H.B. 533 Groundwater Amendments: transcript

House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee, Feb 23, 2026

1. Committee chair52:06

   Okay. Thank you, Representative Owens. We'll move to Representative Kohler. HB 5 33. Second sub must have been amended in rules. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay.

2. Rep. Mike L. Kohler52:28

   It was, um, I talked about this bill a little bit, and thanks for, for hearing it. Um, I'll make this quick. Uh, there's a couple of things on this bill. I think it's a very important bill, but I'm probably gonna suggest that it might go to interim study for a couple of reasons. But I'd like some comments from the, from the committee about it. I talked about this bill in, uh, water task, or excuse me, uh, water Development Commission, and got a little bit of input back on it. Uh, I haven't really asked anybody to help support this or talk about it. But, uh, either the state engineer or even, uh, Utah, gs, the geological survey people might be here. 'cause they had some input for it too. And here's, let's talk about why the bill. First of all, uh, when you talk about water, and most of us have been, uh, had some high school classes that talked about water, water's never lost. It gets evaporated. That's true water that's put on the ground, it gets, consumes a small amount by the plant, and then the rest of it goes into the groundwater and eventually ends up wherever that groundwater goes. Uh, for years, the systems, uh, through irrigation last 30 years at least, we've gone from basically flooding, uh, most of our fields, which still, uh, takes place in some parts of the state where it's, uh, the best way to go. But in areas around that feed the Great Salt Lake. And most of those river areas have gone to sprinklers and other more conservative ways to deliver water. And each time we do that, even many of the bills this year, and I give, uh, Representative Owens a bad time. 'cause he has a lot of bills that start, you know, that talk about use of water sprinklers around lawns and et cetera. And maybe in 10, 15 years, and maybe sooner, we might not have any lawns because we'll be drinking all the water. But each time we cut that back and be more conservative, the water, the groundwater's starved a little bit more. And does the water that's not being used there go anywhere back in the groundwater? No. It goes to the next house, and it's building the houses in the future through our conservation. So why is this needed? Um, there are water rights that are attached to groundwater flows. Now, uh, again, back to the water commission, uh, and he's probably still listening. Warren brought up a point that there's some water comes out of springs that's considered to be a thousand years old. That's not the one I'm after. What I'm after is the water that was included in a, uh, decision that was made back in the sixties when, uh, Wasatch County put in a central irrigation, or excuse me, a central sewage treatment system where they brought all the water, uh, wastewater from the, both Midway and Heber and up through the, uh, surrounding areas to one area. And they put it through a plant, a series of ponds, and they put it on the farm out on the southwest part of the county. And it was declared to be totally consumptive. So do, because of that, there was some, uh, challenges by lower river rights users below Deer Creek that et right? If that's gonna be totally consumptive. And each house is declared to have, um, required to have 0.45 or almost a half an acre foot for their indoor use. Uh, at that point, they made Wasatch County and all the houses that use this, unless you want a, uh, an individual septic tank go to 0.9. So you actually had to double the water, right? Assuming that because you wouldn't use 0.9, you'd only, they used a 0.45. If you have to put double the water, then the water going down or the groundwater return would be, would be similar to what it was before the totally consumptive part was taken out. So there's acknowledgement there that the water that goes in the ground is important. We've seen around the state where places that have had groundwater depletion, mainly from pumping, not necessarily the same as we have up in these higher valleys, has started to have some depressions in the ground. When the water gets, uh, totally used or used, uh, more than it probably can sustain, the, the ground starts to sink. And I know the state engineer and others have been working on groundwater plans throughout. So the reason, uh, throughout the state. So the reason I got into this is a couple of things in the area that I'm in, and I think we're very similar to most of the upper valleys that feed the Great Salt Lake, I think we're overlooking the fact that these groundwater systems are actually reservoirs that feed back. I know in my area, um, at least in Midway where I've run the company there, there's probably at half a dozen to a dozen springs that have flowed most of my lifetime in the last two years. They've all gone dry. Now we have a drought to deal with, I get that, but they've never gone dry in other droughts, which we've been through. But they are now, because mainly the, the groundwater that above them is homes and it's not getting returned in there. And those streams then feed the river and usually are flowing late into the season in the fall when the water in the is actually going down. And I don't know if anybody's calculated the difference or not, but this bill, if it was passed, would actually create a system to decide how much water is important in the, in the aquifer to decide how and if it needed to be recharged. And as a, a property develops, you get the declaration for indoor use, you have the declaration for, uh, your external irrigation, and there's usually still a little bit, unless you go high density, there's usually still a little bit of the farmer water left that, uh, we might consider similar to what they did with, uh, Wasatch County's secondary, or the water treatment system ought to be put in the ground at some point around the county where there is a recharge ability to put it back in the groundwater to be returned and, and flow to the Great Salt Lake at some point. But, uh, uh, and I'm guessing once this study's done, if my impression is right then in higher volumes, then we're getting now by just sending it passed. So that's the bill. Uh, there is a study being done by, uh, Utah Geological Survey in Ogden County, Ogden Valley, that's similar to ours. But again, I think most of the valleys and and irrigated areas above the Great Salt Lake are all similar to this, that we've gotta take a, a really heavy good look at the groundwater, see what it does for us, and how we're our depletion of it is costing us. And that's the intent. So, any questions?

3. Committee chair58:38

   Okay. Thank you, Representative Kohler.

4. Unknown committee member58:41speaker not certain

   I have a couple of maybe comments. Uh, I know this groundwater is really critical, especially in certain areas. Uh, uh, Iron Central Iron County is dealing with, uh, an aquifer that continues to be depleted. And, uh, the end state engineer has put a, a groundwater management plan in place that we gotta get it to safe yield by a certain date, or we gonna have to go to non-use on some of those, uh, water rights that are there because, uh, it's been over allocated, uh, over the years. And I know, like along, uh, I grew up along the severe river, and I know that a lot of that water, when you're irrigating, it flows back into the river, you know, through the groundwater. And so there's a lot of, I think the severe river is appropriate. I mean, you, I think you use like 110% of the water there because you're getting flow from those that have used it upstream. And Delta gets the advantage of that. Of course, we always talk about Delta in the severe river. And, uh, so, uh, I won't say what some people say about that, but, uh, but I, I think this is really important. I think what you're doing here, uh, is, is an important thing and needs to be discussed and so forth. So, um, representative Albright,

5. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:00:02

   Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I agree. And I've got some areas in my district. Enoch, uh, down there by Cedar has, has got this same subsidence of ground. Uh, he's mentioned the severe river. You know, people argue back and forth whether those should be in concrete ditches or the sea feeds goes into groundwater. Uh, we really know a lot about surface water, but we don't know a whole lot about underground water. I think this is a great study and a great step forward that you're doing. And I, I think if, if you wanna take the time and take it to interim, I think that's a great thing. Thank you.

6. Committee chair1:00:44

   So, scene, okay. Uh, representative Arthur, go ahead and as soon as I get your light on, there you go.

7. Rep. Arthur1:00:50

   Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'll keep it quick. Um, I, I really appreciate the work that's been put into this and, and the information that you shared with us. If you wouldn't mind just sharing a little bit more when it comes to the relationship between counties and the Utah Geological Survey or an irrigation company in terms of that, that, that sharing of information, what is, what is the current state of that? I'm, I'm just curious.

8. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:01:16

   I'm not sure they're tied that much. Uh, I haven't dealt with the, uh, Utah Geological Survey a lot except in my area. I know that for years they've tested well levels mm-hmm. As the groundwaters, uh, goes up and down, and they do have those records, and somebody might be here that can come and speak to that, and I invite 'em to come up if they are, the, the study they're doing in, uh, that, as I was told in the, uh, Ogden Valley will basically do what I'm talking about here. It'll test different areas through wells and other means to see how water flows, how much returns, and how it affects the groundwater through the season. Uh, that's probably the information we need. I think they've got, um, historical information on well levels that probably they know the problem, they just don't know how to solve it yet. That's my reading, and I didn't mean to talk for them, but they might, hopefully somebody's here that might wanna say something. Yeah. So ideally under subsection four of this bill, it would just kind of create the, the foundation for that, that kind of study and relationship going forward between counties and the geological survey. That's my intent. And again, I think we're dealing with something here that has been ignored, not because of any other reason. We got a lot of other things to worry about. Water we can see is something we can deal with water, we can't, uh, we don't understand. So we don't deal with it. And, uh, I think we should and probably need to sooner rather than later. I agree.

9. Committee chair1:02:35

   Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you Representative Arthur. Representative Owens.

10. Rep. Doug Owens1:02:42

    Just a point of clarification. Were we being asked to hold this or there was some discussion about mentioning of taking it to interim, but I hadn't heard that from the sponsor. Were are we

11. Committee chair1:02:51

    Asked? I think it goes one, I think the motion would probably be to hold it and senate it to interim study. That's my, that's how it usually happens. We're gonna go through public comment and everything, Representative Owens. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further clarifying questions from the committee, we'll go to public comment. Anybody in the, in the audience, come on up and sign in and you're appropriate. Tell us who you are and who you represent.

12. Teresa Wilhelmsen, State Engineer, Division of Water Rights1:03:20

    Um, so Therea Wilhelmson, Utah State engineer and director of the Division of Water Rights. And just really appreciate that Representative Kohler is bringing kind of the issue forward to be looked at. Um, you know, from, from our perspective, there are a, you know, historically a lot of the decrees for water rights, um, on these river systems. The Provo is a, a perfect example. And there are many others across the state where they were decreed with the intent that in the upper stretches of the river, um, the folks could divert as much water as they needed with the intent that it would saturate the ground and come, um, back to the river to satisfy those lower rights later in the season. And a lot of the decrees are situated that way. And as we make decisions as water rights that are moving around in these systems, whether it's groundwater or surface water, we need to make sure that we're not injuring those, those existing historic water rights. So it is a very complicated, um, thing that we have to look at, not only taking into account these historic decrees, the water rights, the amendments that have been made, measurements in the appropriate locations, and then these changes like he's talking about with the WIC WEP project up there in Hebrew Valley and some of these other areas. So I think it's definitely worth looking at. The other thing I would just mention is that we have, um, usually the state engineer will reach out to, like the Utah Geological Survey or USGS to do studies so that we could better understand the groundwater and hydrologic connections between service and groundwater. But we are definitely lacking in a lot of that data and could, um, use a lot more of that for these decisions. So thank you. Okay.

13. Committee chair1:05:07

    Thank you for your comments. Next,

14. Dr. Ronald Mortenson, South Davis Water District trustee (speaking for himself)1:05:15

    uh, good morning. I'm Dr. Ronald Mortenson, PhD and for representative sch, I am originally from Delta. And so, uh, we're on, we've gone at it a few times, I imagine. Uh, anyway, I'm an now and I'm a, I'm an elected trustee of the South Davis Water District, but I'm speaking on behalf of myself. And so, while the legislature is focused on getting more and more water to the Great Salt Lake, and on economic development, it has failed to address the impact that these efforts have on groundwater. For example, engineering studies have shown that the imported secondary water accounts for up to 40% of the Bountiful sub areas aquifer recharge. And over time, secondary water use in our district has declined significantly. And despite a 1995 groundwater management plan that is still in place, the groundwater level has dropped 25 feet in the last 20 years. So now we're seriously concerned also that salt water from the Great Salt Lake is making its way up into the aquifer, and that could threaten our culinary water. And recently our district analyzed the impact that a 22 unit home development will have on the aquifer, and the net impact was a loss of about 10 acre feet of recharge per year. Our district is so concerned about this, that we are exploring the feasibility of piercing one of our irrigation reservoirs in order to get more water into the aquifer. Therefore, even though this bill doesn't directly affect us, I urge you to give it a fav favorable recommendation and to go ahead with a lot of study on this. Thank you.

15. Committee chair1:07:01

    Thank you for your comments. We, uh, we do have one line. Go ahead and un unmute. Turn on your camera, tell us where you're from, where you're at, and who you represent, and all that.

16. Warren Peterson, Farm Bureau1:07:17

    Go ahead. Thank you, Ms. Uh, Mr. Vice Chair of Warren Peterson. I'm not sure my camera's working. I've got a blank space on my screen Here. Yeah, it's not working, but

17. Committee chair1:07:25

    go ahead.

18. Warren Peterson, Farm Bureau1:07:26

    Thank you. Uh, but my name is Warren Peterson. I'm speaking both as one of those downstream people that Representative Albrook often talks about, but also on behalf of Farm Bureau today, groundwater management. It's an important resource. Utah recognized that groundwater and surface waters need to be conjunctively managed by legislative action back in 1923, but as several have pointed out, is it's quite hard to manage what you can't see. So it, it's a very good idea. Very good Bill. And I think the interim study approach, uh, Representative Kohler suggests is ideal. And I just note that when we worked on the groundwater management, the groundwater management statute some years ago, seven section 73 dash five dash 15, it took us three years to put that bill together. And it, it was frankly not as exhaustive as the, as what Representative Kohler's suggesting. So it's, it's a very important thing. Aquifer storage is absolutely essential. It's most efficient because there's no evaporation, but we need to know the science a lot better. The other thing I noticed, let's make sure we don't bring local governments into the state engineer's realm. And I think line 51 of Representative Kohler's bill addresses that. But let's, let's make sure we keep, uh, water allocation in the state engineer's office. So it's a good idea, let's study it. And, uh, we'll, I think we'll all be better off for it would be my bottom line. Thank you for the time.

19. Committee chair1:08:53

    Hey, thank you for talking to us from downtown Oasis, Utah, and, uh, we always, uh, enjoy hearing from you. So, uh, that completes, uh, public comment. We'll close public comment, bring it back to the Committee for Action Representative Chew.

20. Rep. Chew1:09:10

    So, uh, I've got some concerns and, and the discussion, uh, that was brought up, uh, brought up, uh, one that I've been, uh, you know, towing it with in the last couple of years, trying to figure out how to be the, just what we're doing. And I think this bill, uh, brings forward, uh, the concern I've had, you know, uh, uh, we're talking and, uh, and the, and the good gentleman that, uh, native from, uh, Delta expressed, uh, I think, you know, uh, the concern is what are we actually doing with all of the conservation? I mean, you know, uh, when I grew up, I can remember, uh, uh, smokey the bear and every, only you can prevent forest fires. And we wound up putting out every little stinking fire that started, and we wound up with a lot of areas that actually could have burnt, you know, less if, uh, we'd have allowed 'em to burn rather than what we're facing with now. And, and of course, it, it took until, uh, Yellowstone burned up in the eighties before we realized, you know, or before we had a, a location that we could, uh, look back on and say, oh my gosh, that fire was a good thing, even though it really was devastating what happened. I'm concerned, I think this study's a great idea and something we need to know because, uh, what are we actually doing by, uh, by cons, by this conservation? I mean, uh, we need to really look at that. So, I, I appreciate what the good representatives, uh, talking about here. I think, uh, like, uh, has been, uh, suggested. I think an interim is, is the, is the proper place for it to go.

21. Committee chair1:10:47

    Thank you. Representative Chew, Representative Kohler or, uh, fer. I mean, Um, are we looking for a motion or are we still discussing?

22. Rep. Jill Koford1:10:55

    Yes, I would move that we hold the bill. Um, and I'd like to speak to that, if that's, go ahead. All right. I, I agree with everything that that's been said. I don't wanna belabor the point. Um, groundwater is, I think, a critical thing that we need to know and understand. I would love to see this as an interim study and, and be involved in those kinds of conversations. The recharge is important, how that affects everything. And, and some of our aquifers are starting to collapse around the state. So why is that? And what's happening? And, and this is just critical. So I appreciate the representative for bringing this to our, to the forefront today.

23. Committee chair1:11:29

    Okay, thank you. That motion is in order. Discussion of the motion, seeing none. I'll go ahead, uh, and place the motion. Uh, we're gonna skip you, Representative Kohler, since you've already told us what you wanna do. And so everybody in favor of holding, uh, the glasses on again. Uh, HB 5 33 second sub say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. I Thank you. Roll back. Carries. Thanks. So thank you Representative Kohler.