Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House floor debate focuses on HB 58 to clarify partial forfeiture of water rights
Summary
Rep. Michael Styler introduced HB 58 to clarify partial forfeiture of water rights, establish a non-use application process and list exemptions (drought, reservoirs, groundwater). Sponsors say the bill protects users; members pressed on municipal growth, proof of future need, and interstate implications for Colorado River allocations.
Representative Michael Styler introduced House Bill 58 on the floor as a consensus product of a multi‑stakeholder committee that included the state engineer, the attorney general's office and representatives from water conservancy districts, water users associations and mutual water companies. Styler said the bill clarifies that partial forfeiture of a water right is possible but creates procedures and protections for water-right owners, including a non‑use application to preserve rights and explicit exemptions for drought, reservoir storage and groundwater limitations.
Styler read the bill's intent language, citing the state's policy to secure "the maximum use and benefit of its scarce water resources" and explained the bill's protections: public water supply entities and mutual water companies may file non‑use applications; the bill enumerates reasonable causes for non‑use protection (hardship, economic depression, initiation of conservation practices, recharge programs, federal conservation programs, or deterioration of supply); and it clarifies that beneficial use can be shown through leasing or contracts.
Members asked practical questions. Legislators from smaller jurisdictions worried that holding rights for anticipated growth might be vulnerable if development is delayed. Styler and the state engineer said municipalities generally face a liberal standard to demonstrate future need and that non‑use applications are available from the state engineer's office, including online; the sponsor said the application process is easy to obtain and intended to help owners preserve rights.
On ownership and transfers, Styler said the owner of the water right — not necessarily the landowner — is responsible for protecting the right. He said leasing water for beneficial use counts as protection and that canal companies' shares are owned by the company and are subject to company-level management.
Some members raised bigger policy concerns about precedent for interstate water allocations. One member asked whether codifying partial forfeiture could affect the state's allocation under the Colorado River Compact; the sponsor said the compact allocation is handled separately and the state engineer assured him the allocation is not jeopardized by state statute.
On the floor several members declared conflicts of interest and asked clarifying questions about wells, reservoirs, municipal exchanges and the process for challenging change applications. The transcript shows a motion to call the previous question (to end debate) and later that voting was opened on HB 58 as amended in committee; the excerpt does not include a final roll‑call tally for final passage in the House.
Key procedural steps recorded on the floor included a sponsor motion to move the bill 'out favorably' (to advance the bill). The transcript includes detailed floor questioning and back‑and‑forth with the sponsor and confirms programmatic and administrative clarifications (forms by the state engineer, online availability of non‑use applications, and that leases/contracts can demonstrate beneficial use).
The bill's sponsor urged support calling the measure a necessary clarification of existing law rather than a creation of new policy. The House proceeded to other business after the floor actions recounted in the excerpt.
