Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Late amendment to rewrite of county code sharply debated over condemnation of agricultural water rights
Summary
Lawmakers spent extended floor time on a late amendment to first substitute Senate Bill 164 that would bar counties from condemning agricultural water rights separately from the land; proponents said it protects farmers, opponents said the change belongs in Title 78 and is an improper late policy insertion.
SALT LAKE CITY — On March 5, 2003, the Utah House spent a prolonged late-night debate on a substitute amendment to first substitute Senate Bill 164 that would limit a county's ability to condemn agricultural water rights unless the county also acquires the fee title to the land.
Representative Ferry, who offered the substitute amendment (referred to on the floor as Amendment 4), told colleagues the change is narrowly drawn: "If you're going to condemn the water, condemn the land, don't destroy the farmer," he said, arguing the amendment protects irrigated farmland by preventing the separate seizure of water rights used in agriculture.
Supporters said the amendment preserves the economic value of irrigated land and prevents a county from taking a farmer's water while leaving the land effectively unusable. Representative Bennion, speaking earlier about Amendment 6, described the principle that "the water and the land cannot be condemned…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
