Great Salt Lake legislative update: Feb. 18, 2025

Feb 18, 2025 | GSL Project

by Professor Brig Daniels and Adjunct Associate Professor Beth Parker, along with Kyle Lowe, Andie Madsen, Bryant Holloway, Alannah Trombetta, Lexi Burke, and Haley Kendall (law students participating in the Great Salt Lake Project’s Policy Accelerator)

Dry lake bed of Great Salt LakeDespite policy progress from the state over the past several years, Great Salt Lake sits at a precipice. With back-to-back above average snowpacks providing some temporary relief, the lake’s current elevation matches its levels in 2021—just a year before the lake hit its record low and pushed its ecosystem into the beginning phases of collapse. While the state has policy tools it lacked in 2022—most critically a Great Salt Lake Commissioner’s Office closely monitoring and responding to the ongoing challenges—we are by no means out of the danger zone.

This year’s session has not focused much on Great Salt Lake. Still, there are still several important water-related bills addressing infrastructure, conservation, and land use.

In hopes of demystifying the proposed legislation this session and its potential import, we will produce three legislative updates over the course of the 2025 session, this being the first one. In each report, we analyze key bills that could impact the lake, either directly or indirectly. This first update primarily focuses on bills introduced this session, though, of course, other bills may be introduced as the session moves forward. We also highlight some key requests for appropriations.

In part I, we highlight what we consider the five most-important matters currently sitting before the legislature during this session. In part II, we provide a more detailed description of the bills that we are watching. Even though more budget requests are certain to come later in the session, in part III, we provide a summary of the budget requests currently on our radar. After we conclude, we provide a brief appendix that provides some background on Utah’s somewhat unique legislative process.

I. Mighty five

Below are the five most-impactful bills and requests for appropriation that would benefit Great Salt Lake. See section IV for full discussions of each bill or request.

  • B. 274: Water Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): This bill requires water providers to consider conservation measures, including tiered pricing to incentivize water conservation for primary and secondary water users.
  • Addressing Critical Dust Concerns (Rep. Doug Owens): This RFA aims to better understand the pressing issue of dust pollution from the exposed bed of Great Salt Lake and Sevier dry lake bed, which significantly impacts Utah communities. The request seeks funding to research the health and air quality impacts from these exposed lake beds.
  • B. 446: Great Salt Lake Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Jill Koford): This bill strengthens efforts to protect and restore Great Salt Lake by expanding the Great Salt Lake Commissioner’s role in water management and conservation.
  • Great Salt Lake Long-Term Water Program (RFA): This $16 million one-time request for appropriation seeks funding to lease water and invest in infrastructure to stabilize lake elevation at 4,195 feet, supporting voluntary, market-based water conservation efforts. This funding will be matched by federal and private funding.
  • Great Salt Lake Commissioner Federal Funds Adjustment (RFA): This authorizes $30 million in ongoing federal funds for the Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner. These funds are expected to continue for the next five years.

II. Bills we are watching

House bills with positive impacts on Great Salt Lake

H.B. 41: State Water Policy Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Carl Albrecht): This bill adds additional considerations to the state’s water policy. Under the amendment, Utah will promote:

  • groundwater quality;
  • a study of saved water;
  • the monitoring of activities in watersheds that provide water to drinking water systems;
  • state water planning; and
  • water reuse in appropriate regions.

Notably, the second version of the bill did away with the removal of the language of “balancing economic, social, and environmental needs” in water policy decisions, language that was of some concern to some environmental groups.

H.B. 45: Irrigation Amendments  (sponsored Rep. Rex P. Shipp): This bill assigns liability to owners or operators of ditches and canals if their failure to “exercise reasonable and ordinary care in maintaining the ditch or canal” results in property damage or injury to others. A second version of this bill removed the originally proposed provision that provided additional penalties for resultant water waste.

H.B. 243: Agriculture Water Optimization Amendments (sponsored by Rep. David Shallenberger): This bill allows funds from the Agricultural Water Optimization Account to be directed toward research approved by the Agricultural Water Optimization Committee relating to issues surrounding:

  • farm economics;
  • optimization of agricultural water use; or
  • to establish methods for measuring saved water or the effectiveness of the agricultural water optimization funding programs.

This bill also changes the eligibility requirements for grants, requiring a match of 25% of total costs for subsurface drip irrigation projects, automated surge irrigation projects; or measurement, telemetry, or reporting projects. We note that as the state attempts to optimize agricultural water use, the state needs the ability to better understand the impacts of optimization. For example, well-intentioned optimization projects may sometimes not result in increased water for Great Salt Lake (or other water bodies like the Colorado River), as saved water could be used to expand production or grow more water-intensive crops. It may also be the case that more efficient technologies can increase depletion and decrease agricultural return flows.

One way to strengthen this bill significantly in terms of getting more water to Great Salt Lake is to include explicit language to dedicate some or all of the saved water associated with agricultural optimization to these specific conservation purposes.

H.B. 244: Wildlife Management Area Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): This bill includes multiple proposals, some of which would have a positive impact on Great Salt Lake, and some that would have a negative impact on Great Salt Lake. Overall, the positives outweigh the negatives, and this bill is worthy of support.

In terms of positive impact, the bill directs the Wildlife Board to create the Bear River Bay Waterfowl Management Area on state-owned lands below the 1855 meander line of the Great Salt Lake in Bear River Bay or as mutually determined by the Wildlife Board and Division of Forest, Fire, and State Lands—protecting over 13,000 acres for the benefit of wildlife, wetlands and recreationalists.

This new waterfowl management area would provide additional habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl throughout the year, thus supporting the Pacific flyway, reducing the spread of avian disease, and benefiting Great Salt Lake’s wetland ecosystems.

In terms of potential negative impacts, the bill eliminates the prohibition of two things in the Willard Spur Waterfowl Management Area:

  • construction or use of impoundment structures (it also creates a council to approve or deny the construction of new flow structures); and
  • limitation on boats or watercraft access for periods to protect habitat, nesting birds, or vulnerable wildlife.A second version of the bill still permits the construction of an impoundment structure but creates an advisory board that must first be consulted regarding the construction.

H.B. 274: Water Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): This bill creates numerous requirements and allowances for water suppliers regarding water pricing as well as a change to the Board of Water Resources appointed by the governor.

  • Culinary water: This bill mandates that water suppliers “consider water conservation in setting water rates with the goal of encouraging efficient water use and eliminating wasteful or excessive use” and establish a water rate structure that “includes water conservation as an element in determining the rate charged for at least the highest usage block unit of water for a customer classification that primarily serves residential customers” by July 1, 2027. It also allows for water conservation as an element of setting any block unit rate for any customer. The revenue collected from these rates designed to encourage water conservation must be used to fund other water conservation efforts.
  • Secondary water: This bill mandates that secondary water suppliers use tiered conservation rate structures on contracts on or after July 1, 2025, and requires such contracts by April 1, 2030. This bill also requires that secondary water suppliers provide an educational component to all end-users with information on the end-user’s usage by April 1, 2030. Violators of these provisions will lose state funding and be subject to an enforcement action by the state engineer. These changes to secondary water pricing will likely have a measurable impact on Great Salt Lake. Unlike reduction in culinary water use, reducing secondary water use increases the availability of water that would otherwise not flow to the lake.
  • Board of Water Resources: While the overall impact of the bill would have a positive impact on Great Salt Lake, it is important to note that this bill eliminates language requiring that no more than five members on the board of nine may be from the same political party.

H.B. 318: Residential Turf Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This bill places restrictions on the use of residential lawns or turf for newly constructed single-family detached dwellings located in the Great Salt Lake Basin. Specifically, the bill requires that lawn or turf shall not exceed “600 square feet for a lot size less than 4,000 square feet, the lesser of 15% of the lot’s square footage or 2,500 square feet.” The bill also prohibits lawn or turf in a landscaped area that is less than eight feet in any dimension, park strips, or on slopes greater than 25%. 

Status: Stalled in House, unlikely to pass. We hope to see a bill like this one brought up over the interim or during the next legislative session.

H.B. 328: Water Usage Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This bill would require municipalities to prohibit the use of overhead spray irrigation except in:

  • outdoor activity areas (outdoor activity area is defined in the bill as “landscape area that is: dedicated to active use; and installed or maintained on an area with a slope of not more than 25%”) or
  • undisturbed areas (undisturbed areas are defined in the bill as “portion of the landscaped area with existing overhead spray irrigation installed at least two years before the new development or redevelopment of the specified land; and that is undisturbed by the new development or redevelopment”)

Note: Overhead irrigation may not be used in park strips, areas with a width of less than eight feet, and planting beds within outdoor activity areas and undisturbed areas.

Municipalities shall deny land-use applications if users do not comply with the above requirements, inspect, and address noncompliance. The bill does not prohibit owners from using water to spray for non-irrigation purposes such as dust control. This bill would promote drip irrigation, delivering water to plant roots, thereby reducing water loss to evaporation.

H.B. 330: Water Sprinkler Efficiency Requirements (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This bill would require that all sprinkler heads purchased after July 1, 2026, include an integral pressure regulator or meet WaterSense standards adopted by the EPA. Enforcement is delegated to the Utah attorney general, and a progressive fine schedule is also outlined in the bill. This bill reduces water waste without much effort or behavior change by consumers.

H.B. 446 Great Salt Lake Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Jill Koford): The bill gives the commissioner power to negotiate agreements, leases, or other means to acquire or lease water or water rights for the Great Salt Lake pursuant to the procurement exemption. However, when leasing agricultural water, the bill requires that the commissioner first consult with the commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

This bill also exempts the acquisition or lease of water or water rights for Great Salt Lake from the government procurement contract procedure. It mandates the Great Salt Lake commissioner to consult on state-funded projects designed to acquire or lease water or water rights for the Great Salt Lake.

Additionally, the bill requires a comprehensive management plan for the lake consistent with the Commissioner’s Great Salt Lake Strategic Plan.

House bills that will have a neutral or unclear impact on Great Salt Lake

H.B. 285: Water Infrastructure Modifications (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): This bill builds on and amends Rep. Snider’s Water Related Changes bill (H.B. 280) from last session. H.B. 285 requires a certain amount of excess funds to be transferred from various programs to the Water Infrastructure Fund (WIF), including (1) the Water Quality Security Utah Wastewater Loan Program subaccount, (2) the Drinking Water Security Drinking Water Loan Program subaccount, and (3) the Water Resources Conservation and Development Fund. H.B. 285 also requires a public water system (that is not a water conservancy district) to develop a capital-asset management plan by July 1, 2028, as a condition to receiving state and federal funding. This bill is in many ways a housekeeping bill that provides additional clarity for those in government and praiseworthy on that account, but it is listed as neutral because it seems unlikely to have much of an impact on the future of the lake.

H.B. 304: Livestock Watering Modifications (sponsored by Rep. Scott Chew): This bill gives the state engineer authority to issue private livestock watering-use certificates.

H.B. 311: Watershed Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): The bill, as originally filed with the legislature, broadened the state engineer’s power to prevent waste, pollution, or contamination of water by requiring operators of hydroelectric facilities to repair or undergo construction to prevent water waste. Since the first filing, this bill has been replaced with a substitute bill that, in many ways, departs significantly from the bill originally filed and now mainly provides a pathway for those managing water projects to secure and build infrastructure for undetermined purposes. Part of the challenge with the bill as it is currently drafted is the breadth of key terms. It is unclear whether this bill would provide, for example, a mechanism for the state to secure additional water for the Bear River—the major source of water for Great Salt Lake—and the Colorado River for Utah or if, on the other hand, the bill provides a new mechanism to make progress on water development projects—like damming of the Bear River—that could have significant negative impacts on Great Salt Lake.

While the language of the bill is currently unclear, a great deal could be done to strengthen this bill by merely narrowing the scope of the bill’s ambiguity by more fully refining key terms of the bill, such as what is meant by an “augmentation project.”

H.B. 478: Brine Mining Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Bridger Bolinder): This bill provides a robust set of rules governing those who would seek to mine brine from deep aquifers in the state—most likely as a way to develop lithium. It provides significant new authorities for the state, demands royalty payments provided to the state, and gives potential mine operators much-needed clarity about the rules that the state will impose. While this law provides a new regulatory scheme, the aquifers that are most attractive sit outside Great Salt Lake Basin. Omitted from the bill are a number of important water quality concerns that might arise from such a development near other water bodies. Significantly, projects in the beginning phases and foreseeable future are near the Colorado River.

While this bill might have important environmental impacts that are likely to generate significant debates during this session, we list this bill as neutral since these operations are not likely to impact Great Salt Lake. We also note that while lithium mining on the lake itself provides both significant challenges and opportunities, this bill does not contemplate the mining of surface water but rather deep aquifers.

House bills that will have a negative impact on Great Salt Lake

H.B. 368 Local Land Use Amendments (sponsored by Rep. Stephen L. Whyte): This bill prohibits cities and municipalities from withholding building permits if the applicant hasn’t submitted a private landscaping plan. It also prohibits municipalities from requiring the submission of a private landscaping plan for an application for subdivision, plat approval or subdivision improvement. If enacted, this will make it harder for cities to require water-wise landscaping measures for residences.

Senate bills that will have a positive impact on Great Salt Lake

S.B. 33: Water Rights Recording Amendments (sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers): This bill, through amendments, streamlines the process of documenting water rights transfers and promotes efficient management and oversight by the state engineer.

S.B. 36: Water Quality Board Modifications (sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler): This bill modifies the Utah Water Quality Act to authorize the Utah Water Quality Board to oversee settlement negotiations and issue final penalty orders. Specifically, the bill establishes a process for the board to review settlement negotiations between the director and a party in alleged violation of the Utah Water Quality Act and issue a final order establishing a reasonable penalty.

S.B. 80: Drinking Water Amendments (sponsored by Sen. Scott Sandall): This bill modifies the Safe Drinking Water Act to include a fee schedule. Listed in the factors that the fee schedule may include and the incentives it may provide are financial incentives to install water meters on each residential connection and adopt tiered water rates.

Sen. Sandall proposed a version of this bill in previous years as the Division of Drinking Water seeks to identify reliable funding mechanisms for its programs that test and maintain drinking water quality. The allowance of a fee schedule that incentivizes the installation of meters and the adoption of tiered water rates is beneficial for municipal water conservation. Notably, UT Code Ann. 73-10-32.5 and 73-10-34 require tiered water rates for culinary water and secondary meters. Thus, the financial incentives may be a mechanism to further push the adoption of such measures.

S.B. 92: Golf Course Amendments (sponsored by Sen. Daniel McCay): This bill addresses water use on golf courses by:

  • Requiring that the Utah State University Institute of Land, Air, and Water (“The Institute”) conduct a study of water use on golf courses and publish a report to the Legislative Water Development Commission by June 30, 2028, with all golf courses de-identified and identify best practices for water use on golf courses and work with the owners and operators of golf courses to identify strategic water-saving opportunities;
  • Setting up an advisory committee of golf professionals to consult with the institute in preparing the study;
  • Requiring the Utah Division of State Parks to develop a master plan for state-owned golf courses;
  • Making this record of water data provided to the Utah State University Institute of Land, Air, and Water pursuant to statute a protected record under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).

While the bill does protect the water usage data, de-identifies golf courses, and has no substantive water conservation requirements, it does have beneficial mandates that stakeholders work together to study and identify water conservation practices.

S.B. 131: Water Commitment Amendments (sponsored by Sen. Nate Blouin): This bill permits the commitment of available water to uses on sovereign lands in water conservation plans. “Sovereign lands” means those lands lying below the ordinary high-water mark of navigable bodies of water at the date of statehood and owned by the state by virtue of its sovereignty—including all lands below the Great Salt Lake meander lines.

Utah manages portions of the Bear River, Colorado River, Green River, and the entire Jordan River as sovereign lands. Therefore, if water conservancy districts can commit water to these areas, it could have a big impact on getting water to the lake. The bill only creates discretionary authority, however, and doesn’t mandate the conservancy districts do anything.

Senate bills that will have a negative impact on Great Salt Lake

S.B. 201 Real Estate Amendments (sponsored by Sen. Wayne Harper): This bill restricts the circumstances under which a homeowners’ association can prohibit or restrict the conversion of a grass park strip to water-efficient landscaping. The bill repeals the requirement that HOAs shall adopt rules supporting water-wise landscaping for any area in which the association is responsible for landscape maintenance. Additionally, the bill allows HOAs to prohibit the conversion of grass strips if they are more than eight feet wide. The bill also allows HOAs to require a lot owner to install or keep in place lawn or turf in an area more than eight feet wide.

III. Requests for appropriation (RFAs) we are watching

RFAs are an important part of Utah’s legislative process, distinct from bills, and are formal requests for funding made by lawmakers during Utah’s legislative session. Unlike bills, which propose new laws or changes to existing laws, RFAs specifically focus on allocating state funds to particular programs. In Utah, RFAs play a crucial role in shaping the state’s budget and determining which programs and initiatives receive funding. Lawmakers can consider new funding needs that arise during the legislative session, so RFAs allow for a flexible budgeting process.

  • Great Salt Lake Commissioner Federal Funds Adjustment: This funding item provides an additional $30 million ongoing in federal funds authorization to the Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner to account for grants from the Bureau of Reclamation that are expected to last for five years.
  • Great Salt Lake Long-Term Water Program: This RFA is a one-time $16 million request. The Office of the Commissioner is requesting funds that will be matched by federal and private funding and will be used to lease sufficient water to stabilize lake elevation levels at the intermediate target of 4,195 feet above sea level by 2030. This funding will help to pay for voluntary and market-based leases and infrastructure to conserve, dedicate, and deliver water for the Great Salt Lake. Conserved and leased water is the cheapest and most flexible option for getting enough water to the lake.
  • Addressing Critical Dust Concerns (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) and Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner conveyed a desire to address the pressing issue of dust pollution. This request seeks funding to establish ongoing research and hire a dedicated full-time employee at the DAQ to investigate the composition of dust, its health impacts, and the broader air quality implications associated with the changing conditions of Great Salt Lake. This RFA is a $651,100 ongoing request. It provides funding to hire a full-time Division of Air Quality employee to research the health impacts of dust from the drying Great Salt Lake and the Sevier dry lake bed and install more dust monitors in these areas.
  • Farm and Ranch Protection Funding (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This RFA is a $25 million one-time request. It provides funding for the LeRay McAllister Working Farm and Ranch Fund Program to be used over the next five years. Uses include protecting of agricultural lands from development through conservation easements and other tactics.
  • Waterwise Landscaper Training and Certification (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This RFA is a $420,000 one-time request. It provides funding to train and certify landscaping and irrigation professionals, landscaping contractors, and other landscape workers to implement waterwise landscaping plans, practices, and installations.
  • Wetland Restoration and Management (sponsored by Rep. Doug Owens): This RFA is a request for $750,000 ongoing. It provides funding to the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands to support up to two full-time employees, equipment and supplies for wetland restoration, and invasive species (phragmites) treatments.
  • Sovereign Lands Wetland Enhancement and Infrastructure Analysis (sponsored by Rep. Jill Koford): This RFA is a $6 million one-time request. It provides funding to the Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands for:
    • infrastructure improvements that demonstrate water savings, the ability to mitigate or suppress dust, and/or the ability to enhance wetlands and improve habitat on Great Salt Lake;
    • implementation of wetland enhancement and preservation projects; or
    • projects improving the water quality of Jordan River.We note that this RFA did not make the priority list of the Legislature’s Natural Resource Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Committee and is therefore not likely to make it into the final budget, but it is too early to count it out completely.
  • ARDL Earmark Reallocation for Conservation Staff (sponsored by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food): Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) requests to amend the statute to reallocate a $525,000 annual sales tax earmark from the Agricultural Resource Development Loan Fund (ARDL) to fund water-optimization staff. Reallocating these funds would provide a stable funding source for water-optimization staff to manage future projects.
  • Center for Utah Water Information (sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider): This RFA is a one-time $119,100 request for funds to conduct the initial work required to establish a Center for Utah Water Information. Utah’s water data are currently fragmented and produced using varied standards and formats. The lack of a common infrastructure for sharing and managing data across agencies makes data sharing and integration inefficient and difficult.
  • GSL Wetland Enhancement and Protection Grants: This RFA is a one-time $5 million request. The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) released $5 million in funding during FY25 to protect and enhance wetlands that directly benefit the Great Salt Lake. Continuing this program will allow FFSL to enhance and protect these valuable resources that contribute to water quantity, water quality, wildlife habitat, groundwater, and flood control. Additionally, this funding is typically leveraged through grant programs to bring private or federal funding to the Great Salt Lake.
  • Bear River Basin Cloud-Seeding Program (Rep. Stewart Barlow): This RFA is a $2 million one-time request with $2.5 million ongoing. It provides funding for advanced systems such as Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), aircraft, and ground-based generators to increase precipitation in the Bear River Basin with the goal of replenishing Great Salt Lake. We note that while cloud-seeding is a tool that the state has increasingly relied upon in recent years, the strategy’s effectiveness is still unproven. Given that there are many strategies on the table that would lead to certain reductions, it may be prudent to prioritize such other water-conservation efforts before turning to geoengineering augmentation to ensure sustainable and reliable water resources and provide the greatest returns on the state’s investments.

Conclusion

As the 2025 legislative session progresses, several important bills and requests for appropriation demonstrate a continued commitment to addressing the challenges facing Great Salt Lake. These proposed measures reflect a growing recognition of the lake’s importance and the need for proactive management. However, it’s important to note that the current legislative efforts are not sufficient to address the critical threats to Great Salt Lake, or even to change its downward trajectory. We hope to see more bills directly benefiting Great Salt Lake in what remains in the session or, more likely, over the interim and next year’s legislative session.

Appendix I: The basics of Utah’s legislative process

There are some quirks about Utah’s legislative process you should understand. Here’s what you need to know.

  • While there is a lot of prep work and drafting ahead of time before a bill becomes public, the process formally begins once a bill is numbered. See the listing of bills before the Legislature with a few different ways to sort through them.
  • Once a bill is numbered, it goes through the appropriate chamber’s rules committee and is sent to a legislative committee. Committee hearings are often the easiest way for members of the community to comment on a bill; however, an email to one’s own representative or bill sponsor civilly expressing an opinion about a bill is also an effective method. Use this tool the legislature created for to find your legislators.
  • Once numbered, the bill will be read three times by the House and the Senate beginning in the chamber where the bill begins–labeled “H.B.” for bills that begin in the House and “S.B.” for bills that begin in the Senate. Each reading provides opportunities for revisions. As a bill progresses, the readings of the bill do likewise.
  • In the Senate, each bill must pass two separate floor votes, at least 24 hours apart, to pass out of the chamber.
  • In the House, a bill only requires a single floor vote.
  • To become law, after passing through each chamber, the bill requires the governor’s signature, or a 60-day period with no action. Alternatively, if the governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can override it by a two-thirds majority.

 

VOLUNTEER. DONATE. STAY INFORMED.

Donate today to help us create practical, actionable, and legally-sound advice for policymakers who are working with us to save the Great Salt Lake.

To stay informed about the work of the Great Salt Lake Project, join our email list.

If you are a legal professional with the desire to help with the Great Salt Lake Project, we need your help. Please fill out the form below.

GSL Volunteer Form
Name
Name
First
Last
How would you like to be involved?


OTHER NEWS