State Engineer Issues Utah Water Users Workshop March 18, 2013 Kent L. Jones, P.E.

State Engineer Issues Utah Water Users Workshop

March 18, 2013

Kent L. Jones, P.E.

State Engineer

Utah Water Law ConcernsUtah Water Law Concerns

……..that a water law ..that a water law of the people, by the of the people, by the people, for the people, for the people, shall not people, shall not perish from the perish from the earth.earth.

..

State Engineer DutiesState Engineer Duties73-2-173-2-1

3(a) The state engineer shall be 3(a) The state engineer shall be responsible for the general administrative responsible for the general administrative supervision of the waters of the state and supervision of the waters of the state and the measurement, appropriation, the measurement, appropriation, apportionment, and distribution of those apportionment, and distribution of those waters.waters.

3(b) The state engineer may secure the 3(b) The state engineer may secure the equitable apportionment and distribution equitable apportionment and distribution of the water according to the respective of the water according to the respective rights of the appropriators.rights of the appropriators.

State EngineerState Engineer

“… “… statutes place the responsibilities statutes place the responsibilities of enforcement and administration of of enforcement and administration of waters on the state engineer… The waters on the state engineer… The state engineer is a disinterested and state engineer is a disinterested and neutral party.”neutral party.”

((Hafen) East Bench Irr. Co. v. Deseret Irr. Hafen) East Bench Irr. Co. v. Deseret Irr.

Co.Co.

State EngineerState Engineer

“ “ The legislature invested the state The legislature invested the state engineer with important, but not engineer with important, but not conclusive, discretionary powers and conclusive, discretionary powers and duties deserving of great respect; but duties deserving of great respect; but as a safeguard against possible as a safeguard against possible injustice, invested the judiciary with injustice, invested the judiciary with plenary review on trial de novo of his plenary review on trial de novo of his decisions.”decisions.”

((Hafen) American Fork Irr. Co. v. LinkeHafen) American Fork Irr. Co. v. Linke

Prior Appropriation DoctrinePrior Appropriation DoctrineMain FeaturesMain Features

Divert water to beneficial use.Divert water to beneficial use. Priority date.Priority date. First in time, first in right.First in time, first in right. Loss of right.Loss of right. Right acquired by application.Right acquired by application.

Basic DefinitionsBasic Definitions

All water in the state is All water in the state is property of the public (73-1-1).property of the public (73-1-1).

Beneficial use shall be the Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the basis, the measure, and the limit of all rights to the use of limit of all rights to the use of water in the state (73-1-3).water in the state (73-1-3).

Water Rights Are Property Rights Water Rights Are Property Rights With ConditionsWith Conditions

It’s a right to share a public resource.It’s a right to share a public resource. There are a series of conditions and There are a series of conditions and

responsibilities that go with the rights.responsibilities that go with the rights. Water right holder doesn’t have total Water right holder doesn’t have total

control of the water right use.control of the water right use. Ownership of a right gives the right to Ownership of a right gives the right to

file a change but not to have it file a change but not to have it approved.approved.

Water Rights Are Property Rights Water Rights Are Property Rights With ConditionsWith Conditions

Some claim that they are entitled to Some claim that they are entitled to the whole face value on their paper the whole face value on their paper water right and that is what the state water right and that is what the state engineer should recognize. engineer should recognize.

There are more paper water rights There are more paper water rights than there is water available.than there is water available.

Paper Right ExamplesPaper Right Examples

1 cfs/ 60 acres irrigation. Spring source1 cfs/ 60 acres irrigation. Spring source

A. Spring flows full flow, full season – 240 A. Spring flows full flow, full season – 240 afaf

B. Spring only flows May and June – 120 afB. Spring only flows May and June – 120 af C. Spring only flows once every 5 years –C. Spring only flows once every 5 years – D. Used with 3 other rights all on the D. Used with 3 other rights all on the

same 60 acres –same 60 acres – E. Spring flows full , full season, not used E. Spring flows full , full season, not used

in 20 yearsin 20 years

Paper Right ExamplesPaper Right Examples

Beneficial Use has to be the Beneficial Use has to be the limit of the right regardless of limit of the right regardless of what the paper says.what the paper says.

What is the limit if you want to What is the limit if you want to change it ?change it ?

Water Rights Subject to Forfeiture Water Rights Subject to Forfeiture For NonuseFor Nonuse

Forfeiture part of old mining law.Forfeiture part of old mining law.

Forfeiture part of Utah water law Forfeiture part of Utah water law prior to the adoption of the water prior to the adoption of the water code in 1903.code in 1903.


73-1-4(2)(a) “When an appropriator or the 73-1-4(2)(a) “When an appropriator or the appropriator’s successor in interest appropriator’s successor in interest abandons or ceases to use all or a portion of abandons or ceases to use all or a portion of a water right for a period of seven years, a water right for a period of seven years, the water right or the unused portion of that the water right or the unused portion of that water right is subject to forfeiture in water right is subject to forfeiture in accordance with (2)(c), unless the accordance with (2)(c), unless the appropriator or the appropriator’s successor appropriator or the appropriator’s successor in interest files a nonuse application with in interest files a nonuse application with the state engineer.”the state engineer.”


Pre 1996, If water not beneficially use for a Pre 1996, If water not beneficially use for a period of 5 year it was considered forfeited, it period of 5 year it was considered forfeited, it ceased to exist, and it reverted to the public ceased to exist, and it reverted to the public and was available for appropriation unless a and was available for appropriation unless a nonuse application was filed.nonuse application was filed.

In 1996, the law changed to indicate that the In 1996, the law changed to indicate that the forfeiture of a water right had to be a judicial forfeiture of a water right had to be a judicial action and if you had been using your water for action and if you had been using your water for a period of 15 years, the right was not subject a period of 15 years, the right was not subject to forfeiture. But it still said if you didn’t use to forfeiture. But it still said if you didn’t use your water for 5 years the right ceased. your water for 5 years the right ceased.


In 2008, the forfeiture statute 73-1-4 was In 2008, the forfeiture statute 73-1-4 was again altered.again altered.

The 5 year period for nonuse was changed The 5 year period for nonuse was changed to 7 years and public water suppliers were to 7 years and public water suppliers were not subject to forfeiture if the water right not subject to forfeiture if the water right was in a 40-year plan. was in a 40-year plan.

Several exemptions for nonuse were Several exemptions for nonuse were detailed.detailed.

The reference to a water right ceasing was The reference to a water right ceasing was removed from the statute.removed from the statute.


Intent language with the 2008 Intent language with the 2008 changes said these changes are changes said these changes are “not intended to change the way “not intended to change the way the State Engineer evaluates the State Engineer evaluates change applications based on change applications based on historic beneficial use or validate historic beneficial use or validate any invalid water rights.”any invalid water rights.”


State Engineer expressed concern about State Engineer expressed concern about what we can do in our review of change what we can do in our review of change applications. Because of the changes, we applications. Because of the changes, we thought there might be legal problems.thought there might be legal problems.

In 2011, the Jensen v Jones and the Big In 2011, the Jensen v Jones and the Big

Ditch cases were ruled on by the Supreme Ditch cases were ruled on by the Supreme Court and we were told to not look at non-Court and we were told to not look at non-beneficially used water as part of our beneficially used water as part of our change review process… contrary to the change review process… contrary to the legislative intent language.legislative intent language.

Jensen/Big Ditch DecisionsJensen/Big Ditch Decisions

73-3-3 allows “any person entitled to 73-3-3 allows “any person entitled to the use of water” to make changes in the use of water” to make changes in the point of diversion, place of use, or the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use.purpose of use.

Court ruling indicated that a contract Court ruling indicated that a contract holder was a person entitled to the use holder was a person entitled to the use of water even though they don’t own of water even though they don’t own the underlying water right.the underlying water right.

Jensen v Jones ProposalsJensen v Jones Proposals

Change application before the State Engineer Change application before the State Engineer was denied because no beneficial use of the was denied because no beneficial use of the water could be identified. Appeared 1954 was water could be identified. Appeared 1954 was the last time it may have been used.the last time it may have been used.

Supreme Court ruled that water rights are not Supreme Court ruled that water rights are not forfeited except by court ruling and that loss forfeited except by court ruling and that loss by forfeiture couldn’t be considered by the by forfeiture couldn’t be considered by the State Engineer in a change application State Engineer in a change application proceeding.proceeding.

Gave the State Engineer options to pursue Gave the State Engineer options to pursue should a right appear to have not been used should a right appear to have not been used for longer than 7 years.for longer than 7 years.

Jensen v Jones (continued)Jensen v Jones (continued)

State Engineer may bring suit to enjoin State Engineer may bring suit to enjoin unlawful appropriation and diversion.unlawful appropriation and diversion.

State Engineer may stay a change State Engineer may stay a change pending resolution of such adjudication.pending resolution of such adjudication.

State Engineer can grant conditional State Engineer can grant conditional approval of a change application.approval of a change application.

Cannot simply declare that a forfeiture Cannot simply declare that a forfeiture has occurred and thereby deny the has occurred and thereby deny the change application.change application.


State Engineer has historically been the State Engineer has historically been the “gatekeeper” to help protect the water “gatekeeper” to help protect the water rights of others from impairment. Only rights of others from impairment. Only beneficial uses of water that can be given beneficial uses of water that can be given up when the change is reviewed are allowed up when the change is reviewed are allowed to be transferred.to be transferred.

““If you want to get something new, you If you want to get something new, you have to give something up” There appears have to give something up” There appears to be nothing to give up if a right is subject to be nothing to give up if a right is subject to challenge for forfeiture and hasn’t been to challenge for forfeiture and hasn’t been used in a long time.used in a long time.

Famous GatekeepersFamous Gatekeepers

Famous GatekeepersFamous Gatekeepers Willard Young 1897-1898 Ed Watson 1941-1949Willard Young 1897-1898 Ed Watson 1941-1949 Robert Gemmell 1898-1901 Harold Linke 1949-1950Robert Gemmell 1898-1901 Harold Linke 1949-1950 A.F. Doremus 1901-1905 Joseph Tracy 1950-1957A.F. Doremus 1901-1905 Joseph Tracy 1950-1957 Caleb Tanner 1905-1913 Wayne Criddle 1957-1965Caleb Tanner 1905-1913 Wayne Criddle 1957-1965 W.D. Beers 1913-1917 Hubert Lambert 1965-1973W.D. Beers 1913-1917 Hubert Lambert 1965-1973 G.F. McGonagle 1917-1921 Dee Hansen 1973-1985G.F. McGonagle 1917-1921 Dee Hansen 1973-1985 R.E. Caldwell 1921-1924 Robert Morgan 1985-2002R.E. Caldwell 1921-1924 Robert Morgan 1985-2002 Lloyd Garrison 1924-1925 Jerry Olds 2002-2008Lloyd Garrison 1924-1925 Jerry Olds 2002-2008 George Bacon 1925-1933 Kent Jones 2009-PresentGeorge Bacon 1925-1933 Kent Jones 2009-Present T.H. Humphreys 1933-1941T.H. Humphreys 1933-1941


We asked for help. SB 187 in 2012 and We asked for help. SB 187 in 2012 and SB109 in 2013 was the SB109 in 2013 was the recommendation of the Executive recommendation of the Executive Water Task Force.Water Task Force.

SB 109 S1 – municipal swing out.SB 109 S1 – municipal swing out. SB 109 S4 – universal swing out/HB SB 109 S4 – universal swing out/HB

123 combination and essentially 123 combination and essentially removed the state engineer from the removed the state engineer from the “Gatekeeper” role for nonuse concerns. “Gatekeeper” role for nonuse concerns.


Some have claimed that by giving Some have claimed that by giving the state engineer authority to look the state engineer authority to look at beneficial use associated with at beneficial use associated with forfeiture allows administrative forfeiture allows administrative forfeiture by the state engineer.forfeiture by the state engineer.

Forfeiture has to be determined by Forfeiture has to be determined by judicial action.judicial action.

Forfeiture Example UsedForfeiture Example Used

Farmer who subdivides land, builds homes Farmer who subdivides land, builds homes on land, doesn’t use water for more than 7 on land, doesn’t use water for more than 7 years, files change, state engineer denies years, files change, state engineer denies because of nonuse. because of nonuse.

Farmer has no place to put the water back Farmer has no place to put the water back to use.to use.

Farmer always has nonuse application Farmer always has nonuse application options. There is always a way to protect options. There is always a way to protect his right. State engineer can not take it his right. State engineer can not take it away. away.

Other 2013 LegislationOther 2013 Legislation

18 Bills under Water and Irrigation 18 Bills under Water and Irrigation title.title.

13 bills passed.13 bills passed.

New Water Rights LegislationNew Water Rights Legislation

HB 29 Adjudication lists and reduced HB 29 Adjudication lists and reduced areasareas

HB 36 Storm water surface 2500 gallonsHB 36 Storm water surface 2500 gallons HB 73 Abandoning easementsHB 73 Abandoning easements HB 166 List of federal claims compiledHB 166 List of federal claims compiled HB 326 Deed addendums for ROC’s/ HB 326 Deed addendums for ROC’s/

recorder standardsrecorder standards HB 360 Defines nonuse applicationsHB 360 Defines nonuse applications

New Water Rights LegislationNew Water Rights Legislation

SB 30 PD forfeiture clarification, no SB 30 PD forfeiture clarification, no PE notarization, Electrical Coop PE notarization, Electrical Coop extensions, rule making authority extensions, rule making authority combined.combined.

SB 101 No fixed time application SB 101 No fixed time application proofs, amending diligence claims, proofs, amending diligence claims, filing claims closed by court.filing claims closed by court.

QuestionsQuestions

Questions?

HB 29 Adjudication of Water HB 29 Adjudication of Water Rights - BriscoeRights - Briscoe

Allows State Engineer to maintain lists of Allows State Engineer to maintain lists of claimants rather than the court in a General claimants rather than the court in a General Determination proceedingDetermination proceeding

Allows the State Engineer to prepare proposed Allows the State Engineer to prepare proposed determinations on smaller areasdeterminations on smaller areas

Allows the State Engineer, as an option, to use Allows the State Engineer, as an option, to use electronic means to supply a proposed electronic means to supply a proposed determination to water users if delivery can be determination to water users if delivery can be confirmed.confirmed.

HB 36 HB 36 Stormwater Capture Stormwater Capture AmendmentsAmendments - Nielson - Nielson

Exempts the State Engineer from Exempts the State Engineer from enforcement action for stormwater enforcement action for stormwater retention projectsretention projects

Allows the storage of 2500 gallons of Allows the storage of 2500 gallons of stormwater on the surface as an stormwater on the surface as an option on a parcel of land. option on a parcel of land.

HB 68 Public Trust Obligations HB 68 Public Trust Obligations McKiffMcKiff

Defines the state’s public trust Defines the state’s public trust obligations and declares certain obligations and declares certain water rights protected by the Utah water rights protected by the Utah ConstitutionConstitution

Concerned with Mono Lake decision Concerned with Mono Lake decision in California and proposals in Hawaii in California and proposals in Hawaii and Colorado that take existing and Colorado that take existing personal property water rights away personal property water rights away from water right holders from water right holders

HB 73 Water Easement HB 73 Water Easement Abandonment - MathisAbandonment - Mathis

Establishes a procedure for the holder Establishes a procedure for the holder of a prescriptive easement for a water of a prescriptive easement for a water conveyance to abandon all or part of conveyance to abandon all or part of the easementthe easementPublic notification processPublic notification process

HB 123 Change Application HB 123 Change Application Amendments - McKiffAmendments - McKiff

Defines who can file a change Defines who can file a change application:application:

Record title owner, holder of an Record title owner, holder of an unperfected application, shareholder unperfected application, shareholder in a water company, equitable owner in a water company, equitable owner and beneficial user, or a person who and beneficial user, or a person who has authorization from any of these, has authorization from any of these, does not include a person who holds does not include a person who holds only a contract or leasehold interest.only a contract or leasehold interest.


Discusses equitable and real title holdersDiscusses equitable and real title holders Doesn’t allow real title holders to Doesn’t allow real title holders to

diminish equitable title holder interests diminish equitable title holder interests in the underlying water right … equitable in the underlying water right … equitable title holder must agree to participatetitle holder must agree to participate

Allows for transitional changes for Allows for transitional changes for municipalities to protect past changes of municipalities to protect past changes of water that do not have a change water that do not have a change application approved for the change.application approved for the change.


Amends 73-3-3.5 for shareholder Amends 73-3-3.5 for shareholder changes to strengthen a shareholder’s changes to strengthen a shareholder’s position in those cases where the water position in those cases where the water company is unwilling to be reasonable in company is unwilling to be reasonable in a change application process by allowing a change application process by allowing the shareholder to first go to the water the shareholder to first go to the water company and then going to the State company and then going to the State Engineer with the change request.Engineer with the change request.

Provides a process to treat each side Provides a process to treat each side fairlyfairly

HB 326 Division of Water Rights HB 326 Division of Water Rights Amendments - WebbAmendments - Webb

Water right deed addendums will be Water right deed addendums will be used to update water right recordsused to update water right records

Recorded land conveyance documents Recorded land conveyance documents also convey appurtenant water rightsalso convey appurtenant water rights

Water company shares transfer as Water company shares transfer as securitiessecurities

HB 358 Instream Flow HB 358 Instream Flow Amendments - NoelAmendments - Noel

Modifies conditions under which Modifies conditions under which the director of the Division of the director of the Division of Wildlife Resources may approve a Wildlife Resources may approve a fishing group’s proposed instream fishing group’s proposed instream flow change application before flow change application before being filed with the State being filed with the State EngineerEngineer

HB 360 Water and Irrigation HB 360 Water and Irrigation Revisions -WilcoxRevisions -Wilcox

Clarifies a provision relating to Clarifies a provision relating to protection from forfeiture for a water protection from forfeiture for a water right subject to an approved nonuse right subject to an approved nonuse applicationapplication

May 5, 2008 provisions covers periods May 5, 2008 provisions covers periods of nonuse from the day it is filed until of nonuse from the day it is filed until the application expires.the application expires.

Does not protect from nonuse periods Does not protect from nonuse periods prior to the application being filedprior to the application being filed

HJR 014 Joint Resolution on Water HJR 014 Joint Resolution on Water Rights - IvoryRights - Ivory

Declares that claims of the Forest Service Declares that claims of the Forest Service on state waters originating on public lands on state waters originating on public lands undermine state sovereignty and demand undermine state sovereignty and demand action by the state of Utah to protect its action by the state of Utah to protect its sovereign, recognized ownership and sovereign, recognized ownership and rights, and calls on state, county, and rights, and calls on state, county, and local governments to protect, preserve, local governments to protect, preserve, and defend the health, safety, and welfare and defend the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state of Utah by of the citizens of the state of Utah by defending and maintaining jurisdiction defending and maintaining jurisdiction over the water resources of this state.over the water resources of this state.

SB 30 Water and Irrigation SB 30 Water and Irrigation Amendments - DaytonAmendments - Dayton

Wastewater rules changed to Wastewater rules changed to permissive rather mandatorypermissive rather mandatory

Requires wholesale electrical Requires wholesale electrical cooperatives to provide information to cooperatives to provide information to get extensions of time beyond 50 yearsget extensions of time beyond 50 years

Removes the requirement that Removes the requirement that proof/claim engineers have their proof/claim engineers have their signatures notarizedsignatures notarized

SB 30 (cont.)SB 30 (cont.)

Amends emergency authority of the Amends emergency authority of the state engineer to consult with the state engineer to consult with the Emergency Management Emergency Management Administration Council.Administration Council.

Allows assertions of forfeiture for water Allows assertions of forfeiture for water right nonuse which occurs after right nonuse which occurs after publishing of a proposed determination.publishing of a proposed determination.

SB 62 Governor’s Fire SB 62 Governor’s Fire Suppression Authority - DaytonSuppression Authority - Dayton

Amends provisions relating to the Amends provisions relating to the governor’s authority during a state of governor’s authority during a state of emergency to authorize the use of all emergency to authorize the use of all water sources as necessary for fire water sources as necessary for fire suppression.suppression.

SB 101 Division of Water Rights SB 101 Division of Water Rights Revisions - DaytonRevisions - Dayton

Removes proof requirements for fixed time Removes proof requirements for fixed time applicationsapplications

Technical revisions to 73-3-18(4) to identify all Technical revisions to 73-3-18(4) to identify all state engineer authority to set application state engineer authority to set application priority datespriority dates

Clarifies the amendment procedure for Clarifies the amendment procedure for diligence claims to be treated like a new claimdiligence claims to be treated like a new claim

Clarifies that a judge issuing a decree in a Clarifies that a judge issuing a decree in a general determination may bar the filing of general determination may bar the filing of additional diligence claims.additional diligence claims.

Navajo Water Rights Settlement Navajo Water Rights Settlement AccountAccount

Settlement Agreement for reserved Water Settlement Agreement for reserved Water Rights on the Navajo Nation in Utah.Rights on the Navajo Nation in Utah.

Negotiations began in 2003, Governor and Negotiations began in 2003, Governor and President of the Navajo Nation signed President of the Navajo Nation signed agreement.agreement.

Projects Identified; 81,500 ac-ft agreed Projects Identified; 81,500 ac-ft agreed upon.upon.

$154 million in projects identified. State $154 million in projects identified. State Share approximately $8 million.Share approximately $8 million.

Proposes $2 million as second allocation to Proposes $2 million as second allocation to state’s share.state’s share.

SB 190S01 Change Application SB 190S01 Change Application Procedure - OkerlundProcedure - Okerlund

Requires that a person who applies Requires that a person who applies for a change to a water right must for a change to a water right must meet certain qualifications.meet certain qualifications.

Allows the State Engineer to Allows the State Engineer to determine the quantity of water that determine the quantity of water that is currently being beneficially used is currently being beneficially used and limit the approval of the change and limit the approval of the change based on that determination.based on that determination.

SB 190S01 (cont.)SB 190S01 (cont.)

A “person” may make changes to a water A “person” may make changes to a water right.right.

Point of Diversion, Place of Use, Nature of Use, Point of Diversion, Place of Use, Nature of Use, Period of Use, and add or delete storage.Period of Use, and add or delete storage.

A Person is: A Person is: The holder of an approved but unperfected The holder of an approved but unperfected

application to appropriate; application to appropriate; The owner of record of a perfected water right;The owner of record of a perfected water right; One authorized in writing by the holder or owner;One authorized in writing by the holder or owner; A shareholder in a water company as defined in A shareholder in a water company as defined in

73-3-3.5 with written consent of the water company.73-3-3.5 with written consent of the water company.


State Engineer, to prevent impairment of State Engineer, to prevent impairment of other water rights shall:other water rights shall:

Have authority to review beneficial use and limit the Have authority to review beneficial use and limit the approval to the “quantity of water available for approval to the “quantity of water available for change”;change”;

Presume water has been put to beneficial use if Presume water has been put to beneficial use if protected by statute and not rebutted by clear and protected by statute and not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser quantity of water convincing evidence that a lesser quantity of water is available for change;is available for change;

Hold a hearing to review nonuse issues;Hold a hearing to review nonuse issues;

Not adjudicate the validity of the remaining portion Not adjudicate the validity of the remaining portion of the right.of the right.


““Quantity of water available for Quantity of water available for change” shall mean the quantity of change” shall mean the quantity of water that has been placed to water that has been placed to beneficial use under a water right beneficial use under a water right within the time provided in Section within the time provided in Section 73-1- 4 UCA.73-1- 4 UCA.


The applicant has the right to withdraw the The applicant has the right to withdraw the application, request a stay of action, or pursue application, request a stay of action, or pursue litigation to determine the validity of the right.litigation to determine the validity of the right.

The State Engineer’s determination of the The State Engineer’s determination of the quantity of water available for change does quantity of water available for change does not constitute forfeiture or abandonment, not constitute forfeiture or abandonment, affect the use of the unapproved portion of affect the use of the unapproved portion of the water right, or constitute an adjudication the water right, or constitute an adjudication of the underlying water right. of the underlying water right.


Special swing out for municipalitiesSpecial swing out for municipalities State engineer can raise forfeiture State engineer can raise forfeiture

concerns, if not protested… forfeiture concerns, if not protested… forfeiture isn’t considered.isn’t considered.

If protested, municipalities can choose If protested, municipalities can choose to let the state engineer decide or swing to let the state engineer decide or swing out to the property rights ombudsman or out to the property rights ombudsman or another independent third party for an another independent third party for an opinion on whether the water right has opinion on whether the water right has been forfeited or not.been forfeited or not.


If parties agree with the opinion it If parties agree with the opinion it goes back to the state engineer for goes back to the state engineer for review of 73-3-8 criteriareview of 73-3-8 criteria

If they don’t agree, they can appeal If they don’t agree, they can appeal the decision to the appropriate court. the decision to the appropriate court. Once decreed, it returns to the state Once decreed, it returns to the state engineer for 73-3-8 reviewengineer for 73-3-8 review


If through the change application If through the change application process a municipality wants the process a municipality wants the right protected from claims of past right protected from claims of past nonuse in court, it can request an nonuse in court, it can request an extended, special noticed advertising extended, special noticed advertising process after which, if it is not process after which, if it is not challenged for forfeiture, past nonuse challenged for forfeiture, past nonuse periods will not be reviewable.periods will not be reviewable.

Date post:	02-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lee-winters
View:	16 times
Download:	0 times

State Engineer Issues Utah Water Users Workshop March 18, 2013 Kent L. Jones, P.E.

Documents