Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes SB 109 to restore state engineer authority and create shareholder change process after court rulings
Summary
The House on March 14 approved the fourth substitute of SB 109, a comprehensive rewrite of water‑change application procedures that restores certain authorities to the state engineer and creates a formal path for irrigation‑company shareholders to request changes; the bill passed 61‑12 after prolonged debate over agricultural rights and due process.
The Utah House approved the fourth substitute of Senate Bill 109 on March 14, 2013, following hours of floor debate over water rights, company governance and the state engineer's authority. The bill passed 61‑12 and will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
Sponsor Representative Snow said the bill responds to a 2011 Utah Supreme Court decision (Janssen) that limited the state engineer’s role in declaring forfeiture or nonuse during the review of change applications. "We hold that the state engineer lacks authority to declare a water right forfeited in reviewing a change application," Snow said, reading from the case and arguing the substitute restores authority in many situations while preserving judicial review.
The substitute inserts a multi‑step process intended to balance the rights of individual shareholders in irrigation companies with protections for the company and other shareholders. Under the new process, a shareholder who seeks to move or change the use of water must first notify the company; the company has a defined period to respond. If the company does not respond or disagreement remains, parties are encouraged to mediate and, if necessary, the state engineer may hold a hearing. Either party may seek de novo adjudication in district court.
Supporters — including rural and water‑district representatives — said the text protects small shareholders who previously could be "stonewalled" by companies and left with only costly litigation. Representative McKiff described the change as restoring a path that had been absent since 1993: "This allows the shareholder to file as representative… submit it to the company, get the response, then it can go to mediation… it makes it streamlined, it makes it fair." Representative Mathis, who said he represents small owners, argued the substitute provides protections for the "little guy" who lacks resources for protracted litigation.
Opponents raised concerns that the substitute tilts the balance against established water companies and could impose new burdens or uncertainty on canal companies and agricultural operations. Representative Briscoe urged caution, saying he feared the language could hamper farmers and recommended further study in interim sessions. Representative Perry said many canal companies in his district did not support the changes and worried the new process could slow company oversight.
The bill includes provisions addressing: (1) reinstating limited state‑engineer authority to consider forfeiture and nonuse in specific contexts; (2) clarifying shareholder filing rights and company response timelines; (3) mandatory notices, mediation and the ombudsman role; and (4) narrow procedures for municipal dedication of water rights. Snow emphasized the changes were the product of lengthy stakeholder negotiations that included districts, conservancy boards, the Farm Bureau and private water owners.
Representative Snow concluded by telling colleagues the substitute provides a framework for future refinement and urged members to support it. After a motion for previous question and final debate, the House adopted the fourth substitute and passed SB 109, 61‑12. The measure returns to the Senate for further action.
What happens next: SB 109 will go back to the Senate for concurrence on the fourth substitute and any additional work requested by that chamber.
