Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House debates new court route to resolve disputed water-right forfeitures
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB59, which would create a court-based process to resolve contested forfeiture of decreed water rights after nonuse, clarify notification and extension procedures, and limit the time window for challenges; members pushed for a 10-year safe-harbor and asked for additional drafting on notifications and state engineer authority.
The Utah House debated a bill to create a judicial procedure for disputes over forfeited decreed water rights, aiming to clear long-standing uncertainty where water rights have been treated as collateral and sometimes challenged after long periods of nonuse.
A sponsor of House Bill 59 described the proposal as a way to "take the cloud off many of the decreed water rights in the state of Utah," saying the measure would not change the five-year nonuse standard but would provide a process to bring forfeiture claims to court. The sponsor emphasized that any challenge must be litigated and that extreme care was taken in drafting with water attorneys and agencies.
Representative Johnson proposed amending the bill to shorten a proof period from 20 years to 10 years so that a party who reestablishes beneficial use can secure their rights more quickly and reduce uncertainty for land transfers and lending. Supporters said a 10-year standard would make rights more reliable for banks and property buyers; opponents urged caution about shifting administrative authority.
Members questioned how municipalities and special water companies would be affected. The sponsor said the bill applies to decreed water rights and that no entity is exempt; a municipality could lose a decreed right under current law if nonuse is shown. The sponsor and members discussed the state water engineer's existing administrative authority, notification practices, and due process. On notification, the sponsor said parties would be notified if a formal protest and court action were initiated: "All parties are being notified that the court hearing is taking place," assuring members that "no water rights will be taken away without your knowledge."
Legislators asked for clearer statutory language and more work with the state water engineer to define terms such as "beneficial use" and to ensure notification and extension procedures are explicit. Several members moved to "circle" the bill so staff and the engineer could draft clarifying amendments; the House agreed to set the bill aside temporarily for additional language work.
Next steps: House Bill 59 was circled for further drafting and clarification with the state water engineer and committee staff before the House will consider it again.
