All Eyes on Utah Part II: HB 297- Colorado River Amendments
By Andie Hall
After the other basin states made their concerns clear over the Lake Powell Pipeline, the Utah State Legislature stepped in to try to ensure water delivery to St. George. Recently passed legislation created the Colorado River Authority of Utah, a group charged with a mission to ‘protect, conserve, use, and develop Utah’s waters of the Colorado River System.” Although it is not uncommon for states to have such a commission, Utah is getting attention for the creation of its commission because of its timing, legislative rhetoric, and intent.
Only six months after the other basin states indicated their opinions on the Lake Powell Pipeline process, the Utah Legislature introduced HB 297. Legislators have become concerned over Utah’s population explosion and how its water resources impact its ability to sustain that growth. One Senator remarked: “The factor limiting growth isn’t our infrastructure, it’s not our land, even though almost 70% of our land is owned by the federal government. It’s water,” Adams said. “We know that 60% of the population of Utah relies on the Colorado River.” Utah is not alone here. There are millions of people and over four million acres of agricultural land that rely on this river. Utah’s legislative language surrounding this bill signals that they are breaking away from the pack and asserting their rights against the other river users.
Before HB 297 was passed, Utah drew attention with the governor’s timely appointment of a Colorado River Commissioner. Again, most states have a river commissioner, but the timing of this particular appointment coupled with the legislation has drawn attention. The newly appointed commissioner, Gene Shawcroft, seems to share the sentiment of the legislature for how to address Utah’s proportion of Colorado River water: “I think Utah has water they are not yet using and the intent would be for us to find the most efficient and productive way to use that water.” Shawcroft testified in favor of HB 297 before it was passed.
Legislators alleged that the purpose behind creating the Colorado River Authority was to pull together a group of experts and lawyers that is comparable to those in California and Nevada. The bill tasks that group protect the “rights of the state concerning the resources and benefits of the Colorado River.” The other basin states are concerned over just that—preparing for a legal battle. The bill includes a provision for what is being called the “war chest,” a $9 million legal defense fund. The sentiment behind the bill and the fund is that Utah feels it has gotten the short end of the stick and is not getting its true allocation of water. Legislators feel that the other basin states have spent a significant amount in legal monies to prevent Utah from using its water.
What Utah seems to be ignoring is the fact that the River is over-appropriated and cannot possibly fulfill its delivery obligations under the 1922 compact. In other words, no one is likely to be able to use their full allotment. In fact, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona faced mandatory water-use cutbacks in 2020. In the spirit of collaboration, Arizona and Nevada struck a deal with California that they would leave a portion of their allotment in Lake Mead, unused. Similarly, even Mexico agreed to help contribute to Lake Mead’s water levels. These states and Mexico are living out the compromise that makes the Colorado River some form of sustainable. 40 million people rely on this river and making sure that there is some water for everyone is no small feat. Perhaps Utah really will use its new River Authority to negotiate with the rest of the basin states, but the rhetoric behind passing HB 297 and the accompanying “war chest” send a different message. From that, all eyes will remain on Utah.