Audit: Utah lacks consistent standards for future water needs; auditors propose three legislative paths
Loading...
Summary
Legislative auditors found Utah lacks consistent statewide standards for projecting future municipal water needs, flagged inconsistent use of 40‑year plans and engineering studies, and proposed three mutually exclusive legislative options for clarification; the subcommittee unanimously referred the audit to interim and appropriations committees.
At a Legislative Audit Subcommittee meeting, Deputy Auditor General Darren Underwood and audit staff presented a performance audit finding that Utah does not apply consistent statewide standards to determine future municipal water needs, a gap the auditors said could allow inconsistent or excessive developer water exactions. The audit team told the committee it surveyed over 200 water providers, received nearly 100 responses and conducted in-depth reviews with about 15–20 cities.
The audit staff said exactions are broadly used: "Of those who responded, 45% indicated that they do require exactions," Tyson reported. Auditors described wide variation in the planning documents municipalities rely on to justify exactions. Some jurisdictions use 40‑year planning horizons, others use engineering studies with 20–40 year horizons, and specific assumptions vary — for example, some plans project needs using a single driest year rather than multi‑year averages, some omit future conservation, and others include differing treatments of system water loss and climate impacts.
The auditors framed the problem as statutory and implementation ambiguity. They said the current statute bars municipalities from exacting water "if there's a reasonable amount for future needs," and that statute appears to reference 40‑year planning in places while the state engineer may lack explicit authority to require such plans. Because the statute and its implementing practices are unclear, the audit identified a risk that inconsistent criteria could lead to unequal or excessive exactions across cities.
To address the finding, the audit presented three mutually exclusive options for the legislature: allow the state engineer by statute to require 40‑year plans to demonstrate compliance with the water‑exaction law; direct the state engineer to work with other water agencies to set common standards and rules for determining future water requirements; or permit five‑year conservation plans (which many cities already prepare) to serve as a compliance pathway, with rulemaking authority given to the Division of Water Resources to set standards for those plans.
A representative of the Division of Water Resources (Todd Adams, deputy director) told the committee the agency agrees with recommendations corresponding to options 1 and 2 and that inconsistent interpretation across municipalities complicates housing and water planning. "When you think about, exactions are on new growth," he said, and inconsistent approaches make planning difficult across jurisdictions.
Following discussion, a committee member moved to refer the performance audit of statewide standards for future water needs to the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee (lead) and to the Natural Resources/Agriculture/Environmental Quality appropriations subcommittee (review). The motion was placed, called for the ayes and carried unanimously according to the transcript.
Next steps noted by auditors and agency staff included potential statutory clarifications and interagency rulemaking to establish consistent standards if the legislature chooses to pursue one of the proposed options.
