
could lead to a legal challenge to the diligence claim and potential loss of
the water right.
SB 61 Water Rights Adjudication Amendments
Sen. Margaret Dayton
Sen. Margaret Dayton
Senate Bill 61 instructs the state engineer to return a
statement of claim to the claimant without further notice of the statement of
claim is not filed in time. Similarly, if an untimely statement of claim
is filed with the court, the state engineer will not take further action on
that statement of claim unless the claimant is excused by circumstances beyond
the claimant's control, mistake, or any other reason justifying relief.
SB 61 also would permit the state engineer to file one or more addenda to one
or more proposed determinations, if the state engineer does the following:
files the addendum with the court; in the preamble, provides an explanation of
the issues addressed in the addendum; serves the addendum on each owner of
record, according to the state engineer's records, of a perfected water right
authorizing the diversion of water from within the area, division, or
subdivision covered by the addendum; and holds a public meeting.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment