2026 Legislation - Water Bills That Passed

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.