Subdivisions located within irrigation districts.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0021 Drafter: MRW LSO No.: 09LSO-0027 Effective Date: 7/1/2009 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0081 Chapter No.: 175 Prime Sponsor: Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committee Catch Title: Subdivisions located within irrigation districts. Subject: Subdivisions located within irrigation districts. Summary/Major Elements: Provides for addressing irrigation district issues when the district is within a proposed subdivision. Requires the entity proposing the subdivision to submit its plan to the irrigation district at least 60 days before the subdivision application is submitted to the county. Requires that a review and recommendations from the irrigation district be included in the subdivision application. Requires a plan to be included with the subdivision application if the subdivision will create a significant additional burden or risks of liability. Note: Final action on this bill was not taken at the time this summary was prepared. Should changes be made to the bill upon final passage, an updated summary will be transmitted to all legislators.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 6:50 AM
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it represents a compromise that incorporates both Senate and House language, including specific provisions for irrigation district reviews and liability protections like fencing ditches.
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues that changes to page 2 and page 1 of the bill reduce burdens on liability created by subdivisions. They also note that a section on page 3 was completely removed, suggesting these alterations warrant further committee investigation before concurrence.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports a specific paragraph in the bill because it clarifies that ditch owners are responsible for seepage from large conveyances, which is supported by court cases. This clarity benefits developers before they build subdivisions.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains their interpretation of a bill section as addressing unorganized groups and lateral ditches to prevent downstream users from facing costs or liability if subdivisions interfere with water conveyance systems.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
7 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
5 stored
Adopted 3rd reading by SIMPSON
Adopted, Corrected Standing Committee by H05
Adopted 2nd reading by SCOTT
Adopted 2nd reading by BEBOUT
Adopted Standing Committee by GEIS