Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House approves in‑stream flow measure after close debate on water rights

Utah House of Representatives · February 12, 1992
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

After a lengthy floor debate about property rights and state purchases of water, the Utah House passed Senate Bill 7 — an in‑stream flow measure — following amendments and a recorded vote of 38‑35.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House voted 38‑35 on Feb. 12 to pass Senate Bill 7, a measure authorizing in‑stream flow protections through state acquisition of water rights in certain circumstances.

Representative Obi Arrington, who moved to uncircle the bill and bring it to the floor, described the measure as the in‑stream flow bill members had been discussing for several days. Opponents warned the bill could change long‑standing water‑rights priorities and put private water users at a disadvantage if state agencies purchase rights.

Representative Wright told colleagues the bill alters the precedence by which water rights have been distributed in Utah and cautioned that allowing in‑stream flows to be recognized similarly to traditional ‘beneficial use’ could change how water is allocated. “We’re changing the precedent that has been there for a long, long time,” Wright said during floor remarks.

Supporters, including Representative Jones, said the bill represented a balanced, practical approach that came out of a broadly representative task force and would allow the state Division of Wildlife Resources and Department of Parks to acquire water rights only under the conditions set in the text and subject to legislative appropriation. Jones cited task force members by name to underline the range of stakeholders involved.

Sponsors and the chamber agreed to two pink‑sheet amendments — one adding an effective date of July 1, 1992, and another correcting a clause to reference counties rather than municipalities — before the final tally. The House clerk recorded the vote as 38 in favor and 35 opposed.

The bill’s passage sends the measure back to the Senate for consideration of House amendments. Lawmakers emphasized the state could not spend money on purchases under the bill without separate appropriation action by the Legislature.

What’s next: Senate Bill 7 will return to the Senate for consideration of the amendments the House adopted.