A couple of more minor bills of interest out yesterday.
HB429 – Great Salt Lake Amendments would require the Division of Water Resources to develop the Great Salt Lake Watershed Integrated Water Assessment, with the end goal being to enhance water flow to the GSL. The guidance in the bill is for the Division to develop and implement an integrated surface and ground water assessment for the Great Salt Lake watershed. This includes assessing and forecasting the quantity of water available for human, agricultural, economic development, and environmental or instream uses, and ecological needs. More specifically, the Assessment is to identify and evaluate best management practices that may be used to provide a reliable water supply that accommodates anticipated growth and economic development, and provides adequate flow to sustain the Great Salt Lake and the Great Salt Lake’s wetlands. Wow, sounds like a really big planning project!
HB435 – Mining Regulation Amendments would change, for “small mining operations” as defined in state code, the exemption for such operations from having to provide a notice of intention to commence operations, which includes a detailed reclamation plan, and require the state division to publish its review of the notice before allowing operations to commence. The change would say that small mining operations in first and second class counties are not exempt from these notice of intention requirements. This appears to have been prompted by the recent surprise revelation of a new mining operation about to get underway in Parley’s Canyon just outside Salt Lake City, which caused a lot of outcry.
SB225 – Farmlands Assessment Act Amendments would exempt areas that are being taken out of “greenbelt” from the rollback taxes normally required, if the area will not be developed. This bill even allows for carving out portions of the land that will be open space or undeveloped as part of a larger piece that is going to be developed.
Okay, I also wanted to write just a little about a bigger overall issue that is sort of “looming” over this legislative session, and that has to do with water. Our recent drought conditions coupled with the state’s strong growth rate seem to have brought this issue of water more to the top of everyone’s agenda. I’ve heard more about it in the last few months than throughout much of my career. As Craig Call and I have been conducting land use training seminars the last several weeks, in just about every one of those sessions, the question of water to accommodate growth has come up. Many of those questions have been if a community can curtail or even stop growth if it looks like there isn’t enough water available. I know of several communities that are considering curtailing the approval of new development because of their concerns about local water supply, and a few have even already done so.
Water concerns are reflected in this legislative session with a flurry of bills proposed to deal with everything from water-wise landscaping, metering for secondary water, dealing with water rights, state water plans, and even how to get more water to the Great Salt Lake (see above).
One of the bills on this topic of particular interest to planners is SB110 – Water As Part of General Plan. This bill passed in the Senate with no negative votes, and is being heard in a House committee this morning. Everyone appears to support this bill. And, in my opinion, it deserves support. The bill would add to the list of elements that are required as part of a community General Plan “a water use and preservation element.” This is added to the other elements that are required, which are land use, transportation and traffic circulation, and moderate income housing.
No beefs with requiring this element in community General Plans, particularly with this becoming such a big topic in growth at the local level, as I noted earlier. But planners and elected officials need to be aware of the burden, or maybe that’s not the right word, the responsibility it places on communities to comply with this requirement.
The older required elements in the General Plan section of LUDMA, land use and transportation, were quite general in their description of what was to be considered, leaving a fair amount of discretion and flexibility to local officials on how to address them and what to consider. When the moderate income housing requirement was added a few years ago, it was more detailed and required certain information to be compiled and things to be considered. That has caused some issues recently as the information to be used apparently has been found to not be as accurate or detailed as needed to accomplish the requirements of the code. There have been other issues as well.
The proposed required water element is way more specific in what is to be considered and included than anything else in the code currently. It is so detailed and so specific, and so voluminous, if I can say that, that I think some smaller jurisdictions particularly will have a hard time accomplishing all that is required, at least not without an expenditure of some significant funding to get that work done. I’m not saying that this information and planning isn’t of value, and perhaps even needed, but the level of specificity and detail that’s needed for such a plan may vary by locality depending on their situation with water. It’s an interesting approach to local land use planning as envisioned in our state code that is just different from how it has been.
Here’re just a couple of examples. The bill language requires coordination of the water element with the land use element, to the level of detail of different categories of proposed land use. The water element is to be:
coordinated to integrate the land use element with the water use and preservation element; and account for the effect of land use categories and land uses on water demand.
The bill goes on to say that the element is to address:
(A) the effect of permitted development or patterns of development on water demand and water infrastructure;
(B) methods of reducing water demand and per capita consumption for future development;
(C) methods of reducing water demand and per capita consumption for existing
development; and
(D) opportunities for the municipality to modify the municipality’s operations to eliminate practices or conditions that waste water.
The bill then provides a rather long list of information, concepts and policies that are to be considered in preparing the water element. This really could be considered the planners’ full employment act, there’s a lot to consider here. Well. I’ve made my point. I’m not arguing against it, just sending up a flag of notice – look out for what’s coming. We will definitely need to be educating local officials about this requirement, particularly since it is required to be done by December 31, 2025.
Oh, and about the “required” thing? General plans in the state of Utah are not compulsory for local governments to follow – they are advisory. That’s not necessarily a negative, but… all that work, and in the end, what does it mean? At the least, it will mean local officials should be more educated about what the problems are and how to deal with them. But… not required, which I get the impression is what state officials were hoping for here. We shall see.