Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances substitute bill to restore state engineer role in water-change applications amid heated debate
Summary
First substitute SB 109 would reestablish the state engineer as the primary gatekeeper for water-right change applications, narrow who may file, and create a limited carve-out allowing municipalities to seek advisory opinions from the private property ombudsman; supporters called it a necessary fix after recent court decisions, while opponents warned it risks concentrating power in the state engineer's office.
The Senate debated first substitute Senate Bill 109 at length, with sponsor Senator Okerlund arguing the substitute restores long-standing practice by reestablishing the state engineer as the first reviewer and clarifying who may file a change application in Utah.
Okerlund said two recent court rulings (referred to on the floor as the "big ditch" and "Jensen" cases) altered how change applications have been handled and that the substitute would allow applications "to come to the state engineer to be heard first" and limit filers to water-right owners, those with express written consent from owners, or their designees. He described the municipal carve-out as a narrow, experimental concession that would permit municipalities to seek an advisory opinion from the private property ombudsman for certain matters.
Several senators pressed the sponsor on due-process concerns. Senator Jones asked how private water companies (for example Holiday Water) would be treated; Okerlund replied that private companies would be handled similarly to pre-court practice and could still use the state engineer to file or protest change applications. Senator Bramble expressed concern about allowing the same decisionmaker to hear protests, calling it problematic that "the very person that is making a decision... then sits in judgment of that decision." Okerlund and other supporters said parties could still seek judicial review in court following administrative processes.
Senator Madsen said he remained unconvinced the substitute was limited to correcting the court rulings and feared returning to a time when the state engineer acted as "judge, jury, and executioner" over private water owners; he said he could not support the bill as written without more information. Senator Dayton urged lawmakers to focus on the judiciary-versus-legislature question the court rulings raised and suggested municipal carve-outs belong in separate legislation.
Several members representing a range of interests, including agriculture, municipal governments, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the state water engineer's office, said negotiations over two years produced what they viewed as a workable compromise. The sponsor moved the bill for third reading and the roll-call showed substantial support in the chamber during the morning session; senators recorded mixed reservations while indicating the matter should be monitored and possibly revisited after implementation.
