Rural Water - Quarter 2, 2008 - (Page 18) The primary opposition to the bill came from the Utah Department of Natural Resources, which includes the Utah Division of Water Rights. The department felt that the proposed legislation represented a dramatic shift in Utah’s water rights law and that if passed, it should be vetoed by the governor. All politics is compromise, and the water coalition quickly began to address the concerns raised by those in opposition: 1. The concept of drinking water being different from agricultural water could not be denied. Drinking water requires an entirely different set of rules in that it must be approved for use by federal and state agencies. While not denying the difference, the coalition did take steps within the bill to allow agriculture to protect its water when a fallowing program was put in place, when drought reduces the amount of water available and to extend the allowable non-use period from five to seven years. We Are and We’ve Got You Covered ● Wilkins has over 100 years in manufacturing water control & security products on all of your back ow preventer, control valve & pressure regulator needs. rol ● Wilkins is the industry leader in design innovation & technology ● Wilkins manufactures a full line of products to meet all your plumbing requirements. Our products are serviceable, not throw-away! ● Wilkins has many complementary products to cover all facets of installation Call a Wilkins Sales Representative Today! Customer Service Representatives available Monday through Friday 5:30 am to 5:00 pm PST • Call: 877-222-5356 or 805-226-6297 info@zurnwilkins.com or visit us online at www.zurn.com 2. The bill was amended to provide exemption from forfeiture to public drinking water systems for water currently held for future public needs. Future water acquired for this purpose must be reviewed by the Division of Water Rights and approved prior to being exempted. 3. The definition of what constituted a public drinking water system, which would be able to hold water exempt from forfeiture, was modified so that a system must, on a year-round basis, serve at least 100 connections or 200 individuals. This modification was made to ensure that these systems would be actual active drinking water systems and not a mechanism for hoarding and profit. The service area of private drinking water systems was also defined as the area currently served by their infrastructure, so that huge areas of potential service could not be claimed to justify hoarding rights. 4. The argument was made that retaining water for future public needs is, in fact, a beneficial use, and while the bill was not amended to state this, the concept seemed to be accepted. All of these compromises and changes were made with the active participation of the Department of Natural Resources, the governor’s office and members of the Legislature. By the time the bill had reached the House floor, support was such that the bill passed with a vote of 67 in favor, five opposed and three absent. In the Senate, the bill had no opposing votes. The two votes made the bill essentially veto-proof, and with the compromises in place, guaranteed that the bill would be signed by the governor. The conversion of agricultural water to drinking water will continue to be an issue in the West for many years to come. So will the issue of drinking water systems being able to retain water for future needs and to help with their development planning. It will be essential that all involved parties work together to find solutions to these and other controversial water-related questions. Perhaps if a sprit of compromise can be maintained, we can avoid going to the “head-gate” with guns in hand. But then again, there is Western tradition to maintain. 18 • Second Quarter 2008 http://www.zurn.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.