H.B. 76 Data Center Water Transparency Amendments

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see how your own representative and senator voted and where they spoke.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and one-line summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.

What the bill does

This bill addresses reporting related to water use and large data centers.

Hearings and debates

• Jan 22, 2026 House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (61 turns)

  1. Committee chair58:24

     So with that, uh, Representative Koford, we're gonna call you to the desk and ha give you the opportunity to present your bill.

  2. Rep. Jill Koford58:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to be here today. Um, I think that I've got Theresa Wilhelmson here from our, our state water engineer. I think that she is on her way up. Oh, yep. Awesome. So this bill was actually heard by the Legislative Water Development Commission was passed unanimously, um, this summer. In talking about the Great Salt Lake and about an emerging, um, industry that's coming fast and hard into Utah data centers. We discovered that there was a, were some gaps in the information that the state was gathering in terms of, um, water usage and discharge from our data centers. And so, in an effort to focus on reporting and transparency and to kind of set the standard, we came up with this policy. Um, the bill, it gives a framework and is hopefully in proving what we're doing statewide in all of our planning with this most important resource. We've experienced a significant growth in data centers. Currently, we have over 20 facilities in the state. Um, and their water use varies greatly. The industry as a whole, I would like to point out is moving towards water conservation and largely closed loop systems, but that's also a, a trade off between water and energy use. Um, so the bill, and there's actually, I apologize, Mr. Chair. I should have said there's a substitute online and I am speaking to the sub. Um, great, thank you. Yeah, I was gonna ask that. So sorry. No worries. I should have started with that. No worries. Um, we have changed the definition in this new substitute of a large data center to be a data processing or storage facility of 10,000 square feet instead of 50,000 square feet. And doing a little more research on the subject, a hyperscale center is about 10,000 square feet. And that is an indu or across the industry considered a large center. Um, so what the bill does is it will require a data center operator to submit a pre-construction water use report to the division of water rights between 180 and a and 360 days before construction begins. And then we're requiring annual reporting, ongoing and annual reporting for existing data centers. Um, they'll be comparing their projected use with their actual use identifying conservation measures and providing updated future water use, um, projections under the bill. The, the information will be compiled by our state water engineer and then compiled into a public facing report. The initial version of the bill had a lot of that information anonymized on the public facing portion of that. The reason for that is that as, as different states have looked at this policy across the country, no one has got it across the finish line. It's either been stalled in the legislative process or it's been vetoed. Um, and a lot of the pushback has been that the information that states were proposing to gather was proprietary. So we wanted to respect that. Recent court cases, though, have shown that water use data is not proprietary. And so we're, I'm happy to be even more transparent with the information. Um, when we look at estimates worldwide of water use, it, it racks up trillions and trillions of ga gallons of water in data, in data centers. Utah is a desert. We need to be smart about our water. This is just one way that we can actually, I think, set the standard for the nation in reporting and transparency in a really important industry and not be overly regulatory or burdensome to them. So do you have anything you wanna add? Nope. And with that, I think we're open to questions if you have any.

  3. Committee chair1:02:31

     Great, thank you. Um, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Uh, Representative Cutler,

  4. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:02:38

     Thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's a great, uh, uh, uh, important issue for us. There are many ty types of data centers. Most of our modern, many of our modern data centers use very little water compared to data centers that were built, uh, a number of years ago, which, uh, uh, I appreciate. And this will encourage folks to either upgrade their cooling systems or build to better standards, which I think is, is, is a, a great approach. My question for you is on line 180 about the 180 days requiring people to submit before they start construction to submit this request 180 days ahead of time. That's a very long time. Six months before you could even start construction. Why, why do we need so much time? If somebody, especially if there's a building that might be retrofitted as a data center. W why, why do we need so much time? Can that be, can that number be, uh, lower? I'm open to, to, to that suggestion. Um, Mr. Ice Chair, typically in the planning process, these centers aren't coming in in less than three or four months. I don't know. I know you've served on a city council. It, it seems to me that that entire permitting process is happening well beyond six months. That, that the entire, I don't know, soup to nuts kind of process when you're getting approval. Six months sounded reasonable, but most homes take nine months, 12 months to build depending on the size of them. I'm not sure what the turn time is on a data center. Yeah. So we're, I'm willing to look at that if we need to shrink that time. I don't think that that's a problem. Thank you. And I, and I misspoke it's line 1 39. I, I apologize not not line 180. So my concern is that not how long it takes to cons to construct, but this is 180 days, uh, before the operator begins construction activities. So my concern is in the, in the planning, if they don't, you know, you could, this seems excessive planning and, and I'd love any other opinions on this, but from my perspective, as a, having some land use experience at the city level, that seems like an excessive delay, uh, that would discourage development. And that's not our intent. So in construction activities, in my mind, and maybe we need to clarify this with the drafting attorney, is when you're start, when you're digging, right? I mean that, that entire planning process takes, starts long before shovels start flying. Certainly. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair1:05:17

     Thank you. Representative Cutler. Representative Owens.

  6. Rep. Doug Owens1:05:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just looking, uh, Representative Koford at the red line, comparing the sub the, uh, the change changes made there include, uh, reporting non anonymized data that it's gonna be facility by facility. That's correct. I think that's a healthy change, and I think that's great. Just wanted to be sure we were on the same page there. Thank you.

  7. Rep. Jill Koford1:05:44

     No, I appreciate that. The point was reporting and transparency and We'll, I'm happy to err on the side of more reporting and more transparency.

  8. Rep. Doug Owens1:05:51

     And actually, I, I do have one further question, Mr. Chair. And that would be, you know, what kinds of quantities, and, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but are we, I mean the, these are reputed to be water intensive. Uh, some are less, more so than others. 'cause I understand there's some technologies that allow recirculation rather than evaporation of water. But anyway, just curious the volumes of water, if you're familiar with, uh, maybe the engineer could Helper if I'm just curious what kinds of quantities we are talking about.

  9. Theresa Wilhelmson, State Engineer, Division of Water Rights1:06:20

     Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I do have some information. The NSA left Dell facility currently uses about 23 million gallons of water in a month. Um, but Nova Center in West Val in West Jordan uses about 85,000 gallons of water in a month. That, that's, I think what they're using and diverting. I'm not sure what the recharge of those are. I know that our, um, our center in Eagle Mountain has a great relationship with the city. They, they divert some water, but what they discharge back to the system is being used in secondary watering for the city. So it's, it's actually been not a terrible thing for them. They found a way to use that water and reuse it. So what we're looking for are the diversions, the use and the, and the, and the discharge of the water as well.

  10. Committee chair1:07:11

      Thank you. Thank you. Representative Owens, Representative Hansen.

  11. Rep. Leah Hansen1:07:19

      Oh, there you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, hi representative, uh, I, I have a constituent who was concerned about the idea of large centers. I appreciate you bringing that up. Her concern was, um, the having a better measure, uh, be to define large data center based on the projected water usage, which has to be reported under the code before construction land use can be approved. Um, can you speak to that?

  12. Rep. Jill Koford1:07:50

      Yeah. Thank you for the question. Um, so part of the challenge in defining large and why it changed is because it's hard to, it's hard to measure. And with the miniaturization of commu computing power, it, it's getting smaller and smaller. So we had, we had aired on 50,000 square feet because in a different part of the code, that's what a large commercial building is considered. But as we started digging into some of the research on the, on what data centers look like in terms of large 10,000 square feet becomes about the size of what they're calling a hyperscale center. There are other measurements, but they're hard to get to. So I went kind of down a rabbit hole to look at, well, can we look at computing power? But that would probably be proprietary information and we're not going to get that. And then I could look at maybe how much energy they're using. But then that's a trade off between the energy and the water use. And what are the triggers to getting that. I'm looking at Representative Jack because there's no really great trigger for that. So for, for ease of definition. And, and after doing a little bit of research in the space, 10, like I said, 10,000 square feet tends to equate to what a hyperscale center is. And that is the definition of, of large data center.

  13. Rep. Leah Hansen1:09:07

      Thank you. May I ask one more question? Yeah. Um, so there, would it, because it would be a smaller, uh, square footage, would that create more, um, would that, would it be stacking the servers on top

  14. Rep. Jill Koford1:09:19

      Of each? No, it's not stacking, when I talk about stacking and, and computing power that I'm talking about individual chips, no. Okay.

  15. Rep. Leah Hansen1:09:27

      Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion.

  16. Committee chair1:09:31

      No worries. Thanks. Representative Hansen. Representative Shelley.

  17. Rep. Rex P. Shipp1:09:34speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I appreciate what you're doing. I think this is important. Uh, water is, is critical on all sides of the state. Uh, so I think it's important. The, the one caution I would have is, is just make sure that we're careful on extra regulation. Um, data centers are critical. Mm-hmm. If, if anyone is opposed to a data center, they probably ought to delete all of their pictures off their phone. 'cause there's no such thing as a cloud. They're all stored in data centers. And, uh, and aside from that, the, uh, the race to quantum computing and, and, and, uh, being able to master that is so critical to the state, critical to this country. We cannot lose that race. So we need the data centers, um, but we need it to be responsible. And I, I, that's why I appreciate your bill. I, I think it's important because we have to be responsible with our water as well. Um, so anything that you can cut down on regulation, I am supportive of. Um, because what you're saying is these data centers are gonna have to go out and purchase the water before they can actually start building. And so they're gonna have some significant cost up front to, to be able to start to arrange that. So just a, anywhere that we can cut regulation, um, while still protecting the water source is great. Thank you.

  18. Committee chair1:11:02

      Thank you. Representative Shelley. Representative Mona, thank you.

  19. Unknown speaker (called on as Representative Mona)1:11:07speaker not certain

      Oh, hold on. There we go. I think We're on. Thank you, uh, representative. I just wanna say thank you for the work that you've been doing on this. I know you've been putting a lot of effort into it, and, um, I really appreciate the changes to line 1 77. Um, in reference to instances where there are already non-disclosure agreements between businesses and data centers, are there any existing agreements that require non-disclosure right now? So, thank you for the question. Um, there are some agreements in Eagle Mountain, but I ha I was in meetings yesterday and I believe we have somebody online that can speak to that more fully. Um, nothing in this bill will Val violate those non-disclosure agreements, is my understanding as they currently stand. That's the only one that I am aware of. But we did have that conversation and Eagle Mountain is actually very supportive of the policy. Thank you.

  20. Rep. Scott Shelley1:12:02

      Thank you, representative. I just have one question, if I could, how does this affect water rights, existing water rights?

  21. Rep. Jill Koford1:12:13

      Now, I'm gonna let you talk to our state engineer. I did want to clarify one thing though, if I could wa before I forget. Um, Representative Shelley, there, there's no provision in the bill that requires them to buy water rights prior to construction. What we're asking for prior to construction is just an estimate of their water use. It is not regulatory, in my opinion. The bill is not, the bill is about reporting and transparency and really just communicating. And with that, I'll let Theresa answer the question. Yeah.

  22. Theresa Wilhelmson, State Engineer, Division of Water Rights1:12:44

      Um, so thanks for having me. Theresa Wilhelmson, a Utah State engineer and director of the Division of Water Rights. Um, this bill won't affect water rights. Um, they still would need to go through the same process if they need to acquire a water. Right. Um, a lot of data centers more likely are gonna be buying the water from a provider. Okay. Um, but there is a data center in Central Utah that has water rights that they'll convert, um, to the new use. So there's no direct impact. And we can easily, um, not easily, but we already collect, collect water use data, um, statewide. And so this will just be another, um, piece of data that we collect.

  23. Committee chair1:13:25

      Okay. Thank you. Okay.

  24. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:13:29

      Seeing, oh, Representative Cutler, I Have one more. There you go. Thank you. One more question for Mrs. Williamson. If, if, if that's okay. Uh, if, if, if the date when then they were required to report to the division, this information was 45 days before construction, or 90 days before construction instead of a hundred, would that make any difference to, to your reporting?

  25. Theresa Wilhelmson, State Engineer, Division of Water Rights1:13:52

      Uh, no, it wouldn't. Um, we would just have to make sure we build it into, um, the existing system that we have. I, it would mainly affect our programming and when notices go out or how we collect that data.

  26. Committee chair1:14:06

      Thank you. Thank you, representative. Okay. Seeing no other lights, we'll open this to public comment. Um, is there, are there anybody from the public that would like to comment on this? Okay. A couple hands. Why don't you come forward and, uh, uh, give us your comment.

  27. Candice Hasenyager, Director, Division of Water Quality1:14:24

      Thank you. Great. Thank you. My name. Okay. Go ahead and state your name, sorry. And the organization you're with, if, if that applies. Yes. My name is Candace Haeger, and I'm the director at the Division of Water Quality. And we are just really grateful for Representative Koford and her work on this bill and engaging the Department of Environmental Quality. Um, on this bill, uh, we worked with her to make sure that there was no duplication in reporting and those type of things as we do, uh, permit discharges. And we support the bill as it provides proactive notification about the large data centers and that have been approved by their land use authority and provides transparency. So, thank you.

  28. Committee chair1:15:06

      Thank you. Okay. Next person. Thanks.

  29. Alta Fairbourne, Utah Rivers Council1:15:14

      My name is Alta Fairborne. I'm the community water organizer at Utah Rivers Council. And I wanna start by thanking the bill sponsor for taking on an issue that has been largely untacked in the state and for introducing a substitute bill that is responsive to the public's concern. That said, I still wanna bring up some concerns that we have, um, in taking this issue further, to not allow any data centers coming into Utah to shirk their responsibility to report their water usage to the public, especially during the Great Salt Lake water crisis. Um, this bill still leaves the door open for confidentiality agreements between companies and cities. And we already have examples in Utah where development agreements restrict disclosure of water use by individual facilities. And nothing in this substitute bill prevents that from continuing, although it is a great step further, um, using great Salt Lake water that threatens its already delicate future, the public is under the impression that the state of Utah is going to save the Great Salt Lake by 2034. And there's no reason to believe, there's no reason why we should be incentivizing data centers to come to our state in this time of water crisis. When only agencies and companies have access to water use numbers and the public cannot. It shifts decision making and our power away from communities and toward closed door processes. That is not how public policy should be built under democracy, especially around a scarce and vital shared resource like water in Utah. Allowing for any secrecy around major new industrial water uses in the second driest state in the country is an unjustified gift to special interest at the expense of the publix's water during the Great Salt Lake crisis. Um, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak, and I hope you all will consider taking this issue further.

  30. Committee chair1:17:02

      Thank you. Looks like we have a couple of hands raised online. One, two. Okay. So if, if you're online, what we'd like you to do is, uh, and I think a couple of you have already share your screen, come off mute and state where you're, uh, state your name and, and where you're, uh, located. So we will start with Kaylyn Stanley.

  31. Kaelin Stanley, Mormon Women for Ethical Government1:17:34

      Um, hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Kaylyn Stanley, and I live in North Ogden, and I'm representing Mormon Women for Ethical Gov Government or MWE for short. And MWE is a grassroots organization dedicated to building a more peaceful, just and ethical world. HB 76 responds to growing concern about the water usage of the large data centers that are coming into Utah. Understanding the wa the water impacts is especially important since Utah's facing chronic water scarcity. HB 76 is a first step accountability measure that improves transparency and coordination with water providers. In addition, the bill increases oversight without restricting economic development. At mwe, we believe governments and members of society have an obligation to exercise responsible stewardship of the earth. HB 76 is a step in the right direction toward responsible stewardship of one of our greatest and least abundant resources in Utah Water. We are grateful for the bill sponsor Representative Koford to, for listening to our feedback about transparency concerns, and we urge a yes vote on HB 76.

  32. Committee chair1:18:48

      Thank you, Kaylin. Appreciate that. Uh, next we'll go to, uh, Evan Barrett.

  33. Evan Berrett, Director of Legislative Affairs, City of Eagle Mountain1:18:57

      Yes, thank you. Um, chair and committee. Uh, my name's Evan Barrett. Uh, I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for the city of Eagle Mountain. Um, Eagle Mountain City appreciates representative cohort's intent to ensure Utah's limited water resources are carefully managed and transparently accounted for. We share that objective and have worked for years as a city to maximize water efficiency and conservation as our community grows. Unfortunately, some recent and misleading reporting has led to the perception that our city, Eagle Mountain has been careless or opaque in its water use or not thoroughly vetting water needs or the best use of water resources prior to development approval. Um, I'm just here to share that that perception is not accurate. Water allocation data for our data center projects is already public information. We have spoken directly with Representative Koford and have had little concern, uh, with HB 76 because we are confident that the work already completed by the city and our data center partners meets the bill's intent. Our only question has been whether data center data centers need to be singled out. Eagle Mountain has approved over 2,500 acres of data center development, but we evaluate water allocation with significant scrutiny. ENC close coordination with Central Utah Water Conserv District and Meta is the only data center in our city that uses water for cooling. And even then, they have never used their full allocation. All other approved data centers will rely on closed loop systems or non-water cooling systems. Altogether. Meta has been an exceptional partner for us. As representative mentioned, their facilities, uh, reuse water multiple times. They offset their usage through major sourcing investments in the state, and they've put together discharge. Uh, they've put together systems that discharge clean water, uh, that supports our regional parks and setting up the city's first secondary water system as a young, uh, fast-growing city with significant housing still ahead. Eagle Mountain is taking on a disproportionate share of water conservation efforts while planning responsibly for economic growth. And we appreciate the committee's time and consideration.

  34. Committee chair1:21:04

      Thank you, Evan. Um, next we'll have, uh, Maggie Bradford Butler.

  35. Maggie Bradford-Butcher1:21:13

      Hi, my name is Maggie Bradford Butcher. Um, I'm representing myself. Uh, I just want to speak in favor of this bill. Um, I do believe that, uh, water conservation is extremely important here in Utah. Um, having come from a drier state, uh, in Nevada, I moved here from Las Vegas. Um, I've been extremely concerned about the lack of, uh, water authorities and kind of statewide water conservation efforts. And I believe this is an important first step and towards, uh, consolidating our water, uh, usage and all of our, uh, ability to track this viable, this important and vital resource. Um, and I'm very grateful to, uh, uh, Representative Koford for, uh, sponsoring this bill, and I urge you to vote in favor of it. Thank you.

  36. Committee chair1:22:06

      Thank you. Okay. One other, I think, uh, Seth Stewart.

  37. Seth Stewart1:22:16

      Yeah. Thank you. Um, let's see. Yeah. So my name is Seth Stewart from American Fork Utah, and I am an AI professional, uh, do this for a living. I'm looking at this bill from the perspective of somebody considering, uh, entering a business, uh, creating a new ai, uh, data center business to compete with the, uh, international, global and national corporations in the space. And from that perspective, it raises several pretty serious concerns. My first is that, um, the bill, uh, imposes very steep fines of up to $10,000 per day for an incomplete report. Uh, but it never defines what a complete report means. Um, and this is a very concerning thing because it's, uh, it leaves that open-ended, uh, that could, that have, would have a chilling effect on pretty much anybody who's trying to open up and compete in this space. Um, the, the core standards, uh, behind this are also delegated to rulemaking. If you look at line 1 68 and the substitute, um, that the, uh, the, it kinda require other information to be disclosed, uh, which is made in accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking Act, um, that seems open-ended. Uh, that would also complicate matters in terms of, uh, issuing a report, uh, where you could be fined for absence of information or incompleteness, especially, again, where that's not defined. Um, the forecasting, the third party collaboration, et cetera, with the projections of, uh, project completion and timing and so on. Um, just not financially feasible for, um, for a little guy to come in and compete with these mega corporations. Um, another concern is that the, um, the threshold has been changed from 50,000 to 10,000 square feet in this substitute. Um, there are serious concerns with that because that, that really does broaden the scope to a lot of the smaller competitors. And, uh, I, I, just by all appearances, this doesn't appear to be about holding the hyperscalers accountable. Uh, this is on the very, very low end of what could be considered. Hyperscale has the effect of, um, imposing steep barriers to entry to this field, which is really, it, it really needs competition and it duly favors, therefore the, uh, the nationally bankrolled mega corporation. So I would like for the committee to address these concerns. Uh, and I strongly urge the bill be re reconsidered regarding the footprint, uh, thresholds. I would like to echo the concerns that it's not actually, um, triggering based on water usage right on, uh, facility, uh, footprint size. And, uh, that can actually make a very big difference as well, because there's another concern about, uh, trade secrets and, uh, and, uh, proprietary information being leaked. Uh, because you can indeed, uh, estimate the, uh, the capacity and the type of technology being used within a data center from its water consumption and footprint. And if that's public information that's, there are quantum leaps in the, uh, hardware these days that make that, uh, much easier to triangulate. So I'd also urge, uh, that it be withdrawn for lack of defining what complete reporting is and to withdraw the punitive fines. Thank you.

  38. Committee chair1:25:24

      Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the committee for dis uh, further discussion. And action. Uh, Representative Cutler.

  39. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:25:40

      Thank you. Uh, first of all, I'd like to move for substitute. Uh, I assume you'd like that since we're Yes, That's, thank you, Mr. Georgia. Uh, and then I have a proposed amendment after we move that, so, Okay. So that motion is to, uh, adopt, uh, first substitute of, uh, HB 76, um, discussion to that motion.

  40. Committee chair1:26:06

      Seeing none will go to the sponsor. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. And to the maker of the motion I waive. Okay. Uh, so the motion before us is to adopt first substitute HB 76. All in favor to say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We are, uh, we have adopted first substitute, uh, discussion to the first substitute, uh, Representative Cutler.

  41. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:26:31

      Yes. I'd, I'd, uh, again, I, uh, uh, commend the, um, sponsor for and, and all the folks who have worked on this appreciate it. Given the change in size from 50,000 feet, which is a, a decent sized commercial building to 10,000 feet, which would actually be a pretty small commercial building, I think this opens it up for many more. Uh, if, if someone were to take even a retail location or other and turn it into a data center, which sometimes happens, sometimes it won't affect the big hyperscalers, but it would affect smaller data centers. I, I'd like to make sure we don't slow them down. So, I, I would like to propose an amendment on line 1 39. That would say, beginning January 1st, 2027, at least 90 days, but no sooner than 360 days before, uh, before construction, they have to do this reporting just to make it a little slow down. The regulatory, uh, burden here, make it a little faster. Um, if, especially if it's a smaller facility, they won't be planning these for years. They, they, they could move relatively fast. So that changes from 180 to 90 days, 90 days. So cut it in half. So three, three month timescale. Okay.

  42. Committee chair1:27:43

      Um, discussion to that motion. Seeing non, we'll go to the bill sponsor.

  43. Rep. Jill Koford1:27:53

      I would consider that a friendly Amendment. Okay.

  44. Committee chair1:27:55

      Um, go back to the maker of the motion. Uh, I Waive. Okay. Um, so the motion is to amend line 1 36, 1 39, 1 39 of the substitute of the substitute, um, first substitute, um, to say, uh, 90 days instead of 180. Um, all in favor of that motion or that amendment? Excuse me, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Uh, we have amended that. So to the first substitute as amended, uh, further discussion. Representative Cutler, Uh, Oh. Representative Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  45. Rep. Doug Owens1:28:42

      Just to maybe a question to the sponsor to follow up on some of that public comment, uh, on the disclosure of trade secrets, the potential for people to triangulate. I mean, I, that strikes me as not a particularly, um, I mean, I don't agree with that concern because I dealt with that in my professional life and don't see that issue. But have you, what do, what do you think about that, those comments, uh, on the trade secret portion and keeping that, to me, that's, because that's only published in the aggregate, I see that as essentially nullifying the concern there. I, I wondered if you'd wanna address that.

  46. Rep. Jill Koford1:29:23

      Yeah, thank you for the question, Mr. Che. So the, in the, in the research that I've done, and some of the court decisions that have been, that have come out in different states, the biggest concern has been monthly data or monthly water consumption. When it's annualized that, that concern drops Dr dramatically, and the court decisions have, have ruled that that's not proprietary information. Um, when I initially started working on the bill, that was a concern. But as we've done, as I've done further research into the issue and, and have watched whether states have done, um, an annualized data consumption report, doesn't seem to be, the courts have ruled that that is not proprietary information, that that's public information and, and can be shared. And when's, so if it, if it were month by month, that may, that may, then you may be able to back into some of that proprietary and intellectual properties that we would definitely want to protect. And the, the, the trade secret information that's reported to water re or to the engineer, that, that gets aggregated, that portion is aggregated. So it gets an additional layer of insulation in addition to being annualized. Right? It does. Thank you. And, and it also, the, the, the data center has the ability to ask for some of their information that's required in the report, which will be defined by rulemaking to be made to be kept confidential. If there are things that we are asking for from the state engineer that they feel are need to be kept confidential, they can ask for that upfront. Thank you. Thank, thank you, Representative Owens.

  47. Committee chair1:31:03

      Representative Fiefia. Thank you. There you Go. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  48. Rep. Jake Fiefia1:31:08

      Uh, representative. Thank you for your good work on this. I apologize for some of my questions. If you've already reported on this, I was, uh, presenting a bill in another committee. So I, I, my first question is around just some of the public comment, also around reducing 50,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. And the concern around that this is, um, hurting potential innovators, small businesses that would like to get in this space.

  49. Rep. Jill Koford1:31:34

      Can you talk through just the thought process of why you went from 50,000 to 10,000? Absolutely. Thank you for the question. So in doing some research, what I found was that, um, at 10,000 square feet, that's when you enter the hyperscale or what's considered industry wide, a large data center, or actually maybe it's large and then hyperscale. So it is on the smaller end, I guess, of the hyperscale. But it is considered a large data center. Fundamentally, and ultimately, this is an opportunity, I think, for data centers to tell their story. We have, we have data centers who have become good partners. Eagle Mountain testified to that. Um, we're, we're asking for some projected water use. We're asking for them to be open and transparent with what I believe is one of the state's most precious resources. Um, and, and many, many data centers are pivoting away from large water use. They're going to closed loop systems, they're using glycol, they're using energy to Cool. And so I guess my, my response is, if the industry is moving that way, we are just asking to know what you're doing. And that I, I don't think should be overly burdensome, especially in a state where we have some challenges with water.

  50. Rep. Jake Fiefia1:32:52

      Thank you. I have a follow-up question, Mr. Chair. Yep. I guess my follow up question is, is what is the limiting principle here? Um, and what I mean by that is, what stops this from turning into water use regulation later? Um, all for transparency. Um, but what, stop this. What stops this from being future leverage on water use regulation?

  51. Rep. Jill Koford1:33:15

      I guess my response to that would be the legislature decides that, um, that's not the intent of the legislation. The intent is to be open and transparent, and we hold the, the power to make that decision and to decide if we want to become overly burdensome or regulatory. That's not my intention here. Um, I think it's very clear the state is open for business. We're number one for business. We wanna continue being number one for business. We also just want to know how you can be good partners with our, with our resources in the state. That, that's fundamentally at the core of this piece of legislation. I would hope that it could stay in that realm.

  52. Committee chair1:33:54

      Great. Thank you. Thank you representative, uh, Representative Hansen.

  53. Rep. Leah Hansen1:34:00

      Um, thank you, chairman. May I ask one more question, please? Yeah. Uh, thank you. Um, would it be possible to define large data center by water usage instead of the data center itself? I have not been able to find a metric to do that. And because most importantly,

  54. Rep. Jill Koford1:34:16

      data centers are pivoting away from being large water consumers. When you look at the NSA data center, or some of our legacy data centers who are actually retrofitting to become more and more water efficient, they're rapidly moving away from being large water consumers. There is concern out there that there are some of these legacy systems out there. So we don't really, to me, a data center's capacity is dependent on their ability, their computing power. And that's even hard to define. So that's why we went with a footprint that in the industry itself, relates back to a hyperscale size. So I'm, I'm, I'm comfortable with the definition if that we have, if that answers your question, Mr. Chair.

  55. Committee chair1:35:00

      Okay. Thank you. Okay. Further discussion. We're, and we're ready to take action on this if we like, um, Representative Fiefia.

  56. Rep. Jake Fiefia1:35:11

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we pass out, uh, what's first sub HB 76 as amended, as amended and favorably recommended to the full house?

  57. Committee chair1:35:27

      Okay. So the motion before us is to favorably recommend, uh, first substitute HB 76 as amended discussion to that motion Representative Cutler.

  58. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:35:38

      I, I think this is a great step for Utah. It, it's adding transparency and we can't make good policy decisions if we don't have good data. And you are helping us get good data on water use, and based on getting data on water use, we can start to make better policy decisions. So I think this is a great step in the right, uh, direction and really appreciate the effort.

  59. Committee chair1:36:02

      Thank you. Thank you, Representative Cutler. Um, further discussion. Okay.

  60. Rep. Jill Koford1:36:08

      Seeing none, we'll go back to the sponsor. Thank you for the time for the conversation, and I appreciate the amendment, um, and appreciate the favorable recommendation. Thank you. And to the maker of the motion, Just thank you for your good work on this and being willing and open to listen to all stakeholders. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay.

  61. Committee chair1:36:30

      So the motion before us is to favorably recommend first substitute HB 76 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. I rule that motion passes. Thank you. Thank You so much. Yeah.

• Jan 29, 2026 House floor debate (day 10)▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)53:00

     Our substitute house Bill 76 Data Center, water Transparency Amendments by Representative Koford. This bill was heard in Economic Development and Workforce Services with a vote of 8 0 2. Representative Koford,

  2. Rep. Jill Koford53:13

     Thank you so much Mr. Speaker. This bill is fundamental fundamentally about reporting and transparency. It requires an industry that isn't currently reporting up to the state water engineer on their water usage. We were asking for a report pre-construction and then also annual ongoing reports of their water use. I wanna be clear that we have a handful of data centers in the state and some are really good partners and great stewards of their water. They've got some innovative things going in Eagle Mountain where they're reusing their water for outdoor watering. But at the, at the very basic level, we, we just need to have better data and a better handle on how this most valuable resource is being protected in our state. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)54:04

     Thank you, Representative Koford discussion to the bill. Seeing none back to Representative Koford for summation, I'll waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on first substitute Representative Shallenberger. Oh, not you voted. Sorry. Seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. First substitute HB 76 passed this body with 72 yes votes zero, no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee
• Mar 3, 2026 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (27 turns)

  1. Rep. Jill Koford50:17

     house bill 76 for substitute Representative Koford data center Water Transparency Amendments. Welcome back to our committee. Thank You so much, chair. Um, oh, ho ho. I didn't see Theresa in back. So yes, I'm grateful that she's here. I actually have a third substitute online. That's the bill that I'll be speaking to. Um, for something that was born out of reporting and transparency, this bill got really complicated, and then I hope that it's gotten really uncomplicated and it's landed in a great spot. Um, it's basically, like I said, a transparency and a, and a, a reporting mechanism for data centers. This would affect people that data centers that are over 10,000 square feet and are using more than 75 acre feet of water per year. It requires some pre-construction, not notification to the state water engineer. And then post-construction reporting on an annual basis to the division of water rights. It also has public disclosure mechanisms of the water withdrawal for new facilities built after July 1st, 2026. The goal is to give local water providers and the state an idea of how our most precious commodity of water is being used. It does not ban or cap water, and there are no, um, requirements in terms of, of, um, permitting for the data centers. Um, it's just really about communication and information for our state water engineer. So we know how our water is being used, and to me it's an opportunity for our data center partners in the state to tell their story about how they are being good stewards of the water. And with that, I will open it up to questions. I do have the state water engineer, I don't know if you wanna talk to the bill at all, but we're both here to answer any questions. Chair call representative, chairman, however you'd like to proceed. Did you have, Uh, do you, would you like to have this substituted? Would like to have, would you speak to that representative?

  2. Unknown speaker52:11speaker not certain

     What are the differences in this substitute? The Difference between this substitute

  3. Rep. Jill Koford52:15

     and the first substitute of the bill is really, um, Juab the July 1st. Um, it's for new data centers coming online, um, and there's a little bit of cleanup for the, for the division. So,

  4. Sen. David P. Hinkins52:28

     Okay. With that, I would make a motion that we delete title and body, uh, house bill 76 for substitute and replace it with, uh, house Bill 76, third substitute.

  5. Committee chair52:39

     Thank you, Senator. The motion is that we, uh, delete title and body 76 first substitute and replace it with house bill 76. Third substitute there. Discussion to the motion to substitute not seeing any, I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We have a substituted bill before us. Thank you, Senator. And, uh, bring it back to the committee for any questions on to the sponsor. Okay. No questions. We'll open it to the public. Is there anyone in the public while you're sitting right there? Um, director, did you want to speak to the bill or, um, go ahead.

  6. Theresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer and Director, Utah Division of Water Rights53:25

     Sure. Maybe what I'll add. Um, so Theresa Wilhelmson, state Engineer and director of the Division of Water Rights, um, when we looked at this bill, um, we already have a water use reporting program, um, for Indu Industrial Cities and various others. And it's up to about 1700 entities that do report to us. And so by adding these new data centers, it'll be a, you know, a fraction of what we already, we already do collect, but it very similar to the process we have in place.

  7. Committee chair53:53

     Okay, great. Thank you Director. And, um, sign in for us as well. We have one other or a couple of others in the room. Please, please come on up. Yeah. Thank you for coming today. Introduce yourself please and if you represent any group, The chair.

  8. Leslie Zabriskie, Mormon Women for Ethical Government54:15

     Good afternoon. My name's Leslie Zaki. Um, I live in Centerville and I'm here representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government. Thank You. Um, mwe Mormon Women is a grassroots organization dedicated to building a more peaceful, just and ethical world. HB 76 responds to growing concerns about the water usage of the large data centers that are coming to Utah. Understanding the water impacts is especially important since Utah is facing a chronic water shortage. HB 76 is a first count, first step accountability measure that improves transparency and coordination with water providers. In addition, the bill increases oversight without restraining economic development. At mwe, we believe governments and members of society have an obligation to exercise responsible stewardship of the earth. HB 76 is a step in the right direction toward responsible stewardship of one of our greatest and least abundant resources in Utah Water. We're grateful to the bill sponsor for listening to feedback about transparency concerns and we urge a yes vote on HB 76. Thank you for your testimony.

  9. Committee chair55:31

     Senator, are your light on for a question? Can we hold that or, okay. I just didn't wanna know if you had a question for the sponsor or, okay. We'll come back to you in a minute. Um, thank you ma'am. Is there anyone else in the that would like to speak to this in the room? Please come up, sir, while you're coming, I'm gonna go online to Chris Sheard Shepherd. Chris, if you would unmute, turn on your camera. Introduce yourself.

  10. Chris Shapard, resident, Salt Lake City56:02

      Hi, yeah, my name's Chris Sheard. I'm in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thank you Chair and members of the committee for, um, for hearing this bill. And, um, I'm just representing myself today and I just wanted to also share a quick comment in support of this bill. I think it's really important as, as we get more data centers that are proposed in Utah, I think I and a lot of other utahns are justifiably worried about the impact that these data centers are gonna have on our, you know, already threatened water resources. And I think this bill makes sure that the largest data centers are held accountable by requiring them to report their water use and other critical data. And I think transparency like this and accountability is gonna be critical for our future decision making as we move into a very uncertain future when it comes to our water resources. Um, so while I think there are, there's some improvements that can be made to this bill, such as applying the same mandatory reporting to data centers, you know, that fall under the 10,000 square foot threshold set by this bill. I think it's a, it's a really important step to make sure that the water use from these corporations is closely monitored and in compliance with the law. So thank you for your time and, and to Representative Koford for sponsoring this bill. And I, I hope the committee supports the passage of this bill today. Thank you, Chris. Appreciate your testimony.

  11. Committee chair57:13

      I'll bring it back to the room. Yes sir. Go ahead.

  12. Scott Paxman, General Manager, Weber Basin Water Conservancy District57:16

      Yes, Scott Hackman with, uh, uh, we were based in Water Conservancy District. I'm the general manager there. Just wanna speak in favor of the bill. We've worked closely with Representative Koford. Um, and I, I really think it's important for the water supplier to be able to meet well in advance of any of these large data centers to understand the, the water supply issues. Um, we are just so limited on our water supply. We, we need to understand what we're required to, to, uh, supply in in the end. So this has been, uh, a great effort, I think. So thank you.

  13. Committee chair57:53

      Thank you Mr. Bachman. Thanks for your testimony. We have one other online. Amy Wicks, welcome to our committee. Michael Larson Is Michael Larson. And then, uh, Amy, you'll be followed by Michael Larson. There we go. Thank you.

  14. Amy Wicks, Utah Rivers Council58:13

      Um, I'm Amy Wicks, uh, with Utah Rivers Council and, um, I was supportive of the first amendment of this bill, but the bill is presented, um, causes some concern to me. Um, 75 acre feet of water a year, which is the threshold for reporting is a lot of water. And, um, there are, you know, even very few and large industrial users existing, uh, at least in the city I live in, uh, where they would meet that threshold to need to report. Um, so, um, I would suggest looking at a lower threshold for water use. Um, if, if we are going to, you know, look at reporting of this, uh, we really need to remove that 75 acre foot threshold because that is quite high and that is a lot of water if you get a number of data centers within the watershed of the Great Salt Lake. So thank you for your time

  15. Committee chair59:18

      And thank you Amy and anyone else in the room. Michael Larson, go ahead then.

  16. Michael Larson, Utah Association of Conservation Districts59:30

      Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, We can. Oh, okay. Sorry, I'm on my mobile phone. But, uh, this Michael Larson, I'm representing Utah Association of Conservation Districts, and we've had several conservation districts that have been concerned with the data centers coming in and what will happen on the water. And so we'll speak in favor of the bill. Uh, I think that's a good step forward. I think we may have to look at some other things, but I, I would encourage you to support the bill.

  17. Committee chair1:00:02

      Thank you, Mike. Okay, we're gonna bring it back to the committee. Appreciate those who have participated in the public comment, really, um, express that to the public. We love to hear your comments and input on Bill and make them better. So, um, Senator Blouin, did you have a question that you would like to have answered? Let me get your light on, go ahead. Sure.

  18. Sen. Nate Blouin1:00:26

      Yeah. Thank you. I, I think this is a good bill headed in the right direction. I do, I share, you know, the concerns that maybe it doesn't quite capture, uh, everyone I would like to see it capture. Um, question I guess is, um, I think it ha maybe explain if I'm correct here. So it has a report I think to, I forget if it's DNR or someone else, but there's some report, right? And then, uh, they get specific data, but then the, the data that is shared publicly is aggregate. Is that correct?

  19. Rep. Jill Koford1:00:55

      Yeah, so there was some concern from the industry that we would be, um, putting intellectual properties on the, on the, on the forward facing piece to the public. So we tried to bifurcate that a little bit. And I think it's landed in a really good place where it still provides a lot of transparency to the public. Um, in terms of the 75 acre feet, that was actually a suggestion from one of the largest water users in the state as a data center, because they're using, they that would sweep them into that. Mm-hmm. They would have to report at that level. Another thing that I think is really important to know is that the industry as a whole is moving away from water cooled. Um, and so to, to me this is about, like I said in my opening remarks about the data centers, being able to tell their stories, how they have, the market itself has reacted to the concern nationwide about water use. And so in the second dry state of the nation, I think it's good for us to set the, the tone nationally and just say, look, tell us your story. Data centers are important to our economy to where we're going. We don't wanna discourage them from coming, but we want them to be good partners. And that's why we landed where we did in the bill. It's not a hundred percent where I would love for it to be, but I think it's a really good compromise. And we've got, we've gotten broad support from all the data center representatives that I've spoken to.

  20. Sen. Nate Blouin1:02:11

      Thank you. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think it's a step in the right direction. I, I'd like to see it stronger and I would say, uh, and I had a, a bill on this look at, we need to look at the energy use because you're offsetting water use by using more energy. It's a, it's a pretty direct trade off, uh, as far as the cooling goes. So that's something to keep, keep an eye on. But thank you.

  21. Committee chair1:02:29

      Thank you, Senator. Lemme go to Senator Stratton.

  22. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:02:35

      Thank you Chair. I am going to move. We had public comment. We're Ready to, we have it, uh, we're ready for any action. It's a third substitute, Right? We have, so HB third substitute favorable recommendation.

  23. Committee chair1:02:51

      Thank you, Senator. The motion is that we, uh, pass out house bill 76 third substitute with favorable recommendation as their discussion from the committee on this motion. Not seeing any may come back to you for summation.

  24. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:03:07

      I appreciate the support. Thank you

  25. Committee chair1:03:08

      so much. Thank you, Senator.

  26. Unknown speaker1:03:11speaker not certain

      I'd like to, if I may give a little perspective, uh, th this is important, bill. One of the concerns with our data processors is, is the potential water use and to the good center blue. And, you know, and there is that trade off between different types of cooling, but water can be the, uh, preferred and there's, there's opportunities. I like as we report when we report, it provides accountability and, uh, there's, there's options as well with the, with recycling, you know, and a lot of opportunities here. They also, I also point out 75 acre feet. I know that, that, that's a lot, but that's, that's probably in relation to, it's about 75 homes, what 75 homes would use in a year. And that's in proportion. It's, it's not a huge, I think that's, we're Blanding in a good place. I can't imagine many of the data processors using less than that. And I think we're trying to capture the majority. So I, I, I would offer those comments and, and, uh, appreciate the sponsor and good work on this bill.

  27. Committee chair1:04:20

      Thank you, Senator. I will place the motion. All in favor of passing out house bill 76 third substitute data center. Water transparency amendments indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose, if any say nay roll, it passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Koford.

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 44)▶ Watch
  Transcript (14 turns)

  1. Senate President (presiding)52:44

     Any opposed? Roll The motion passes. The bill is UNC circle to the bill. Senator.

  2. Sen. Scott D. Sandall52:48

     Thank you Mr. President. Uh, colleagues, as we know, data centers, um, are going to be a great part in our life going forward. Uh, they help our fuel, our technology industry, and, uh, I think we want to be a welcoming partner. Uh, when these data centers come in and fit, um, there is a narrative out there that data centers shouldn't be here because they consume a extra amount of water. Uh, this bill tries to help us and the public understand the water consumption that data centers may or may not use. This bill applies only to large data centers of 10,000 or more square feet that primarily house network servers and related infrastructure, uh, 30 to three or 90 to 360 days before construction operators must communicate with the local water provider about, about expected water sources. Operators must report projected water use, discharge amount, treatment methods, reuse efforts, and other details to the division of water rights. There's an annual reporting piece and a public transparency importing, uh, reporting piece. I believe it's important to, to realize and, and understand that data centers adopt technology according to the areas that they're in. And in a desert environment, uh, I think we should be somewhat conscious of how much they're going to use. But the data centers that are coming, uh, can be very, very small use in water and we wanna make sure that that's portrayed out, uh, to the public and it's done in a transparent way. So that's the basis of this bill. Without Mr. President, I would be open to any questions.

  3. Senate President (presiding)54:42

     Thank you for the explanation. Senator Brammer to the bill.

  4. Sen. Chris H. Wilson54:46speaker not certain

     Uh, and, uh, I, I guess the concern that I have on this bill is we don't do this for other industries and we don't typically say this specific industry put our finger on it. We say you have to produce reports and everything related to water, whereas others don't. And there's been others that have come up before, uh, the legislature, uh, that have, that have advocated for similar, uh, types of disclosures. And we've generally said no. And so I'm, I just have concerns that it's now putting our finger on data center water transparency. And I think, you know, the end result may be that they really don't use as much as people think because most of it is returned back into the system. Uh, but I, I just have some concerns with singling out one type of industry and not others. We don't do this for medical device producers, we don't do this for universities, we don't do this for golf courses, we don't do this for manufacturers. We don't do this for, um, you know, for, uh, microchip processors. There, there's all these other industries that we don't do this for, for, for big Ag. We, I mean, we do have water metering, but we typically don't require production of and publication of water transparency. And so it's kind of a, you know, I I just worry that we're singling out one group and, and maybe some will like it to try to get after them and, and maybe they want it because they're not using as much as we think, but it is kind of a, a singling out. And so with all due respect to sponsor, I'm, I'm gonna be a no on this for those concerns. Um, but I, I understand where it's coming from and I do appreciate that. Thank you.

  5. Senate President (presiding)56:35

     Thank you. Senator Brammer. Senator McKell, are you up? And I guess the sponsor, you'll, your question. Uh, Senator Sandall, will you yield? Yes. Senator Sandall.

  6. Sen. Michael K. McKell56:49

     Just one, one of the concerns I think that my good colleague from North Yu Utah County expressed that we, we don't do this with other industries. My my understanding is a lot of this information is already available. Um, so I guess my question is, if a lot of this information is already available, is there, is there a reason we would duplicate it and do it again in this situation?

  7. Senate President (presiding)57:07

     Senator Sandall.

  8. Sen. Scott D. Sandall57:09

     Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I do believe that a lot of this is actually available and some of the, uh, construction requirements are always hinging upon whether the water's available. Uh, I think this is an attempt to make it more transparent so that, uh, someone from the public could find it in an easier format, uh, than maybe having to collect those data reports individually.

  9. Senate President (presiding)57:36

     Thank you. Senator, any follow up? Senator Michel Juab.

  10. Sen. Michael K. McKell57:41

      Juab. Just, just a follow up statement. I mean, I guess, I mean, two, two concerns is this information's already available, uh, and the second information, the second thing is sometimes in, in water especially, there's a lot of misinformation. When I, I always cringe when I read articles that a data center uses a million gallons of water. One acre, one acre foot of water is, is about 320,000 gallons. And I, and I think it's one of these issues where sometimes the stories we read are incredibly misleading. And, and, and, and when we hear that from our constituents in, in a really misleading way, I think it's, it's difficult to c combat. And, and, and obviously a lot of these data centers are, are moving away from water, but there's an incredible amount of misinformation and, and I, and I worry that this could actually make, make it, make it worse. Not better.

  11. Senate President (presiding)58:32

      Thank you. Senator Macl looking for further discussion. Saying, now you Senator Sandall.

  12. Sen. Scott D. Sandall58:38

      Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I do, I do think it's an important discussion that we've had. I, I do believe that, um, out there in the public there is a perception that we don't, uh, respect the water that we have. And, uh, this bill tries to help calm some of those anxieties of data centers coming in by being more transparent. With that, I would move that third substitute house Bill 76 pass.

  13. Senate President (presiding)59:06

      Thank you. And the question is, shall third substitute house bill 76 under suspension. The roll pass. Kel vote. Senator Vickers, Baldry Aye. Lewin Aye. Rammer Bus Fillmore Escamia Fillmore Rover Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson, Juab McKay, Mikel Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi No Sand Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vicars Weiler Wilson Winterton Owens Ton President Adams, No third substitute House Bill 76 having received 13 yay votes. 15 nay votes fails and one being absent, fails to pass and will be returned to the house for filing.

  14. Senate President (presiding)1:00:32

      Third substitute house bill 3 3 7. Third substitute house Bill 3 37. Nicotine product Tax amendments. Senator Stevenson. Senator Stevenson. Yeah. Motion to circle. Motion to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule That motion passes the bill of circle. First substitute house Bill 5 49. First substitute House bill 5 49, energy efficiency rebate amendments. Senator Cullimore. Senator Cullimore.

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate (day 44)▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Presiding officer2:06:28

     Senator Sandall. Thank you

  2. Sen. Scott D. Sandall2:06:29

     Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, I think the, uh, house sponsor must have done a better job at explaining to a few of our colleagues what this bill did or did not do. And so, uh, again, this is the Data Center Water Transparency Amendment bill. I believe it does, uh, create transparency that will give some, uh, assurance to people in the public around data centers that data centers are not high users of water, uh, at, in their current state. And the ones that are coming here are going to be efficient with that. Uh, I'd be open to any questions.

  3. Presiding officer2:07:06

     Thank you for that presentation. Do we have discussion? The bill? Senator Colmore? Sorry. Do you have discussion to the bill?

  4. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore2:07:15

     Yeah. Uh, well, I'll just say in, in learning more about this bill, my concern was not necessarily the bill itself because I think the, the bill does good things, but that the perception that Utah is unfriendly to data centers. And I think in, in learning more about this and, and, uh, getting, gauging the temperature out from some of the industry that in fact this is, this is a requested bill and would actually help with that perception and help people feel like data centers are good players and good stewards of the water.

  5. Presiding officer2:07:46

     Okay. Further discussion to the bill saying none. Senator Sandall back to you for I would move that

  6. Sen. Scott D. Sandall2:07:53

     Under su suspension of the rules. Third substitute hospital 76 pass.

  7. Presiding officer2:07:58

     And the question is, is under suspension of the rules shall third substitute house Bill 76 pass. Roll call vote.

  8. Clerk (roll call)2:08:04

     Senator Vickers, Baldry Lewin Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Kins Ipson Johnson. Quan McKay, Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton Mc McKay, president Adams

  9. Presiding officer2:09:01

     Third, subsequent house Bill 76 having received 19 yay votes, five nay votes, five being absent passes of the Senate be returned to the house for further consideration.

• Mar 5, 2026 House floor debate (day 44)▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)8:54

     Third Substitute House Bill 76 Data Center Water Transparency Amendments by Representative Koford. Representative Koford.

  2. Rep. Jill Koford9:05

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote.

  3. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)9:06

     Motion to concur with the Senate Motion is to concur with the Senate amendment. You'd like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Jill Koford9:11

     Yes. Um, we adopted the third sub over there, which just clarified that this would be for new data centers coming into the state as of July, um, first of this year and made a couple of small changes. That's it.

  5. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)9:24

     Change. Thank you. The motion is to concur with the Senate amendments. Discussion to the motion. See none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Voting is open for final passage of third substitute House Bill 76 Data Center. Water Transparency Amendments. Representative Ox here seen all present having voted voting will be closed. Third substitute house bill 76. Having received 62 yay votes, two NA votes passes The house we sent to the Senate for the signature of the President Matter meeting clerk.

All votes

• 8-0-2House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · House Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Jan 22, 2026Roll call
• 8-0-2House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · House Comm - Amendment Recommendation · Jan 22, 2026Roll call
• 8-0-2House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · House Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Jan 22, 2026Roll call
• 72-0-3House floor · House/ passed 3rd reading · Jan 29, 2026Roll call
• 4-0-3Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Senate Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Mar 3, 2026Roll call
• 4-0-3Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Mar 3, 2026Roll call
• 13-15-1Senate floor · Senate/ failed · Mar 5, 2026Roll call
• 19-5-5Senate floor · Senate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension · Mar 5, 2026
• 62-2-11House floor · House/ concurs with Senate amendment · Mar 5, 2026

Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.