Public Meeting Concerning a Proposal to Modify the Groundwater Management Plans for Cedar Valley and Northern Utah Valley

The Utah Division of Water Rights has set a public meeting to discuss a proposal to modify the groundwater management plans for Cedar Valley and northern Utah County. The following information is from the public meeting notice:

What: Public Meeting
Who: Cedar Valley and Northern Utah Valley water users
When: January 15, 2014, 4:00 p.m.
Where: Lehi City Council Chambers, 153 North 100 East, Lehi, UT 84043
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to present a proposal to modify the groundwater management plans for Cedar Valley and Northern Utah 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.

This meeting is a follow-up to the meeting held in May 2013.  If you have water rights in the Cedar Valley area (Area 54) or the Northern Utah Valley / Provo River area (Area 55), you may want to attend the public meeting, as it appears there will be forthcoming changes to the groundwater policies in the area.

For more information about the public meeting, click here.

For current water right policies in the Cedar Valley area, click here.  

For current water right policies in the Northern Utah Valley / Provo River area, click here.

Delta Canal Company v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch -- Amended Opinion

Today the Utah Supreme Court issued an amended opinion in the case of Delta Canal Co. v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch LC. 

The amended opinion only modified paragraph 41 of the original opinion.  As discussed in my blog post about the original opinion, paragraph 41 raised issues and concerns to many in the water community, and appeared to be in conflict with long-standing policies of the Utah Division of Water Rights.  The paragraph below shows the differences between paragraph 41 in the original opinion and paragraph 41 in the amended opinion.  The stricken language is language that the Court removed, and the underlined language is language that the Court added.

"Finally, the number of acres irrigated is not determinative in a forfeiture analysis, though it may be relevant insofar as it indicates the volume of water used or  whether water usage is beneficial.  Farmers may reduce the total acres irrigated to grow a more water-intensive crop, or vice-versa, so long as they beneficially use their full entitlement.  The number of acres irrigated need not match the number listed on a proposed determination or a final decree from a general adjudication.  The central question in any forfeiture proceeding is whether the appropriator used all of its water allowance in a reasonable manner and for a beneficial purpose."

To read the entire amended opinion, click here.