Consultants working on the Unified Water Infrastructure Plan (UIP) told the Utah Watershed Council that the statewide project list and prioritization analysis support a recommended funding level of $200,000,000 per year for the first two years, with roughly $100,000,000 available from existing revolving-loan/repayment funds and a proposed $100,000,000 in new funding.

"There were $420,000,000 of funding per year requested for the first 2 years," Keith Larson, the project's manager, said. "Our recommended level of funding is $200,000,000 a year." The UIP lists projects, recommends a prioritization approach and will be submitted for adoption by the Water Development Coordinating Council; the project team requested written comments by Jan. 30 to meet a March 1 adoption target.

Several council members expressed concern about process and governance changes established under House Bill 280 (2024), which created a Water Development Coordinating Council and the UIP process. Mike Noel, representing local water interests, warned that the new step could add bureaucracy and delay. "That just sounds like pure bureaucracy to me," he said, arguing the Board of Water Resources previously provided an effective and timely funding path for many projects.

Shalane DeBernardi, assistant director with the Board of Water Resources, responded that the UIP is intended to improve transparency and align project types with the appropriate funding boards. She said emergency and small projects (defined in the UIP draft as projects requesting up to $300,000 in state funding) are exempt from the ranking and prioritization process and that the UIP does not eliminate the state boards. "Our board will still fund water projects, primarily agriculture and secondary water," DeBernardi said, adding that drinking water projects would move to the Drinking Water Board where appropriate.

The UIP team also flagged large unmet need: project requests totaled substantially more than available funds and many project applications require additional development. The UIP recommends prioritization criteria and distribution approaches for any new appropriation the Legislature might provide.

Council members asked whether the UIP would be paired with a funding appropriation or new state fees; DeBernardi said the UIP draft contemplates current funding and that separate funding/fee studies are occurring in parallel. She noted some legislators have expressed reservations about new fees and that existing funds will not meet the full estimated need.

The project team said adoption by March 1 would make any approved funding available beginning in the July fiscal cycle; the council was asked to review and submit comments on the UIP draft by the requested Jan. 30 deadline.