Okay, some more things to lay out. Governor Cox gave his State of the State speech last night. Also another land use bill appeared, again one that was not seen by the Land Use Task Force (or really by anyone else involved in local land use regulation, that I can tell).
First, the Gov’s speech. As in the last couple of years, housing affordability was mentioned again, but relatively briefly this time. All the Gov said was,
“If Utahns are to achieve the American dream, feel rooted, think long-term, and invest in their neighborhoods and communities, buying a home must be within reach.”
He said Utah must “pull every lever” to increase the supply of housing.
“Reform zoning, streamline permitting, support infrastructure, and encourage innovation,” he said.
That was about it for the speech, but Cox’s staff and legislators are actively pursuing measures along these lines in this legislative session.
Now, the bill that just came out is HB328 – Water Usage Modifications. This bill would create a new provision in LUDMA, in 10-20-600 – Land Use Regulations-Particular Situations (also for counties, section 17-79-600). If you’re not familiar with this section of LUDMA, that’s because it is new, created by the LUDMA recodification bill that happened in the special session earlier in 2025.
This new section of LUDMA is titled Regulation of use of overhead spray irrigation. It applies only to property in the Great Salt Lake drainage basin. A local land use authority, in reviewing plans for development of property, must indicate that for approval of a land use decision or permit, the applicant “may not install, maintain, or use overhead spray irrigation to irrigate nonfunctional turf in a landscaped area of the specified land.” But the bill also says that the local entity is “encouraged” to approve or disapprove an application with nonfuctional turf, and is “encouraged” to inspect for compliance with this section, and to address noncompliance with this section. Now just what does all that mean? Is new development required to comply, or not? Just encouraged? And how to “address” noncompliance? This bill has some pretty confusing language!
By the way, this bill, if passed, would make it the 25th “Particular Situation” in state code for land use regulations. More coming? Undoubtedly!