H.B. 60 Water Rights Amendments

What this bill does

H.B. 60 would limit the State Water Engineer's review of water applications to water matters such as beneficial use, quantity, quality, and availability, leaving economic and air quality questions to other state agencies. The bill also ties limits on protests of water applications to water matters.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 7 yes, 2 no, 5 absentHouse Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 54 yes, 17 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 3, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 1 no, 1 absentSenate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 12, 2026Who voted how
• 15 yes, 7 no, 7 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 18 yes, 7 no, 4 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 23, 2026 House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (64 turns)

  1. Chair Shipp (presiding)1:52:22

     Uh, well, you'll want to just go ahead and stay right there and go to HB 60.

  2. Rep. David Shallenberger1:52:29

     Thank you. And I'd like to invite up, uh, the state water engineer there, Willson. Okay. So House Bill 60. So this is Water Rights Amendments. Uh, this is really targeted towards the Great Salt Lake and helping keep it, um, in a healthy build to a healthy, strong spot. Crucial to that is the role of our state water engineer who's up here with us today. And so this bill directly, uh, applies to herd job and applications that she reviews. Um, so, uh, it's targeting two or three things. I'll just highlight those and then I'll turn the time over to this, uh, the state water engineer, and then she can go into further detail and answer probably more of the technical questions. I'm good at the 30,000 foot overview on this one. She can get into the details into the forest. Um, but it really highlights a couple things. Uh, we want the state water engineer, that's her expertise. We want her to be able to do what she does best. Uh, and that means not focus on economic analysis, air quality issues, or other things like that. We have whole divisions in the state to review those things, and we don't want conflicting reports coming out, maybe from one or the other. So let the experts do what they do best. So d The Divi, it's DEQ still here. I guess he was here with Representative Chew. She is. Oh, really? She's right there. Oh, okay. They're still here. Good. So let them do their job. They're very good at that. Let's let the economists do their job and let's let the state water engineer stay in their lanes so that they can focus on what they do best. We're trying to speed up and process these permits so that the water can actually get where it's supposed to and get to the Great Salt Lake and help, uh, keep it strong. Uh, part of that is also dealing with protests or legal challenges. You may have gotten a text, you may have gotten an email from one or two people, but the, there, there's some concerns out there that I read that were, were trying to silence voices. We're trying to eliminate, uh, people that don't have standing or people that maybe don't have water rights or people, uh, just silence the voices. And that is not what this bill does. This bill still allows people to protest if they have concerns. It still allows people to bring legal challenges. We're just trying to clean up this process so it's cleaner, faster, simpler, and, and let the experts stay in their lanes. So I'd like to turn the time over to Theresa,

  3. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer1:55:04

     So thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, let me just maybe start with, you know, over time, um, the state engineer's office, we are getting more and more applications and they're becoming more and more complex. Um, we process about 16,000 decisions a year, um, which you can imagine is a pretty fa fast pace. And a lot of legislation has really come about in the last couple of years that really str, um, benefit like the Instream Flow statute that has been developed and has given me direction on how to address certain applications for certain beneficial uses for Instream flow on sovereign lands, those types of things. But as we look at all of the benefits that we're doing, and even some other legislation that is coming this year, and I think one that just got numbered today, I think, um, house Bill 3 48 by Representative Koford. Um, we're looking at ways to, um, further enhance getting water, um, to the incentivizing getting water to the Great Salt Lake, but also addressing issues on the Colorado River, um, with the Demand Management program. And we know in the division we have to get faster, um, and better with our processes and streamline what we have. So what this, um, bill is doing is that, um, basically the state engineer since 1896 has overseen water. Sometimes folks think the state engineer is the all everything of water and all everything. Um, sometimes the process gets slowed down and I'm talking 16,000, um, you know, decisions that we review a year. Um, I can't address things that county ordinances address, um, like sound, maybe smell, um, when those get brought before the state engineer, I can't really make a decision on that. Um, there are also, um, like the representative mentioned, other divisions that have been created over time, um, over the last 130 years that have specific statutory criteria to look at certain things like water quality and maybe just an example where we have really improved the way that agencies are interacting with each other and the communication and the work that we are doing. Um, one example of that was a bill a couple years ago on reuse, where water quality division, water quality, and the state engineer issue those decisions simultaneously. And the state engineer may condition an approval that then requires the WA division of water quality to also join in that decision. So, um, there's many safeguards to make sure that we're looking at the right things for the state engineer and allowing us to just move forward on some of these things that I simply cannot address in decisions. So, um, maybe with that, take specific questions. Yeah. So that's our presentation.

  4. Chair Shipp (presiding)1:58:09

     Thank you. Okay. Thank you representative. So we'll bring it, uh, back to the committee for clarifying questions and discussion. Representative Albright.

  5. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:58:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as you know, we've received a lot of emails and texts on this bill, very nice ones, students and so forth. Uh, they're all about the same, but it says HB 60 wood erode existing environmental protections for the great Salt Lake, rivers and Wildlife throughout the state. Can you respond to that?

  6. Rep. David Shallenberger1:58:52

     You'd like me to case I'll jump in. Ev No, it keeps the environmental protection in place. It's just this is designed to speed up the entire process. And if you wanna expand on that,

  7. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer1:59:02

     Yeah, it doesn't erode, um, the environmental protections. Um, the state engineer still has to look at the beneficial use of water, um, the quantity, quality and availability of that water. But what I don't have is potentially regulations that deal with like EPA, um, but that is where we partner and work collaboratively with like the division of water quality and others. So it does not erode that. It still allows, um, a person that has an interest to come forward, file a protest, file a letter of concern, they can still participate through the process.

  8. Chair Shipp (presiding)1:59:39

     Thank you. Okay. Thank you Representative, Representative Bolinder.

  9. Rep. Bridger Bolinder1:59:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my question was answered. Um, I was just gonna touch on the, the public participation part, if it removes that, and then also the Great Salt Lake. So thank you for addressing those.

  10. Chair Shipp (presiding)1:59:56

      Okay, thank you Representative Bollinger. Uh, representative Arthur.

  11. Rep. John Arthur2:00:02

      Thank you, chair. I have a, I have a few questions. Um, also received the emails and text messages. Shout out to the, to the youth who are looking out for the great Salt Lake, Salt Lake. I appreciated all those. And I just have some specific questions from the bill. First, I, I'm curious why were lines 42 through 44 struck?

  12. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:00:25

      Sure, I can address that, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Um, so those lines as well as, um, I'm gonna point you into line 79 through 86 mm-hmm. Um, have become antiquated in statute and modifications that have been done like Instream Flow and others really, um, kind of take more precedent or mute those issues. So we're eliminating some unnecessary language and maybe, um, describe it that if you include everything as, um, the more beneficial use, what is the more beneficial use? So if we allow for instream flow, um, to stand on its own and have that, then that is a focus and a direction that we can take or use on sovereign lands. Mm-hmm.

  13. Rep. John Arthur2:01:13

      Help me understand this. The, these lines 79 through 86 in particular have been in code for some time. Um, how did you determine the more beneficial use before?

  14. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:01:26

      Um, so which it became part of slowing that process down, right? As more and more of these got added, it made it harder to determine what is the more beneficial use. So we really f focus on interfering or impact impairing existing water rights.

  15. Rep. John Arthur2:01:43

      Right. Um, if maybe I'll, I'll save some of the others till after the public comment, but I'm also curious about the specificity in lines 57 through 58. Um, how did, how did adding in the, the text in red there improve the, the statute?

  16. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:02:07

      Sure. Mr. Chair. Um, so that was, um, to help clarify and streamline the authorities to make sure that the state engineer is staying within, um, her authorities, um, within statutes. So, um, let's say, and this is, um, somewhat common. If someone says, I don't want a dog kennel in my backyard because the dogs bark, um, I can't really, that's not under my jurisdiction. That's a, a zoning issue, um, that a city or a municipality needs to address. So it really is directing it to be what are the authorities of the state engineer and those are the things that I should focus on in the decisions.

  17. Rep. John Arthur2:02:46

      So just so I understand those lines would limit what you can consider, um, when it comes to protests that are, that are being filed,

  18. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:02:57

      Um, it limits it to those things that I have the authority to consider.

  19. Rep. John Arthur2:03:01

      Alright. Do you, but do you currently have the authority to consider those things? Yes. Or would it it would now limit what you can consider?

  20. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:03:11

      Um, so it puts it more, um, like I mentioned, we look at beneficial use, we look at the quantity, quality and availability of the water, right? So things like housing density, um, increasing road traffic, um, maybe impacts to emergency services. Those aren't really, um, just factors that I can consider in my statutory authorities that I have.

  21. Rep. John Arthur2:03:34

      You can't currently Consider them

  22. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer2:03:35

      Cannot. Right. Gotcha.

  23. Rep. John Arthur2:03:36

      Okay.

  24. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:03:39

      Okay. Thank you Representative Arthur. Uh, seeing no further clarifying questions, we'll open it up to the public. Does anybody in the public wanna speak to this? Raise your hand. It's like we got a few, so come on up and take your turn. We can get two up here at a time and be sure you sign in and either before or after, and we're gonna give you two minutes each.

  25. Steve Erickson, Great Basin Water Network2:04:10

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman, uh, committee members. My name is Steve Erickson. I represent Great Basin Water Network. Uh, we clearly have a difference of, uh, interpretation with, uh, the state engineer's office, uh, the sponsor. Um, we've, uh, been vocal about that in the past and appreciate your willingness to listen to me once more. Those of you have. Um, so we, uh, would, uh, object to the characterization that this simply streamlines everything and question whether streamlining is really what is needed at this juncture. We don't know how, what percentage, uh, from the state engineer's office, uh, of these applications or water rights changes have, uh, have been protest, and how many of those even reference the public trust in the protest. Uh, this bill really does narrow the definition or the application of the public welfare and the public trust. So, um, there are a variety of different problems with, with that. Um, as in who, who can protest, which has been disputed, but I'd reference, uh, the bill on that. Um, given the two minute limitation here, I'm not gonna be citing chapter and verse much, but, um, it removes consideration of recreation, for instance, from the, that process and lines, uh, 79, uh, at sec. Um, the state engineer may consider public trust concerns on waters above the public lands like Great Salt Lake, um, or any of the other state sovereign lands, but may do that not required to do that. Um, the, uh, it create, this creates a lot of uncertainty in the regulatory process, particularly around the mitigation issues of water, right? If there's an an impairment claimed and, uh, who's gonna be in charge of monitoring that? How will that there there be any accountability? Um, will there be any, uh, uh, additional requirements and enforcement down the road? Um, there's, uh, injection uncertainty into the senior water rights holders in some cases and how they are going to navigate this process. You've got About 10 seconds, I just wanna state among those that includes the five, uh, tribal lead five tribes of the state and their leadership council voted unanimously to oppose this bill as currently constructed. So what I'm hoping that we can do is to work with the sponsor and the state engineer here to try to address some of these issues that we clearly have a very strong time. Okay.

  26. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:06:59

      Could you please wrap up? I just did. Um, okay. Thank You very much for your testimony. Okay, sir, you're up next.

  27. Zachary Frankel, Utah Rivers Council2:07:07

      Good afternoon. My name is Zachary Frankel. I'm the Executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. And I appreciate the chance to speak to you about this bill. This bill absolutely positively streamlines the drying of the great Salt Lake. Make no mistake about it, this bill limits the ability of members of the public Utahans to enjoy their constitutional rights, to challenge water rights that will dry up the great Salt Lake. Citing other legislation as an excuse to continue allowing this bill to proceed is a major red flag at a time when the public is expecting Utah to take greater steps forward in protecting the great Salt Lake. This bill is a retreat from that position. This bill limits and narrows the definition of public welfare. It will lead to not just the drying of the great Salt Lake. It will lead to the dewatering of trout streams across the state. It will eliminate recreation opportunities and even potentially impact other water resources outside of the recreational sphere By limiting who can protest water rights. As this bill does in a very draconian way, it removes the ability of Utahans to challenge water rights in a court of law, effectively eliminating their ability to enjoy all three branches of government, the checks and balances of democracy. There is simply no two ways to read this bill and argue that this will benefit the great Salt Lake. It impacts it. We should not be making arguments that other legislation will allow the protection of the Great Salt Lake, including the Instream flow law. I thank you for your time today and urge you to hold this bill until an amendment can be offered, which satisfies the concerns of literally millions of Utahans and hundreds of millions of Americans who want to see the great Salt Lake exist. Thank you very much.

  28. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:09:27

      Thank you. Uh, anybody else? I saw other hands. Uh, come on up. We need to keep the chairs full so kind of keep rotating so we don't waste time. Uh, so go ahead.

  29. Cameron Carpenter, resident2:09:40

      Uh, good afternoon, representatives. My name is Cameron Carpenter. I'm a native of Utah, born in Salt Lake City. I live and work in Salt Lake City now, and I have enjoyed a lifetime while I've been living here of, uh, fishing Utah Streams and lakes and skiing Utah powder in the Wasatch Front, which, uh, is also known as huge part of our water supply for communities along the Wasatch Front. Um, I, I'm here today to speak to HP 60. I feel it's deeply flawed on many levels and should be opposed and voted against. Current Utah law requires the state of Utah and state engineer to consider denying a water right diversion or allocation application if it could unreasonably affect public recreation or the natural stream environment or will prove detrimental to the public welfare. HB 60 removes this existing language altogether that is just not prudent. The Great Salt Lake is currently suffering from low water levels and will reach a new record, low level of water in 2026, causing the lake to become more saline and less water with less water available, which is threatening the lake's ability to maintain important ecosystems is a living body of water, which in fact is the largest remaining living natural saline body of water in the United States. Furthermore, the exposed shoreline of the lake due to historically low water levels is exposing the entire Wasatch front basin to toxic dust storms containing carcinogens and heavy metals that, uh, would otherwise be covered by great Salt Lake water. If the lake is kept at sustainable healthy water levels, HP 60 would gut the existing requirement for the state engineer to consider impacts of the Great Salt Lake. When approving new water use applications, I work as, uh, I have a 15 year career in commercial real estate. As a broker working throughout our state, I can tell you that the depleted state of the Great Salt Lake and tox toxic dust storms caused by its low water level is a major concern of companies and business owners looking to locate businesses in the Wasatch Front and move employees to our state. It's a real concern, and I'm not just saying that it's what people ask me when they come from other states that are titans of business and leaders of their businesses looking to locate here. It's a real problem that must be taken seriously by Utahans and our legislature, not only for our own health and sustainability, but also to ensure sustainable economic health and growth. The time for giving lip service to Utah's great Salt Lake water level crisis is over. Real and intelligent actions must be taken to preserve the sustainability of the Great Salt Lake and other water use decisions. If the state legislature fails in this task, the detrimental effects will be grim and longstanding. Now, HB 60 wording would limit Utah citizens. Sorry, your two minutes are up. Could you wrap up real Quick? Yes. Just this last sentence. Uh, HP 60 wording would limit Utah citizens' ability to challenge and oppose new water diversions that could further deplete the great Salt Lake dry up existing wetlands that millions of migratory birds depend on for viability and adversely affect river and lake recreation and trout fishing and overall environmental health and air quality along the Wasatch Front.

  30. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:12:49

      Hey, thank you. 'cause of this language and edits, That's certainly more than a sentence we need to move on. Sir, I pose this bill. Thank you. We need to be fair to everybody else. Okay. Go ahead sir. You got two minutes. Thank you.

  31. Kirk Robinson, Western Wildlife Conservancy2:12:58

      Uh, thank you chair and committee members. Uh, I am Kirk Robinson. I am the founder and executive director of Western Wildlife Conservancy, uh, headquarters here in Utah. And, um, I'll be brief, I am concerned about the, about wildlife basically and how this might affect wildlife. The part that was stricken concerning, uh, taking into consideration the natural environment of streams, for instance, when making decisions on new water applications. I don't understand the point of that, and I'm not, I don't feel assured that that will not detrimentally affect wildlife or at least have the potential to do that. And another thing in listening to the presentations, um, that we're made by Representative Shallenberger and the state water engineer, I'm pretty sure I heard Shallenberger say the whole point of this bill is to help the great Salt Lake, make it stronger, make it ecologically more sound, et cetera. I didn't hear anybody explain how it would do that, and it seems strange to me because if that really is the main purpose, you'd think they'd already have thought that through and have something to say about it. And I'd surely love to hear it without, uh, knowing more. I can't support this bill personally. Thank you.

  32. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:14:25

      Thank you for your testimony.

  33. Candice Hasenyager, Director, Division of Water Quality2:14:28

      Hi, go ahead, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Candace Hager. I'm the director at the Division of Water Quality. We appreciate the work of Representative Shallenberger on this bill. The stated engineer and I have a long history of working together and are committed to working together, uh, or continue to work together in my current role as Director of Water Quality Water quality appreciates the engagement on this bill and the positive collaboration that we will have through the, with the state engineer's office. We are working through one small question that Tim Davis and I had, um, but we are committed to make sure that we have the necessary alignment between our agencies as this bill moves forward. Thanks for your time.

  34. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:15:10

      Okay. Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

  35. David Cruise, resident2:15:15

      Hello. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is David Cruzi, Representative Koford. I live in your district on 29th Street, and I'm here as an individual. Um, I just wanna start out by saying we should not be putting up barriers to address the issues at the Great Salt Lake. Um, we're pushing responsibility away from the Division of Water Resources makes air quality and water quality work more complicated than it needs to be. The Great Salt Lake is disappearing because of over allocations, too many upstream diversions within the basin, and until the legislator commits to hard number deliveries from which we can measure progress against, we are not going to make any progress. Until the legislator commits to regulating upstream diversions in a meaningful way, we will make no progress. And ironically, this bill is the exact opposite of those two actions. I wanted to read a section of the bill, um, lines 2 0 8 through 2 28, paragraph seven. The state engineer may not consider or rely on detriment to the public welfare as basis for the rejection of applications. If the factors supporting a finding of the detriment to the public welfare are primarily related to an indirect or negligible environmental, economic, social, or other effects of the proposed plan, prohibiting the state engineer from considering impacts to the Great Salt Lake is irresponsible. We're at a moment where we need the state engineer to spec, specifically consider impacts to the Great Salt Lake. I ask that you do not move this bill forward until it is modified to ensure that the Great Salt Lake is explicitly considered in decisions related to water diversions. As written, this bill moves us further away from the meaningful regulation of upstream depletions at the exact moment when stronger decision making authority is needed. Thank you.

  36. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:17:11

      Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Go ahead sir.

  37. Herbert Ley, resident2:17:18

      Hi, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you very much. My name's Herbert Lay. You may know me from my advocacy for Stream access, but I'm speaking for myself as a resident of Millcreek today for the last two or three years. Uh, every time it rains, there's mud droplets on my truck. This is all connected air quality dust storms. The drying Salt Lake. This bill by deleting lines 79 through 86, takes away the power of the state engineer to even investigate these matters. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong. Perhaps I don't understand it correctly, but it doesn't seem like this is a time when we should be eliminating checks and balances and the powers of the state water engineer in considering applications for new appropriations. Um, I think I'll stop there because others have done a fantastic job in expressing other concerns.

  38. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:18:16

      So thank you for the time. Okay, Thank you very much. Anybody else here? Nobody else in the room? Uh, we'll go on. We have three folks online and first we'll go to Alexis, oh, Simon Achi or something like that. Turn on your camera and speak to us and correct me if I mentioned your name wrong, Alexis. Okay. We can see you go ahead. Thank

  39. Alexis Simontacchi, Utah Sierra Club2:18:52

      You. Members of the committee, please hear me. Uh, my name is Alexis Simon Taki, and I am speaking on behalf of the Utah Sierra Club as a member of the Utah Chapter Legislative Committee. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City and have lived here for almost four years. And we live in the nation's second driest state At a time of severe drought, we need to contend with the very present reality that water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource. As a citizen of Utah, I expect proper water management from the government during this time of crisis and not a weakening of transparency and due process in water proceedings. As proposed by HB 60, the current law rightly requires the state engineer to consider denying water right applications if they could unreasonably affect public recreation or the natural stream environment or approve detrimental to the public welfare. HB 60 removes that language, which represents a drastic change to Utah's existing water law and creates regulatory uncertainty for current water rights holders and the public. Additionally, the Bill narrows Utah citizens' ability to engage in meaningful action and protest of detrimental applications. If they're not current water rights holders, the assumption that you will not suffer injury due to an improper water Right allocation. If you are not a water right holder is nonsensical. You don't have to own a water right in order to be impacted by a contaminated or impaired watershed in your community. Our concerns on this bill are not just theoretical right now. There is a controversial water rights application in dispute in Green River between a coalition of farmers, residents, and local businesses, and a foreign multinational mining corporation. The company Anon Resources is requesting a water rate for 12 million gallons per day of fresh water from the Colorado River Basin. They plan to drill on the bank's Green River through a contaminated aquifer. Can we, can we keep it germane to, we're not talking about the Colorado River, we're talking about this great Salt Lake and what this bill affects. Go ahead. Sure. So, um, if this bill is enacted, the State of Utah to uphold in future cases that those residents and business owners have no standing to bring a challenge, I urge you to stand with the people of Utah, uphold our commitment to reasonable stewardship of our most precious, precious resource and vote no on HB 60.

  40. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:21:25

      Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll go to Abby, uh, Nestler.

  41. Abbie Nistler, resident2:21:35

      Go ahead. Hello, my name is, my name is Abby Nestler and I'm speaking for myself as a constituent in Utah. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City and moved to Utah from Minnesota. Moving from Minnesota to Utah taught me the importance of water and how water rights work. And I oppose HB 60 due to its limiting safeguards for communities. I would like to point out that this does not only affect the Great Salt Lake, it does impact the whole state. And therefore the Green River case is important to acknowledge there are community members contesting water rights, and it also a coalition of farmers, residents, and businesses. And that case is, does matter. 'cause if this bill passed, it would significantly change the work that that community members are doing. Um, so yeah. Thank you so much and I oppose this bill.

  42. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:22:29

      Thank you for your testimony. Uh, next we got our final online, uh, uh, testifier, for lack of a better word, Warren Peterson. It's your turn.

  43. Warren Peterson, Farm Bureau2:22:46

      Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. My name is Warren Peterson. I'm calling in from beautiful downtown Oasis, Utah. I'm speaking on behalf of Farm Bureau today, but also, uh, I've watched Representative Shallenberger take this bill through the Utah Water Task Force and with a good thorough discussion there and a unanimous vote to recommend it. I've seen him take it through the, um, legislative Water Development Commission of which I'm a member unanimous vote there as well. The concerns that have been addressed here were, were discussed in depth. What I bring to this is, um, a 49 year history in water law and a student of Great Salt Lake through that entire time. And, uh, I, I'm going to directly contradict some of the things that have been said. This bill is designed to streamline the processes for getting water to Great Salt Lake. That is the motivation behind the bill, and that is the effect of the bill. And I would suggest a more careful reading to those who worry about it. We've been very careful in put in putting this bill together, those that have been involved in it to maintain robust due process to allow access to those who want to make protests as long as the protests are germane. And that's all the bill does. And it, I'm going to offer this little artifact. This is the belt buckle issued by the state engineer's office for its hundredth centennial in 1997. The state engineer's office is 129 years old. There's been a lot happening law since then. And part of what this bill does is cleans up some old archaic language that is really no longer a no longer needs to be applied because we've grown up with a robust enough water allocation system to address these kind of issues. And in 130 years, you've had a lot of other agencies grow up that can specialize in things that are put into place that can specialize in recreation and other issues that people have raised, and that the bill allows the state engineer to defer to those other agencies that have those specialties. But what it does do is it allows the state engineer to focus on this public welfare issue, which has never been defined in all these years. And this bill does it very carefully and I would direct attention to Did you wrap it? Could you wrap up quite soon? We've given everybody two minutes, Warren, so if you'll wrap it up, that'd be great. Yeah, look, look at lines 2 0 8 through two 13. That's where the duties of the state engineer are addressed in considering these at and considering an application. And keep in mind that we now have the Instream Flow legislation in 7 83 dash three dash 30. So lets the state engineer get to the point, gives people opportunity to have their say. But the motivation behind this bill is largely to get water to Great Salt Lake and also to do the same with the Colorado River to implement these demand management programs that have been built up over the last five years. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh, farm Bureau supports the bill.

  44. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:25:52

      Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, okay. We'll bring it now back to the committee, close public comment and we'll close public comment and we'll bring back the committee for further discussion or action if you want Representative Koford.

  45. Rep. Kay Koford2:26:14

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I was going to ask some questions, but Warren Peterson jumped on and, and took care of a lot of the questions that I was hoping we could clarify and get to. Um, I am working on the Great Salt Lake. It's my number one priority and my number one priority in that space is to deliver water to the lake. I have spent hours working with Theresa on this issue. She is an incredible advocate for what we're trying to do. Um, she wants to streamline this process and make some of the things that we are trying to do work. The biggest barrier that we have, that we have faced and all of the things that we've tried is actually the delivery of water. So this bill will help speed that process up and I am very much in favor of it and wanna thank the sponsor and Theresa for their work on that. Would it be appropriate to make a motion at this point, Mr. Chair?

  46. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:27:12

      Uh, well, you kind of passed that up when you started speaking, so we'll have to go to somebody else now. So Representative Watkins.

  47. Rep. Christine F. Watkins2:27:22

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realized what she was doing and I'm like, I think I'll push my button.

  48. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:27:27

      You didn't reserve the opportunity. Go ahead.

  49. Rep. Christine F. Watkins2:27:30

      Okay, Mr. Chair, I'd like to, uh, make a motion to, uh, pass out HB 60, uh, water Rights Amendments with a favorable recommendation.

  50. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:27:42

      Okay. That is in order. Any discussion to that? Um, representative Arthur discussion to the motion?

  51. Rep. John Arthur2:27:53

      Actually, do you mind, I I feel like I just jumped in front of Representative Owens. I'd like to yield and come back after these question. Okay.

  52. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:28:00

      Well, Your light actually went on first, but Representative Owens, go ahead.

  53. Rep. Doug Owens2:28:05

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, in listening to the concerns, I, I've been trying to address them today and, and yesterday, uh, by stakeholders. Uh, and, uh, I've also had encouraging discussions with the sponsor and the, and the state engineer in whom I have a great deal of confidence as well. Um, I I am concerned there may be disconnect between the stated intention and the legislation and, and some impacts on the side. I just want to get great greater clarity on that. Um, and, uh, so I'm unable to support the bill in its current form and, and, uh, look forward to working with the sponsor and the engineer either to change my understanding or to perhaps get a, an amendment in there that makes clear where some of these decisions that are not going to be made by the engineer or there's greater clarity, they won't be made by the engineer, where those will be made and how those will come into play. Um, and, and, uh, so today won't be voting for the, the motion, but anxious to, uh, to see that we, uh, continue to work on I'm, I appreciate the sponsors, uh, and the engineers interest in helping me along there.

  54. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:29:20

      Okay. Thank you. Representative Owens. Representative Arthur.

  55. Rep. John Arthur2:29:26

      Um, would it be appropriate if I asked the question right now?

  56. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:29:29

      Uh, we've gone by the, uh, the questions, uh, Just, just making sure It's to the motion, you know. Perfect. Uh,

  57. Rep. John Arthur2:29:37

      Thank you. I, I share, um, Representative Owens concerns. I also share the, the, the belief that this, this bill is, is well intended. And, and the goal is the same for all of us to, to help wanted increase the flow of water to the lake. Um, and the, the thing that I'm struggling with is, you know, there are lines, for example, like two 13 in this bill that says the state engineer may not consider the public welfare as a basis for the rejection of an application. And it goes on to explain the situations in which that is, uh, clarified, but it not being able to take into consideration the public welfare while expedient, I feel like skips a, a critical step in the process that has been part of it and, and should remain. Um, and given the, the level of conversation that's still going on, and also, you know, hearing that the Division of Water quality still has a piece of their, um, interested, uh, chair, I'd like to make a substitute motion to, uh, hold.

  58. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:30:43

      You can't do, okay. That motion is in order. Pardon? He already spoke. Do that. Oh yeah.

  59. Rep. John Arthur2:30:50

      Oh, I apologize. I have to reserve the right to make a Motion. Yeah, you didn't reserve the right to make a motion exactly what you did. We can't, that's out of order. So we can't do that. Can I turn my light off and turn it back on Neighbor?

  60. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:31:06

      Yeah. Where's our, Okay, so we need to, we need to deal with the, there's no, no other discussion on the motion uhs. So we'll place the motion. Okay. The motion is to pass out with a favorable recommendation, uh, HB 60. Uh, so first of all, we're gonna go to the sponsor before I place the motion sponsor. Summarize for us.

  61. Rep. David Shallenberger2:31:45

      No, uh, thank you. Uh, I appreciate all the time that's gone into this. I appreciate, I mean, this has not been done out outside in a closed room. This has been done in the public. We've gone through the water task force with, uh, Warren Peterson jumped online. It's not just him. It's a room full of people that have been decades and decades and decades in this industry. They care about this industry. It was vetted, discussed from many different angles. It was also presented at the Water Commission a couple months ago. Also, people that very much care about the Great Salt Lake and about these bills. Uh, I'm thankful for all the comments today. I hear the concerns. I wanted to reiterate the language in Line 51, where it's not a eliminating people's ability to protest whether they own a water, right, whether they don't own a water, right. It just says a person interested may file a protest, anybody can file a protest. And then, uh, Theresa, the state water engineer in line 57 says she can review it only to the extent that protest at address as a addresses a basis for which she can look at it. Not air quality, not dog zoning issues, not mud on windshields. It's, she's addressing water. And when you look at your line 212, which you addressed, it's the beneficial use of water, the quantity, quality, or availability of the water. So I appreciate the concerns today. They're, it's not eliminating those from the conversation. We still have division of, uh, air Division of DEQ, they got up here, we're still working with them. There's a place at the table for everybody here that commented today, and I appreciate that and I look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.

  62. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:33:31

      Okay. Thank you. Back to the sponsor.

  63. Rep. David Shallenberger2:33:35

      Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I have done a water bill before, probably would never again, uh, but I know the process that they go through and I know and trust the people that are there doing this and that, that's why, um, I'm supporting this bill. Thank

  64. Chair Shipp (presiding)2:33:54

      You. Okay. So I will place the motion now, which is to pass out HB 60 with a favorable recommendation. Uh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. No, nay. Okay. So we have Representative Owens and Representative Arthur that are nay. So what's the, so I rule that that passes seven to two. Uh, congratulations, representative. And so I am open. Well, first of all, before we close, uh, I need a motion to approve the minutes for the March 4th, 2025 committee meeting. So move by Representative Owens. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. I rule that passes and, uh, one, As a personal privilege of the chair, uh, Representative Shallenberger and, and Theresa State engineer, given the concerns that have been raised, and I've done a lot of water bills, and they go through the task force and they go through natural resources and they go through, uh, the Water Development Commission. It's a gauntlet, it, and you've done that. But I would go back and ask you to continue to work with those dissenting votes. And also maybe Mr. Peterson, he knows a lot about water. And take comments from those people that made some comments today. Juab said as, as written, uh, or it could be amended. You're a good representative and I think you would do that, right? Yeah. Let's keep, yeah, let's see. Have these discussions keep going. Yeah, it doesn't end here for Sure. Well, I'll just encourage some more dialogue as you move the bill through the process. No, and that's what I said. I'm excited to keep these conversations going. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I will take one final motion. Motion adjourn. Representative Logan, non debatable. All in favor say aye.

• Feb 3, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (28 turns)

  1. Reading Clerk26:28

     to the Senate for its consideration. Madame Reading Clerk House Bill 60 Water Rights Amendments by Representative Shallenberger. This bill her to Natural Resources, agriculture and Environment with a vote of 7 2 5.

  2. Speaker (presiding)26:40

     Representative Shallenberger.

  3. Rep. David Shallenberger26:43

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to adopt first substitute.

  4. Speaker (presiding)26:48

     That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. David Shallenberger26:51

     Uh, yeah. Uh, this is a water bill has come out. Some of the wording has been a little bit confusing as we've talked with different conservation environmentalist groups and just some different parties, so it helps clarify and rewrite some of the languages. Just make it a little clearer.

  6. Speaker (presiding)27:04

     Thank you, Representative Shallenberger Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute HB 60, representative Arthur Oh, nevermind. Discussion to the Motion to Adopt first substitute on HB 60. Now we'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the House adopt first substitute under Representative Shallenberger's name on HB 60. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted and before the body for further, uh, consideration. Back to your Representative, Shallenberger.

  7. Rep. David Shallenberger27:38

     Thank you. Uh, this bill comes from the State Water Engineer's Office, and the intent is to clarify the State water Engineer's role. Uh, her office gets about 16,000 permit applications a year. And over the years, she's been tasked with reviewing more and more things that are not related to water, including, uh, city zoning issues, water district board disputes, socioeconomic issues, and various other things. And so this is helping establish guidelines to help the water engineer stay in her lane and say, your job is to review water issues only. And the clarified language that we've added is that it does address beneficial use, quantity, quality, and availability. So talking with some of these groups, including Trout Unlimited, uh, he said, not a single protest I've ever had has not fallen into one of those categories, quality, quantity, or availability. So you may have gotten some emails about this bill. None of those are true. And you got a thing. This is from the state engineer that it's a good bill and it, it does not take away from people's right to protest the same rights they had to protest before they can protest. Now, uh, same with any litigation they need to have standing in order to bring litigation. But this is designed to help the state water engineer deal with water engineer issues. Other issues go to different divisions if it's air quality or DEQ or water rights or different things like that. So would appreciate any questions. That's the bill. Oh, and I would like to also point out this was not done, uh, in private. This was, has been a long time, six month publicly available process. We've gone and, uh, talked to the water task force. This was done with their collaboration this summer. If you're not familiar with the water Task force, it's filled with, uh, decades of water, water experts with decades of experience. Very smart individuals. This passed unanimously out of the water task force. It went in front of the water Commission, also passed unanimously out of the water Commission. So here we are. Thank you.

  8. Speaker (presiding)29:51

     Thank you, Representative Shallenberger discussion to the bill Representative Bartner.

  9. Rep. Bartner (name unclear in captions)29:56

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Shallenberger, we yield to a series of questions.

  10. Rep. David Shallenberger30:02

      Yes, yes. Representative bar

  11. Rep. Bartner (name unclear in captions)30:05

      On the, the fact sheet and also just said, uh, I'm sorry. It was also just said that this does not limit the right to protest. On line 224 of the substitute, it says that a person who has agreed by an order of the state engineer, approving or rejecting an application under only if the, I'm sorry, under only if the person has suffered or will suffer a particularized injury by limiting who can protest. Does that not change? Uh, who has the right to protest? Does That address, is that addressing the protest or litigation, like standing in a litigation? I, I took those to, to mean similar things.

  12. Rep. David Shallenberger30:49

      Okay. Uh, if I may, they're very different things. Protesting is when an application comes in, you can just protest the application and they have to review it. This does nothing to, uh, to change or, uh, update somebody's ability to protest a bill. The litigation comes on the backend. And as with any lawsuit in any court, you need proper standing to show that you've actually been injured by that litigation, by that effort.

  13. Rep. Bartner (name unclear in captions)31:17

      Thank you. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, that means that anybody who today could protest, um, an application for a water right, can still under this law protest that that same application?

  14. Rep. David Shallenberger31:28

      Correct. Perfect.

  15. Rep. Bartner (name unclear in captions)31:30

      Uh, on line 2 0 5, it discusses the determination whether a proposed plan would not prove detrimental to the public welfare. And it's taking it out of the, the state engineer's purview, um, Mr. Speaker who would then be in charge of determining whether or not an application is beneficial to the public welfare. Um, my understanding is that the public welfare is still part of that. If it is part of the, uh, the three things, quantity, quality or availability of water, If, if, Or beneficial, be beneficial, use falls into a very, very broad umbrella. Mr. Speaker, in the process of determining whether or not to reject an application, at what point do other agencies come into the, the conversation to determine whether or not, uh, there is a detriment to the public welfare?

  16. Rep. David Shallenberger32:30

      Uh, the state engineers said that she can pass a water bill, uh, subject to or based on also any analysis that might be performed by another department, whether it's DEQ or other divisions within DNR or something, another state division.

  17. Rep. Bartner (name unclear in captions)32:47

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I want to commend, uh, the good sponsor for not just the answers to these questions, but the conversation that he's, uh, engaged in with stakeholders for months now. Uh, and just the, the last little period of time I've seen this bill, uh, change for the better because of those engagements. And I think that has been a, a, a very positive process to witness. At the same time, there's still a question that that many people in the community feel, uh, they cannot answer. If there is an application for a water, right, and there is a concern over whether or not there's a detriment to the public welfare, to whom do we turn? If it is no longer within the, the purview of the state engineer, but it goes to another agency, what agency would that be? Who is it that we direct our, our concerns to? And, and to whom does the public turn? Uh, particularly when the, the question relates to water reli, water rights, and water on sovereign land, like our Great Salt Lake. Uh, because I don't feel that those questions have been adequately answered yet, but I do believe that there is gonna be continued work as this moves over to the Senate. Uh, I am a no on this bill.

  18. Speaker (presiding)34:03

      Thank you, representative Arthur. Further discussion to the bill Representative Teuscher.

  19. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher34:09

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Yes. Representative Shallenberger, will you yield?

  20. Rep. David Shallenberger34:13

      Yes. Representative Teuscher.

  21. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher34:15

      Great. So, um, Mr. Speaker, I just have a, a quick question, uh, in regards to the, the last, um, comments from the good, uh, representative from Cottonwood Heights. So the question was, who would determine whether or not something is detrimental to the public welfare? So as I read the bill on line 61, it says, the state engineer shall approve an application if there's reason to believe that. And then you go down, it says the proposed plan would not prove detrimental to the public welfare. So could you answer that question? Who makes that determination of whether or not something is or isn't detrimental to public welfare?

  22. Rep. David Shallenberger34:57

      That's a good question. Uh, I'm just, uh, I'll repeat what I have had my discussions with the state engineer. Is she repeats over and over if it falls within the guidelines of beneficial use, quantity, quality, and availability, that is within the purview of water applications, anything else would be covered by other agencies.

  23. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher35:21

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I think the current statute, along with the the clarifications in this bill make it very clear who would make the decision of whether or not it's in the public welfare. All this bill changes, uh, as was mentioned in line 2 0 5, not taking it away from the state engineer, but clarifying that when the state engineer is making that determination that they can only consider certain things. And those are the things that the good representative, um, from Utah County has mentioned. It's the effect of the proposed plan on the beneficial use of water or the quantity, quality or availability of water and other factors as specifically directed by statute. I think that's a clear guideline for the state engineer to make that determination and ensure that this isn't going to be detrimental to the public, um, with those changes. I appreciate the great work, uh, that's been done on this bill and I'll be supporting it.

  24. Speaker (presiding)36:12

      Thank you Representative Tesser. Further discussion to the bill Representative Albrecht.

  25. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht36:19

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just want to commend the sponsor. He's worked hard on this through interims and, and, uh, tried to address everyone's concerns that have come to him. Uh, and there, and there were a lot of 'em in committee, but, uh, he, he's, he's made some changes that they requested. He's worked hard. Uh, the bill does not reduce water to the Great Salt Lake. It makes some other changes and I think he's done a good job and I'll be supporting as well. And I encourage you to

  26. Speaker (presiding)36:54

      Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Back to you, Representative Shallenberger for summation.

  27. Rep. David Shallenberger37:03

      Thank you, appreciate the comments. Uh, I'll, I'll waive

  28. Speaker (presiding)37:07

      Information has been waived. Voting will now be open on first substitute HP 60. Representative Monson would like to vote. Representative Hansen, Representative Hansen seen all present having voted vote is now closed. First substitute HB 60 passes this body of 54 Yes votes 17, no votes and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 3, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (20 turns)

  1. Rep. David Shallenberger26:43

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to adopt first substitute.

  2. Speaker (presiding)26:48

     That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  3. Rep. David Shallenberger26:51

     Uh, yeah. Uh, this is a water bill has come out. Some of the wording has been a little bit confusing as we've talked with different conservation environmentalist groups and just some different parties, so it helps clarify and rewrite some of the languages. Just make it a little clearer.

  4. Speaker (presiding)27:04

     Thank you, Representative Shallenberger Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute HB 60, representative Arthur Oh, nevermind. Discussion to the Motion to Adopt first substitute on HB 60. Now we'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the House adopt first substitute under Representative Shallenberger's name on HB 60. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted and before the body for further, uh, consideration. Back to your Representative, Shallenberger.

  5. Rep. David Shallenberger27:38

     Thank you. Uh, this bill comes from the State Water Engineer's Office, and the intent is to clarify the State water Engineer's role. Uh, her office gets about 16,000 permit applications a year. And over the years, she's been tasked with reviewing more and more things that are not related to water, including, uh, city zoning issues, water district board disputes, socioeconomic issues, and various other things. And so this is helping establish guidelines to help the water engineer stay in her lane and say, your job is to review water issues only. And the clarified language that we've added is that it does address beneficial use, quantity, quality, and availability. So talking with some of these groups, including Trout Unlimited, uh, he said, not a single protest I've ever had has not fallen into one of those categories, quality, quantity, or availability. So you may have gotten some emails about this bill. None of those are true. And you got a thing. This is from the state engineer that it's a good bill and it, it does not take away from people's right to protest the same rights they had to protest before they can protest. Now, uh, same with any litigation they need to have standing in order to bring litigation. But this is designed to help the state water engineer deal with water engineer issues. Other issues go to different divisions if it's air quality or DEQ or water rights or different things like that. So would appreciate any questions. That's the bill. Oh, and I would like to also point out this was not done, uh, in private. This was, has been a long time, six month publicly available process. We've gone and, uh, talked to the water task force. This was done with their collaboration this summer. If you're not familiar with the water Task force, it's filled with, uh, decades of water, water experts with decades of experience. Very smart individuals. This passed unanimously out of the water task force. It went in front of the water Commission, also passed unanimously out of the water Commission. So here we are. Thank you.

  6. Speaker (presiding)29:51

     Thank you, Representative Shallenberger discussion to the bill Representative Bartner.

  7. Rep. Bartner (name not matched to roster)29:56speaker not certain

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Shallenberger, we yield to a series of questions. Yes, yes. Representative bar On the, the fact sheet and also just said, uh, I'm sorry. It was also just said that this does not limit the right to protest. On line 224 of the substitute, it says that a person who has agreed by an order of the state engineer, approving or rejecting an application under only if the, I'm sorry, under only if the person has suffered or will suffer a particularized injury by limiting who can protest. Does that not change? Uh, who has the right to protest? Does That address, is that addressing the protest or litigation, like standing in a litigation? I, I took those to, to mean similar things. Okay. Uh, if I may, they're very different things. Protesting is when an application comes in, you can just protest the application and they have to review it. This does nothing to, uh, to change or, uh, update somebody's ability to protest a bill. The litigation comes on the backend. And as with any lawsuit in any court, you need proper standing to show that you've actually been injured by that litigation, by that effort. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, that means that anybody who today could protest, um, an application for a water right, can still under this law protest that that same application?

  8. Rep. David Shallenberger31:28

     Correct. Perfect.

  9. Rep. Bartner (name not matched to roster)31:30

     Uh, on line 2 0 5, it discusses the determination whether a proposed plan would not prove detrimental to the public welfare. And it's taking it out of the, the state engineer's purview, um, Mr. Speaker who would then be in charge of determining whether or not an application is beneficial to the public welfare. Um, my understanding is that the public welfare is still part of that. If it is part of the, uh, the three things, quantity, quality or availability of water, If, if, Or beneficial, be beneficial, use falls into a very, very broad umbrella. Mr. Speaker, in the process of determining whether or not to reject an application, at what point do other agencies come into the, the conversation to determine whether or not, uh, there is a detriment to the public welfare?

  10. Rep. David Shallenberger32:30

      Uh, the state engineers said that she can pass a water bill, uh, subject to or based on also any analysis that might be performed by another department, whether it's DEQ or other divisions within DNR or something, another state division.

  11. Rep. John Arthur32:47

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I want to commend, uh, the good sponsor for not just the answers to these questions, but the conversation that he's, uh, engaged in with stakeholders for months now. Uh, and just the, the last little period of time I've seen this bill, uh, change for the better because of those engagements. And I think that has been a, a, a very positive process to witness. At the same time, there's still a question that that many people in the community feel, uh, they cannot answer. If there is an application for a water, right, and there is a concern over whether or not there's a detriment to the public welfare, to whom do we turn? If it is no longer within the, the purview of the state engineer, but it goes to another agency, what agency would that be? Who is it that we direct our, our concerns to? And, and to whom does the public turn? Uh, particularly when the, the question relates to water reli, water rights, and water on sovereign land, like our Great Salt Lake. Uh, because I don't feel that those questions have been adequately answered yet, but I do believe that there is gonna be continued work as this moves over to the Senate. Uh, I am a no on this bill.

  12. Speaker (presiding)34:03

      Thank you, representative Arthur. Further discussion to the bill Representative Teuscher.

  13. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher34:09

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Yes. Representative Shallenberger, will you yield? Yes. Representative Teuscher. Great. So, um, Mr. Speaker, I just have a, a quick question, uh, in regards to the, the last, um, comments from the good, uh, representative from Cottonwood Heights. So the question was, who would determine whether or not something is detrimental to the public welfare? So as I read the bill on line 61, it says, the state engineer shall approve an application if there's reason to believe that. And then you go down, it says the proposed plan would not prove detrimental to the public welfare. So could you answer that question? Who makes that determination of whether or not something is or isn't detrimental to public welfare?

  14. Rep. David Shallenberger34:57

      That's a good question. Uh, I'm just, uh, I'll repeat what I have had my discussions with the state engineer. Is she repeats over and over if it falls within the guidelines of beneficial use, quantity, quality, and availability, that is within the purview of water applications, anything else would be covered by other agencies.

  15. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher35:21

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I think the current statute, along with the the clarifications in this bill make it very clear who would make the decision of whether or not it's in the public welfare. All this bill changes, uh, as was mentioned in line 2 0 5, not taking it away from the state engineer, but clarifying that when the state engineer is making that determination that they can only consider certain things. And those are the things that the good representative, um, from Utah County has mentioned. It's the effect of the proposed plan on the beneficial use of water or the quantity, quality or availability of water and other factors as specifically directed by statute. I think that's a clear guideline for the state engineer to make that determination and ensure that this isn't going to be detrimental to the public, um, with those changes. I appreciate the great work, uh, that's been done on this bill and I'll be supporting it.

  16. Speaker (presiding)36:12

      Thank you Representative Tesser. Further discussion to the bill Representative Albrecht.

  17. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht36:19

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just want to commend the sponsor. He's worked hard on this through interims and, and, uh, tried to address everyone's concerns that have come to him. Uh, and there, and there were a lot of 'em in committee, but, uh, he, he's, he's made some changes that they requested. He's worked hard. Uh, the bill does not reduce water to the Great Salt Lake. It makes some other changes and I think he's done a good job and I'll be supporting as well. And I encourage you to

  18. Speaker (presiding)36:54

      Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Back to you, Representative Shallenberger for summation.

  19. Rep. David Shallenberger37:03

      Thank you, appreciate the comments. Uh, I'll, I'll waive

  20. Speaker (presiding)37:07

      Information has been waived. Voting will now be open on first substitute HP 60. Representative Monson would like to vote. Representative Hansen, Representative Hansen seen all present having voted vote is now closed. First substitute HB 60 passes this body of 54 Yes votes 17, no votes and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (50 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:40:47

     We have, uh, Representative Shallenberger, we are, uh, to house Bill 60 per substitute Water rights amendments. Welcome to our committee. Turn the time to you. We have a, still have a four or five items, so just consider that as you present. Thank you.

  2. Rep. David Shallenberger1:41:09

     Condensed version. Thank you. Um, I would like to thank the state water engineer for joining me today. This is House Bill 60. This comes from the division of Natural Resources. And, um, the long, the long story short is we've gone through the, the Water task force. We've gone through the Water commission. Uh, we've gotten some great feedback with Representative Carl Albrecht coming out of the House committee. He recommended making sure that we listen to the voices and the feedback that we're getting the different parties. Uh, we've made a substitute. And so this bill is really does a couple things that redefines and just clarifies the state water engineer's role. That her job is to, uh, permit and review applications for water applications. Not extra aous, not other stuff that sometimes gets piled on. Her job is to clarify and clearly review water applications. It doesn't change, uh, who can protest. It doesn't change, uh, who can make complaints or different things like that. So you may have heard from different groups that, that removes our right to protest. It removes our voices. It does not do that. It clearly, um, we're putting into some clear language that the state water engineer, her review process falls within a couple of key words, beneficial use, uh, of quantity, quality, and availability. In talking with one of the groups, he's, as he thought about the different protests he's made on water applications over the last, over the several years, he's like, as we, as we contemplate streams drying up or being rerouted or moved around, they always fall into one of these categories. Quantity, quality, availability. And so it doesn't change or remove people's right to protest. It just is helping clarify that her job is the state water engineer. It's, it is to review water applications. And, um, that's it. If she would like to add some clarifying language, then I'd love for her input.

  3. Committee chair1:43:08

     Welcome Director. Thank you for being here. You know, uh, introduce yourself. Yep.

  4. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer1:43:13

     So, Theresa Wilhelmson, Utah State Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Rights. And, um, representative Schoenberger. Um, just thank him for taking on this bill and, um, tackling this, these issues.

  5. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer1:43:25

     He covered it well, and maybe I'll just clarify. Um, one other issue. Based on questions that I've been given, um, there is some question about some, an antiquated language that's being removed that refers to a more beneficial use. Um, but with the recent alignment and modifications to water law, such as the more robust, um, instream flow statute that add, we now have added use on sovereign lands. Um, and it also defines propagation and maintenance of wildlife and preservation enhancement of the natural aquatic environment as a beneficial use. I've had a lot of questions surrounding that, and those are still preserved in the bill.

  6. Committee chair1:44:06

     Excellent. Thank you representative. That concludes your presentation.

  7. Rep. David Shallenberger1:44:08

     Yeah, and I, I, I would add also there was, um, some proposed language about temporary permits or temporary change permits and making sure that there's transparency there. They are already posted on the state water engineer's website, so there's no, it's not a, um, dark process that's done in a backroom. It's, everything is transparent there. It's on the state's website, so it's been addressed also. So that, that's our presentation.

  8. Committee chair1:44:34

     Okay, great. Thank you for the presentation. We have, uh, heard from the public and appreciate everyone, uh, who's reaching out. I'll bring it to the committee then for questions. Uh,

  9. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:44:43

     Everyone thinks the governor's job's tough, but it's not a state engineers water engineer is even tougher. So I applaud you for, uh, even accepting this, uh, job. And, uh, it is the toughest job in the state of Utah, including the governor's job, in my opinion. So thank you for, for all that you do. I just wanted to acknowledge you.

  10. Unknown speaker1:45:07speaker not certain

      Thank you, Senator. Um, I, I definitely echo that. Maybe the Great Salt Lake, uh, guy behind you. A few rows for my, That's another tough job. Yeah. Is He giving me rabbit Ears? Yep. Yep.

  11. Committee chair1:45:19

      Okay. Got A dry ear. Any other questions for the sponsor? I'm not seeing any how, who in the public, uh, has come to speak to this? Raise your hands high. Let me see. Okay. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Okay. I have a few online. I see nine 10 here. So how, let me ask this, then you put your hands down how many came to speak in favor of the bill? Okay. We have 2 3, 2 in favor. And we're just gonna rotate the first few here. And, uh, uh, the rest of you raise your hand. How many others did we have that came to speak against? Okay. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Alright. Um, I'm gonna do this then. Um, I'm gonna make it brief, everybody, you get one minute and, um, let me start with you. Um, uh, come on up, director of our great Salt Lake Commission. Fortunate to have let start with you and then the, the rest of you, um, someone take, who is gonna speak in opposition, please take a seat. If you want the first one, we'll rotate back and forth and you can sign in, um, as you first get to the table. And then we'll go to a few, I'll have three online and hold it at that. Alright. Go ahead and introduce yourself. Correct.

  12. Brian Steed, Commissioner, Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner1:46:35

      Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Brian Ste. I'm the, uh, commissioner of the Gray Salt Lake and Senator Hinkins. I appreciate the acknowledgement. Uh, I think water is a very, um, difficult issue. Um, but I will say, um, in looking at this bill, we truly appreciate the sponsors willing us to sub in. We think that it does have the, uh, the protections that the lake needs, uh, and we are in favor of it. We also think that it streamlines a process that is oftentimes very complicated and very, uh, right for, for conflict. Uh, this helps, uh, really keep water rights in water rights lanes, and I think that's an appropriate change. Thank you.

  13. Committee chair1:47:11

      Thank you. Okay. First one up, uh, would like to speak, please come up and to the witness stand and let's have another one up to who's gonna speak. Uh, go ahead, sign in after you speak. I'll let you get started. We're gonna start as soon as you begin with your timer. Go ahead, sir.

  14. Herbert Ley, resident, Millcreek1:47:29

      Hi, my name's Herbert Lay. I am a resident of Millcreek, Utah. I've been Utah, Utah in over 33 years. I served in the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council for six years as a cold water representative. I was chair of the council for two years. I am concerned about the health of our aquatic ecosystems. I appreciate the substitute and I also appreciate the sensitivity of the sponsor and also the state engineer. But I would just like to remind, uh, everyone that Article 17 of our constitution says, all existing rights to the use of any waters in this state for any useful or beneficial purpose are hereby recognized and confirmed in my mind that goes beyond the quantity, quality, or availability of water in the state. So I want you to please keep that in mind. It's our constitution. Thank you.

  15. Committee chair1:48:26

      Thank you for your testimony. Okay, next. We'll go ahead ma'am.

  16. Alta Fairbourne, Water Advocate, Utah Rivers Council1:48:31

      Hi, my name is Alta Fairborne. I am the community Water organizer at Utah Rivers Council. And I'm speaking today to urge you to vote no on HB 60. HB 60 has been reviewed extensively by water experts and attorneys who overwhelmingly agree that it will remove existing safeguards to Utah Code which protect public recreation, natural stream environments, and the broader public welfare. These protections have protected Utah's waterways for decades. The public has the right to know the true impacts of the laws proposed by the representatives. If obfuscation partial truths or strategic emissions become a normal part of getting legislation passed, like we have seen with HB 60, the entire system of democracy cannot function. HB 60 has been marketed as a technical cleanup, a streamlining measure, and even a benefit to the Great Salt Lake. But this is simply not true. Please, I urge you to vote no on HB 60. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair1:49:26

      Thank you for coming and participating. Next. Go ahead.

  18. Dr. Sarah Schear, pediatrician1:49:31

      Yes. Um, thank you chair and committee members. My name is Dr. Sarah Sheer and I'm here to speak on behalf of myself, um, in opposition to HB 60. Uh, I'm a pediatrician caring for kids with serious medical conditions, uh, throughout the state. I moved here to do this work and I wanna stay. I love caring for kids and families here in Utah. Um, it's a scary thing to decide to stay when the Great Salt Lake is approaching collapse. Um, and studies of populations near drive saline lakes have linked dust exposure to impaired lung function, wheezing and sleep disturbance in children. And prenatal exposure to arsenic, which is an element found in our local playa, um, has been associated with low birth weight, which raises, uh, child morbidity and mortality. Um, and because these aspects of public welfare are called air quality and child health, I worry that this bill, um, might strip citizens' ability to object to water permitting on that basis. So I urge you to vote. No, thank you. Thank you, doctor. Appreciate your work.

  19. Committee chair1:50:33

      Um, just so everybody knows, when you hear that chime, it is 15 seconds, so you're doing great. Alright, next. Go ahead.

  20. Jarom Gillins, resident, Utah County1:50:39

      My name is Jarome Gils. I am from Davis County, and I was raised knowing that actions have consequences even if you can't see those consequences coming. And I feel the same way about this. I would like everyone in this room to hold their hand up with five fingers. Uh, we don't, you won't have people to respond to you. Just go ahead and state your testimony. Okay. In your head, put a finger down. If you are not fully aware of the downstream effects of the Brian shrimp industry collapsing, put a finger down. If you are not aware of the future cost of dust control, put another one down. If you cannot name a single other agency with legal authority to reject water rights applications, the state engineer is the only one allowed to do so. Put a finger down. If you cannot guarantee this bill will not increase dust exposure for the 2.5 million people on the Wasatch front. I urge you to vote no against this bill. But if that's not enough, there are so many problems with it, at least table it. Talk to your constituents.

  21. Committee chair1:51:41

      Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Welcome.

  22. Dr. Brian Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment1:51:46

      I'm Dr. Brian Mitch, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, one of the largest civic organizations of healthcare professionals in the Western United States. We don't see how eliminating the public welfare from this consideration for the water engineer should mean, which should mean public health protection from considerations regarding water rights as this bill does, can do anything other than jeopardize the Great Salt Lake even further. And we urge you to vote no. Our physicians group just published a report of nearly a hundred pages with 500 references showing that the great Salt Lake toxicity of, or the public health toxicity consequences of allowing the Great Salt Lake to disappear even further, goes far beyond what has been published. Every one of you in this room is now, uh, contaminated, if you will, by plastic nano particles in your most critical arteries. And part of the reason why that's the case is because of the dust from the Great Salt Lake. We urge you to vote no on this to protect the Great Salt Lake. Thank you.

  23. Committee chair1:52:51

      Thank you, doctor. Thank you for your testimony. Next.

  24. Dr. Caroline Joyce1:52:56

      Thank you. Um, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Dr. Caroline Joyce, and I'm representing myself today. I urge you to vote no on HB 60. This bill is not just administrative streamlining, as many of your colleagues have suggested. It fundamentally narrows the state engineer's ability to consider whether a proposed water right is detrimental to the public welfare, which poses to further reduce inflows to the Great Salt Lake. The state has explored dust mitigation strategies, which they've estimated could cost more than $31 billion in the next 50 years. And that is a massive taxpayer liability. Engineering mitigation is the most expensive option. While prevention is a fiscally responsive one, HB 60 weakens core statutory safeguards at precisely the moment when inflows to the Great Salt Lake are already insufficient to restore it and signals that we're prepared to engineer around a preventable crisis rather than prevent it. So please vote no on HB 60. Thank you.

  25. Committee chair1:53:55

      Thank you, doctor. Thank you.

  26. Conner Peterson, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food1:53:58

      My name is Connor Peterson. I'm the Director of Legislative and Government Affairs for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. Uh, we'd just like to rise in support of this bill and thank the good sponsor and the, and the state engineer, um, for their work. We feel that this will help streamline the process and that it also works well with some other, uh, water bills that we support, um, this session, um, one of which is Representative Koford that establishes new water leasing, um, program. And we think that this will give the state engineer the tools needed to help agricultures have certainty when they file dedicated water change applications and to help facilitate the new water leasing program that allows farmers to lease a portion of their water to the Great Salt Lake. And, uh, just again, thank the sponsor and encourage support of the bill. Thank you.

  27. Committee chair1:54:38

      Great. Thank you for your testimony. You left us with 10, 15 seconds, so it's great. Okay. I think this is the last one in the room. Is there anyone else? Okay, come on up. Two more. This will be the last two in the room. Okay. Um, we're doing great, ma'am. You are next. Go ahead. Am I? Yep. Am I on? You are.

  28. Pam Cassidy, resident, Millcreek1:55:00

      Um, my name is Pam Cassidy. I live in Millcreek. I'm a PhD graduate of the University of Utah's Department of Chemistry and a retired cancer researcher. Pull that my cup, ma'am. We want to hear you. Uh, I'm also a retired cancer researcher with Huntsman Cancer Institute, um, falling water levels in the Great Salt Lake end danger more than 10 million migratory and resident birds, as well as millions of Utahans living on it shores. As the lake dries, the dry lake bit is being transformed into toxic airborne dust that exposes Utahans across the Wasatch, front and beyond dangerous levels of carcinogens and heavy metals. Businesses that are thinking of moving their operations and their employees to Northern Utah are watching what we're doing here. They're asking whether Utah is a wise investment, and as the great Salt Lake dust storms increase, pop property values will decrease. I don't think this is a way to solve our housing affordability crisis. There's no guarantee that HB 60 will solve these problems, and it has a great potential to make them worse. Thank you.

  29. Committee chair1:56:01

      Thank you. All right, next, go ahead.

  30. Justin Lee, Deputy Director, Utah League of Cities and Towns1:56:05

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Justin Lee, deputy Director of Utah League of Cities and Towns. The league is, uh, at a position of neutral in this bill, but we do wanna rise and say that we have, uh, we see the wisdom in this bill, um, that there is a streamlining effect. We also know that one agency can't be the end all, do all for all things. Uh, that there is, there are other agencies that can look at some of these other issues. So we understand the direction that the state engineer's office would be going this. And like I said, we're neutral on the bill. Uh, but do think there's some wisdom in that direction.

  31. Committee chair1:56:30

      Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think there are one more. Who else in the room? This the last one? Okay. This will be the last one in our, in the room. Welcome.

  32. Steve Erickson, Great Basin Water Network1:56:42

      Yes. Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman, committee member Steve Erickson Great Basin Water Network. Um, first I want to thank the state engineer. She was, uh, quite generous with her time yesterday and discussing this issue with, uh, me and, uh, Kyle Roaring, who's our executive director. Um, we still have some misgivings about this bill. We are somewhat reassured, um, that there will be business as usual going forward, uh, administratively. I think that what this bill still does, however, is injects a considerable amount of uncertainty into the future. And as we go forward, I hope that there will be an opportunity to take a look at the implementation of this, uh, legislation once it's in place, assuming you're going to do that. And, uh, uh, that I think that some point down the road, we may very well see this settled in litigation, uh, which would be unfortunate, but I know that's not the in intent of the, the bill. But, uh, just want to say thanks. And I know that others among the body have collaborated to try to work through some of these issues with us. And, uh, appreciate that effort. So thank you.

  33. Committee chair1:57:52

      Thank you. Okay. We will move online now. And, um, representative, if you can come back to your seat if we'll have further questions here. Um, let's go online to Travis Padilla, if you would unmute. Thanks. Uh, turn on your camera. Travis, uh, introduce yourself. Tell us where you reside and if you represent anyone. So can you go to Warren First? Okay. Peterson, uh, correction. We're gonna go to Warren Peterson first. Go ahead Mr. Peterson.

  34. Warren Peterson, Utah Farm Bureau1:58:26

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Warren Peterson. I'm calling in from Oasis, Utah. Thank you for allowing me to testify remotely. I'm speaking on behalf of Farm Bureau and we're speaking in support of House Bill 61st substitute because in our opinion, it helps farmers help the lake and it also keeps our state engineer focused on our state water engineers focused on water issues. Want to add that there's a quiet cadre of people that have been working to ag a grade Salt Lake, some of us for a long time, in my case, more than 30 years outta my 50 year career. So we care deeply about the lake and we look for solutions not for attention, not for publicity. House Bill 60 is a very good solution. Uh, we, we thank the sponsor for his careful work on this. One thing I'd like to point out that no one else has is that the bill adds that line two 10. This phrase, other factors is specifically directed by statute. Uh, this, this was added in the substitute bill by, by Representative Shallenberger. And this brings in the entire library of water policy created by the legislature into the state engineers processes, including the Utah State water policies that Utah Code section 73 dash one dash 21. And it brings, which, which applies to all of the state agencies that are, that handle water issues. So it, it's, in my opinion, this it streamlines, but it also strengthens the, the public interests that the state engineer's office can look at. Thank

  35. Committee chair1:59:55

      You. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. And

  36. Warren Peterson, Utah Farm Bureau1:59:56

      Yeah, it helps, helps. We, we, we urge your support. Thank you. Thank

  37. Committee chair2:00:00

      You, Mr. Appreciate you, uh, joining us from rural areas, um, technology. Thank you. Okay. Next we will. Let's go. Is it both are available? Travis Padilla, you it on mute?

  38. Travis Padilla, resident, West Point2:00:14

      Yes. Thank you, sir. Uh, Travis Padilla, West Point. I live, uh, less than a half a mile from the drying lake bed itself. Uh, you know, this bill may sound technical, but its impact is very real. Uh, my family is directed. It, uh, directly impacted each time dust has picked up from the lake bed. Today, the state engineer can ask a simple but vital question when reviewing water applications. Is this in the public's best interest? That public welfare standard allows consideration of things like public health, dust exposure, shrinking wetlands, and broader community harm. This biller bill narrows that lens. It reduces public welfare to a much tighter water only calculation and sign lightness, the ability to weigh real world, world consequences that people who live along the Wasatch front are living right now. As just as concerning, it limits who can protest and who can challenge under these decisions. Unless under this bill, unless you can show direct personal injury, your voice might not count. Water decisions don't affect just water rights holders. They affect air quality, public health, and the future of this state. It's the wrong time to weaken public oversight narrow definition of the public. Good. Please vote. No. Thank you.

  39. Committee chair2:01:20

      Thank you Mr. Pia. Appreciate your testimony. Um, we'll go to our last public, uh, comment here. This is Irina ho Awa, introduce yourself.

  40. Dr. Irina Horikawa, Salt Lake City2:01:34

      Hi, my name is Dr. Irina Awa. Um, I'm a resident, um, here in Salt Lake City, downtown Salt Lake City. Um, I'm representing myself and I'm here to also oppose House Bill 60. And I want to bring attention again to, um, children's Health in Utah. Um, as I am a pediatrician in the area, um, uh, whenever I moved to Salt Lake, I remember flying over the Salt Lake and being shocked about the lake being dried up. Um, and as I've lived here only for a short amount of time, I've been very appreciative of the natural wonders here and have been, um, very sad to learn about the, uh, impending collapse of the Great Salt Lake. Um, this bill, the public health, uh, measures of the spill, the dust exposure to children, um, and pregnant women, um, would definitely impact the health of children who are the most vulnerable people in our uh, community. Thank you.

  41. Committee chair2:02:37

      Thank you. Appreciate your comments and testimony. Okay. That will conclude public comment. I wanna thank everyone for, uh, coming to testify and sharing your thoughts. I'll bring it back to the committee then for further discussion or action. Senator Hinkins. Thank

  42. Sen. David P. Hinkins2:02:54

      You, Mr. Chairman. I would like to, I'd propose to pass out House Bill 60, uh, first substitute with a favorable recommendation.

  43. Committee chair2:03:02

      Okay. The motion is in order, uh, to favorably recommend first substitute House Bill 60 to the full body of the Senate. Uh, there discussion to the motion from the committee. Senator Stratton.

  44. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:03:19

      Thank you. I I I want to acknowledge risk appreciation to the witnesses and the concerns that the, that are very valid that we're all, uh, very aware of and concerned about. I just point out that there's, there's subject matter expertise and jurisdiction, venue or the right, correct forum. Any of those, uh, theories could be used to, to, uh, address. And what, what we need to do is make sure that we have the right issue that's, that's relevant. There's the, in, in our, our, uh, in, in statute, in the code. The term often is used as jurisdiction. Uh, do we have, uh, do we have jurisdiction? Does the legislature have jurisdiction? And and does the legislature, uh, have stewardship to do all that we can with the Great Salt Lake? Absolutely. And a hundred percent, we, we've assigned different aspects of running the state and, and the, across the broad spectrum. And I think what we're trying to say here is, is that there's better voices and better avenues to address the concern than through our state water engineer. And with that, I support the motion. Thank you.

  45. Unknown speaker2:04:40speaker not certain

      Thank you. Not, not only better, but in place, in place to address it to be more effective and appropriate. Hence, the, the, the, the result of those are in support of this, uh, the, the, you know, the Commissioner of the Great Salt Lake, for example. So thank you.

  46. Committee chair2:04:56

      Thank you, Senator. Uh, appreciate your comments. Further discussion or comments to the Motion to favorably recommend. I'm not seeing any further welcome to you

  47. Rep. David Shallenberger2:05:06

      to Summation representative. No, I appreciate the people's feedback today. The people from the various groups, the Audubon Society Stewardship, Utah Trout Unlimited, friends of the Salt Lake, Senator Stratton with the Water Commission, the feedback that we got from the 200 plus task force members. And, uh, it's been a, it's, this was not put together like in a back closet. It's been beat up and vetted along the way, and I appreciate everybody's feedback, uh, that came today.

  48. Committee chair2:05:34

      Okay. Thank you. Senator Summation? Yeah, I

  49. Sen. Scott D. Sandall2:05:36speaker not certain

      Would just like to add that this isn't just pertinent to the Salt Lake Valley. This is a statewide regulations. There's other things besides the Great Salt Lake. There's other bodies of water in the state of Utah. You've gotta consider that when the state engineers making their decisions. I mean, there's other little tributaries, creeks and streams and everything else. And so I just want to hand it to her that she's, I, I trust her a lot and she has a tough job and her staff does a wonderful job. And, and I just want to make that, that that's the reason for my support for this bill is 'cause it, it, it impacts the whole state of Utah. We're not, it's just not the Salt Lake Valley that's in a drought. It's the whole state. In fact, we're worse off than you are out where I live. And so I would just like to make that point that, uh, that's the reason I'm recommended this bill to be passed. Thank you.

  50. Committee chair2:06:20

      Thank you, Senator. I, uh, we've been a rural area, uh, goes down half the state with you and we have bodies of water that are completely gone. So if you're right, it applies statewide. So. All right. Um, I see no further discussion to the motion. I'll place that all in favor of, uh, favorably recommending per substitute health bill 60. The full body of the Senate indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Aye. Thank you Senator Sandall, we got your, aye uh, we have one in, uh, one against, um, Senator Blouin. So I'll rule it passes five to one. Thank you, representative. Stay in your chair. We are gonna go to the next item on the agenda House bill

• Feb 18, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Rep. David Shallenberger1:14:58

     of the water, uh, there's a, there's an application made to the state water engineer. What it does is it, it, it clarifies that the state engineer will not consider reli rely upon, uh, excuse me, to determine whether a proposed plan would not provide on 9 2 0 8 would not prove debt. State eng state engineers charged determine whether a proposed debt plan would not prove detrimental to the public welfare. Under this section, the state engineer may consider only issues directly related to the benefici use of the water or the quality, quantity or availability of the water and use of the state. This leaves the other issues related to public welfare, to other agencies that are set and in place to deal with those issues. Together with clarifies who an aggravated person for a person of seeking judicial review. It makes other technical changes. That'll be open to questions, Discussion to the bill.

  2. Senate President Pro Tem (presiding)1:16:07

     Seeing none. Back to you. Oh, Senator Harper. Thank you.

  3. Sen. Keith Grover1:16:13speaker not certain

     Thank you. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

  4. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:16:16speaker not certain

     Yes. Thank you. Senator Harper.

  5. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:16:18

     Um, in here, there's, there's some language that's stricken out dealing with beneficial use. Can you clarify why that's been removed?

  6. Unknown speaker1:16:27speaker not certain

     Lines, if you'll please, You have line Senator Harper Yeah. That you can reference. They are line 75, 76 through 83, specifically 78 Senator Stratton. That

  7. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:16:45

     Was a request made by the engineer in, in, in looking at the, looking at, uh, the proposals. Part of the, part of what, uh, is required is that if you have a, a water right, you have to show that you're using it for beneficial use. And there's areas in our state code now to help the Great Salt Lake that you are not using the water, but you're able to lease the water. And this, this, uh, removal is my understanding, this removal, uh, accommodates and supports that, that principle.

  8. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:17:31

     Okay. I just think Senator Harper further. No, I just wanna have another comment. Yeah. If we're taking a concept of, of beneficial use, that's been a long-term standard and I'm a little bit concerned about that unless it's covered elsewhere in the, in the code.

  9. Senate President Pro Tem (presiding)1:17:51

     Okay. Thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Back to you. Senator Stratton.

  10. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:18:00

      Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. The common of good senator. The doctrine, the water doctrine, so to speak, of beneficial uses a longstanding principle that is in recent years. Uh, it's the notion is the water. The shareholder has to use the water for their beneficiary use on, on the property that they own and control. In an effort to have more flexibility in our water, we've made some allowances in our code, but I would reassure that the doctrine is covered fully in multiple places.

  11. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:18:39

      With that, I will move that H HB 60 be read for the third time.

  12. Senate President Pro Tem (presiding)1:18:46

      The motion is shall first substitute HB 60 Be read a third time. Roll call vote.

  13. Senate President Pro Tem (presiding)1:18:53

      Senator Baldy. Yes. Lewin Bramer. Yes. Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore I On two. Grover Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Lum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton Bus President Adams First substitute House Bill 60, having received 15 yay votes, seven nay votes. Seven being absent will be read a third time.

  14. Senate President Pro Tem (presiding)1:20:26

      House Bill 64, House Bill 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments. Senator Owens, Senator Owens Pro Tem.

  15. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:20:38

      This bill, um, sets up a process where, uh, working with ctla, the state institutional trust lands, um, a county of the fourth, fifth or sixth class.

• Feb 20, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:11:00

     for our state water engineer. It updates, uh, some antiquated code as well as place, uh, her, her fo the focus of a state water engineer on considering the aspects related to water. If there's other, other issues related to a change application, we make that change application that she offers. If, if it meets the, the standards with water, uh, to tell those other agencies with, that'll be glad to yield Any questions?

  2. Senate presiding officer1:11:34

     Thank you for the presentation on the bill saying, uh, no discussion on the bill. I'm gonna go to you for action.

  3. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:11:49speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. PI move that we pass.

  4. Senate presiding officer1:11:53

     First substitute HB 60 router rights amendments. Thank you. The motion? The motion is the question is shall first substitute House Bill 60 pass Roll call vote.

  5. Senate clerk1:12:03

     Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore A Escamia Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Bickers Weiler Wilson. Aye. Winterton Bus President Adams Aye.

  6. Senate presiding officer1:13:08

     First substitute house bill 60, having received 18 yay votes seven nay votes. Four being absent passes his body will be signed by the President. And return to the house for the signature of the speaker.

  7. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:13:37

     Thank you President. This bill addresses the public safety database that we've been working on for a couple years.