1. 2016 Water Legislation Northern Utah Water Conference Boyd Clayton, PE. March 29, 2016 Deputy State Engineer

2. SB75 Water Right Adjudication Amendments HB222 Nonuse Application Amendments HB 305 Water Rights and Resources Amendments SB 23 Protected Purchaser Amendments SB 80 Infrastructure Funding Amendments SB 251 Water Infrastructure Funding New Water Legislation

3. SB 28 Water Conservation Pricing SCR001 Universal Metering HCR001 Waters of the United States HJR004 Water Infrastructure Transfer More Water Legislation

4. Objectives Enhance overall efficiency of adjudication process. Provide adequate due process to water users. Increase water user participation. Modernize process to address issues of current concern. SB75 Water Right Adjudication Amendments

5. Adjust the sequence of the Hydrographic Survey to better facilitate claim investigation and focus resources on claims of interest. Allows for the online submission of water user’s claims. Creates a “List of Unclaimed Rights” for those rights of record that aren’t represented by a timely-filed water user’s claim. Clarifies that failure to file a timely claim for a right of record constitutes a default and may result in a judgment of abandonment. Summary of Proposed Amendments

6. Summary of Proposed Amendments (cont.) Bars and estops claimants from asserting unclaimed rights (i.e. pre-statutory claims) if they fail to file a timely claim. Removes antiquated/redundant requirements for water user’s claims. Allows the State Engineer to grant one 30-day extension to file a claim. Requires claimants to update address and ownership on records of the State Engineer to receive notice of further proceedings.

7. Notice is served via publication in a newspaper for 2 weeks 73-4-3(2)(a) 1 State Engineer searches records to locate all possible claimants and property owners* 73-4-3(3) 2 Summons is served via publication in a newspaper for 5 weeks 73-4-4(1)(b) 3 Claimants and property owners* are served with summons via mail 73-4-4(1)(a) 4 State Engineer holds a public meeting to inform public of process 73-4-3(7)(b) 5 State Engineer notifies claimants and property owners* by mail to submit claims 73-4-3(8)(a) 6 Upon notice, claimants have 90 days to file claims with the Court or State Engineer 73-4-5 7 State Engineer composes list of unclaimed rights and files it with the Court 73-4-9.5(1)(a) 8a Claimants have 90 days to file an objection and a water users claim 73-4-9.5(2) 11 State Engineer holds a public meeting in the area to discuss the list of unclaimed rights 73-4-9.5(1)(c) 10 Objections to the list of unclaimed rights (if any) are resolved and judgement is entered 73-4-9.5(5) 12 State Engineer investigates filed claims and prepares hydrographic survey maps 73-4-11(1) 8b State Engineer serves notice of completion of the list to claimants and property owners* 73-4-9.5(1)(b) 9 State Engineer composes Proposed Determination and files with the Court 73-4-11(3) 13 State Engineer serves notice of the completion of the Proposed Determination to claimants 73-4-11(2)(b) 14 Claimants have 90 days to file an objection to the Proposed Determination 73-4-11(3) 15 State Engineer holds a public meeting in the area to discuss the PD with the claimants 73-4-11(2)(c) 16 State Engineer searches records for missed claimants, files affidavit with Court, and serves 2 nd Summons 73-4-22 17 Objections to the Proposed Determination (if any) are resolved 73-4-11,13 18 Court enters final judgment 73-4-15 19 KEY Existing StatuteRevised Statute *The expanded notice to property owners is not explicitly required in the revised statute. P ROPOSED A MENDMENTS TO W ATER R IGHTS A DJUDICATION

8. Filing nonuse applications do not cover forfeiture for nonuse prior to the filing of the applications. Nonuse applications do not constitute beneficial use when computing timeframe in Lazarus Clause. “Lazarus Clause” – Limits filing claims for forfeiture to nonuse ending in the last 15 years. Likely more legislation will follow since the words of the revised section speak of the Lazarus Clause as if it requires 15 years of actual use to extinguish a claim. HB222 Nonuse Application Amendments

9. Water Use Reporting Program Require Signature of Operator or Engineer Authorizes the Division of Water Rights to collect and validate water use data HB305 Water Rights and Resources Amendments

10. Purchaser’s interest in Security (shares) Gives Value No notice of adverse claim Obtains control Pays assessment 4 of last 7 years; or Used water under shares 4 of last 7 years SB23 Protected Purchasers

11. Dedicates 1/16% sales tax rate in future years to gradually shift from transportation to water fund. Requires BOWR in consultation with the Water Development Commission to develop rules for use of money. Independent verification of water use data. SB80 and SB251 Water Infrastructure Funding

12. Questions Questions?

13. Delta Canal Company et al vs Frank Vincent Family Ranch Supreme Court Ruling November 2013 : Supreme Court Ruling November 2013 : “The number of acres irrigated is not determinative in a forfeiture analysis, though it may be relevant insofar as it indicates the volume of water used or whether water usage was beneficial. Farmers may reduce the total acres irrigated to grow a more water-intensive crop so long as they beneficially use their full entitlement. The central question in any forfeiture proceeding is whether the appropriator used all of its water allowance in a reasonable manner and for a beneficial purpose.” “The number of acres irrigated is not determinative in a forfeiture analysis, though it may be relevant insofar as it indicates the volume of water used or whether water usage was beneficial. Farmers may reduce the total acres irrigated to grow a more water-intensive crop so long as they beneficially use their full entitlement. The central question in any forfeiture proceeding is whether the appropriator used all of its water allowance in a reasonable manner and for a beneficial purpose.”