Utah House committee advances bill making changes to water rights
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — On Friday, the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee considered and advanced House Bill 60, which would change the circumstances in which the state engineer can consider water right proposals.
HB 60, recommended by Rep. David Shallenberger (R-Utah County), modifies the extent to which the state engineer may consider a protest to a water rights application and the grounds in which they may approve or reject an application.
The state engineer, when determining if a plan is detrimental to public welfare, would only be allowed to consider issues directly related to the beneficial use of water or the quantity, quality, or availability of water in the state.
However, they cannot use detriment to the public welfare as a basis for rejecting an application if any regulation or mitigation of the detrimental effect is better addressed within the authority of a different agency. The exception is if the detriment to public welfare is based on the volume or flow of water on sovereign land.
The bill also restricts those who challenge water right applications to individuals who have “suffered or will suffer a particularized injury from an action taken by the state engineer.”
Ultimately, the committee voted 7-2 to favorably recommend the bill, which means it will advance to the house chamber.
The full text and current status of HB 60 can be read here.
Cause for the bill
Shallenberger said that this bill is meant to empower the water engineer in their position as an expert in water rights, without making them focus on other factors, such as air quality or economic analysis.
“We want the state water engineer, that’s her expertise, we want her to do what she does best,” Shallenberger said. “We have whole divisions in the state to review those things, and we don’t want conflicting reports.”
Teresa Wilhelmsen, the current state water engineer, said that her office is getting more applications that are more complex. “We process about 16,000 applications a year, which you can imagine is at a very fast pace…We know in the division, we have to get faster and better with our processes and streamline what we have.”
Wilhelmsen said H.B. 60 will allow her office to streamline applications and not overstep their jurisdiction.
Additionally, while some have expressed concern that the bill would erode current protections for water bodies, she says her office does not have the authority over environmental protection laws. Those issues are already reportedly referred to the correct agency, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Candace Hasenyager, the Division Director at the Division of Water Quality, spoke in favor of H.B. 60, “Water Quality appreciates the engagement on this bill and the positive collaboration that we will have with the state engineer’s office.”
Warren Peterson with the Utah Farm Bureau said, “This bill is designed to streamline the processes of getting water to the Great Salt Lake. Part of what this bill does is clean up some old, archaic language that no longer needs to be applied.”
Opposition of the bill
Notably, H.B. 60 has come under fire from several organizations in Utah. Utah Rivers Council and other organizers released a statement arguing that the bill reduces opportunities to contest new water right applications, which could impact wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation areas.
They also argued that it will roll back environmental protections for the Great Salt Lake and current water sources throughout the state.
“Water lobbyists, water speculators and contractors who are profiting from upstream water diversions on the Great Salt Lake can rejoice with this bill,” said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Great Salt Lake Waterkeeper of the Utah Rivers Council. “This legislation loosens existing regulations to upstream water diversions at a time when the public desperately wants Utah to properly regulate wasteful water use.”
“This bill is a Pandora’s Box,” added Kirk Robinson, executive director of the Western Wildlife Conservancy. “Eliminating consideration of the public welfare, recreation, and stream environments from the approval process for water use applications could allow legislators to sneak something by the public.”
During the public comment period of the committee hearing, some citizens spoke about their concerns. Some argued that the leaders of Utah’s tribal reservations have opposed this bill and would greatly hinder local recreation, while others stated that it would increase upstream water access and limit flow to the Great Salt Lake.
“I feel it’s deeply flawed on many levels and should be opposed and voted against,” said Cameron Carpenter, a Utah resident. He argued that current Utah law allows the state engineer to reject a proposal if it would impact public recreation.
“H.B. 60 removes this existing language altogether. That is just not prudent,” He continued. “The Great Salt Lake is currently suffering from low water levels and will reach a new record low level of water in 2026.”
And, while there is opposition to the bill passing, Chair Carl Albrecht encouraged the sponsor to keep dialogue going surrounding the issues brought up in the hearing.
on the uploaded document.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
General Document Comments 0
