POLISCOPE
Back to bills
Part ofCounties →

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
HB 439UTAHSession 2026State Billdead
Did Not Advance

Utah HB 439 requires counties, cities, and special districts to adopt 40-year water plans before imposing water exactions and caps residential roadway pavement widths

Original title: Water Planning Amendments

Last action · March 7, 2026: Senate/ 2nd Reading Calendar to RulesSponsors: Dave Shallenberger and 1 other

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓
Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

Beginning January 1, 2028, Utah municipalities, counties, and special districts must complete a written 40-year water supply plan before imposing any water interest on a new development application. The legislation also restricts residential roadway pavement widths to a maximum of 32 feet unless specific engineering exceptions apply, and provides a coordination clause with S.B. 284.

Why it matters

Local property developers and residential home builders face new municipal planning mandates and strict evidentiary hurdles before water rights can be exacted. At the same time, residential subdivisions benefit from capped roadway pavement width requirements that limit local infrastructure costs.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Land Use Applicants and Developers

Land use applicants must navigate new 40-year water planning requirements before water exactions can be levied and gain the right to appeal road pavement widths exceeding 32 feet using an expert panel.

Directly affected

Municipalities, Counties, and Special Districts

Local governments and special districts must adopt written 40-year water plans by January 1, 2028, to continue imposing water exactions and are restricted from requiring residential road pavement wider than 32 feet without specific justification.

Directly affected

Culinary Water Authorities

Culinary water authorities must base water exactions on established calculations of projected water requirements, minimum sizing standards, and equivalent residential connections.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

When do local governments need to have a written water plan in place to impose water exactions?
Beginning on January 1, 2028, municipalities, counties, and special districts must determine their water interests needed to meet reasonable future public requirements by completing a written plan.
What is the maximum width allowed for residential roadways under this bill?
Municipalities and counties may not require residential roadway pavement width in excess of 32 feet, unless specific exceptions apply such as for cul-de-sacs, fire code hydrants, or higher traffic density areas.
What happens if a municipality decides to sell surplus property acquired through a development exaction?
If the property has been owned for less than 15 years, the municipality must first offer to reconvey the property back to the original grantor without receiving additional consideration.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · passed the House · on the Senate floor.

Procedural history

41 actions
  1. Mar 7, 2026Senate
    Senate/ 2nd Reading Calendar to Rules
  2. Mar 6, 2026House
    House/ filed
  3. Mar 6, 2026House
    House/ received from Senate
  4. Mar 6, 2026Senate
    Senate/ to House
  5. Mar 6, 2026Senate
    Senate/ strike enacting clause
  6. Mar 6, 2026Senate
    Senate/ circled
Show 35 earlier actions
  1. Mar 6, 2026Senate
    Senate/ 2nd reading
  2. Mar 6, 2026Senate
    Senate/ Rules to 2nd Reading Calendar
  3. Mar 4, 2026Senate
    Senate/ 2nd Reading Calendar to Rules
  4. Mar 4, 2026Senate
    Senate/ placed on 2nd Reading Calendar
  5. Mar 4, 2026Senate
    Senate/ comm rpt/ amended
  6. Mar 3, 2026Senate
    Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation
  7. Mar 3, 2026Senate
    Senate Comm - Amendment Recommendation
  8. Feb 26, 2026SenateCommittee
    Senate/ to standing committee
  9. Feb 25, 2026SenateIntroduced
    Senate/ 1st reading (Introduced)
  10. Feb 24, 2026Senate
    Senate/ received from House
  11. Feb 24, 2026House
    House/ to Senate
  12. Feb 24, 2026HouseFloor
    House/ passed 3rd reading
  13. Feb 24, 2026House
    House/ 3rd reading
  14. Feb 20, 2026Released
    LFA/ fiscal note publicly available for HB0439S02
  15. Feb 19, 2026Version Sponsor
    LFA/ fiscal note sent to sponsor for HB0439S02
  16. Feb 18, 2026House
    House/ 2nd reading
  17. Feb 18, 2026House
    House/ comm rpt/ substituted
  18. Feb 17, 2026House
    House Comm - Favorable Recommendation
  19. Feb 17, 2026House
    House Comm - Substitute Recommendation
  20. Feb 17, 2026Legislative Fiscal Agency
    LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input for HB0439S02
  21. Feb 17, 2026Legislative Fiscal Analyst
    LFA/ bill assigned to staff for fiscal analysis for HB0439S02
  22. Feb 13, 2026HouseCommittee
    House/ to standing committee
  23. Feb 9, 2026Released
    LFA/ fiscal note publicly available for HB0439S01
  24. Feb 9, 2026Version Sponsor
    LFA/ fiscal note sent to sponsor for HB0439S01
  25. Feb 6, 2026House
    House/ received fiscal note from Fiscal Analyst
  26. Feb 5, 2026Released
    LFA/ fiscal note publicly available for HB0439
  27. Feb 5, 2026Legislative Fiscal Agency
    LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input for HB0439S01
  28. Feb 5, 2026Legislative Fiscal Analyst
    LFA/ bill assigned to staff for fiscal analysis for HB0439S01
  29. Feb 4, 2026Version Sponsor
    LFA/ fiscal note sent to sponsor for HB0439
  30. Feb 2, 2026HouseIntroduced
    House/ 1st reading (Introduced)
  31. Jan 30, 2026House
    House/ received bill from Legislative Research
  32. Jan 30, 2026Legislative Fiscal Agency
    LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input for HB0439
  33. Jan 30, 2026Legislative Fiscal Analyst
    LFA/ bill assigned to staff for fiscal analysis for HB0439
  34. Jan 30, 2026Legislative Research and General Counsel
    Numbered Bill Publicly Distributed
  35. Jan 30, 2026Legislative Research and General Counsel
    Bill Numbered but not Distributed

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Dave ShallenbergerHouse · District 58RepublicanPrimary sponsor
Keven StrattonSenate · District 24RepublicanCosponsor

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift99% confidence

Mandatory 40-Year Water Planning for Exactions

The bill ties local authority to impose water exactions directly to the completion of a formal 40-year written water plan starting in 2028.

State EngineerDivision of Drinking Water

Connected Entities

Division of Drinking Water, David Shallenberger, Keven J. Stratton and 1 more
OrganizationDivision of Drinking Water“Establishes system-wide minimum sizing standards for culinary water authorities”Map →
PersonDavid Shallenberger“Chief Sponsor of HB 439”Map →
PersonKeven J. Stratton“Senate Sponsor of HB 439”Map →
OrganizationState Engineer“Makes rules to establish standards for written water plans and administers nonus”Map →

Sources

Open source document

le.utah.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 75)
  • Controversy40
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz30
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record