Utah State Engineer Where Do We Go From Here? (and how are we going to get there?)

1
Utah State EngineerWhere Do We Go From
Here?(and how are we going to get there?)

• The Rural Water Association of Utah
• Kent L. Jones, P.E.

2
Overview

• General Philosophy
• Change Applications Non-Use
• Water Right Sole Supply
• Change Applications Surface to Groundwater
• Management of the Division of Water Rights
• Current Legislation
• Working with the Legislature
• Working with Water Users
• Municipal Proof Policy
• Groundwater Management Plans

3
General Philosophy

• More public meetings efforts at education
• State Engineer must remain independent and
  objective
• Decisions must be based on
• sound science
• defendable principle
• workable administrative policy.
• All things being equal, in situations where there
  may be some doubt, the State Engineer should take
  into account the interest of the water user.

4
Change Applications Non-Use

• The Division will not specifically look for
  non-use, however, if the issue is raised either
  by parties involved or our own awareness,
  questions will be asked concerning when the water
  was last used.
• The State Engineer will not approve a change
  application on a water right (or that portion of
  a water right) that might be subject to
  forfeiture because the water user may not be
  entitled to the use of water.

5
Water Right Sole Supply

• Required when a change application is filed on a
  water right in a water use group that separates
  the water right from the group.
• Generally not required when the change includes
  all water rights in a water user group or the
  water use group is not broken up.
• Municipalities will be exempt from the rule.
• Applicant required to do as much as possible to
  complete a Statement of Group Contribution.

6
Water Right Sole Supply (cont.)

• Applicants may request assistance from the State
  Engineer.
• S.E. will review historical records provided and
  water right records.
• S.E. will make an administrative determination of
  the sole supply of the water rights in the change
  application.
• Notification of the pending change application
  and the sole supply determination - invitation to
  protest.

7
Change Applications Surface to Groundwater

• Surface water and ground water are different
  water environments connected but different in
  the timing and availability of water supply.
• As water rights are changed from the surface to
  underground
• The priority doctrine needs to be applied
  differently.
• Adaptations in the water right need to be made to
  provide for the difference (haircuts)
• Water measurement requirements on heretofore and
  hereafter sources

8
Management ofthe Division of Water Rights

• Priorities
• Processing applications in a timely manner
• Reducing application backlog
• Review application processing procedure
• Layered system of review
• Discussion of complex applications prior to
  decision
• Empowering Staff
• Delegation of authority and responsibility
• Adequate review and statewide consistency
• Increased training and communication efforts.

9
Management ofthe Division of Water Rights (cont.)

• Budget Situation 2009 will be a difficult year
• A general 15 cut will affect staffing levels.
  The Department has helped in this area.
• 4 already laid off
• Sales tax
• Division processes are staff sensitive any
  reductions through layoffs or furloughs will
  cause slow downs.
• Fees
• Most Division fees will double
• Stream Alteration
• Commercial, Government Agency, Non- commercial

10
Current Legislation

• HB 389 Simplifying Proofs on Small Applications
• Benefit water users reduce Division workload
• Appurtenance limited to small parcels or
  Division will assign an area of appurtenance
  around dwelling.
• Caveat on certificate when quantification is
  required (adjudication process or change
  application) it will be based on actual use
  within past 7 years.
• Will not approve applications attempting to
  consolidate small unused portions of these types
  of rights and change them to a different use.
• Lapsed small domestic opportunity to file
  replacement.

11
Current Legislation (cont.)

• HB 383 Adjudication Amendments
• There is a need to be able to replace the courts
  list of water right applications with the S.E.s
  updated list.
• Adjudications do need to move forward and be
  completed within a reasonable and meaningful time
  frame.
• Meetings with water users prior to the
  hydrographic survey and at the time the proposed
  determination are published are helpful the
  Division has already started to hold these
  meetings.

12
Current Legislation (cont.)

• HB 241 Repeal of Section 73-3-21 Priority Among
  Water Users
• This has been a confusing part of the statute for
  many years.
• It should be either repealed or the intent of the
  statute should be clarified.
• The priority doctrine is one of the main
  foundations of Utah water law and it must not be
  weakened.

13
Current Legislation (cont.)

• HB 256 Amendments to 73-3-31 Water Right for
  Watering Livestock
• Not set up to accept online applications or fees
  have not taken this step because of the costs
  involved.
• Adjudication concerns
• Who should be listed as the owner of a right to
  water livestock on public land the agency or
  the user of the grazing permit?

14
Working with the Legislature

• The State Engineer will work with any task force
  or work group created by the legislature to
  review water right issues.
• Water Development Commission will continue to be
  a legislative forum for the discussion of water
  issues.
• It is not a policy making board for the State
  Engineer or the Division of Water Rights and
  cannot dictate to the State Engineer, he is open
  to discussions with that group and will consider
  any suggestions it cares to offer.
• The State Engineer must remain independent in the
  water right decisions he is called upon to make.

15
Working with Water Users

• The market hates cost, uncertainty, and delay
• Utah is a diverse state and water users are faced
  with a wide variety of water related challenges.
• Input is helpful from water users regarding water
  right issues and policies in their specific
  areas.
• A unified process for working with and receiving
  input from water users would be helpful.
• Tooele Valley example - Water Advisory Committees
  

16
Municipal Proof Policy

• Changes are needed
• Existing procedures will be discussed and reviewed

17
Groundwater Management Plans

• Beryl Enterprise GWMP
• Current legislative moratorium
• Water users have submitted a proposed GWMP
• When allowed, the plan will be reviewed and
  further discussions with the water users will be
  held
• Groundwater is being mined but irrigation should
  remain economically feasible in the area for
  quite some time but for how long (50 years or 200
  years??).

18
Groundwater Management Plans (cont.)

• The State Engineer does not believe he has a
  responsibility to protect water users from
  themselves.
• Where it appears no specific water user is being
  injured, the S.E.s role is
• to point out problems and areas of concern
• to offer help and suggestions
• Encourage water users to develop a plan and take
  active steps to remedy the problem.

19
Groundwater Management Plans (cont.)

• Future efforts on GWMPs in other areas will
  depend upon
• Complaints received from water users regarding
  the problem
• The groundwater situation in the area
• The status of the water rights in the area
• The availability of resources to complete the
  project
• The willingness of the local water users to help
  develop a reasonable solution to the problem.

20
Questions or Comments?