S.B. 198 Water Project Management Amendments: transcript

Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee, Jan 30, 2026

1. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:07:49

   back to item one on our agenda. Senator Sandall, Senate Bill 1 98.

2. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:08:05

   Thank you. Uh, we for accommodating. We were, um, off the hill for a minute, um, Mr. Chair. No problem. So, um, let me, let me kind of frame up what we're thinking here with this, uh, this bill file. Um, and, and by the way, just so everybody knows, there's a piece in here that probably would require a fiscal note on it that talks about, uh, hiring, uh, some poss a manager. Um, if this bill for would, would pass through this committee and keep moving on, um, our intent would be to take that out and, uh, not ask for it back in until the time would be right to, uh, to hire a manager. We don't think that's quite in, in place right now, but what we've got is we've got a situation where, uh, in the past, any kind of, um, upgrades or things that happen in, uh, our water situation up and down our water, uh, areas have been done by the Bureau of Reclamation. They've, they've been our, not just our partner, they've been the builder. When they get done, then they've turned those things over to the, uh, water district or whoever's gonna manage it. Um, the Bureau of Reclamation is really out of that business now. They, they haven't had that model for a long time. And, uh, this is kind of the preliminary effort to come back in and allow the state to have a vehicle to be able to develop a look at. Um, in fact, we don't, I don't think we have any ability even to, to do anything hydroelectric, um, up and down our state at this point in time. And those kind of things, I think would be contemplated in what we're gonna do here. Um, director Ferry has, uh, volunteered to come as sacrifice to help explain the bill. And so I'm gonna turn some time over to him. Like a, like a lamb to the slaughter, huh? Yeah.

3. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:10:09

   Welcome Director. Thank you. Is that, is that microphone on?

4. Joel Ferry, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources1:10:12

   Okay. Yes, it is. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, and members of the committee. Um, yeah, so, so what the bill proposes in the, go ahead and state you. I, I'm Joel Ferry. I'm the Executive Director of the department, natural Resources. Um, and it is a pleasure to be with you today. Um, what, what the bill does, I'm just, you know, chomping at the bit to get going here, but, uh, ultimately this, what this legislation contemplates is within the Division of Water resources that would be created, um, and office of, um, lemme make sure I say the term right. Well, the Office of the Water of Water Management, uh, here, it's Office of Water Management, um, within that office would be given certain authorities to, to take on some of those responsibilities. As Senator Sandall said, um, own, operate, and manage certain water projects. There's, there is need in the state of Utah, and there's opportunity in certain areas in watersheds where, um, we have need to build water storage projects. Um, historically, again, these projects have been designed and administered, held, uh, water delivery contracts have been made through the Bureau of Reclamation. That's not really, it can happen, but it's not as, as feasible. Um, in some areas, those projects have been managed and held up by water districts, but not everywhere. Right? There's other places where districts don't necessarily have the reach. And so this is a coordinated effort to where if there is a need and if there is a gap, um, the state of Utah can step in and help fill that gap. Now, these, um, there's, there are no, currently, there's no specific project in mind. There's no specific outcome for this. But if and when the need arises, um, we can do this. Uh, also, as Senator Sandall mentioned, I think one of the big benefits of this as well, is we do have significant number of reservoirs in the state that don't have high power. Um, and part of that is the financing, the technicality and the, um, the regulatory environment associated with that is, is complicated and difficult. And, um, and those are opportunities I think, that are lost because those are, um, you know, uh, especially during times of run of the river or when you're, you know, water contracts are being delivered, um, where power can be produced and generated, and we see in other states where, um, and, and those are typically on private, you know, or irrigation type district, uh, reservoirs. The one that really stood out to me that I visited recently was, um, down at the Yuba Reservoir. Um, that project, not saying it needs to have hydropower, but it just is, is amazing. We just rebuilt the dam. We rebuilt the spillway and the delivery works, and there's no power production there. And partly it's because, you know, that's an irrigation project that was designed to deliver irrigation water. But at the same time, man, to think about the benefit that that could happen to that community when water does flow through for those deliveries, that that doesn't impede or impair or impact those deliveries, but can benefit and help pay for projects and help us as we maintain dams and reservoirs. But it's a clean, renewable power source that can really provide benefit. Um, and those kind of examples exist throughout the state. So this, this, this bill would allow those opportunities to occur. Um, it's one where we are more and more reliant, um, upon our reservoirs for, as our, our snowpack has been diminishing. Um, we have had warmer climates, uh, warmer conditions, less snowpack, we need, um, to be looking to the future. And that includes development of, um, of Utah's water in a, in a way that is sustainable long term. So, um, this bill sets up that office. It gives the authorities to the Division of Water Resources. It's administered and overseen by the Board of Water Resources, which has vast experience in doing this. Um, and I think it, it, uh, elegantly couples in their roles and responsibilities with advancing some of the state priorities. So, Thanks, that ends the presentation.

5. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:14:05

   Great. Thank you, Senator and director. I'm gonna bring it then to the committee for any clarifying questions, Senator Blouin.

6. Sen. Nate Blouin1:14:14

   Sure. Why not? Go for it. Um, are there other states that have similar bodies to what we are talking about here? Yes, there are other states that have state projects that administer and manage those projects. All right. When I, when I talked to folks at LRGC earlier, it sounded like this was fairly novel. So I'm not sure, I don't know all the details here, but it sounded like it was a pretty unique thing. Uh, you know, I worry about consolidation under the state here. And, uh, as we've seen in other bills that have come forward in the past, uh, that I think created some of these positions that, that Director Ferry is in right now. Uh, it, it seems like there's, uh, this willingness to consolidate at the state level and, and step on the local water districts and step on their ability to actually plan for the needs that they have. Um, I guess question to, to Senator Sandall, are there other bills coming along with this that, that we should know about that might, uh, you know, add different pieces to the puzzle here? I feel like this is with water. It seems like there's always a bunch of different bills floating around, no pun intended. Um, but are there other pieces of this that are gonna come out later on that are gonna kind of change the perception? I

7. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:15:23

   Don't, I don't have another bill file open. Okay.

8. Sen. Nate Blouin1:15:26

   Um, I guess, yeah, I, it, this consolidation just always scares me as, as far as we're talking about a state that believes in local control and yet pushes these big projects from the state level top down. Um, I, you know, thinking about the Great Salt Lake in particular, I mean, this, this seems like, I know the, the Bear River development is always the elephant in the room in these conversations. You know, we hear about that every year. It seems like it's, this, to me, looks like another vehicle that could be used to kind of move those sorts of things forward. Um, if that were true, how would we be navigating between saving the Great Salt Lake, which is in our stated goals, I think for 2034, whatever we're talking about there. Uh, and also addressing divert, diverting the, the largest tributary of that body. I think that's, that's a big concern that I have, that I've heard from other folks, um, that are working in this space. It seems like those things are at, at great odds and that this would potentially be a vehicle to, to move that forward and, uh, and, and pit multiple things against one another. Yeah, I would just have to answer that by saying right now, there's no plan on the table that I know of to divert to water in, in, from, from the Great Salt Lake in any, in any basin. The, the Bear River Development is a, it's a Representative or senator. Not sure how germane it is, because it's hypothetical if they're sure to the bill. Well, I mean, I think the, the Bear River development is an, uh, approved project of some sort. I don't, you know, it, some level that project has been kind of in our plan, I think at Lake Powell is the Lake Powell pipeline is as well. Um, so I mean, it, it seems reason, it seems reasonable to me. I'm not a lawyer. I'm speaking like a lawyer now, I guess, guess, but it seems reasonable, like this would be a way to move a project like that forward. Um, so I guess I don't have a question there. I'm just, it, it's concerning to me that we continue to, um, push these things forward at the, at the state level. Whereas I think we need to be looking at the, the local picture here and, and proposing projects, uh, and, and paying for projects that are actually gonna be paid for by the people that, uh, are, are benefiting or not benefiting from them. So that's, that's just a, a whole range of concerns I think we're gonna have to address as these things move forward.

9. Unknown speaker1:17:40speaker not certain

   Can, can I add to that chair, chair?

10. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:17:41

    You can respond. Thanks.

11. Joel Ferry, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources1:17:43

    Um, I, I would assume that anything that would be developed would be for the benefit of the people of the State of Utah, and, uh, at this point would have to be paid for by the people of the state of Utah. Because in the past, bureau of Reclamation has come in and built those and then have been allowed the state of Utah people through whatever mechanism have paid for that facility, um, back to the federal government with water fees over 20, 30, 50 years. So I would, I would assume that anything that's contemplated here would both be for the state of Utah and would be paid for by the state of Utah.

12. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:18:19

    I'll go to another question with Senator Hinkins. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator. Let me do go again.

13. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:18:32

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering, uh, Most of that would be non consumptive use anyways, would be just, uh, for hydro, uh, electric plants and stuff. So it's not like they're going to be diverting the water, basically, it just go through their infrastructure to generate power. But my question is, uh, what would happen, what happens to these little, uh, reservoirs, like a mill site down in my area in Jills Valley, that the, the hydro was filed on 20, 30, 40 years ago by municipal cities in, uh, Salt Lake Valley to, to use Thehy Hydro off of it. And so therefore, our local area and, uh, can't use the, uh, outlet of our reservoirs to generate power that would be locally. And, uh, the utility company don't allow them evidently, to put power onto their lines that would be feasible to do that, to come up to the cities and stuff. I'm just kind of curious, how, how long do we allow them to, uh, tie our water, uh, tie it up? I mean, it's been 40 years and, and we could have done it long, a long time ago and at least run our, you know, our municipal cities and stuff like that. And it's, uh, just seems some of it might be 50 years old. They've, they filed on, uh, hydro Electric.

14. Joel Ferry, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources1:19:52

    I, I would have to phone a friend. I would, I could tell you better about a water right. Than I can about a pile. Right? Yeah. So, Okay. I, I, I'll, so That would be a, you know, there would be a water right. Associated with that, be a non, non-consumptive use flow. Right. Um, but as far as tying that up in a non, uh, Well, they've never done nuts With type. They've just kept anybody else from, from doing It, period. I, I think that's a, that's a really interesting question. Um, for the stage. You know, I can, I can tell you this, uh, when you, when you start talking about hydro power, um, it is very complicated, very complex. You have to, uh, if it, if it's generating over one megawatt ish, it, it involves ferc, which makes it that much more complicated. And, um, and then who's going to be the, the taker of that power, the purchaser of that power. So this is part of, um, just a, a small kind of component of this, but I can, I can, um, Yeah. And I can look into The answer and I know this and talk to the state engineer about that and try to get you an answer.

15. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:20:49

    Okay. Well, I'll check into it, but I, I was just kind of curious more than anything that, since this brought up hydro on in the water rights and things like that, if that was pertinent to what we're doing there, because, you know, an irrigation company, they're, they control the flow of the water. Mm-hmm. And, and they don't really flow during the winter time at all. So it's just intermittent, it's almost like a windmill. Pretty much. It's not like it's running all the time. 'cause it's, you know, that's just whenever the water shuts off at night, they may not even be turning. So anyway, I was just curious. So thank you, Mr.

16. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:21:19

    Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Um, any further questions for the sponsor?

17. Unknown speaker1:21:25speaker not certain

    One from me? Uh, so you mentioned the fiscal note Senator, and, um, hypothetically, let's say I have a project that I want to have the state look at and, um, open a bill file for that project. Let's call it the Gooseberry Narrows. Just, just Hypothetically, hypothetically. Um, and, and with this, you don't have a fiscal note, but what I was, what I was told if, but with that bill file is that they have to put a fiscal note on it as if it's built. So there's gonna be a 5,000 million dollars fiscal note. And on the build I'm doing is giving state parks authority, like with this water management authority to go work with the Forest Service and see if a state park is amenable and put the dam in. So shouldn't you have a fiscal note that they said that the fiscal analyst told me this morning that you have, they have to analyze this as if you built it?

18. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:22:26

    Uh, I think the difference would be there's no particular structure contemplated here. This, this is, this is a general framework that would create, uh, an office in the state eventually that would handle this. So yeah, if you're going to create a bill file that would contemplate building a specific project, uh, I could see that would be different than, uh, just a bill file that contemplates a framework to develop eventually, or to look at.

19. Unknown speaker1:22:57speaker not certain

    I see the connection. I see where I'm struggling, but yeah. Yeah. Okay. Alright. That was my question.

20. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:23:02

    Any others from the committee? I'll open it to the public. Anyone in the public can Mr. Peterson, welcome to a committee?

21. Joel Ferry, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources1:23:11speaker not certain

    This? Yeah, sure. I do. I step down. Thank you, director. I might have you back up for another phone, a friend. I'll be close. Okay.

22. Warren Peterson, resident1:23:24

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Warren Peterson. I, I appear before this committee in various capacities, but at the moment, I'm just an old guy that knows the history of Bury Reservoir fairly well. And so to, to illustrate what Senator Sandall was talking about, um, Yuba actually, director Ferry talked about Yuba, which is technically severe Bridge Reservoir. It's, it's known commonly as Yuba. It has a long, uh, an early history of having a generating capacity, a, a hydroelectric turbine on the outlet structure of that reservoir. It was abandoned long ago because of economics, but it allowed the Desert Irrigation Company to also be the first power grid into the area, which was then taken over and is now part of the Rocky Mountain. So the sea, it built from that small, humble beginning. And I also know that in the 1980s, a serious attempt was made by the water companies there to put in a hydroelectric, uh, generation station just above what's known as the Central Water Company diversion on the severe river below severe Bridge reservoir. And I, I was in on some of the discussions of that, and it was very expensive, very difficult to work through the FERC permitting and so on. And the, the companies finally just gave up on it, um, because they didn't, they didn't see it bearing fruit and didn't have the staying power, if you will, to, to work through all that process. And, and then along with that, the economics on a hydroelectric plan, especially in intermittent one, are pretty tough. And so if we're serious about doing this, you, you, you'd almost have to invest in, and there are those in this room that know power a lot better than I do, but I, I think you'd have to invest in someone who could do the economics analysis. And so an office like this, it seems to me, just as a member of the public would, would be helpful if we want to look at those kind of resources, because otherwise it's been out of the reach of private companies. And severe Breeze Reservoir is a privately owned facility, so you'd have to work with the owners to make that happen. But with, without something like this, it doesn't seem that we'd ever realize the benefit of some of these potentials. Thank you,

23. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:25:31

    Mr. Thank you. Anyone else in the committee? Uh, public please come up. Just make sure you, um, state your name and if you represent, uh, organization. Thank you.

24. Zachary Frankel, Executive Director, Utah Rivers Council1:25:50

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Zachary Frankel. I'm the Executive Director of the Utah Rivers Council. And, uh, I would ask that this bill be held or voted no on this bill has not been through the Water Task Force. It has not been through Water Development Commission. There's been no discussion over it during interim. This represents a massive and radical change to the Utah Division of Water Resources. This is the state of Utah, creating a new massive water agency with no debate and no discussion about how much debt we're talking about. Since both Bear River Development and Lake Powell Pipeline are still authorized and on the books. And since those projects account for six to $8 billion of construction costs dollars in current year dollars, we are talking about seeing potentially $10 billion, 12, $15 billion of long-term indebtedness inside state government. It's like creating many utas and embedding them in state government. We do not have any ability as taxpayers to reign in this unelected government, this spending. And we as taxpayers deserve and want transparency about why a project bill like this would be rushed out. The Bureau of Reclamation, we all know built Lake Powell, built Glen Canyon Dam, big, Big Water projects. And the argument is building a reservoir will create water. Well, lake Powell right now is 70% empty. It is America's second largest reservoir. We could create a hundred Lake Powells and we don't have any Colorado River water to put them in. We can build dams inside the Great Salt Lake Basin on its tributaries. There is no more water to put it in. Dams and reservoirs do not create water. The water comes from snow melt. And if I had a picture of water here, it doesn't matter how many cups I pour it in. That picture of water from our snow melt is what Mother Nature gives us. Pouring it into more cups, doesn't create more water, it just changes the timing. What this bill will lead to is massive taxpayer debt. And when we bring these questions up, we're shut down, which is frankly an un-American activity. The whole purpose of American government in these roles of water projects is so that taxpayers can ask questions about costs. Most water projects in the United States and inside Utah are financed and managed by local government. One of the benefits of that is that local taxpayers and local water users have an avenue of engagement to go to that level of local government and say, Mr. Or Madam City Council member, I'm concerned about this proposed spending. I'm concerned about these impacts from potential water rate increases. There is no accountability here. And we still have the Water Development Council, which is completely sheltered from transparency controls, which is included and mentioned and defined in this bill. We suspect this is part of the effort being discussed to create a new tax on all water bills to advance Bear River development. There simply are no two ways about this. We cannot divert the Bear River, the single largest water source to the Great Salt Lake, and simultaneously raise great Salt Lake water levels. Reservoirs have nothing to do with the math there. And there is not enough water to take from the Colorado River to put in the Great Salt Lake to shore it up because the Colorado River is 12 million acre feet of water and there's 15 million acre feet of current demand. We're using 25% more water in the Colorado River Basin, all seven states and Mexico combined. Then we have in wet water. So there's no surplus water. And what I would ask as a a Utah, Utah is that we can embrace fiscal conservatism, we can be respectful with each other and raising questions about it, and we can have some transparency. I really am skeptical about a bill being proposed for no purpose other than to create an agency, which in its history, the Bureau of Reclamation was gonna build the Central Utah Project. And I'll remind everyone, the 1991 Cka that Congress passed,

25. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:30:49

    just keep it to the bill file, please.

26. Zachary Frankel, Executive Director, Utah Rivers Council1:30:51

    Yes, sir. The, the money that the Bureau was given was spent on the Columbia. I won't get into that. Yeah, thank you. But the CUP Completion Act kicked the bureau out because they're wasting taxpayer money. I am concerned that SB 1 98 will lead to massive government spending that will encourage waste, fraud and abuse that no taxpayer in Utah wants to see happen. I realize there are a number of special interests that want those construction dollars, that want those financing fee opportunities. And I realize that probably many of them have had, you know,

27. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:31:33

    a chance to the bill, sir.

28. Zachary Frankel, Executive Director, Utah Rivers Council1:31:34

    To the bill. SB 1 98 is a gift to those special interests. It. And if we need more water projects, let's keep those where they are now at local government. If we're going to embrace fiscal conservatism, I see no reason to expand state government with what could be 10 to $15 billion of long-term debt. And with that, Mr. Chairman and Senator Vickers, thank you for your letting me speak here.

29. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:32:04

    Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the public would like to speak to the bill? Okay. I'm not seeing any. I will bring it anyone online. I'll bring it back to the committee for any further clarifying questions and or action. Senator Hankins.

30. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:32:20

    Thank you. Uh, two years ago I had a bill of my own that is, uh, dealing with water and it hadn't been presented to our legislative task force. And so with that, I would ask that we, uh, uh, pass on this bill right now and move the agenda. Um, have a motion to, That's my motion.

31. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:32:40

    Motion is to move the agenda. Okay. The motion before us is to, um, move the agenda. The next item on the agenda, a discussion to the motion. Uh, seeing any senator.

32. Unknown speaker1:32:55speaker not certain

    Yeah, I'm gonna oppose that motion. A couple of reasons why. One is, um, simply, simply having those commissions, um, take some authority. In fact, if you deferred all, everything, everything every time to a commission, um, we defer our, our role as elected officials. Uh, they're, those, those commissions are there to give, to give input, but they're not the final decider. Um, I do believe it's time that we need to move on this, on this bill file. You, uh, there was a great deal of supposition that was involved in the last testimony. Um, there is no money involved in this bill file. There is no project contemplated, there is no spending of money. And if there were to be those times where you would spend money or do anything that way, uh, that would be an open and transparent process. We don't spend money up here without being in some kind of a form of a bill file. Um, so I just think that, uh, in this particular case with the need that's in front of us to hold off for a year and wait for, uh, the blessing of a water commission, um, where we don't have any, we don't have any legal things tied up in here. We don't have any, uh, of those contemplations. I I would hope that we would, uh, we would go ahead and move the bill forward.

33. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:34:20speaker not certain

    Okay. Thank you to some honor, mayor. Yeah,

34. Unknown speaker1:34:23speaker not certain

    I would just say then we don't really need a legislative task force. I mean, the reason we have that is we have attorneys, water attorneys that advise us as Mr. Peterson and Mr. Clyde and stuff. And that's the reason we have it, is to, uh, a lot of people don't understand this. This is kind of complicated stuff and that's why we have the task force. So if we, if we're not gonna use the task force, then let's just abolish it and, uh, that maybe that'd be another bill that I, uh, should, ought to run, I guess. But anyway, with that I would, you know, I just think that this, that's the reason we have the task force. And so I would just oppose, you know, I would like to ask that you, uh, we hold this bill until we've is had a hearing.

35. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:35:04

    Okay, thank you. So make sure I understand, uh, the motion was that we, um,

36. Unknown speaker1:35:10speaker not certain

    Well, and I, I'd just like to reemphasize that you know, that the task force is advisory only and you know, I, we're not asking them to pass the bill or in anything, but I mean, I held one of my own bills two years ago because it hadn't had it and also two or three other bills that year. And so I think it's, you know, that's the reason we have it is for an advisory to a legislature with professional people that deal in water rights. And so I, that's my, uh, conclusion.

37. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:35:40

    Thank you Senator. I just wanna make clarification that I understood you wanted to move the agenda or hold the bill.

38. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:35:46

    Hold the bill. Okay.

39. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:35:47

    The motion is that we hold the bill then and, um, uh, I'll go ahead and place that motion then. All in favor of holdings, SB 1 98 in committee, um, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? If any, say nay. No. Okay. Nays, please raise your hand. Okay. Bill passes four to two. So we'll motion passes. The motion passes four to two. We'll hold the bill on committee for now. Thank you, Senator. All right.

40. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (Chair)1:36:36

    So that concludes our work and I would entertain Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.