Senate debates county condemnation powers in heated water‑rights amendment fight

Senators spent an extended floor period debating whether counties may, by statute, condemn water rights not appurtenant to land as part of Second Substitute Senate Bill 215, a county‑powers cleanup sponsored by Senator Gladwell.

Senator Gladwell described the bill as an effort to “reinstate what I thought was my intention last year,” saying earlier wording unintentionally expanded the definition of "real property" to sweep water rights into county condemnation authority. He told colleagues the bill was intended to clarify counties’ power to condemn land without creating a new power to condemn water rights apart from land.

Senator Thomas moved to amend by deleting lines 45 through 49 — language that, as read on the floor, would state that "water rights that are not appurtenant to land do not constitute real property." Thomas argued the deletion would leave the question silent, restoring prior ambiguity that counties historically relied on and allowing a full public policy discussion in the interim. "The amendment would be to delete lines 45 through 49," he said, framing the motion as return to the statute’s prior posture and to avoid an unintended policy change for rural counties.

Other senators pressed technical and practical questions. Senator Hilliard and Senator Hickman asked whether water rights that are appurtenant to land (for example, a spring on the property) would still transfer with condemned land; speakers answered that appurtenant rights would be included with the land but shares or certificates held separately (e.g., canal shares) could be bought or condemned only if specifically included. Senators raised rural examples (Grand County’s need for water for a remote jail site) and the prospect that, absent condemnation power, counties might be forced to negotiate purchases or face holdouts.

Supporters of the amendment warned the floor that inserting explicit statutory language now would pre-empt a broader public debate and could unfairly withdraw rights counties believed they possessed. Opponents said the amendment could preserve uncertainty and that special service districts historically have exercised water‑condemnation authority where appropriate.

The amendment was put to a voice vote; the chair called for those in favor and those opposed. The presiding officer later announced the amendment failed. Sponsor Gladwell waived summation and the Senate recorded a roll‑call result advancing the second substitute SB215 to the third‑reading calendar. The clerk announced the measure had received 21 aye votes, no nay votes, and 8 being absent as read on the floor.

Next steps: SB215 was placed on the third‑reading calendar for a future floor vote; senators indicated they expect further stakeholder discussion about water‑rights and eminent‑domain policy in the interim.