Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances contested water-rights rewrite aimed at speeding projects to the Great Salt Lake; critics say it narrows public protections
Summary
HB 60 would narrow the State Engineer’s review criteria and streamline protests to focus on water-related statutory authorities; supporters say it speeds water delivery to the Great Salt Lake, while conservation groups, tribal leaders and civic advocates warned it would limit public standing and weaken safeguards. The committee advanced the bill 7–2.
Representative Schallenberger and State Water Engineer Theresa Williamson framed HB 60 as a statutory cleanup and a workload-focused effort to let the State Engineer concentrate on questions within the office’s statutory authority — beneficial use, quantity, quality and availability of water — and to defer non-water issues (air quality, economic impacts, zoning) to agencies with expertise.
Williamson described a high caseload (roughly 16,000 decisions a year) and explained the bill would remove antiquated language and clarify what the engineer may consider when reviewing protests. Supporters, including members of the Farm Bureau and an experienced water-law practitioner, said the goal is to streamline processes so water can be delivered more quickly for programs intended to bolster the Great Salt Lake.
But the bill drew lengthy public opposition at the committee. Conservation groups and local residents said HB 60 would remove the engineer’s ability to consider impacts to recreation, natural stream environments and the public welfare and would limit who has meaningful standing to protest applications. Zachary Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council said the bill "absolutely, positively streamlines the drawing of the Great Salt Lake," and other witnesses warned it would hinder local and tribal ability to challenge diversions that affect the lake and regional air quality from exposed lakebed. After discussion the committee voted 7–2 to advance the bill; several members asked the sponsor to continue working with dissenting stakeholders as the bill moves forward.
