# Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--again!



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, here we go again. The Utah legislature is about to begin and we already have two bills being drafted that aim to reduce in-stream flows into our rivers and streams. The result is that less water will make it out to the GSL marshes. The heinous part of these bills is that they are crafted to remove the possiblitly of challenging a water right in order to protect our wetlands, or to maintain water flows in order to reach the Great Salt Lake. *They are deathly afraid that we will ask them to protect the Great Salt Lake wetlands in the future*. They will go about this by passing small laws that chip away at our rights to challenge the granting of water for anything except commercial use. The laws will change things so that the law will say that all public trust obligations owed to Utah's residents will be fulfilled by the granting of a water right...period. It is sad to see our lawmakers even consider these kinds of water grabs, but we have a chance to have a say when the legislature convenes. *I hope some of us will step up and help out when the time comes*. I'l let you know when the bills become public knowledge.
R


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

not surprised at all honestly. The classic battle of a thousand cuts.

I cant tell you enough R how I/We as a waterfowling community appreciate your efforts in keeping us so very well informed. Thank you and Keep it up!


----------



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*



Longgun said:


> I cant tell you enough R how I/We as a waterfowling community appreciate your efforts in keeping us so very well informed. Thank you and Keep it up!


Thanks R!!!!


----------



## COWAN (Oct 7, 2012)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

Ya, thanks for the heads up. I think that will effect waterfouling for the whole Northern/Central part of the state.


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

Thanks for all your work R . We are fortunate to have you on our side.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

Ok we have a bill number for Kay McKiff's water bill --HB 00068.
The language of the bill can be found at: http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0068.htm

I'll know more about the consequnces of this bill by Friday morning. From listening to McKiff discuss his bill, it was easy to see that they are looking to change the state constitution to prevent waterfowlers, fishermen, birders, ect from ever being able to challenge destructive water allocations in order to protect wetlands, streams or marshes. There is still one more bill that is very similar waiting in the wings...they can't hide it forever, so I'll let you know asap.
R


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*



Jeff Bringhurst said:


> Longgun said:
> 
> 
> > I cant tell you enough R how I/We as a waterfowling community appreciate your efforts in keeping us so very well informed. Thank you and Keep it up!
> ...


+1


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

Trying to dry them up for another land grab. Yet, we keep electing these guys.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

LATEST UPDATE: 
The bill has been introduced at the legislature and is awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee. I don't know when that will be yet. It looks like the main reason for this bill is to strike back at the fishermen for challenging the anti-fishing law that was passed in 2010. *But, the bad thing is that it affects the public as a whole with no regard for our interest in protecting our streams, wetlands, marshes, ect*. This proposed law (HB-68) *will change the constitution to allow water allocations to be a private property right and allow the state engineer to have full power to determine if a water right fulfills the obligation of the state to protect our resources*. This bill makes it nearly impossible to go back later and challenge a ruling, even if it was blatantly harmful, in order to keep water in our streams or water in the Great Salt Lake. The legislature wants to keep us (Utah's citizens) out of the process because we are obviously too ignorant to make informed decisions or to challenge their dumb decisions.
Possible effects of HB-68:
1. Reduced water flows to the Great Salt Lake producing harmful dust storms (bigger than the ones we have now).
2. Reduced in-stream flows producing fish die-offs and lack of fishing opportunity
3. Reduced in-stream flows producing migratory habitat losses in our GSL marshes (fewer ducks, geese, and other water birds).
4. Reduced in-stream flows producing loss of hunting opportunity in our marshes and Waterfowl Management Areas.
5. Reduced in-stream flows that affect airboat and mudmotor opportunity due to lack of water.
6. Reduced habitat for waterfowl nesting.
7. Bowfishing opportunity could be greatly reduced.
8. Lack of marsh habitat will crowd duck hunters into already overcrowded areas.

If possible, please contact your legislator and ask that this bill be killed in the committee meeting and not allowed to get voted on in the general assembly. Our legislators nearly always do what they are told to do by Legislative house leadership, so if we can't stop it in the Natural Resources Committee, then it could be too late to stop it.
Find your legislator here: http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp 
Or contact me and I will look up your representative for you...I'll even provide you with a short note to send to your rep.
Pass this to anyone that you can...Your involvement is crucial!
Thanks,
R


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

R, I just read over the bill and I am having a hard time seeing all the above mentioned possible effects from what I read. Doesn't this law allow water rights to be as protected as private property rights and nothing more?

I am not trying to be confrontational or say you are wrong, I just don't read it like you have mentioned above. Then again I don't speak legalese.

Could you please explain how and why you came to the above conclusions?

Thanks,

J

EDIT: I so see where the law does say on line 57 (c) In advancing a claimed public trust violation, neither the state nor any other party may use the state's public trust obligation as grounds to reduce a quantity of water being put to beneficial use under an appropriation made in accordance with applicable law.

So what is a "beneficial use"?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

Ahhh, the $10,000 question. To the state engineer, beneficial use is giving irrigators their full shares even in drought years and having the law behind him when the water allocations de-water streams and rivers. To a duck hunter, beneficail use may be having some of that water actually reach the marshes. HB-68 changes the constitution and removes the ability of the citizens to launch a judicial challenge to a water allocation because this law makes that allocation of *public water *into a protected *private property *right. Very scary to have a law designed to restrict the public's ability to challenge a government ruling even if that ruling is is found to be faulty later on down the road. 
The government has a duty and obligation to protect and manage our resources for the current and future benefit of the public. If they fail to do this, we need to have the opportunity to challenge them...HB-68 seeks to deny us that opportunity.
R


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

My biggest complaint in this bill is that it does appear to be undercutting the ability of the Utah Stream Access Coalition in their efforts to regain public access to public waters. For that reason I agree with you that the bill needs to go down. I have contacted my representative and informed him of this and like R, I suggest everyone else do the same.

Make sure to be polite, and use good grammar when you do contact your representative. Rude, abrupt and ignorant emails will move your representatives in the wrong direction.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

The main goal of this goofy bill is to change the constitution so that if the state loses in court over the anti-fishing bill, the law will have already been passed and it would make any court decision invalid. 
The secondary effect of this bill is to keep so-called "enviros" from demanding that the state protect public resources such as marshes, streams, and of course the Great Salt Lake. When these guys first dreamed this up, they were discussing it in a recorded meeting. I listened to the whole meeting, and it scared me to death. These legislators made it very clear that they are scared that Utah citizens will force them to protect the GSL in a similar fashion as the citizens of California did when they successfully got water rights back from Los Angeles after they de-watered Mono Lake. HB-68 will take that opportunity away from the good people of Utah. Sound scary? It is!
R


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: Legislature is considering de-watering our marshes--agai*

UPDATE-- HB-68 is still stuck in the Rules Committee. So far it hasn't advance and has expereinced some opposition by a few of the senior legislators. This is good news so far.

The thing that scares me the most is that the bill 
directly targets the citizens of Utah in an effort to remove the 
ability to challenge a ruling by the government concerning the 
duties of the state to protect our public resources. *If a ruling by 
the state engineer is made to legally fulfill the state's 
obligations, and the public water allocation becomes a private 
property right, then how would we ever be able to ensure that our 
marshes receive water in the future?* How would fish (publically 
owned) survive in a de-watered stream if our public water in the 
stream were to be privatized and legally removed? This bill turns 
the term "beneficial use" into nothing more than a give-away to 
water users and screws the general public (that rightfully owns the 
resource).
I'll keep you all posted as the situation evolves. Thanks for caring about our wetlands and our public resources.
R


----------

