H.B. 439 Water Planning Amendments: transcript

Uh, thank you committee. Thank you chair. Yeah. Speaking to the second, second substitute on this, um, start a presentation. I have the state water engineer, water engineer here with me. Uh, this bill comes, uh, after the result of a state audit and reviewing the state water plans across the state with the different cities, the special districts, the counties, and dealing with exactions as they'd build out neighborhoods or developments. Uh, they looked at, okay, how do we go about this? Do you have, do they have the proper water, the planning for the future? And technically they're supposed some of these areas, in order to do this, they need a 40 year water plan. Uh, they found that nearly all the cities, nearly all the counties did not have that. Some did, most did not. And in the ones that did, the ways they planned on for this water plan were all over the map. Some planned for catastrophic failure in their water supply or some of their wells to dry up or the growth of their population to significantly outpace, uh, other growth areas along the Wasatch front. And so what this bill does is it comes back and it tasks the state water engineer to come up with some measurable, uh, items, some metrics that will allow the cities or the counties, the special districts or the municipalities to create a water, a 40 year water plan for their area, uh, to help plan for water growth into the future. And part of the state water engineers, uh, metrics will be measurables so that it's apples to apples comparisons for all the water plans across the state. That, uh, and they have until 2028 to do that. In this last sub, it just has a coordination clause with a bill in the Senate. I think it's Senator Fillmore's bill that he might have over there that's making its way through the Senate. Um, but would like to turn the time over to the state water engineer to see if she wants to, uh, speak to any additional details on this. Maybe just briefly. Go ahead.

So, Theresa Wilhelmson, um, state Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Rights. Um, we do have 40 year rules plan rules. Now, this would just be modifying those rules to add exactions into that. Um, we will work with some of the other agencies like Division of Drinking Water and Water Quality and Water Resources over the summer and interim, and work with the Utah Water Task Force, the Development Commission, um, and bring it back here, those rules. So that's all I would add.

Thank you. And, uh, to add a little bit background, we have been through the water, the water task force with the unama unanimous, uh, positive recommendation as well as to the water commission, uh, also receiving a positive recommendation. And then here we are today. So that's our presentation. Would love any questions or comments?

I'd like to maybe ask you, you're saying that these cities are supposed to have a 40 year plan in place right now? Is that what I heard?

So the 40 year plans right now apply to two use cases. One is an extension of time beyond 50 years on their water. Right. Um, the other is for a non-use or a forfeiture justification. So the cities are not required at this point to do the plan.

Correct. And, uh, one more question. If, if they don't do a plan, what, is there some sort of a, uh, penalty or something that goes along with that Straight to gel?

No, uh, the, the plan is just to have everyone participate. We don't have any teeth or, uh, penalties in place as far as I'm aware. Everyone we've talked to has have been team players and wanting to be part of the process so far.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I just have a couple of questions. Um, why beginning on January 1st, 2028, just outta curiosity. And then also, what is it, what is involved in developing, um, a sense of the reasonable future water requirement of the public within the municipality?

Do You want Yeah, I'll let the wa uh, there. Sure. So the 2028 date was to give us enough time to adopt the rule, come back to these committees, um, with the rule, the proposed rule, um, but then also give the entities time to get those water plans put together. Um, and when we look at the reasonable future needs, um, that is one of the things that has varied over time. Um, in this bill, it does talk about what population should, just as an example, what population estimate should be used. And so we'll look at those consistently across the entities.

Great. Just one follow up. So are you saying that you, within your office or collaborating with the municipalities and the, the districts and developing this, or is this something that they're doing with feedback and and guidance from you?

So maybe I need a clarification on doing what this is. Well, What developing the, the reasonable future water requirement. Like, So two parts there. First of all, we will develop the rule or the rules of what a 40 year plan should entail. And that will go through, we're hoping to use the Utah, um, water task force, which do have representatives from a various number of cities and towns that this will affect. Um, then once they come to us, if they're using them for any of those use cases, then we will evaluate them to make sure that they are consistent with what we defined in the rule.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I was just looking at, looking at the fiscal note, uh, there some money comes out of general fund, is that correct?

One time. Yeah. So we're absorbing that in water rights.

Oh, you're gonna absorb that? Yeah. Okay.

And my follow up question is, um, do you have a flavor for how many of these municipalities in the state or would, would fall under that? Haven't got a plan. I mean, surely some of these little small towns don't have a plan. You got a idea?

Sure. Um, so I think that the audit, and I don't have the number right, um, at my fingertips, but I think the audit identified there around 200 that are exacting, which would require the plan. And so you, you need to keep in mind, not everyone is gonna be required to have a 40 year plan. They just need the plan for one of those four use cases, or sorry, three use cases, justification for non-use extension beyond 50 years. Or if they are exacting,

It's their own number. Okay. And if you have your staff gonna help these little small communities of 300 or so To develop a 40 year plan,

Well, to help 'em develop this plan so they're in compliance. Um, so most of them probably are not gonna need a 40 year plan. Okay. And, and I couldn't, so most of them will have perfected water rights that are within their uses. So they're not, most of them won't be asking for beyond 50 year extensions, these smaller cities. Um, some of 'em may run into a forfeiture issue where they'll need a 40 year plan. Um, but that's, I don't know that I've seen any of the smaller ones that need that.

Okay. I just, I don't like the state saying these little small communities have to do this and have to do that. If, I mean, if they have a perfected water right, then they're okay.

In most circumstances, Most of them do. In most circumstances, they'll be okay.

What do you mean by exaction?

So when a city, when a developer goes to a city that they're doing a new development, the cities, a lot of them will require, they bring water rights to the city. Um, and what they base those on. So what they're looking at is defining what are the limits of those exactions. And I think that the audit was looking at ensuring that cities are not hoarding water rights and that they're exacting what they need, um, for the reasonable future needs of the public.

I kind of, uh, along the lines of what's been said by the chairman, I mean, some of the smaller towns aren't gonna be able to, they don't have this, they don't have the money to do it. Uh, along I know what the least cities I deal with and where I live, they do have a plan. There's no extra water. Andaction is exactly how we do it. So if I buy land and I put it in development, according to what you're saying, if the city has extra water, they can't take any of that water from the developer. Is that, am I getting that right? If the, if the amount of water they acquire is beyond what they need for the reasonable future needs of the public.

Yes. Chair. Do we need to go in and adopt sub?

Sub two, I have motion to go ahead and adopt sub two.

Do you wanna speak to it? I'll Waive.

I'll waive. Thank you. Back to the maker. The motion.

You, Mr. Chair. I'd like to go ahead and pass out sub two HB 4 39 with a favorable recommendation. Okay.

I think that this bill is doing important work in, in helping make sure that municipalities and others are, are making the appropriate plans to, to move this work in the future. And I support it.

So, uh, you've raised a curiosity with me. State Engineer, you said the state eng your department was gonna absorb most of these costs, but the fiscal note says enactment could cost certain municipalities, counties, and local districts, approximately 7,500 to update their plans.

So absorb the cost that, for my division, but there will be, if a city needs to do a 40 year plan, there will be a cost to the city or municipality or whoever.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair have a concern about it. I, I realize there's some good things that could happen by this, but I've dealt with developers that come in when they have a, a chance to impose something on a city that would say, prove what you got. Or, I don't have to give you water. They've got more resources by many times in some of these small cities are gonna crush 'em. And this is not gonna work. That's my opinion. I'm gonna vote against it. Thank you.

Always Waive. So I'll go ahead and place the motion.

Okay. Thank you. Committee. I'm joined by with Blake Beam from the State Water Engineer's Office. And this comes from, uh, a water audit that was performed this last year where, uh, they looked at cities, counties, municipalities, uh, water districts across the state and looked at deficiencies or planning, especially dealing with exactions that as developments are being built out or housing is being built out across the state, um, making sure we have enough water for our planning in these communities, uh, into the future. And they found that only a small percentage of counties and small percentage of cities across the state have actually done what's called a 40 year water plan, which is looking at, uh, the different supplies coming and are available to them, and then planning out into the future to help with that. So what this bill does is, is just helping and requiring the state water engineer's office to come up with a plan and a program to work with counties, special districts and municipalities to help them create a 40 year plan for their communities to make sure that they have enough water as they continue to plan out into their, um, their, their future. And so it's a simple concept, simple plan. One of the problems that came up, or the questions that came up is, we worked through the house, especially from our rural community, or how does this, uh, how does this gonna impact small towns and rural communities? And the state water engineer, uh, they said that they would work with us and create a very simple template because they, they're working on limited budgets and limited, uh, workforce in these small communities. And so they didn't want to have a negative impact on them. So in these small communities, they would create a simple template that allows these small communities to, uh, simply and effectively help develop a 40 year water plan. And that's it. And then the, an effective date of 2028, January, 2028. So that gives the state water engineer plenty of opportunity to come up with this plan and work with these communities that everybody can get on board and get a rolling ahead. And, um, it's gonna be an important part of our, our future water supply and planning, like, uh, you, Phillip, any, any?

Certainly, uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Blake Bingham, deputy state engineer, deputy Director of Division water Rights. And I'll just maybe provide some additional context. Um, so the state engineer also already requires 40 year plans for certain instances. One of them, um, being extensions of time on applications beyond 50 years. So we're already accustomed, we already have rules in place for a 40 year plan. This statute would have us go back and maybe create rules that are a little bit more robust to address some of these issues. So this would add, uh, a requirement for those entities that are looking to do EXACTIONS to, um, comply with these 40 year plans. And as, uh, Representative Shallenberger has already alluded to, the state engineer is committed to working with some of the smaller entities, uh, who might otherwise struggle preparing these plans, coming up with a simplified template to, to help 'em work through this process. So, um, again, this is something that we are familiar with that we are already doing in certain instances. Um, and this would be, uh, something that we could easily take on. Thank you. And, uh, as a little bit of background, we've already taken this through the State Water Task force and gotten feedback from them. It was a unanimous, uh, positive recommendation to move on from them, and we've taken it to the State Water Commission, uh, and similar result, unanimous, um, uh, positive recommendation outta there. So that concludes our presentation. We would love any questions or comments regarding this bill?

Yeah, I'd make a motion that we, uh, adopt a Senate amendment one in Senator Stratton's name. Mm-hmm. Dated February 27th. Um, and, uh, I'll, I don't need to speak to it. I think we've identified it. Okay. So call the question.

Okay. So the, the, the often quoted phrase, the scariest, uh, words are, we're here from the government and we're help you to fill here to help you fill out a form. Okay. I added the last part, um, because, um, I'm assuming that somewhere in time I'm going to get a call from a city mayor who says, we don't have a water planner, we don't have anybody to fill this out. And my wife and I are trying to fill this out. I just want some assurance that the form is gonna be simple and that you'll go to their house on their kitchen table and help them fill this form out. We, we've been working with the IRS on their forms. As I, I, I can't do anything with the IRS, but I can certainly do something in this committee to, to, to help my mayor of ville uh, comply with this plan. Sure.

Um, absolutely. Um, you know, one of the, the main tenants that, uh, the division of water rights, we attempt to provide a level of service to the public. We have a whole section dedicated public inquiry, and we routinely help people fill out forms. And to your point, we will, we intend to make this form simple, straightforward, and we will provide whatever needed to help that they require to walk them through to make sure that they satisfy the, the requirements of the, the rules.

Okay. I just wanted to get that on the record so that we could go back to this if I needed to when the Mayor of Snow Ville calls me.

And, and if I, if I can add to it, one of the things that we learned from the communities that did have 40 year action plans already, or 40 year water plans, is that they were using various standards. Some of 'em were planning for catastrophic, catastrophic events if wells ran dry or earthquakes and shifted the supply lines or, uh, or they accounted for significant growth in their community that which was way outside the norm for other communities. And so the state water engineer is trying to establish some criteria that is apples to apples for Most communities.

Ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Justin Lee, deputy, your director of Utah of Cities and Towns. This is the bill that we worked on, um, a bit during the interim and during the legislative audit of this issue. Just wanna make sure a couple things are clarified. Um, one, you would only have to do the plan if you are doing water actions. So if snow bill's not doing water actions, they don't have to worry about this plan. Um, and right now, any city that is, um, using exactions, whether it's a plan or a study or something, it's not like any of them are just doing those exactions. They have to be able to justify those exactions. So what this bill is really doing is clarifying the requirements around the plan or the study that you have to do in order to do exactions. So everybody's doing something, but they're all doing something a little bit different and the code is a little bit unclear, so snow's gonna be okay unless they're doing exactions. Um, and the other piece that I'll add there is we also have a program, the local administrative advisor program that is going out and helping communities that don't have staff. And so as this, uh, as promulgated out there in the forms are out there from the engineer's office, we'll also use those local administrative advisors to help some of those, um, you know, towns and small cities that don't have staff to understand how to do that and get some resources there. So, uh, with that we're comfortable with where the bill's at. We think it does add clarity and, and thank the sponsor for running it.

Okay. Along that line, I noticed at the bottom there's a coordinating clause that does just what you said there,

Precise. Yep. And that, yeah, that's another, that's the land use bill that we'll see if that one moves forward or not, but that's what those sites are.

Hi, Pam Giuliano. I represent myself. I consult on infrastructure projects within rural communities. So I appreciated your comment. Um, that was one of my concerns as well. I, I live in Helper. I work with a lot of rural communities. And so the question tends to be where are the resources? How do we find the resources? And is there a budget to go out and help these, the, the communities with the process? We, with League of Cities and Towns through the state of Utah, work on 40 year plans, um, look to identify future infrastructure development and, and what the best course is. So chairman, I appreciate the, the bill, the work that's been done on the bill. Um, I'd like to see more on the language at the bottom, but thank you very much, Senator for your comment about, uh, working with rural communities. 'cause that is one, one comment that, uh, I hear when I'm in Juab County, carbon County, Emery County, uh, just how those resources are going to work with the current efforts that are going on. So thank you.

Senator Vickers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would make a motion that we favorably recommend House Bill 4 39, second substitute as amended.

And I appreciate that. And, uh, same thing when we had this in our house. Natural Resources committee is making sure that we are working with our rural partners to, uh, not add an additional burden on top of 'em and make sure that we can all get to a good place in the end.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Uh, this is coming out of the DNR Water division. As we've worked with different cities, special districts, municipalities, counties, uh, we are looking and trying to plan for water in the future. And as developments come up, they need to either in whatever development in that municipality, in water districts or special districts or counties, they need to show that they have the water already planned for their development. And if they don't, they need to do what's called anion, which is where they plan for that water. And as part of that, these three groups, the counties, the municipalities and the special districts need to do what's called a 40 year plan. And that's what this bill does is, uh, a lot of cities, a lot of counties, municipalities are not doing or don't have these 40 year plans on record. So this is, uh, a simple bill to create the, to have the state water engineer create a template for a 40 year plan that, or, uh, a directive targeting these municipalities, these counties or the special water districts to work with her in this office to help create 40 year plans so that we have the water infrastructure, we have the water for our future growth and for our state. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Um, will the sponsor yield to a question? Will the sponsor yield? No, No. He declined further discussion to the bill. Oh, can I still Discuss? Go ahead. Do we'd like to say something? Thank you. Okay. Um, well, so I was going to ask, but I won't, I was going to ask if, um, this was going to have an impact on builders or developers not having to come to the party securing rights ahead of time. But since I can't ask this, I'm just going to say that I have a concern that we're gonna put all of the onus for water for developments on the cities and counties. We wanna make sure that we don't create fights between the developers and the cities and counties over the water. I love the idea of a big plan, that's good. But I wanna make sure that we aren't, um, making it so that our developers don't bring things to the table for their projects. Thank you.

Representative Shallenberger for summation. Thank you. This brings all parties to the table, helps them work together to a better future. Thank you.

Uh, this bill HB 4 39 water planning amendments has been merged into Senate bill 2 84 and will be, uh, confirmed on concurrence. So hopefully we can get to that. Thank you. Thank you. So I move that we circle.

Senator Ipson. Thank you Mr. President. Motion to amend

Amendment number one in my name