Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Water Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Local council urges outreach as state water plan meetings and culinary-tax scoping approach

6442347 · October 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members of the Utah Watersheds Council discussed the State Water Plan public meetings, declining attendance at outreach events and a proposed culinary water tax and funding process that council members say could disadvantage rural systems.

Council members and visiting agency staff discussed upcoming State Water Plan public meetings and urged broader outreach after noting low turnout in recent sessions. The council’s staff said the next local meeting is scheduled for Oct. 22 across the street from the council’s meeting location and asked council members to spread the word to local irrigation companies and shareholders.

Council members described attendance at earlier public meetings as uneven: Bear River drew about 35 people and some Salt Lake-area sessions drew fewer than 20. Council members said the presentations are short but organizers want the bulk of each meeting to gather local input on three themes in the plan: vibrant communities, healthy watersheds and productive agriculture.

The group spent substantial time discussing a proposed state-level funding mechanism — described in the meeting as a culinary water tax — that would collect revenue through water systems and consolidate projects into a ranked, statewide list for prioritization. Several council speakers said that process risks favoring projects on the Wasatch Front, where the largest number of users live, and could leave rural systems with fewer funds. One member said the state will “decide the importance of your project” after projects are pooled and prioritized, and urged local systems to engage in scoping meetings and call in lobbyists if needed.

Council members also asked staff to push for broader local outreach to improve turnout at plan meetings. Suggestions included re-sending the meeting flyer, creating a Facebook event, running radio announcements and sending a text message to shareholders; one local manager offered to have his office text 600 shareholders. Several members noted newspaper legal-notice placements are costly and often go unseen.

Council staff said the full inventory of projects for the plan (the EWIP list) will be withheld until after the public meetings are complete and is expected to be released after the final meeting on Oct. 30; staff said they will add the released list to the council’s project map for the basin and will pull past council-funded projects into the map as well.

No formal actions were taken on the State Water Plan at the meeting; council members asked staff to re-send meeting links and to report back with the EWIP list once it is published.

A council member also urged colleagues to attend the state scoping meetings and said the Legislative Water Development Commission and other coordinating bodies are consolidating projects and setting priorities. The member warned that, if rural representatives do not participate, their projects may be deprioritized in statewide funding decisions.