Irrigation districts urge fixes to prevent 'orphan' water rights; ask for signature block on plats

Cheyenne — The Wyoming Association of Irrigation Districts told the Joint Agriculture Committee June 10 that gaps in county subdivision review and family-exemption transfers are creating risk for "orphan" water rights and asked the committee to consider statutory changes requiring irrigation-district involvement earlier in subdivision and exemption processes.

Keith Kenny introduced the topic on behalf of the association and said the group represents 19 irrigation districts across nine counties and roughly half a million irrigable acres. Steve Lynn, chairman of the association, told the committee that current Title 18 language (for example Wyo. Stat. § 18-5-306) allows a developer to make only a "good faith effort" to comply with irrigation-district recommendations and provides insufficient enforcement "teeth." Lynn asked lawmakers to consider requiring a signature block on plats or irrigation plans showing district authorization or documented review.

Trent Reid and others described how family-exemption transfers and minor subdivisions can create information gaps: easements, buried drain tile locations and conveyance lines are not always mapped or shown on plats, and subsequent owners may not know how to access water. Reid said counties vary widely in practice and some county processes do not produce the plans or plats irrigation districts need to protect conveyances. "If those underground drains aren't marked and somebody builds a house over that, all of a sudden that becomes a very big issue," he said.

State engineers and planning officials joined the discussion. David Schroeder, superintendent of Water Division 2 for the state engineer's office, noted that the 2022 Legislature strengthened statutory language requiring water-distribution plans in some municipal annexation settings and that counties can adopt forms for developers to document district contact. Schroeder said some counties (for example Sheridan County) already use a two‑form process where a subdivider must document notice to local water entities and then obtain any written approval the county requires.

Irrigation-district representatives told the committee they did not seek veto power over subdivision approvals; rather, they want consistent notification, the ability to provide engineering comments, and a short statutory response window so a non-response does not indefinitely hold up development. The association offered to work with Legislative Service Office staff on draft language.

Committee members asked the association to provide specific draft language and to identify counties where current practices create the greatest risk. The committee did not take formal action on the matter at the June 10 meeting; members asked LSO staff to coordinate draft options and follow up at a later meeting.