The Utah Division of Water Rights’ Adjudication section held a final public meeting Jan. 9 in Provo on the proposed determination for the Provo City North subdivision — a report the agency published Dec. 19, 2024 — and reminded water users that they have 90 days from publication, through March 19, 2025, to file objections with the court.

The proposed determination is part of a general stream adjudication under state code Title 73, Chapter 4 to determine the nature and extent of existing water rights in the drainage. The determination includes a priority schedule organized by source and priority date, detailed descriptions of individual water rights (owner of record, point of diversion, place of use, quantities and permitted uses), a list of rights the agency determined to be forfeited, and an alphabetic index. Hydrographic survey maps published with the determination show mapped irrigation polygons and the water-right groups that contribute to those irrigated blocks.

“ This is the public meeting. It's actually the final public meeting for the proposed determination in the Provo City Knoll Division,” said Christopher Stallard, one of the engineering managers in the Adjudication section, introducing the presentation and the book the office prepared. Stallard walked through the book’s sections, explaining that the division subdivides the state into smaller adjudication units — for this area identified as area 55, book 7 — and described the content and purpose of the priority schedule and the detailed water-right entries.

Stallard said the agency filed the proposed determination with the court Dec. 19, 2024, and reiterated the objection process and deadline. He explained that entries include whether a right is measured as a flow rate (cubic feet per second) or an annual volume (acre-feet), the point of diversion coordinates using the Public Land Survey System, beneficial-use groups and the defined irrigation season (typically April 1–Oct. 31). He also noted historical decrees relevant to the area, including the 1921 Provo River decree and an 1894 Rock Canyon decree, which the adjudication must account for where applicable.

The presentation covered how the agency treats forfeiture: Utah law considers nonuse for seven years susceptible to partial or full forfeiture, and the proposed determination lists rights the agency concluded were fully forfeited. Stallard said partial forfeiture findings are explained in the state engineer’s field memoranda provided during the investigation and may not appear as reduced amounts in the printed proposed-determination book.

An audience member asked whether the volume printed in the book reflects the original entitlement for a right or whether it reflects reductions such as partial forfeiture. Stallard replied that the proposed determination should list the amount a right is currently entitled to, but that partial forfeiture determinations are documented in the state engineer’s memorandum produced during the field investigation; the published book lists full-forfeiture rights in a separate section but does not display partial forfeiture adjustments in the same way. He offered to locate an individual’s memo and review it with them at the meeting.

Stallard showed how to read the hydrographic survey maps, which run 18 pages for the subdivision, and explained that mapped polygons are labeled with water-use-group numbers and include legend entries tying specific water-right numbers to irrigated blocks. He also reminded attendees that mailed notices were sent to owners of record, registered agents and counsel of record, and that hard copies may be available from the office for a fee. The presentation and maps will be posted on the agency’s website and the meeting recording will be published on the agency’s YouTube channel.

Next steps described by staff are: interested parties may file formal objections with the district court using the civil case number printed on the proposed determination; the agency will review and resolve any objections before the court issues a final comprehensive decree; and staff are available to answer individual questions and to pull field memos when a landowner believes a partial-forfeiture finding was not communicated. The agency provided contact information for Christopher Stallard and Assistant State Engineer Chase McDonald for follow-up.

The meeting clarified the content of the proposed determination and how mapped irrigation and priority information correspond to water-right entries, while directing water users with individual concerns to the objection process or to staff for targeted review.