H.B. 328 Water Usage Modifications: transcript

for substitute House Bill 3 28 water usage modification. And I'm gonna Okay. Invite a guest here with me. Alright. We'll pass around your handout for committee members if they want. Great, bill. Thank you. How long Mr. Chair? The Great Salt Lake Basin is experiencing rapid population growth with a limited water supply. This means that we need to be smart about how we use the water that we have available to us. And, uh, a part of that is addressed in this bill, which is, um, our municipal institutional type of, uh, use outside. To be clear, this, this bill does not contemplate ripping out anything. It doesn't, uh, with existing developments. It doesn't, uh, it doesn't touch residential, uh, existing development or, or regular residential property. And I, I want to, uh, turn some time over to my, um, to my partner here.

I'm Joel Williams, director of the Division of Water Resources, and glad to be with you. As you know, one of the biggest challenges we face here in Utah is our water supply. And especially in the face of a growing population, uh, two thirds of our municipal water use occurs outdoors. And most of that is on grass. And I wanna make it clear, we're not anti grass. Grass is great and there is a great, there's many, many great uses for grass. Um, and this bill highlights a few situations where it's not ideal, it's not the best solution as far as our water conservation. And so it creates that definition for, for non-functional turf, which is becoming a standard term here in the West. As, as states are trying to come to terms with that idea that there are places where it makes sense to put waterwise plants, um, especially in areas like park strips or in parking lots where you have that little island, maybe put a tree there instead of grass that can be difficult to water when it's such a small, a small, uh, patch. And so, as, as was mentioned as Bill focuses just on the Great Salt Lake Basin, only on new development and only on commercial institutional and industrial properties. And so we think from the Division of Water Resources, we're supportive of this idea of trying to, to grow in a smart way because how we grow does matter and we feel like this would help. Uh, also in our efforts with working with the, the other states here in the west, as we know, we are facing potential litigation on, on both Great Salt Lake and Colorado River. That, that having this standardized term of being able to show that we are trying to limit, uh, unnecessary water use. So, uh, that's my comment. Thank you. Yeah. The only other comment I would make is that we did, uh, run this through the Water Task force, got unanimous support from them.

It does. Thank you. I'll take questions.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Uh, Justin Lee, deputy Director of Utah League of Cities and Towns. I wanna say thank the sponsor for working with us on this bill. We had some concerns in the original sub. Uh, there were a few requirements that, uh, we thought were a little too onerous on cities. The way this is, uh, worked out right now, though, it has some encouragement in there, kind of a nudge for, for some cities who may want to go, uh, look at some enforcement. Um, but the mandate isn't there, which won't strain resources for those cities. We're still trying to figure out how to do this. So with that, we're very comfortable with it moving forward and thank the sponsor for working with us.

Hi. Jill Plager with Utah Waterways. Thank you for the committee for this time. We focus on water conservation, especially on landscapes, and we wanna thank Representative Erland for his work on this bill. And we believe that this is a good first step in this area, especially on outdoor landscapes. So thank you for your time today. Okay.

Okay. Hello, my name's Ke Robinson and I'm speaking as a private citizen in support of HP 3 28. Um, as the sponsor mentioned, Utah's period of significant economic and population growth. And while that growth brings opportunity must be managed responsibly, especially given the strain on our water resources in the ongoing crisis, uh, facing the great Salt Lake. HP 28 takes, um, direct aim on one of the most avoidable sources of outdoor water waste. Li limiting the unnecessary depletion of our critical resources while serving the, um, water that is serving isn't serving people, it's simply just being lost. Um, this is smart forward thinking policy. It's far easier to and cheaper to build water wise from the beginning than it is to retrofit later. Um, and as you Utah commun communities continue to grow, taking these upstream approaches by limiting water becomes increasingly essential. We have responsibility to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of the resources and that all u-turn Utah's current and future depend on it. Um, HB 28 is a meaningful step towards building water wise communities that Utah's future requires. Thank you for your time and your service to the state.

Yes. Scott Paxman with Weaver Basin Water Conservancy District. Um, just wanted to voice our support for the bill on behalf of the P 60 districts. It's a good bill that encourages using a finite water resources with more efficiency and responsibility. Uh, water purveyors throughout the state, but especially in the Great Salt Lake Basin, are being pulled at least in two different, uh, directions for as far as water demands. First, getting water to the Great Salt Lake and helping, helping it to be a sustainable and healthy, healthy state. Second is to meet the current and growing demands of the growing population. It'll be impossible to do both without reducing the demands. The current and new demands, uh, for the, for the water supplies that we do have, um, like was stated over 65% of of the water that we use is used outdoors. And this is a great way to, uh, start reducing that demand and I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you. Um, my name's Kelly. Good. I'm the Director of Community Engagement at Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District in Salt Lake County. Um, I just would like to echo what Mr. Paxman just said. As a water conservancy district are, um, municipal treated, water is used outdoors on lawns, and that's about 60% of our water. And limiting overhead spray irrigation to areas that are actively used by the community will go a long way in conserving our water for our current and our future community needs. So thanks again for your time and consideration of this bill. We're in support of it.

Thank you for allowing me to testify on House Bill 2 28. I sincerely thank Representative Oakly and Senator ML for their hard work sponsoring this bill and Representative Oakly for taking the time to meet with me earlier to discuss it. I truly appreciate his commitment to promoting efficient water use in Utah's landscape. It's an important effort for our state's future. I support the bill's overall goal, reducing water waste from overhead spray irrigation in, in inefficient areas during new development and redevelopment. We cannot forget the, the properly managed turf grass plays a valuable role in Utah's annual precipitation. It is the backbone of the water cycle. It sequesters carbon, reduces oxygen, stabilizes soil against the erosion filters, pollutants, uh, from storage water runoff, and provides evaporative cooling through Eva Transpiration, helping reduce urban heat islands and supporting healthier communities. However, I must oppose the bill in its current form because turf grass turf specific provisions target or to target turf as a whole, even when it's managed efficiently affecting our precipitation and water cycle. This bill is also risks limiting new innovation in overhead irrigation. After our meeting, I proposed amendments to Representative Okerlund that shift the focus from turf to inefficient irrigation zones. Namely narrow strips, uh, less than 10 feet wide parking islands slopes over 25% isolated patches, not proactive use. According to Representative Oak Oakland, this is the focus of the bill. If we use neutral terms like inefficient irrigation zones, landscaped areas, or vegetative vegetative areas, and refine overhead spray irrigation to allow her new, efficient, um, improved system, innovative systems, these simple changes would eliminate any real or implied opposition to turf and the water cycle strengthen enforcement. Thank You, Kurt.

I am, I'm a turf farmer in ER county and we, we sell a lot of product in Utah County and Salt Lake County.

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Easton. I am a turf and landscape materials producer here in Utah. I really appreciate Representative Lin for sponsoring this and taking time to meet with me previously. He cares about smart water use and it shows I support the goal of this bill to stop wasting water on overhead sprinklers in low use decorative areas that make overhead irrigation. Inefficient and wasteful, I believe is important to note that all turf done right helps our communities. It cools neighborhoods, filters, runoff, imp improves soil health contributes to rainfall and cleans the air. It's not a problem when managed efficiently, but the current non-functional turf language included in this bill, uh, targets grass even when it's irrigated responsibly, which could limit good options and innovation in landscaping and irrigation, and push us toward further turf limitation and removal. I believe some simple amendments could solve this issue, essentially rem uh, essentially removing anything specifically related to turf and changing it to focus more on the size, function and or feasibility of the area in relation to how it is irrigated, as well as allow for better irrigation options that are more efficient and better suited to the area in question. Those changes would make the bill fairer easier to enforce less targeting of turf grass and still save real water, accomplishing the bill's intent without the side effects. Until we make those changes, I respectfully ask you not to move it forward yet. I have sent my suggestions to Representative Ocland and hope to work with him to refine it either this session or next as I know, we're nearing the end so it gets broad, so it gets broad support and works better for You now. Thank you for your time. Appreciate That.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, my name is Hannah Freeze and I'm with the Great Salt Lake Commissioner's Office. And we would also like to speak in favor of this bill. Um, we appreciate representative Oaker Lynn's work on this bill. Um, we continue to say that water conservation in the Great Salt Lake Basin is an US problem. That means all of us, not just one specific sector or industry. And this bill helps us accomplish those goals, um, by helping to be smarter with the water and the limited resources that we have. Um, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this and thank you for your time.

Um, I would just like to thank the sponsor for this bill. I think it's a great start. Um, and it doesn't do nearly enough. I think we should do more and have residential development included, but I, uh, would support passing this out favorably.

Excuse me. Um, so, uh, I appreciate what we're doing the but, but I get concerned because we've taken the idea that we're gonna make a war on turf and a war on, uh, spray irrigation. Um, in doing this, I'm afraid that we also have a little bit of a struggle in my mind with, uh, private property rights and demanding, requiring something in the, uh, of a future of a landowner in the future and their development of, of what we're gonna do. Um, I do support and applaud the idea that we need to conserve. Uh, but I also, I I wanna say that I, I think that some of the amendments that you may have heard from some of our two turf producers are some of the same things that I'm concerned about. Finally, I will say that conservation and mandating conservation, uh, will not be the ultimate answer to our problem, nor will it be the only tool that we need to use. And in a little, in a sometime where in this committee we're gonna hear about a bill file that does another step towards conservation, and that is pricing. Until we begin to price the water a limited com commodity of water, and we price it, the market will not respond no matter how much we try to mandate, mandate, and mandate. The ultimate way that we're gonna do this is we're gonna price conservation. So I'm still deciding what I'm gonna do to vote on this bill, but I just wanted to make that comment. Thanks.

Yeah. These, these are amazing, uh, people that have worked with us on this and that support this, and also the people who oppose it have been great to work with. I, I respect and admire and appreciate the work that our, uh, turf farmers, uh, provide to us. Uh, um, they have had some suggestions. The, uh, the idea that this is an anti turf bill, i, I don't think is, is accurate. Uh, there's a lot of turf out there, a lot of great places to have turf where it should be watered overhead and in, in a way that property owners, uh, deem to be most efficient or however they want to do it. I will, I will remind the committee and the chair that this bill mandates, um, that developers be notified of what the requirements are. It does not mandate that cities are municipalities enforce the, uh, the provisions. It also doesn't, uh, as was I think, implied, um, require removal of any turf anywhere. So this is only for new developments. Uh, new developers as they, as they develop new properties, will be notified of what the requirements are for, uh, for no o overhead spray. And now, while some types of overhead spray are more efficient than other types of overhead spray, um, it, it still remains that there is no extremely efficient mode of overhead spray when it comes to, uh, small pieces of property or property that's, uh, otherwise defined as non-functional turf. And then finally, I will say that defining non-functional turf in statute is something that, um, everybody who's involved in water policy has been asking for. So, um, it, uh, I think that's already been addressed, but I appreciate your support on this bill. And, uh, and honestly, all the levers that I think we can, we can use including, uh, pricing water appropriately, um, would be important. So, uh, with that, I, I'll sum Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. It's been fun. Uh, I'd like to add an amendment that we, uh, get some appropriation for air conditioning in this, uh, room control, Though.

If that'll help. So, uh, I, I'm here today with Joel Williams from, uh, he's the acting director of the, uh, uh, division of Water Resources. Did I get that right? And, uh, we'll be co-presenting HB 3 28 first sub. Now this, uh, this is a numerical oddity. It's a, it's essentially a refiling of HB 3 28 from last year with some modifications. I thought that maybe that was just the way it was done, is that if it's a refile, it keeps its number. But Director Joel Ferry told me this is a unicorn, and you're all should be honored to be listening to, uh, a refile that has the matching words. Um, you do have a handout that was distributed before the meeting, so, uh, I direct your attention to that. I'll tell you what this bill does, what it doesn't do, um, what's been refined since the last time that it came before this committee. And, uh, I will note that it has, uh, gotten a unanimous support from the Water Task Force. And you did pass it unanimously last year, so I think it's only better than it was, uh, last time. So what does this bill do? It limits overhead spray irrigation. That is, uh, that's, those are the sprinklers that, that spray over the grass in certain instances. It prohibits it, um, on non-functional turf in new commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family construction. So what, what does that mean? It means it doesn't address residential overhead spray at all, and it doesn't address, uh, existing, uh, development at all. So, uh, I, I know that there would be some concern if we were going into those areas. It has support from, um, developers, uh, the Division of Water Resources, uh, which Joel will discuss, uh, conservation groups, uh, conservancy districts, the Utah City League of Towns. And, and I'm not gonna talk too much about it because I know some of their representatives are here to speak in favor of the bill, and I don't want to steal their thunder or say something incorrect. And then, uh, so, uh, it defines non-functional turf. So this bill is trying to do, add a little bit more of what's good than what was here last time. Uh, last time it did not provide a definition for non-functional turf. I won't get into that right now. It also, uh, takes out some of what might've concerned some people last time, which was, uh, we have eliminated certain requirements from cities, towns, and municipalities. So, um, with that said, um, I'm going to now seed my microphone over to Joel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm Joel Williams, uh, acting director of the Utah Division of Water Resources. And happy to be here to express our support for this bill. One of the biggest challenges we face as a state right now is our limited water supply and coupled with a growing population. And we know that two thirds of our water use in the municipal area is outdoors. And, and that the biggest place for savings is with that outdoor water use. And a lot of that water is being applied to grass. Now. We are supportive of grass. We think there's a lot of great uses for grass, um, backyards and parks and recreational fields, lot of great areas. There are some, a few places where it doesn't make sense to have grass. Think about par Islands in parking lots or park strips where it's just a really narrow area and you end up watering the sidewalk as you're trying to water that, that really narrow strip of grass. So there's a few areas that we have determined and, and that definition as non-functional turf, meaning there's some areas where it doesn't work, is what we're trying to say, but we are, we're not trying to say that grass is non-functional. There's a lot of great places for grass. Um, but as, as we know, we have this growing population, we also have learned that how we grow matters. And so that's why this bill is focused on new growth, uh, not ex not existing landscapes. So it is focused on new development and only in the Great Salt Lake basin. And, and as was mentioned, only on commercial, industrial and institutional properties. So not affecting residential properties. In this, in this bill, we wanted to mention that one of the reasons for making that definition, there's several of our neighboring states have gone and, and defined non-functional turf to, to help aid that decision on, oh, where does it make sense and where does it not? So it's something we're seeing in a lot of our neighboring states. And we are also seeing, uh, it was one of the recommendations in the Great Salt Lake Basin integrated plan study. There was a municipal and industrial water use study that recommended that, that the legislature define non-functional turf. And also that we, we make the effort to reduce grass where it doesn't make sense in, in our new construction. And, and that that's part of the, of, uh, growing in a water wise way so that we can continue to grow with, with our limited water supply. And so with that, I, I will, uh, conclude our, our support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. Um, I'll, I'll continue on. One point that I was supposed to make and didn't, which is that the bill mandates certain notification. In other words, it requires cities and counties to notify developers of the standards that we're asking to approve. Uh, although enforcement, um, in this first sub, it's made clear it was originally maybe not as clear in the first sub. It's made clear enforcement re remains optional for local governments. And with that, I, uh, I'll take questions.

Thank you. Thank you. My name is Bart Forsyth. I'm a policy advisor with Utah Waterways. Uh, we do support this bill. Um, I'd like to express my, uh, comments in terms of municipal water use and in a particular depletion of municipal water use, which is a, uh, important concept in context with, with this bill. Um, first of all, when we talk about depletion, what is it that we're talking about? It really is water that has, has been used and totally consumed and, and, uh, basically used up, and that cannot be returned to the natural environment. Um, the new reports that are out, uh, currently are showing that depletion of indoor water use is, is very small, almost negligible outdoor water use, though it's showing now that the new studies are showing that 91% of water that's being applied to landscapes, uh, is being, uh, depleted. Uh, that being said, we should do all we can to, uh, reduce depletion not only existing landscapes in the Great Salt Lake Basin, but also for future landscapes and new development, um, that, uh, what do we do the best we can to minimize depletion going forward? So with that being said, um, that's why Utah Waterways is, uh, uh, behind this. Uh, we think that, um, reducing depletion, uh, frees up water. It frees up water for, uh, growth, not only in terms of population, but also in terms of, um, of, uh, supplying more water, uh, for important purposes such as, uh, waterways and, and, uh, ecosystems and so forth, like Great Salt Lake. So we, we support this spiel. Thank you. Thank

Good afternoon. Thank you Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amanda Strac. I'm the water Conservation Manager for Central Utah Water Conservancy District. We are the largest wholesale water provider in the state, and this bill, um, really targets decorative turf, which is where most of the highest water use in an inefficient water use happens. So limiting irrigation on non-functional turf drastically reduces avoidable water waste as most of the municipal water is applied in the landscape. Um, sent, the district actually has a goal of reducing non-functional turf to 30%. And so this bill also helps with creating a aligned definition for non-functional turf. Um, installing irrigation correctly the first time in new development is a conservative and fiscally responsible path forward. So Central Utah Water supports this bill. Thank you.

Yeah, John Perry, assistant general manager at Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. Um, I don't really have a ton to add to what's already been stated, uh, from Central Utah and our friends at Utah Waterways, uh, Weber Basin's, a regional water supplier up in northern Utah. We have a, a massive amount of outdoor secondary systems that exist in that area. And so we are supportive in, in, we are supportive of this bill and as much as it helps us help our communities meet their economic quality of life, environmental concerns and other growth aspects of what they're doing. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair Cameron, deal, executive director of Legal Cities and towns. We appreciate the bill sponsor, uh, working with us on the substitute. We're comfortable with the substitute. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Chair Dunnigan. I am not in opposition. Uh, I'd be happy to speak to support the bill, however.

Yes, I am. Okay, go ahead. Okay. My name is Kirk Harris and I am a Utah resident turf farmer and someone who has spent 48 years working with water and landscapes in our state. While I support real water conservation, this approach is unnecessary, overreach and ignores how the water cycle works. So water is never depleted. It only changes form. And usually when it goes through grass, it goes back into the atmosphere and then comes back in the form of rain. So first of all, there's no such thing as non-functional turf. The primary functions of grass or turf and high e vegetation provide photosynthesis, namely Eva transpiration, oxygen cooling, condensation, precipitation, carbon sequestration, air purification, and increased rainfall. Large commercial and multiple family dwellings with large vegetation areas help cool our cities reduce urban heat islands control erosion and improve air quality. Replacing them with gravel or low ET alternatives, slow the water cycle and increase desertification. Um, second overheads wrinkler are the main source of water. There's many alternatives and they've been here for a long time and none of 'em work. And so that's why nobody has jumped on board and gone with those, um, overhead sprinklers deliver evenly to vegetation. They provide for even germination and enable por por transpiration. Within 24 to 48 hours, water passes through grass and vegetation. Moisture is released as vapor rises, cools to the air and, and cools the air by three to 15 degrees. Warm clouds and condenses rain, returning rain often within days or weeks. Studies show the ET from irrigated grass, vegetation, and water evaporation contributes 40 to 60% of Utah's precipitation. That is five to eight inches of, on average, on our average 13 inches per year. Now, Utah values freedom, property rights, and practical common sense solutions. Let us focus on education and smart technology and improving the water cycle instead of broad mandates that reduce rainfall and harm our environment. I respectfully urge you to vote no on house. Bill 3 28. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Eric Marble with c Chha Farms in Tremont in Utah. First, let me say we applaud Representative Oak Erland and the legislature as a whole for your efforts to work water conservation and especially in saving the great Salt Lake. There have recently been some great studies or strides in Utah law allowing agriculture, municipalities and individuals home and landowners to multiply their conservation efforts. There are a few things in this bill that we have concerns with. As Mr. Harris said, we don't feel like there is any such thing as non-functional turf. We would suggest a wording change from non-functional turf to non-active use areas. Second, after speaking with colleagues in the irrigation industry, there are times when spray irrigation can be more effective at watering a landscape, or in other words, minimizing depletion than subsurface irrigation. When you couple spray irrigation with technology such as pressure regulated spray heads, rain and soil moer, moisture sensors and smart controllers, they can conserve more water more efficiently than subsurface irrigation. We'd suggest focusing more on current technology than subsurface irrigation. And third, we worry that restricting specific plants in a landscape could end up effectively creating a plant list, which then in, in turn could end up as government overreach in restricting personal property rights. We encourage representative Erland to speak with industry experts and refine this proposed bill to ensure that it's most effective at helping counties, municipalities and developers, and conserving water and, and conserving water in landscapes without decreasing the benefits of green space in our cities and neighborhoods. Thank you.

Alright. My name is Easton Harris. Um, I am, uh, from Sev County and I'm a a sod farmer, um, with a business that we've been in business almost 50 years. Um, I would just echo what has been said before about, you know, the, the, uh, importance of grass, the importance, um, that there is no non-functional turf. Um, but I would also like to point out, um, we were talking just a, a bit ago with that other bill about the urban heat light and the urban heat island effect and how, um, that raises temperatures. This bill and the things that it does would also raise those urban heat island temperatures, um, which would cause issues as we can see in Phoenix and in Las Vegas, um, would cause issues for our state, um, including things like decreased rainfall and, um, and, and again, increased temperatures that could cause problems for our state, uh, energy-wise and things like that. So, um, I would speak in opposition very strongly to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you Chair. I'd like to make the motion that we pass out favorably. Do you want to adopt the first substitute? Oh, I apologize. I forgot there was a sub. Yes. I'd like to adopt first sub.

I'd like to recommend that we pass out favorably, uh, the substitute for HP 3 28. The motion is to recommend favorably house bill 3 28

I'll make a comment non-functional, makes it sound like the turf is not functioning. I really gotta consider that gentleman's non-active use or something. And I know it's already in the code, but non-functional means something's wrong. Maybe he's got bedbugs or something, you know, in it. And so I think his idea is a worthy one for whatever that's worth.

Okay, great. I wanted to answer your question and others. First of all, I'm not married to the name of non-functional turf. It's consistent with what's been identified in other municipal codes and states that surround us. Um, it's been identified that maybe that hurts, uh, that it's biased against turf. And, uh, I, I, I've asked my grass and it doesn't care what we call it. So whatever, whatever we, whatever we wanna call it, I will address, uh, Mr. Harris, Mr. Marble and Mr. Harris a little bit that maybe I didn't do a great job of explaining that this is not an anti turf bill. It's not encouraging planting of any particular, um, plants besides turf. It's simply addressing the fact that on certain pieces of, of grass, it might make sense to have underground emitters rather than overhead spray, which is just simply less efficient and prone to, um, prone to missing the mark Sometimes if you've ever parked your car next to a parking strip and found that your car got more water than the, than the lawn did, or if you have ever, uh, just seen it kind of blow off into the air. Now, certainly, uh, it does remain part of the water cycle, but, um, when it evaporates, we don't get to control when that comes back down as rain. And my fear is that we'll land in Colorado rather than in Utah where we need it more and we like it, uh, better. So, um, I I am pro turf. I I love it, uh, much as Mr. Harris, Mr. Marble and Mr. Harris do. Um, and, and this bill does not encourage anybody to plant anything other than turf and, uh, does not provide broad mandates and, um, does not create heat islands as we've now all become certainly concerned about. So, uh, with that, I'll wrap it Up. Thank you, Representative

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill limits the use of overhead irrigation spray in certain key, uh, circumstances on non-functional turf. And I'll describe what those circumstances are so that you know also what those circumstances are. Not now. It would be for new commercial, industrial and, uh, institutional, uh, developments in the Great Salt Lake basin. So this does not touch residential, it doesn't touch existing, doesn't require any rip out of existing sprinklers. It just requires on new, um, on new developments that, uh, notification be given by the county or city that the standard is in place. And then I've worked, it was never my intention to have this be, um, mandated by the local government, but I worked on the substitute with the Utah City League, uh, with the Utah League of Cities and towns to make it crystal clear that, uh, the local government has the discretion on whether or not they want to, um, whether they're gonna enforce this or not. It also provides a definition for what non-functional turf is. And that Mr. Speaker, it means that it's, it's defined as certain slopes that are too steeped to use, uh, certain sizes that are too narrow to be functional and, uh, and certain locations where it means that the, the, the grass is not usable. Um, and, uh, I think that opens it up to questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, we've got a lot of support from the Water Task Force on this. The Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, the Division of Water Resources, uh, like I said, Utah City leagues and towns, U-A-C-D-N-R, division of Water Resources and, uh, and various other, uh, stakeholders. So I appreciate your support in this.