Senate committee tweaks S.328 to clarify who counts as 'served' by water and adds update to farm‑housing report
Loading...
Summary
Members of the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee discussed edits to S.328 that would defer precise service-area definitions to local authorities (including fire districts and other public water providers) and add an updated farm‑housing report; members debated removing prescriptive distance language and preserving some by‑right connection protections.
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee spent much of its March 26 meeting hashing out amendments to S.328, a housing bill that members said aims to increase housing supply while clarifying where municipal sewer and water infrastructure should allow new connections.
Committee discussion centered on a proposal to remove prescriptive distance measures (for example, 300 or 2,000 feet) from the statute and instead rely on municipal or local determinations of where systems can safely and legally support new connections. A Committee member said municipalities and local regulators “know what their system can handle” and warned that a fixed-distance rule could force repeated ordinance updates or produce arbitrary results across differing topography and neighboring jurisdictions.
The amendment would explicitly include public water systems beyond city-owned utilities—such as fire districts, co‑ops and similar providers—so long as they serve the statutory threshold of customers. A Committee member noted that some fire districts already provide both water and sewer and currently feel excluded from the bill’s language; the proposed change would make those service areas eligible where appropriate.
Members also agreed to add a directive for an updated farm‑housing report: the Land, Housing and Conservation Board’s 2021 study would be refreshed to inform future policy. Debate surfaced over terminology: some members urged keeping the formal study title (“farmworker housing needs”) intact while changing informal uses in the bill to “on‑farm housing” so the language would better capture a range of on‑site housing arrangements, including farmer‑leased parcels and owner‑occupied farmworker units.
A separate concern raised in committee was whether striking existing statutory text that enabled certain by‑right connections could inadvertently remove an individual property owner’s ability to connect to municipal service. One member cautioned that removing that language could hand additional discretion to local volunteer boards and potentially limit housing opportunities in places where municipal service is available.
Members signaled broad agreement on the bill’s objectives—clarity and more housing—and resolved to coordinate a substitute amendment with the Natural Resources committee that would preserve locally focused definitions while trying to avoid conflicts with state permit requirements. The committee did not finalize floor text in the meeting; members said they would return with a substitute amendment and further coordination before taking the bill to the floor.
The committee agreed to continue technical discussions in Natural Resources to refine language on municipal capacity (including whether tier criteria should explicitly allow municipalities to rely on municipal staff, regional planning commissions or contracted capacity).
