Planned Adjudication of Gould Wash Area

The Division of Water Rights has sent out notice that it will be initiating a general adjudication of water rights in the Gould Wash area (Book 81-4). This area includes the communities of Apple Valley, Hildale, Virgin, Rockville, and Springdale, as well as portions of Hurricane and La Verkin. See map below. The Division has not yet scheduled the initial public meeting.

Water Infrastructure Study

In 2023, the Utah Legislature passed SB 34: Water Infrastructure Funding Study. SB 34 required the Department of Natural Resources to study the use of property tax revenue for fund water infrastructure, treatment, and delivery. Over the years, the question has often been raised whether property taxes are an appropriate funding mechanism for water development. Some critics have asserted that using property tax revenue "hides" the true cost of water, and that user fees should be the sole (or at least primary) source of funding for water development.

The Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with LRB Public Finance Advisors, has issued its report to the Legislature. The study looked at how other western states handle water development funding. and found that Utah is not alone in how it funds water operations and infrastructure. The study notes several benefits of using property tax revenue for water development, including stability in revenue collections, lower costs of developing and delivering water, and increased public confidence.

The study's conclusions are summarized as follows:

This report concludes that Utah’s water purveyors utilize commonly used best practices to deliver affordable water and have dependable revenues. Utahns enjoy some of the lowest costs of water in the Comparable States. To change how water is funded would require thoughtful implementation as to not threaten the stable financial operations established by Utah’s water industry. Managing risk in revenue collections is a real consideration in establishing rates. Increasing water conservation measures will prepare the State for tomorrow’s needs. 

Balancing water conservation and revenue streams is a delicate matter that will require constant attention. Tiered rates economically motivate water conservation. Securing stable revenue streams through base rates and property taxes helps lower the costs of water. Seeking this balance to maintain reliable revenues and encourage water conservation. Coupled with continued secondary water management to increase water conservation are effective efforts to maintain a resilient water supply for Utah today and into the future

The study's ultimate recommendation was "To balance water conservation and revenues, continue to utilize property taxes and base rates and implement a more aggressive tiered rate."

To read the full report, click here.

Adoption of Parowan Valley Groundwater Management Plan

The Division of Water Rights has adopted the Parowan Valley Groundwater Management Plan, as of October 15, 2024. The plan notes that safe groundwater yield in the area is 22,000 acre-feet, but current groundwater withdrawals/depletions are nearly 33,000 acre-feet -- which is unsustainable. In order to bring the system back in harmony, water rights are going to be permanently "phased out" over the next several decades, starting in 2043. By the year 2080, all water rights with priority dates later than December 5, 1951 will be gone and the system will (hopefully) be brought into balance.

To view the full Plan, click here.

Public Meeting Regarding Adoption of Groundwater Management Plan for Pahvant Valley

The Utah Division of Water Rights has set a public meeting to discuss the development of a groundwater management plan for Pahvant Valley (Area 67). Personnel from the Division of Water Rights will be available to take all questions and comments provided by the general public and interested parties.

What:  Public Meeting
Who:  Pahvant Valley Water Users
When:  November 13, 2024, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Where: Millard County Courthouse, 50 South Main, Fillmore, UT 84631
Online:  Remote participation of the public meeting will also be available online:  https://waterrights.utah.gov/publicmeetings/

Agenda
1. Welcome/Introduction
2. Summary of Groundwater Hydrology Study by UGS Staff
3. Groundwater Management Plan Discussion
4. Policy, Current Work, and Next Steps
5. Public Questions/Comments

If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, please send your comments to:
Address: Division of Water Rights, 594 West North Temple Suite 220, PO Box 146300, Salt Lake City UT 84114-6300
Email: waterrights@utah.gov
Subject: Public Comment Regarding Pahvant GWMP

In accordance with the Americans with Disability Act, individuals needing special accommodations should notify Melissa Bowdren at (801) 538-7370 at least three (3) days prior to the meeting.

Information from the meeting will be posted on the Utah Division of Water Rights website as a resource for those who are unable to attend the meeting or require additional information.

For more information about the meeting, click here.

Public Meeting Concerning the Groundwater Policy for Emery / Johns Valley

The Utah Division of Water Rights has set a public meeting to discuss the results of a recently published groundwater hydrology study performed by the Utah Geological Survey and to discuss the groundwater appropriation policies in the Emery / Johns Valley. Personnel from the Division of Water Rights will be available to take all questions and comments provided by the general public and interested parties.

What:  Public Meeting
Who:  Emery/Johns Valley Water Users
When:  November 14, 2024, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Where:  Garfield County Courthouse, 55 South Main, Panguitch, UT 84759
Online:  Remote participation of the public meeting will also be available online:  https://waterrights.utah.gov/publicmeetings/

Agenda
1. Welcome/Introduction
2. Summary of Groundwater Hydrology Study by UGS Staff
3. Groundwater Appropriate Policy Discussion
4. Public Questions/Comments

If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, please send your comments to:
Address:  Division of Water Rights, 1594 West North Temple Suite 220, PO Box 146300, Salt Lake City UT 84114-6300
Email:  waterrights@utah.gov
Subject:  Public Comment Regarding Emery/Johns Valley Public Meeting

In accordance with the Americans with Disability Act, individuals needing special accommodations should notify Melissa Bowdren at (801) 538-7370 at least three (3) days prior to the meeting.

Information from the meeting will be posted on the Utah Division of Water Rights website as a resource for those who are unable to attend the meeting or require additional information.

For more information about the meeting, click here.

Public Meeting Regarding Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan

The Utah Division of Water Rights has set a meeting to discuss its direction under Utah Code section 73-3-33 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 meeting information below is from the public notice provided by the Division.

Who:	Water Users, Stakeholders, and Interested Parties
When:	October 24, 2024, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Where:	Department of Natural Resources Office 1594 West North Temple St Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (801) 538-7200
Online:	Remote participation and live stream broadcast of the public meeting will also be available on-line at the following links: Remote Participation: https://meet.google.com/nos-xckr-xei Live Stream: https://youtube.com/live/iAV5aBQjGGY
Purpose:	In accordance with Chapter 73-3-33, 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 the Great Salt Lake Distribution Management Plan process will be explained and the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments. Seating may be limited, consequently online/virtual participation is encouraged. Information from the meeting will be posted on the Utah Division of Water Rights website at http://waterrights.utah.gov as a resource for those who are unable to attend the meeting or require additional information. In accordance with the Americans with Disability Act, individuals needing special accommodations should notify Nick Stokes at (385) 321-9323 at least three (3) days prior to the meeting.
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 & Questions

Adoption of Parowan Valley Groundwater Management Plan

The Utah Division of Water Rights has issued notice of its intent to adopt a groundwater management for Parowan Valley in Iron County. The groundwater management plan will be adopted in 60 days from the date of the notice (August 6, 2024). A copy of the notice is available by clicking here.

The Division has been working on the groundwater management plan for many years. A copy of the proposed groundwater management plan can be viewed by clicking here. The plan notes that safe groundwater yield in the area is 22,000 acre-feet, but current groundwater withdrawals/depletions are nearly 33,000 acre-feet -- which is unsustainable. In order to bring the system back in harmony, water rights are going to be permanently "phased out" over the next several decades, starting in 2043. By the year 2080, all water rights with priority dates later than December 5, 1951 will be gone and the system will (hopefully) be brought into balance.

For more information, click here.

Zundel v. Ramsdell

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in the case of Zundel v. Ramsdell. The case focused on the issue of whether water shares were included in a land transaction based on appurtenance and the wording of the deed.

Robert Brough (through his Trust) owned 17 acres of farmland in Box Elder County, which was irrigated with 15.87 shares of stock in Bear River Canal Company. In 2007, the Trust conveyed the property to Brough Properties LLC, and the deed stated that the conveyance included "all water rights appurtenant thereto, if any." The Trust did not, however, transfer any water shares to Brough Properties. In 2011, Brough Properties sold the land to the Zundels. Nothing was said about water, but the Zundels expected to receive some water shares. However, no shares were ever transferred to the Zundels. Instead, the Trust transferred the water shares to Robert's daughters, with instructions that they not transfer any shares to the Zundels. In 2019, the Zundels filed suit against the daughters, seeking to quiet title to the water shares.

The Zundels' primary argument asserted that the water shares were appurtenant (or attached) to the land, and therefore the shares passed with the land when the land was conveyed from the Trust to Brough Properties, and then from Brough Properties to the Zundels. The case ultimately went to trial, and the jury determined that the water shares were appurtenant to the land, but that the Trust did not intend to transfer the water shares to Brough Properties. The Zundels attempted to challenge the jury's determinations, but the district court ultimately ruled that the daughters (and not the Zundels) were the legal owners of the shares. The Zundels then appealed.

The law in existence at the time of the 2007 conveyance was that water shares did not automatically pass with land, but that presumption could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the water shares were appurtenant to the land and (2) that the grantor intended to transfer the water shares to the grantee. The court determined that the deed from the Trust to Brough Properties, which included "all water rights," was ambiguous about whether the Trust intended to transfer the water shares -- particularly because the court noted that there is a difference between water rights and water shares. The court also noted that there was sufficient evidence that the Trust did not intend to transfer the water shares to Brough Properties, including evidence that Robert had transferred water shares separate from land in the past and also transferred land without water shares. Based on these determinations, the court held that the daughters (and not the Zundels) were the legal owners of the water shares.

It should be noted that this decision has limited applicability because in 2013, the Utah legislature modified the law to make it more clear that water shares are not appurtenant to land.

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

Personnel Changes at Utah Division of Water Rights

Over the past few months, the Division of Water Rights has made a number of staffing changes, including the following:

Jared Manning is now the Assistant State Engineer for the newly formed Data Services section (previously Deputy State Engineer).

Michael Drake is now a Deputy State Engineer (previously Assistant State Engineer for Adjudications).

Chase McDonald is now the Assistant State Engineer for Adjudications (previously regional engineer for the Utah Lake / Jordan River region).

Ryan Hamilton is now the regional engineer for the Utah Lake / Jordan River region (previously regional engineer for the Weber River / Western region).

Ryan Broadbent is now the regional engineer for the Weber River / Western region (previously in Adjudications).

Nathan Moses is now the Assistant State Engineer for Field Services (previously regional engineer for the Cedar City / Southwestern region).

Michael Freeman is now the regional engineer for the Cedar City / Southwestern region (previously with US Bureau of Reclamation).

Washington County Water Conservancy District v. Washington Townhomes LLC

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in the case of Washington County Water Conservancy District v. Washington Townhomes LLC. The central issue in this case was whether a special master should have been appointed to resolve the issues regarding impact fees for water facilities.

This case has been ongoing for a number of years. The controversy started in 2006 when Washington County Water Conservancy District adopted impact fees based on its capital facilities plan. The District collected these fees for several years, until a group of property owners and developers sued the District, alleging that the impact fees did not comply with Utah's Impact Fee Act. The landowners sought a refund of millions of dollars. At one point, the case was appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, who sent the case back to the district court in 2016. Click here to read about the 2016 decision.

Following several more years of litigation, the property owners sought to have a special master appointed to preside over the litigation on the basis that the case involved "esoteric issues" and required the "application of a specialized area of law." The District opposed the motion and argued that there was no need or basis for the appointment of a special master. Ultimately, the district court granted the motion and appointed a retired district court judge as the special master. The District appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals' decision focused on Rule 53(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the appointment of special masters. The rule states that a case should be referred to a special master "only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it." The Court noted that there is "scarce Utah caselaw interpreting what constitutes an 'exceptional condition.'" The Court looked at the reasons cited by the district court for appointing a special master, including (1) that the district court judge was going to be retiring soon, (2) that the case had been ongoing for many years, (3) that the case included several procedural and substantive complexities, and (4) the congested court calendar that made it nearly impossible for the case to be tried before the judge's retirement. The Court of Appeals concluded that a number of these reasons (retirement of a judge, long-standing cases, and congested court calendars) are normal conditions and not "exceptional conditions" in litigation. The Court also concluded that this impact fee case was not any more factually or legally complex than many of the civil cases found throughout the state. 

In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was an insufficient basis for the district court to appoint a special master. Accordingly, the district court's appointment of a special master was reversed, and the case was returned to the district court for further proceedings.