Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates HB 105 on water reuse; downstream users warn of reduced return flows
Summary
On Feb. 9 the Utah Senate debated House Bill 105, which establishes a process for communities to apply to the state engineer to reuse treated wastewater; supporters said it provides necessary adjudication and protects rights, while opponents warned it could reduce downstream return flows and trigger litigation.
Senators spent more than an hour debating House Bill 105, a measure crafted by an interim task force to address reuse of treated wastewater effluent.
Sponsor and proponents, including Sen. Petersen and Sen. Reese, described HB 105 as a consensus product of a task force that included municipalities, upstream and downstream water users, canal companies and conservancy districts. The sponsor explained the bill does not create new water rights but provides a process by which communities can apply to the state engineer for changes in points of diversion and other adjustments necessary to reuse effluent. "This bill is that result," one floor sponsor said of the task-force work.
Sen. Taylor strongly opposed the bill on the floor, arguing it effectively gives the state engineer authority to declare effluent "unappropriated" and that reuse could reduce downstream return flows relied upon by lower-basin users. "By passing this law, we give the state engineer the ability to say that this is unappropriated water," Taylor said, warning that downstream users (he cited the Weber River example) could suffer during drought years and that litigation would likely follow.
Proponents replied that HB 105 creates an adjudication process and does not change the rights-priority system; they said task-force participants, including representatives of conservancy districts, canal companies and the League of Cities and Towns, had reviewed and supported the measure. Senator Petersen noted that the bill contains language preventing enlargement of water rights merely by moving points of diversion upstream.
Senators exchanged technical examples about how transfer and reuse interact with existing water-rights classes and whether the bill could allow expanded water usage in practice. Concerns focused on the discretion of the state engineer, return-flow accounting, and the potential for changing the effective volume of water attached to transferred shares.
Outcome and next steps: After extended debate, sponsors asked to "circle" HB 105 (set aside for later consideration) and also moved to recess; senators agreed to return at 2 p.m., leaving HB 105 pending further floor action and technical clarifications.
