1-Enable Cottonwood Heights, Alta, and Wasatch County to be water independent from Salt Lake City by Enacting a water bill to correct the conflict between Utah’s Constitution XI Section 6, U.C.A. 10-8-14, and the use of terminable “surplus” water contracts for the requirements of permanent water source building occupancy.

Only 3 of 245 municipalities are first class cites (Salt Lake City, West Valley City, and Provo City).  Only 1 of 3 first class cities (Salt Lake City) has been gaming Utah’s water resources for profit and extra-territorial control harming Utah.  The simple solution is the following:

Enact a law which applies only to a First Class City with over $1 million in “surplus” water sales by re-enacting 73-1-4.

S.B. 7 2011 WATER RIGHT–Anti-gaming, Anti-water hoarding

LONG TITLE

General Description: This bill addresses the conflict between the temporary surplus water use under 10-8-14 for permanent water source requirements and Utah’s Constitution XI, Section 6 against the direct or indirect alienation of water by cities.

Highlighted Provisions:

This bill

• applies only to First Class Cities ( 3 of Utah’s 245) with “surplus” water sales in excess of $1 million annually. (Applies only to Salt Lake City.)
• promotes water independence for all municipalities
• eliminates the gaming of Utah’s water resources by First Class cities to impose perpetual “surplus water taxes” on smaller municipalities.
• eliminates the conflict between Utah Constitution Article XI, Section 6, U.C.A. 10-8-14, and state requirement for permanent water source of building occupancy.
• makes technical change

Monies Appropriated in this Bill: None

Other Special Clauses: None

Cottonwood Heights, Alta, Wasatch County would be freed from paying an annual “surplus water tax” to SLC.

2-Simple add water to the current Property Rights Ombudsman Office.  Utah is the second driest state in the Union with over 1,000 water companies.  The need for a water ombudsman is just as important as land .  Water has a greater and the supply is fixed.

3-Ban gas/diesel/oil powered two-stroke motor water craft and snowmobiles on all State waters. Make Utah a no 2-stoke motor state. 4-stroke motors are less polluting, and quieter.

4-Ban chlorine gas or liquid as a water treatment chemical.  Require greener cleaners like bleaches based on oxygen or hydrogen peroxide, and ultra violet light.

5-Require all Utah Division of Water Rights applications to be approved or denied within 12 months like Nevada.

6-Amend Title 73-1-4(5) to give instigators (farmers) a right to receive a non-use application not just apply for one.  This would  protect the farmer, irrigation shareholders, and individual. Because Ag water is future M & I, protecting the farmer and irrigation shareholder provides a vast source of protected water rights for cities’ future public need. Where a city desires the right to run water to waste for 40 years for future public need, it would be prudent to allow the farmer, irrigation shareholder, and individual the right to run water to waste for 20 years  for future public need.

Note: The right of a farmer or an irrigation shareholder to file a non-use without statutory reasons for approval leaves them completely at the mercy of the State Engineer.  Cities could not stand the position they left the farmers in under HB 51(2008).

7-Restore the right of property owners to drill a small domestic well .45 acre-feet on their land without a permit.  90% of domestic is return flow.  As little as 40 gallons per day may be “consumed.”  Land with water increases in value and taxable value.  Utah’s citizenry must have some rights to water outside the control of Utah’s water cartel and government.  This right existed for decades and must be restored, because billion dollar government water companies like Salt Lake City have gamed the system.  The playing field is neither fair nor level.  Utah is harmed.  Land wastes.  Water wastes.  SLC profits.  This is not good policy.

-Amend Title 10 to include:

Add: 10-8-(1)(e) Temporary change applications shall be required and the only authorizing application for surplus water sales outside a municipality’s corporate limits under 10-8-14.

10-8-14(1)(f) Municipalities shall have the right to regulate all aspects of surplus water sold under 10-8-14 within their jurisdiction as to price, quantity, quality, duration, etc..

Amend Anti-trust statutes for First Class Cities:

“First Class Cities selling goods or services outside their corporate limits shall be subject to state anti-trust and unfair business statutes.”

This will only apply to Salt Lake City, Provo City, and West Valley City and not to the remaining 240 municipalities.

Cities are acting more and more like for profit corporations.  Residents are now called “customers.”  Cities have with performance bonuses to elected officials like CEO bonuses.  Cities operate internet companies, water companies, power companies, cable companies, etc..  Immunity to Anti-trust and un-fair business practices should not apply to cities acting like corporations or selling goods or services under U.C.A. 10-8-14.

This puts all cities on equal footing in a free market economy and levels the playing field for old, new, and future cities as well as maintains state control of the Public’s water while providing private property right protection.

Codify the definition of “surplus” water under 10-8-14 to bring it in line with Utah Supreme Court holding in County Water Systems, Inc. v Salt Lake City 3 Utah 2d 46 (1954) that such surplus water sales shall be “temporary,”" incidental,” “terminable” subject to only an approved temporary change applications–no permanent change applications for “surplus” sales water.

No city should be able to exploit its  municipal privilege and protection for market advantage for profiteering off its neighbors. The water codes, non-profit codes, utility codes need to be unified & clarified by requiring only temporary change applications for surplus water sales so they are consistent with each other and Utah’s Constitution which protects fledgling cities and towns for city water barons.

Hoarding and wasting water for profit,  zoning power, prestige, monopoly, undue influence, rate gouging of neighboring cities should be clarified as illegal activities and not a practice the State of Utah should condones thru weak governance or tolerate.

All cities and towns existing and future must have the equal right to own and to control their own service lines, set connection fees, rates, and water quality standards within their city limits independent of direct or indirect undue control by other cities no matter how well intentioned.

Rich, old water hoarding cities should not be placed in a position to take advantage of their poor, new neighboring cities, under their pretense of “future need” and “public trust” to trap with 35% higher rates,  and monopolize their neighbors water sources and carrier systems before the new cities are created.  No city should have the right to obtain and maintain water rights for another city under the guise of its own “future need.”  The State is simply not governing Utah’s water affairs effectively.  If the State were properly monitoring Utah’s water, there would be less monopoly, hoarding, and cheaper water rates.

6-Legislate that Board of Water Resource seats and water district seats are not appointed but elected and  be based on population for equal representation of all Utah water users.  There is too much cronyism in Utah’s water markets.  Require water inventories, and good water citizenship as a policy and condition for state grants, and subsidized loans.  No inventory should mean no low interest loan.  Banks require inventories of borrows. BWR needs to require water inventories if it is going to make sound and prudent decisions with any degree of credibility.

7-Restore 90 year old shareholders rights gutted by East Jordan Irrigation Company(SLC), Provo River Water Users Association (SLC), and Salt Lake City v Payson in 1994 by defining by statute a holder of irrigation shares as a “party with the right to use water,” and vacate 73-3-3.5 altogether. The current laws for irrigation shareholder rights to transfer water are lip service and window dressing.

The irrigation shareholder, a true water user, can no longer directly file a change application on irrigation share water.

All users of water whether by water rights or water shares should  have the equal rights to beneficially use their water by filing all types of applications including the following:

• Permanent Change Applications
• Temporary Change Applications
• Exchange Applications
• Non-Use Applications
• Extension Applications
• In-steam Flow Applications (All water users should be enabled to help Utah’s wildlife and Federal endangered species.)

8-Strengthen laws granting access to water company records and restoring the historic $5,000 penalty clause for non-compliance. Clarify that all members of a non-profit irrigation company whether holding voting or non-voting stock are entitled to inspect company records.  Every member shall have equal access to all company records equal to the access of any board member.  A stock holder in an irrigation company which owns stock in another irrigation company shall have the same records access to both companies.

8-Authorize Internet advertising, and Internet protesting on the Utah State Division of Water Right website for all Legal Notices and requirements for water applications to reduce costs by tens of thousands, improve timely processing of applications, and reduces water wasting.

10-Authorize the State Engineer with statutory tools to deny and rejected government applications based on so called “future need” when a city has not demonstrated “future need.”  If a city only has a population of 178,000, then that city does not need water for 600,000 people.  Cities and public water suppliers must submit inventories of their water holdings with their water banking applications and applications to appropriate.  Cities and public water suppliers know how much water they own, why is this data hidden from the State Engineer and public.  This data needs to be required and collected by the State Engineer’s Office.

11-Clarify the Utah Constitution so it clearly state that cities can not sell water directly or indirectly thru their subsidiary water districts or alter ego entities. Metropolitan Water Districts or alter ego entities must be restricted from selling directly or indirectly its water rights to parties not a member of the district.

There seems to be the practice of a city passing water rights to its own MWD which then sells the water rights out the back door.  Those rights should have reverted to the State which gave the rights to the city for its “future need” not for speculation and profit by misuse of a city’s public trust status.  If there is no future need, then these water rights should  revert to the state for re-appropriation to another for beneficial use.  There is no such thing as permanent “surplus” water rights held by any water user including cities.

Cities who circumvent the direct or indirect sale of water using their own MWD are contravening Utah Law for profit which is a double tax upon the public for a public water resource and should be fined.  If the water right had rightly reverted to the State, the “buyer” could have obtained the water for a nominal filing fee instead of millions of tax dollars as is often the case.

12-Equalize the water duties between Tooele-Utah-Davis Counties and Salt Lake County.  Dishonest water duties currently allowed by the State are a pox on the State’s integrity, and a waste of 1/3 of a million gallons per acre of irrigated ground in Salt Lake County.

12-Do a carve out in the code to clarify that irrigation stock shall not be restricted by first rights of refusals to the company where board members (the largest shareholders) interfere with market sales.  Clarify the law that corporate laws can not require ownership of land within the service area be a requirement of a stock transfer which contravenes the rights granted under 73-3-3.5.

Laws are needed to strengthen free water water markets and restore the property rights lost under the East Jordan(SLC), Provo River Water Users (SLC), and Salt Lake City v Payson City 860 P.2d 310 1993.  This misguided litigation sponsored by Salt Lake City gutted private property rights.