HB 19 –
Drinking Water Utilities Amendments
(Rep. Colin
Jack)
Governor Cox
signed House Bill 19, which addressed security at public drinking water
facilities. The bill requires “community water systems” to create an emergency
response plan. Broadly, the plan must address system security, vulnerability
assessment, breach reporting, and compliance with applicable state and federal
requirements. Under the Safe Water Drinking Act, "community water
system" means a public water system that serves residents year-round. The
Director of the Division of Drinking Water must ensure that facilities have an
emergency response plan and is required to report to the legislature each year.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
HB 60 (1st
Substitute) – Water Rights Amendments
(Rep. David
Shallenberger)
House Bill 60
makes several modifications to the change application process. First, it
clarifies 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 clarifies that the State Engineer is not required to publish notice of
temporary change applications, and that applicants whose temporary change
applications are rejected may file a permanent or fixed time change
application.
Third, the bill
provides more detail regarding the State Engineer’s ability to determine
whether a water right application would prove detrimental to the public
welfare. It directs the State Engineer to only consider the effect of the
proposed plan on “the beneficial use of water; or the quantity, quality, or
availability of water,” and “other factors as specifically directed by
statute.” It also limits the State Engineer from considering or relying upon
detriment to the public welfare as a basis for rejecting an application if: (1)
another regulatory agency is authorized or better suited to address the
potential detrimental effect; or (2) the factors that would support a finding
of a detrimental impact to the public welfare are not directly associated with,
or will have a negligible effect upon, the beneficial use of water or the
quantity, quality, or availability of water.
Lastly, the bill
specifies 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
creates Utah Code section 73-5-18 which establishes a legal framework for
obtaining formal recognition of “sub-basin livestock watering claims.” The new
statute defines key terms such as “livestock” (domestic animals raised for
profit or personal use), “small pond” (water impoundment less than two
acre-feet), and “large pond” (all ponds larger than two acre-feet). This new
statute allows submission of 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 livestock watering
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 new law restricts livestock water claimants from
increasing their beneficial use beyond historical levels, requires limits on water
depletion, and prohibits moving water between sub-basins if doing so would
impair existing water rights. Additionally, the statute regulates pond
construction, 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 (1st
Substitute) – Drinking Water Restructuring Amendments
(Rep. Carl
Albrecht)
This bill was
run at the request of the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to address
chronically noncompliant public water systems. It expands 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 DDW are also 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. If DDW brings a civil action that may
result in a court order for receivership or divestment, the division director
must report on the action to the Legislature.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
HB 76 (3rd
Substitute) – Data Center Water Transparency Amendments
(Rep. Jill
Koford)
House Bill 76
enacts Utah Code section 73-5-8.3, which imposes reporting requirements upon
large data centers, including but not limited to communication with the
Department of Water Quality 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. The bill also requires new large data centers that begin
operations on or after July 1, 2026, to notify the water provider of the
anticipated water consumption needs of the new large data center at least 90
days before construction begins. This bill also allows for enforcement of these
requirements by levying daily fines upon the large data center.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
HB 187 (2nd
Substitute) – Water Amendments
(Rep. Colin
Jack)
Under House
Bill 187, water rights which are or will be owned or leased by a water
conservancy district which are or may be 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. This is different from public water suppliers
in the rest of Utah which are only protected from claims of abandonment or
forfeiture to the extent 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 any person
entitled to the use of water (other than certain DNR divisions) from 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 (5th
Substitute) – Great Salt Lake Related Amendments
(Rep. Raymond
Ward)
House Bill 247
establishes a stable funding source for projects benefiting the Great Salt Lake
by redirecting revenue from the state’s brine shrimp royalty tax into the
Sovereign Lands Management Account. The bill requires that $125,000 of these
funds be spent each year as directed by the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council
for the benefit of the lake, with the remaining funds used either to lease water
rights for delivery of water to the Great Salt Lake or to fund projects that
directly benefit or maintain the health of the lake’s brine shrimp population. The
bill also allows the account to receive judgments or settlement proceeds from
disputes involving ownership of sovereign lands near the Great Salt Lake,
creating an additional potential source of revenue for management and
restoration efforts.
To read the full
text of the bill, click here.
HB 251 (1st
Substitute) – Diligence Claim Water Amendments
(Rep. Scott
Chew)
House Bill 251
amends Utah Code section 73-5-13 regarding diligence claims. The bill makes
several minor wording changes and clarification edits to the statute language. The
most significant change is the addition of subsection 8 regarding livestock
watering ponds on homestead parcels. This new subsection creates a rebuttable
presumption that a diligence claimant has a right to the use of a stockwatering
pond on a homestead parcel if (1) the total water use for all stockwater ponds
on the homestead parcel is less than 20 acre-feet, (2) the claimant files a
complete diligence claim, (3) the claimant pays the diligence claim fee, (4) the
pond supports the homestead parcel, and (5) the pond existed before the homestead
parcel was patented and was used before 1903. The rebuttable presumption can be
rebutted by another water right owner who protests the diligence claim and
asserts impairment, but the rebuttal must be by a preponderance of the
evidence. If the claimant and the protestant reach an agreement regarding how the
issue of impairment can be mitigated, the agreement can be incorporated into the
State Engineer’s review file for the diligence claim.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
HB 348 (1st
Substitute) – Local Land and Water Modifications
(Rep. Jill
Koford)
House Bill 348
enacts Utah Code section 73-3-30.3, establishing a process for filing a
dedicated water application which allows a water right holder to add certain
public or environmental uses—such as instream flows, use on sovereign lands, or
delivery to a reservoir within the Colorado River System—to an existing water
right without altering the underlying right itself. The statute defines
“dedicated water” as water that has been recognized for delivery or use under
section 73-3-30 and a dedicated water application. The application may be
approved for either a fixed or indefinite period and may include split-season
use, allowing sequential uses of the same water right within a calendar year.
Approval does not modify the underlying water right, extend deadlines
associated with that right, or require the applicant to dedicate water in any
specific quantity or year. The state engineer processes and prioritizes these
applications under standard change application procedures and may deny an
application if it would remove agricultural land from irrigation for a full
season in more than two out of five years. The state engineer may also require
annual reporting and other information to verify the dedication and the
applicant’s continuing legal interest in the underlying right. An approved
dedicated water application automatically lapses if the underlying water right
lapses, is withdrawn, or is forfeited, and may also lapse if the applicant
loses the legal interest in the water right, fails to comply with approval
conditions, cannot deliver the dedicated water as proposed, or fails to provide
requested information.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
HB 410 (1st
Substitute) – Water Leasing Amendments
(Rep. Jill
Kofford)
House Bill 410
amends Utah Code section 73-3-30.5, establishing a standardized process for
leasing water for instream flow purposes and directing the state engineer to
prioritize qualifying lease applications. To receive prioritization, the lease
must involve water from a surface source within a commissioner-administered
distribution system and be based on an existing irrigation, industrial, or
municipal water right used for a beneficial purpose described in the instream
flow statute. The lease may include split-season use but may not involve
groundwater. Applicants must submit the lease application by December 1 for
leases beginning on or after April 1 of the following year, identify
concurrence from the applicable partner (such as the Division of Wildlife
Resources or the Colorado River Authority of Utah), specify at least a
four-week period if agricultural land is involved in split-season use, and
certify that the lease meets the statutory requirements, though prioritization
may be adjusted if protests or unusual circumstances arise.
The bill also
revises section 73-5-3 to specify that water leased for instream flow under
section 73-3-30 is protected from diversion or control by intervening users
between the release point and the approved place of use and may only be
regulated by the state engineer. The state engineer may administer the leased water
as if it were naturally flowing in the system. If the water reaches a dam,
reservoir, or other barrier, the owner or operator must allow the water to pass
through and release it as directed by the state engineer, at the owner’s
expense. However, the state engineer may regulate or manage the water
differently if a written agreement exists with water users or with the owner or
operator of the impoundment or barrier.
The bill also
enacts Utah Code sections 73-34-101 through -402, which establish a Great Salt
Lake agricultural water leasing program designed to temporarily lease
agricultural water to benefit the lake. This includes the creation of the Great
Salt Lake Preservation Board within the Office of the Great Salt Lake
Commissioner to administer the program. The board will set annual lease rates
(considering five-year average alfalfa hay prices), accept applications, and
award leases while prioritizing senior adjudicated water rights. Agricultural water
may be leased to the state for the lake, generally limited to no more than two
full irrigation seasons out of five on the same field. Approved leases require
a corresponding water right application reviewed by the state engineer. The
state engineer must limit approvals to the lease period, require monitoring and
annual reporting, and report challenges to the Legislature. The board may
enforce compliance by requiring repayment for violations and issuing notices of
violation subject to hearing and judicial review, and must annually report
publicly and to the Legislature on water delivered to the lake, leases issued, and
program expenditures.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
SB 21 (4th
Substitute) – Geothermal Amendments
(Sen. Michael
McKell)
Senate Bill 21
clarifies ownership and regulatory provisions governing geothermal resources in
Utah. First, the bill specifies that geothermal resources underlying state
trust lands are reserved to the applicable trust. Additionally, the bill adds
clarifying amendments to the Utah Geothermal Resource Conservation Act. The
bill provides that the surface owner holds title to geothermal resources, even
where the mineral estate has been severed or conveyed, unless geothermal
resources are expressly conveyed by a recorded deed or other instrument. The
legislation also clarifies regulatory language governing geothermal wells and
establishes additional requirements for surety bonds. Finally, SB 24 clarifies
that geothermal well logs maintained by the Division of Water Resources are
public records, while allowing owners to request confidentiality for specified
periods—five years after production or injection begins (other than for
testing), two years after abandonment, or two years after completion of a
monitoring, exploration, investigation, or test well that does not transition
to production. The confidentiality provisions do not apply to state regulators,
tax assessors, or individuals authorized in writing by the owner to inspect the
well log.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
SB 46 – Water
Wise Landscaping Amendments
(Sen. Keven
Stratton)
Senate Bill 46
amends Utah law governing landscaping and outdoor water use at state government
facilities to strengthen water-efficiency standards and clarify key
definitions. The bill limits the amount of non-functional lawn or turf allowed
at state facilities built or reconstructed after May 6, 2026, generally capping
such turf at the lesser of 20% of landscaped grounds or the applicable local
ordinance and prohibiting lawn or turf in park strips unless an exemption is
granted by the Division of Water Resources. It requires state agencies to
report water-use data publicly, restrict overhead spray irrigation during peak
daytime hours, and 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 252 (1st
Substitute) – Water Usage at State-Owned Facilities Amendments
(Sen. Stephanie
Pitcher)
Senate Bill 252
addresses water use at state government facilities. State agencies are required
to select low-water turf grass when installing or replacing lawn (unless not
practical due to slope, erosion, etc.); use best practices and new technologies
in landscape irrigation systems; and ensure that newly installed landscape
irrigation systems have a distribution uniformity of at least 75%. The Division
of Facilities Construction and Management is also required to routinely audit
state government facilities to document distribution uniformity and, if
necessary, provide action items to meet the requirement. The Division is also
permitted to make administrative rules regarding these audits.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
SB 284 (6th
Substitute) – Local Land and Water Modifications
(Sen. Lincoln
Fillmore)
Among other
things, SB 284 adopts Utah Code section 10-20-912 which requires a municipality
to base any exaction for a culinary water interest on the culinary water
authority’s established calculations of projected water demand. These
calculations must consider the system-wide minimum sizing standards set by the
Division of Drinking Water and the number of equivalent residential connections
associated with the proposed development, with lower exactions applied where
developments demonstrate lower demand based on at least five years of
comparable usage data. A municipality may, in its discretion, require less water
than the calculated amount but must publicly disclose the methodology used to
determine exactions. Land use applicants may request review of an exaction
calculation, present supporting data, and receive due process from the
municipality’s legislative body, and the culinary water authority must provide the
basis for its calculations upon request. A municipality may not impose a water
interest exaction if existing water supplies already exceed reasonably
anticipated future public needs or if the municipality lacks a written water-planning
document, which beginning January 1, 2028 must comply with statutory planning
requirements. Any culinary or secondary water provider that commits to provide water
service through the land-use process is subject to the same requirements as a
municipality.
To read the
full text of the bill, click here.
Posts
