RE Acts B recent changes

[Katherine Carroll]

Under SB 33 a property owner can receive a certificate to collect rainwater. How would this certificate be entered on the REPC?

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillenr/sb0032.pdf

[Katherine Carroll]

Sorry for the typo
*SB32

[Brian Swan]

I’m not really following the basis of your question. The link you provided for S.B. 32 was for the 2010 legislative session and is entirely outdated. The current statute governing the capture of rainwater doesn’t require a certificate up to a certain amount of water capture. Even upon registering to capture more than the statutory amount, I’m not sure how that would play a part in the REPC since it would be considered personal property. 

Here’s the current law for your reference: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title73/Chapter3/73-3-S1.5.html?v=C73-3-S1.5_1800010118000101

[Katherine Carroll]

It seems like if the seller has a 2500 sisters in the back yard, the buyer would need to be aware of their obligation to register it. Perhaps seller disclosure is a better place for it?

I initially was thinking reps because it talks about potential transfer of water rights and shares.

[Katherine Carroll]

*cistern 

[Brian Swan]

I still don’t believe that disclosure is an issue. If there is a capture barrel that exceeds 2500, it would be personal property, not a fixture to the property. The registration with the Division of Water Rights would be under the individual’s name, not the property per se. 

However, if the owner had some sort of capture device that was affixed to the property, then yes, there might be some disclosure requirement if it exceeded the 2500 gallons. 

[Katherine Carroll]

Hmm, interesting point that you’re making. That even though the new owner would be required by law to register any rainwater collections in excess of 200 gallons (73-4), but less than 2500 max, it makes a huge difference in how it would be disclosed just based on if the cistern is above vs below ground. And is an above ground 2500 gallon cistern considered “attached” if it’s situated on a solid concrete slab, and would it need to be attached to the slab per building codes?

Probably won’t run into this too often, just wondering out loud. Seems like disclosure is the safest course of action in general.

[Brian Swan]

Again, if the capture device is not attached to the property, I don’t see why registration would be an issue for the buyer. The capture device wouldn’t be included in the sale unless it’s included in the REPC; therefore, it’s al personal property with registration in the seller’s name. Certainly, the seller would probably need to update the records in the Division of Water Rights when they move and take the device with them, but other than that, I don’t see how it’s material to the transaction unless it’s part of the real property. If there’s a question on the seller disclosure that asks about collection of rain water, that’s a different issue because the seller is now being asked about it, and of course, the seller cannot lie. Good discussion.

[Author]

Posts