Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates canal-use bill; lawmakers circle measure for more work
Summary
Senators debated second-substitute SB108, which would require parties seeking to add or enlarge water in existing canals or ditches to negotiate a contract in good faith with canal owners. Lawmakers raised concerns about whether agreements must be written and what remedies exist if negotiations fail; the bill was circled for further drafting.
Senators engaged in an extended debate over second substitute SB108, a bill governing joint use and enlargement of canals and ditches. Sponsor Senator Stowell said the language updates code dating from the 1950s and would require a person seeking to add or enlarge water use to "negotiate in good faith to enter into a contract governing the relationship, including terms of use and payment" with the canal or ditch owner.
Questions from members centered on practical effects: whether the agreement must be written or could be verbal (the sponsor noted the bill does not require a written contract), how the change affects landowners at the end of laterals, who pays for enlargement, and whether a recalcitrant owner can block a legitimate expansion. The sponsor said the bill aims to require communication and, if parties cannot agree, existing law allows court remedies to resolve easement expansions.
Given lingering confusion, multiple senators suggested further caucus and offline discussion. Senator Stowell moved to circle the bill so sponsors and committees could meet and draft clarifying language; the motion carried and the bill was circled for further work.
