Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate clears water-rights bill after contested amendments; retroactive language removed
Summary
After extended floor debate and two amendment battles, the Senate passed House Bill 3 60, a measure clarifying non-use applications in water law. A proposal to preserve a safe-harbor for applicants failed, but the body approved an amendment stripping retroactive language and approved the bill 15–12.
House Bill 3 60, a measure meant to clarify procedures for non-use water-right applications, survived a daylong floor debate and passed after the Senate adopted an amendment removing retroactive language.
Senator Chris Christensen, the bill sponsor, argued the bill implements recommendations from the Executive Water Task Force and “clarifies existing law on non use applications,” saying the measure was intended to preserve, not upend, current practice. Christensen summarized the bill’s purpose as ensuring a non-use application permits a landowner to reserve a right for future use.
Senator Madsen offered an amendment to reinstate what he described as a longstanding “safe harbor” while the state water engineer reviews an application and to prevent new challenges after approval. Madsen warned the existing draft “opens the window for claims” and could allow challenges “20 years ago, 30, 50 years ago,” clouding title and making banks reluctant to lend.
Madsen told the body the language in the bill “takes that safe harbor away and opens the window for claims to be brought” during consideration and even after approval. Sponsor Christensen strongly opposed that change, saying the task force’s carefully drafted language would be set back by the amendment.
The Senate called a division on Madsen’s amendment; the amendment failed after members stood to record their positions. Later in debate Senator Weiler flagged a clause with retroactive dates and argued it appeared designed to affect pending litigation, citing an ongoing Fourth District case (Central Utah Water Conservancy District v. South Utah Valley Municipal Water Association, case no. 120400610) as an example of how retroactivity could be used. That concern led to a separate amendment removing the retroactive language; the Senate adopted that amendment.
After those changes, Senate members debated the bill’s overall effect on water-rights holders, with Senator Hilliard and others voicing concern for small, longstanding water users that might be disadvantaged by altered forfeiture or non-use rules. In the end the bill passed on a roll‑call vote, 15 yea, 12 nay. The sponsor will return the amended bill to the House for further consideration.
Actions and votes recorded on the floor include: Madsen amendment (failed after division), adoption of an amendment removing retroactive language (passed), and final passage of House Bill 3 60 (15‑12). The transcript shows participants referenced technical input from the Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights and the Executive Water Task Force.
