Attorney General Reyes June 30, 2021

Office of the Attorney General

350 North State Street, Suite 230
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117-2320

Dear Attorney General Reyes,

We are writing to request an investigation into the possible conflicts of interest among
staff and contractors of Utah’s largest water supplier, the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District (CUWCD). These conflicts involve the CUWCD executive staff’s hiring of contractors for
their own personal benefit and their joint lobbying efforts against popular water conservation
proposals at the statehouse over many years. These actions are likely in violation of state law,
and they threaten the best interests of all Utah water users, including both cities and farms
within the Central Utah Project (CUP). Moreover, the long-standing existence of the conflicts
has led to a range of de facto water and fiscal policies that have limited the CUWCD’s ability to
provide a low-cost water supply to Utah water users.

Since the CUWCD Board of Trustees has failed to take any action to address the
conflicts of interest among its executive staff and contractors, an external investigation by your
office is clearly required. Indeed, the Board’s failure to adequately oversee CUWCD executive
staff may very well stem directly from the conflicts of interest at issue.

It is also critical to note that CUWCD staff have worked to curtail consideration of these
concerns by the CUWCD Board of Trustees in its regular meetings, including by limiting public
participation in the meetings. The fact that CUWCD staff are attempting to prevent its own board
and the public from reviewing these matters underscores the need for your office to take action,
especially in light of the severe drought that is currently impacting the state. Accordingly, we
write your office today to ask for an investigation into whether these conflicts of interest comply
with state statutes governing the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

I. THE CUWCD’S RETENTION OF THE LOBBYING FIRM OF FINLINSON &

FINLINSON IS A SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Christine Finlinson is the current Assistant General Manager of the CUWCD and was
previously employed by the CUWCD as the Director of Government Affairs. In her role as
Assistant General Manager, Finlinson conducts a wide range of activities on behalf of the
CUWCD, but one of her primary roles is lobbying the Utah Legislature on various water policy
matters. In addition, however, Ms. Finlinson is a registered lobbyist at the private firm of
Finlinson & Finlinson, LLC (Finlinson Firm).

The Finlinson Firm is a Utah limited liability company organized in 2004. The 2004
Articles of Organization list Ms. Christine Finlinson as the company’s original registered agent.
The company address appears to be Ms. Finlinson’s private residence in Saratoga Springs,
Utah, where she lives with her husband, Fred Finlinson. Mr. Finlinson – a former Utah legislator
and current lobbyist who represents several Utah water conservancy districts – is now listed as
the registered agent for the company.

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 1
 Notably, among the Finlinson Firm’s lobbying clients is the CUWCD, where Ms.
Finlinson serves as the Assistant General Manager. Another lobbying client of the Finlinson
Firm is the Washington County Water Conservancy District.

2
 According to the Utah government transparency website, govsalaries.com, Ms. Finlinson
receives $143,179 annually for serving as the Assistant General Manager of the CUWCD.1
According to another Utah governmental transparency website, transparent.utah.gov, the
CUWCD has awarded more than $1 million in lobbying contracts to the Finlinson Firm starting in
2014. Over this same time period, the Finlinson Firm has also received $1.7 million in lobbying
contracts from the Washington County Water Conservancy District. Furthermore, the CUWCD
Board of Trustees recently renewed the Finlinson Firm’s lobbying contract, which includes a
$158,750 annual award for each of the next five years, totaling $793,750. The manner in which
this contract was awarded is highly peculiar and the executive staff acted to limit public
oversight of this contract award, as is described later in this petition.

A. Ms. Finlinson appears to have used her capacity as a senior employee of

the CUWCD to gain funding for her family firm.

On April 15, 2020, Ms. Finlinson sent an email to several staff and board members of the
CUWCD with an attachment that recommended funding a lobbying campaign that would
financially benefit her family lobbying company, the Finlinson Firm. The email thanked the
recipients for their support.

The attachment to the foregoing email notes that $200,000 in funding is being directed
towards a lobbying campaign called “Prep 60,” specifically for the services Fred Finlinson – Ms.
Finlinson’s husband – to “maintain a very effective presence on the hill.”2

1 https://govsalaries.com/finlinson-christine-r-12888109
2 Overview, Public Affairs Budget 2020-21, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, page 2

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 3
 Ms. Finlinson’s email and the attachment contain both requests for support and
subjective statements about the efficacy of the Finlinson Firm. These communications
demonstrate that Ms. Finlinson played a direct role in the process of awarding the contract to
the Finlinson Firm, to the personal benefit of Ms. Finlinson and her husband, including by
encouraging the CUWCD Board of Trustees to award the contract to her family lobbying firm.
Given Ms. Finlinson’s involvement in the 2020 contract awarding process, it is likely she also
played a role in the CUWCD’s previous decisions to award annual contracts to the Finlinson
Firm, something that has occurred since 2014.

B. The CUWCD restricted public involvement in its November 18, 2020 Board
of Trustees – the same meeting where the contract was awarded to the
Finlinson Firm.

The CUWCD executive staff appears to have purposefully limited public access to the
Board of Trustees meeting where the Finlinson Firm contract was voted upon and awarded. For
this reason, the contract award process was highly irregular and warrants careful examination
by your office.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the CUWCD Board of Trustees shifted
its board meetings to a virtual online setting. The meetings that occurred after April 2020 were
conducted virtually. With pre-approval from the administrative assistant to the General Manager,
Gene Shawcroft, the public could be approved to listen in on the meetings remotely. The public
was also allowed to provide public comment at the meetings, again with the pre-approval from
the administrative assistant to the General Manager.

But the senior staff of the CUWCD dramatically changed course by preventing the public
from having electronic access to CUWCD Board Meetings once the Finlinson & Finlinson
contract was to be considered by the Board of Trustees. In only this one Board of Trustees
meeting during the pandemic – on November 18, 2020– the public was prevented from listening
or speaking through electronic access when the Finlinson Firm contract was considered and
awarded.

Instead of attending the meeting remotely as had been the case for the previous six
months, the public was suddenly required to travel to the CUWCD’s Orem headquarters where
they would gather to listen to an electronic broadcast in a building adjacent to the building where
the Board of Trustees meeting was being held. The November 18, 2020, CUWCD Board
Meeting Agenda referenced the consideration of $158,750 in annual funding to the Finlinson
Firm by the CUWCD. No explanation was given by the General Manager’s administrative
assistant as to why the public was restricted from electronic access and the administrative

4
assistant demonstrated hostility to members of the public who sought to participate from the
safety of their homes during the pandemic.

It is highly questionable why the public would be forced to gather inside of a conference
room during a global pandemic to listen to an online, virtual broadcast instead of accessing the
same broadcast from the safety of their homes for the November 18, 2020, meeting. The lack of
public access is especially questionable given the considerable financial award of $158,750
given to the Finlinson Firm at this particular board meeting. After the Finlinson contract was
approved, all subsequent CUWCD Board Meetings returned to a public virtual electronic access
format. The table below shows the frequency of CUWCD board meetings, the format for public
attendance, and the board’s action on the contract awarded to the Finlinson Firm.

2020/2021 CUWCD Board Meetings

Month of CUWCD Action Taken on Meeting Format

Board Meeting Finlinson & Finlinson
April None At Headquarters
May None Virtual by pre-approval
June None Virtual by pre-approval
August None Virtual by pre-approval
October None Virtual by pre-approval
November $158,750 funding by Virtual Access Denied; in-person attendance to
Board of Trustees hear broadcast in adjacent building of CUWCD
Board of Trustees

January None Virtual by pre-approval

February None Virtual by pre-approval

The fact that the CUWCD clearly had the technological capability and resources to allow
virtual public access to its meetings makes the CUWCD’s senior staff decision to limit access to
the November 2020 meeting all the more suspect. It also demonstrates that the Board of
Trustees is incapable of offering the much-needed oversight of the conflicts of interest and
compliance with state statutes that is required. Indeed, numerous state and local government
agencies were conducting virtual public meetings during this same time period, including many
agencies with much smaller operating revenues. In 2020, the CUWCD collected roughly $280
million in gross revenues, clearly enough financial resources to be able to afford to hold virtual
public meetings at all of their board meetings.3

It seems clear that the CUWCD senior staff at the direction of the General Manager,
restricted public access to its Board of Trustees Meeting as a means of curbing public

3
KPMG. (2020). Central Utah Water Conservancy District Basic Finanacial Statements and Supplemantary
Information. Page 7. https://www.cuwcd.com/assets/documents/Financial/FinancialReport2020.pdf

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 5
participation and scrutiny about potential conflicts of interest regarding the awarding of the
Finlinson Firm contract.

C. CUWCD Executive staff downplayed the Board of Trustee’s concerns about

the conflict of interest with the Finlinson Firm.

During the November 2020 board meeting in which the CUWCD Board of Trustees
extended their contract with the Finlinson Firm, one board member stated that he would vote
against extending the contract because he believed that there was a conflict of interest. Gene
Shawcroft, the CUWCD’s General Manager, contested the idea that any potential conflict existed.
An excerpt from the meeting’s minutes shows this exchange below.4

On the same day, during the CUWCD work session, Gene Shawcroft again addressed
this conflict of interest, and he again downplayed the concern. He claimed that “there was no
conflict of interest in the process of selection of the consulting group as it was moved from the
Public Affairs Committee to the Finance, Audit, and Budget Committee.” An excerpt from the
meeting’s minutes shows this statement below.5 Mr. Shawcroft’s unfounded legal interpretation

4 CUWCD Board of Trustees. “Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Central Utah Water

Conservancy District Held November 18, 2020, 1:00 P.M.”

5
CUWCD Board of Trustees. “Minutes of the Work Session Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District Held November 18, 2020, 12:00 P.M.”

6
about state code raises its own concerns about the general manager’s commitment to
complying with state statute, as is described below.

II. THE CUWCD’S SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FINLINSON

FIRM MAY VIOLATE UTAH LAW.

A. Ms. Finlinson may have violated multiple provisions of the Utah Public
Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act.

Utah Code § 67-16-3(12)(a) defines a “public employee” as a “person who is not a public
officer who is employed on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis by the state, a political
subdivision of the state, or an association as defined in Section 53-G-7-1101.”6 As the Assistant
General Manager for the CUWCD, Ms. Finlinson qualifies as a “public employee.” That means
that the body of state law governing actions for public employees applies to the Assistant
General Manager of the CUWCD. We are concerned the Assistant General Manager may have
violated multiple sections of code and ask for an investigation into each of the following
sections.

1. Utah Code § 67-16-4(1)(c) may have been violated because Ms.

Finlinson is using her role as a CUWCD executive to further her own
and her family’s personal economic interest.

According to Utah Code § 67-16-4(1)(c), it is an offense for a public employee to “use or

attempt to use his official position to (i) further substantially the officer’s or employee’s personal
economic interest or (ii) secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others.”7 Ms.
Finlinson appears to have used her role as Assistant General Manager CUWCD to advocate for
funding for Finlinson & Finlinson. As a co-owner of Finlinson & Finlinson, these funds are
directly benefitting the Assistant General Manager economically. Furthermore, these funds have
been substantial, with the CUWCD having paid Finlinson & Finlinson over $1 million and has
just authorized an additional $793,750. This appears to be an inappropriate arrangement under
this section of Utah Code.

6 Utah Code § 67-16-3(12)(a).

7 Utah Code § 67-16-4(1)(c).

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 7
 2. The Assistant General Manager’s employment with CUWCD and
Finlinson & Finlinson may interfere with her ability to ethically
perform her public duty in violation of Utah Code § 67-16-4(1)(e).

The Utah Officers & Employees Ethics Act may have been violated by this arrangement
with the Finlinson Firm, specifically § 67-16-4 (1)(e). This section notes that it is an offense for a
public employee to “accept other employment that he might expect would interfere with the
ethical performance of his public duties.”

The Assistant General Manager’s role in Finlinson & Finlinson requires her to sometimes
advocate for the interests of water districts other than the CUWCD, which may be in conflict with
the CUWCD’s own best interests. If the Assistant General Manager were a private citizen, this
would not be an issue. However, as the Assistant General Manager for the CUWCD, Ms.
Finlinson has an ethical and legal obligation to protect the CUWCD’s best interests. Therefore,
the Assistant General Manager may have violated Utah Code § 67-16-4(1)(e) by accepting
outside employment that could reasonably interfere with the ethical performance of her public
duties for the CUWCD.

3. If the Assistant General Manager has not disclosed her substantial

interest in Finlinson & Finlinson, she has violated Utah Code § 67-
16-7.

This section of code discusses a public employee’s obligation to disclose substantial

interests in regulated business. Utah Code § 67-16-7(1) notes:

Except as provided in Subsection (5), a public officer or public employee who is an

officer, director, agent, employee, or owner of a substantial interest in any business
entity that is subject to the regulation of the agency by which the public officer or public
employee is employed shall disclose any position held in the entity and the precise
nature and value of the public officer’s or public employee’s interest in the entity (a)
upon first becoming a public officer or public employee; (b) whenever the public
officer’s or public employee’s position in the business entity changes significantly; and
(c) if the value of the public officer’s or public employee’s interest in the entity increases
significantly.

The required disclosure under this section must be made in a sworn statement and filed
with the Attorney General if the matter concerns a public officer or public employee of the state,
the head of the agency with which the public employee is affiliated, and the public employee’s
immediate supervisor.8 This disclosure will become public record and should be made available
for public inspection.9

On June 18, 2021, our office contacted the Attorney General Office through your
Constituent Services staff to determine whether conflict of interest filings had been made by the
senior staff of the CUWCD. As you can see from the email from your staff below, there have
been no filings of conflicts of interest disclosures as per Utah Code § 67-16-7.

8 Utah Code § 67-16-7(2)

9 Utah Code § 67-16-7(4)

8
1270 EastJune
Date:
Research 8600
& South,
18,
Policy Suite
2021 16
at 5:00:44
Analyst PM MDT
Sandy, UT 84094
To: Nick Halberg <nicholas@utahrivers.org>
Utah Rivers Council
801-486-4776
Dear Nick,
1270 East 8600 South, Suite 16
www.utahrivers.org
Sandy, UT 84094

Begin forwarded message:

Thank you for your patience as our office looked for the forms you requested. Below is the list and which forms
801-486-4776
www.utahrivers.org
they were able to find:
From: AG Constituent Services <uag@agutah.gov>
Subject:
Begin Re: Conflict
forwarded of Interest Forms
message:
Date: June 18, 2021 at 5:00:44 PM MDT
Gene Shawcroft (Central Utah Water District)
To: Nick
From: AGHalberg <nicholas@utahrivers.org>
Constituent Services <uag@agutah.gov> 0
Subject: Re: Conflict of Interest Forms
Christine Finlinson (Central Utah Water District) 0
Dear Nick,
Date: June 18, 2021 at 5:00:44 PM MDT
Ron Thompson (Washington County Water District)
To: Nick Halberg <nicholas@utahrivers.org> 2003, 2006, 2007
Zach Renstrom (Washington County Water District) 0
Thank you for your patience as our office looked for the forms you requested. Below is the list and which forms
Dear Nick,
Richard Bay (Jordan Valley Water District) 2006 & 2008
they were able to find:
Bart Forsyth (Jordan Valley Water District) 2006 & Jan/Feb 2008
Thank you for your patience as our office looked for the forms you requested. Below is the list and which forms
Tage Flint (Weber Basin Water District) 2000 & 2011
Genewere
they able to(Central
Shawcroft find: Utah Water District) 0
Christine Finlinson (Central Utah Water District) 0
Attached to this email are the forms they found in this list.
Ron Thompson
Gene Shawcroft(Washington
(Central UtahCounty
Water Water District)
District) 2003,
0 2006, 2007
Zach Renstrom
Christine (Washington
Finlinson County
(Central Utah WaterWater District)
District) 00
We trust this information will be useful to you and have a great weekend!
Richard
Ron Bay (Jordan
Thompson Valley Water
(Washington CountyDistrict)
Water District) 2006 2006,
2003, & 20082007
Bart
ZachForsyth
Renstrom (Jordan Valley Water
(Washington CountyDistrict)
Water District) 20060 & Jan/Feb 2008
Sincerely,
Tage Flint
Richard Bay (Weber
(JordanBasin Water
Valley District)
Water District) 2000
2006 & 2011
2008
Constituent Services
Bart Forsyth (Jordan Valley Water District) 2006 & Jan/Feb 2008
Utah Attorney General's Office
Attached
Tage Flintto(Weber
this email areWater
Basin the forms they found in this list.
District) 2000 & 2011
801-366-0260
We trust this
Attached information
to this email arewill
thebe useful
forms to you
they and
found in have a great weekend!
this list.
From: NickThe Halberg <nicholas@utahrivers.org>
We trust
Sincerely,
Sent: this Assistant
Monday, information
June 14, 2021
General
will 1:25 Manager should have disclosed the precise nature and value of
be useful
PM to you and have a great weekend!
her interest
Constituent and
Servicesthat of her family
To: AG Constituent Services <uag@agutah.gov> members in Finlinson & Finlinson with the Utah Attorney
Utah
Subject:Attorney
Re: General's
Conflict of Office
General, the leadership of the CUWCD, and her immediate supervisor. Presuming that this
Sincerely, Interest Forms
801-366-0260
Constituent
disclosure Services
has not been made, Ms. Finlinson could be in violation of Utah Code §67-16-7.
Thank you,
Utah Attorney General's Office
801-366-0260
I again appreciate your help.
From: Nick Halberg 4. <nicholas@utahrivers.org>
Utah Code § 67-16-9 may have been violated due to the Assistant
Sent: Monday,
If it would June your
help accelerate 14, 2021
efforts,1:25 PM
I would prefer to hear back about Christine Finlinson and Gene Shawcroft first. If the attorney and their support
To: AGNick
staff were Constituent
able Halberg Services
to check those
General Manager’s involvement in Finlinson & Finlinson.
<uag@agutah.gov>
files first and get back to me as soon as they have checked, it would be very helpful.
From: <nicholas@utahrivers.org>
Subject:
Sent: Re: Conflict of Interest
Monday, June 14, 2021 1:25 PM Forms
Thank you again for your professionalism and support!
To:The Utah Public
AG Constituent Officers’
Services and Employees’ Ethics Act discusses prohibited conflicts of
<uag@agutah.gov>
Thank you,
Subject:
interest:
Nick Re: Conflict of Interest Forms
I again appreciate your help.
Thank you,
On Jun 14, 2021, at 12:52 PM, AG Constituent Services <uag@agutah.gov> wrote:
If itNo
wouldpublic officer
help accelerate youror public
efforts, employee
I would prefer to hear shall have
back about personal
Christine investments
Finlinson and Gene Shawcroftin any
first. If thebusiness
attorney and their support
Dear
Istaff
againwereNick,
appreciate your
able to check help.
those files first and get back to me as soon as they have checked, it would be very helpful.
entity which will create a substantial conflict between his private interests and his public
If it would
Thank youhelp accelerate
again your efforts, I would
for your professionalism prefer to hear back about Christine Finlinson and Gene Shawcroft first. If the attorney and their support
and support!
We
staff have
duties.
were ableforwarded
to check thosethis
filesrequest toback
first and get the toattorney and
me as soon support
as they staff and
have checked, theybewill
it would verystart their search. It may take up
helpful. to
a week to complete the list - please follow
Nick up with us by next Monday or Tuesday if you haven't heard from us.
Thank you again for your professionalism and support!
The
Have
On Assistant
Jun a great
14, day!
2021, at General
12:52 Manager’s
PM, AG Constituent involvement
Services inwrote:
<uag@agutah.gov> Finlinson
& Finlinson and her employment
Nick
with CUWCD could give rise to a conflict of interest between her private interests and her public
Dear Nick,
duty. It 14,
would
Sincerely,
On Jun be
2021, at nearly
12:52 PM, AGimpossible for <uag@agutah.gov>
Constituent Services anyone in thiswrote:
situation to maintain an impartial position.
Constituent
This type of Services is impermissible under this section.
conflict
We have
Dear Nick,forwarded this request to the attorney and support staff and they will start their search. It may take up to
Utah Attorney General's Office
a week to complete the list - please follow up with us by next Monday or Tuesday if you haven't heard from us.
801-366-0260
We have forwarded
5. thisUtah
request to the§attorney
Code 67-16-12andincludes
support staff and they will
penalties that start their search.
should It may take up to
be considered.
Have
a a great
week day! the list - please follow up with us by next Monday or Tuesday if you haven't heard from us.
to complete
This
Have section
a great
Sincerely, day!speaks directly to penalties for any violation of the Utah Public Officers’ and
Constituent Ethics
Employees’ ServicesAct. Under this section:
Utah Attorney General's Office
Sincerely,
801-366-0260
Constituent Services
Any
Utah publicGeneral's
Attorney officer orOffice
public employee who knowingly and intentionally violates this
chapter, with the exception of Section 67-16-6 and 67-16-7, shall be dismissed from
801-366-0260
employment or removed from office as provided by law, rule, or policy within the
agency and any public officer, employee, or person who knowingly and intentionally
violates this chapter, with the exception of Sections 67-16-6 and 67-16-7, shall be
punished as follows: (a) as a felony of the second degree if the total value of the
compensation, conflict of interest, or assistance exceeds $1,000; or (b) as a felony of
the third degree if (i) the total value of the compensation, conflict of interest, or
assistance is more than $250 but not more than $1,000, or (ii) the public officer or

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 9
 public employee has been twice before convicted of violation of this chapter and the
value of the conflict of interest, compensation, or assistance was $250 or less; (c) as a
class A misdemeanor if the value of the compensation or assistance was more than
$100 but does not exceed $250; or (d) as a class B misdemeanor if the value of the
compensation or assistance was $100 or less.10

6. Utah Code § 67-16-14 also includes possible penalties for the

Assistant General Manager’s actions. These penalties include
dismissal of employees in violation of certain sections of Utah Code.

If Sections 67-16-6, 67-16-7, or 67-16-8 are violated, this section’s penalties will apply. This
section notes:

If any transaction is entered into in violation of Section 67-16-7, 67-16-8, or 67-16-8,

the state, political subdivision, or agency involved (1) shall dismiss the public officer or
public employee who knowingly and intentionally violates this chapter from
employment or office as provided by law, and (2) may rescind or void any contract or
subcontract entered into in respect to such transaction without returning any part of the
consideration that the state, political subdivision, or agency has received.11

B. The General Manager of the CUWCD may have also violated Utah Code §
67-16-9 by claiming that separating a staff member from the committee that
awarded a contract to her family lobbying firm would rectify the conflict of
interest created and her possible engagement in advocating for funding of
this family business.

The minutes of the November 2020 CUWCD Board Work Session and the November 2020
Board of Trustees meeting reference the conflict of interest of the Assistant General Manager.
In response to the concerns of a CUWCD board member about this conflict of interest, the Work
Session minutes reference the CUWCD General Manager who appears to claim “there was no
conflict of interest” because of a shuffling of committee assignments.12 But the Utah Public
Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act’s definition of a conflicts of interest is quite clear:

No public officer or public employee shall have personal investments in any business
entity which will create a substantial conflict between his private interests and his public
duties.

The CUWCD General Manager is not an attorney and his claim that there was no conflict
of interest appears in stark contrast to the definition of a conflict of interest in the Utah Public
Officers and Employees Ethics Act. Committee assignments do not exonerate conflicts of
interests, nor does a committee assignment ameliorate a staff member’s engagement in the
possible influencing of awarding contracts.

10 Utah Code § 67-16-12

11 Utah Code § 67-16-14
12
CUWCD Board of Trustees. “Minutes of the Work Session Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District Held November 18, 2020, 12:00 P.M.”

10
 Putting the Assistant General Manager on a committee separate from the one that
awarded her family lobbying firm a contract does not eliminate a conflict of interest. The
Assistant General Manager is still second in command in the CUWCD that is funding her
private business entity. The General Manager’s claim that placing the Assistant General
Manager on a separate committee eliminated her conflict of interest is not in line with the
Utah Public Officer’s and Employees’ Ethics Act, and his decision to convey this
questionable interpretation to the CUWCD Board of Trustees could itself constitute a
violation of Utah law.

C. Utah Code § 67-11-306(1) of the Lobbyist Disclosure and Regulation Act

may also have been violated.

The Lobbyist Disclosure and Regulation Act regulates the activities of lobbyists, lays out the
requirements of financial reporting, and lists the penalties for violating these regulations and
requirements.

1. Utah Code § 67-11-306(1) may have been violated because Finlinson

& Finlinson has created a conflict of interest by lobbying for
different water districts with competing demands for Utah’s portion
of Colorado River water.

This section pertains to conflicts of interest. Specifically:

As used in this section, “conflict of interest” means a circumstance where (a) the
representation of one principal or client will be directly adverse to another principal or
client; or (b) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more principals
or clients will be materially limited by the lobbyist’s responsibilities to (i) another
principal or client; or (ii) a personal interest of the lobbyist.13

A lobbyist “may not represent a principal or client if the representation involves a conflict of
interest,”14 unless the lobbyist reasonably believes they will be able to provide competent
representation to each, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not
require the lobbyist to take a position counter to another client’s position on the same issue, and
each affected party gives informed consent in writing.15

The language of this section raises serious concern about Finlinson & Finlinson’s lobbying
efforts for three other water districts. These four water districts support the development of three
different water projects that would be funded through Utah’s Water Infrastructure Restricted
Account (WIRA). Therefore, they are all in competition for project funding. By lobbying for the
Lake Powell Pipeline, Finlinson & Finlinson is advocating for a cause that runs counter to
protecting the water supply of CUP water users and the CUWCD.

D. Possible violations of Central Utah Water Conservancy District

administrative code, as per § 5204.

13 Utah Code § 36-11-306(1)

14 Utah Code § 36-11-306(2)
15 Utah Code § 36-11-306(3)

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 11
 According to § 5204 Central Utah Water Conservancy District’s Administrative Code:

Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with proper executions of the investment program,
or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. It shall be the
responsibility of the employees and investment officials to report to the Secretary-
Treasurer any conflicts of interest as stated in this section of the investment policy.

Given the Assistant General Manager’s level of authority at CUWCD, it seems reasonable
to assume that she is involved with the District’s budget or overall investment process into
contractors and subcontractors, as the email above indicates. The public affairs budget shared
by the CUWCD Assistant General Manager with other executives and board members at
CUWCD serves as proof of this fact.16 As an employee likely involved in the CUWCD’s
investment process and its influence, the CUWCD Assistant General Manager is required to
“refrain from personal business activity” that could impair her ability “to make impartial
investment decisions.” If such a conflict does arise, it is the employee’s responsibility to report it
to the Secretary-Treasurer.

The CUWCD Assistant General Manager’s marriage to Fred Finlinson is a conflict of interest
that would certainly impair her ability to make an unbiased investment decision. By allocating
funds to Finlinson & Finlinson, the CUWCD Assistant General Manager is influencing the
payment to her husband and her family’s firm, to lobby for the organization for which she is an
executive. This is a conflict that should have been recorded with the Secretary-Treasurer, and if
it were not, the CUWCD Assistant General Manager should face the appropriate repercussions
for violating her own organization’s administrative code.

III. THE CUWCD AND THREE OTHER WATER DISTRICTS HAVE FUNDED FINLINSON
& FINLINSON, WHO HAVE ROUTINELY OPPOSED WATER CONSERVATION
LEGISLATION MEASURES AT THE STATEHOUSE.

A. The Assistant General Manager of the CUWCD and lobbyist for Finlinson &
Finlinson opposed water conservation.

On August 20, 2019, the Legislative Water Development Commission met to discuss the
role of the Central Utah Project in Utah. During the meeting, the Commission Chair asked how
CUWCD staff were implementing and considering water conservation. In response, the
Assistant General Manager for the CUWCD testified:17

It’s important to realize that conservation isn’t free. You can’t just assume that we’re
going to use less and it’s going to be cheap and easy. The education and rebates and all
the programs that it takes to reduce are expensive. In fact, when you look at the cost per
acre-foot it’s more expensive to conserve an acre-foot of water than it is to develop an
acre foot of water.18

16 See email exchange between Christine Finlinson and other water district GMs
17 Christine Finlinson testifies at a Legislative Water Development Commission, August 20, 2019, Audio Minute
41:57- 42:30 https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?mtgID=16585.
18 Christine Finlinson testifies at a Legislative Water Development Commission, August 20, 2019,

https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?mtgID=16585, EXTERNAL AUDIO: 41:57- 42:30.

12
 The Assistant General Manager of the CUWCD provided no evidence to support this claim
that reducing water demand is costlier than acquiring new water sources, such as through the
$2.9 billion Bear River Development or the $2.4 billion Lake Powell Pipeline, which are
competing legislative priorities for Finlinson & Finlinson’s clients.

B. Finlinson & Finlinson opposed water leak detection legislation at the Utah
Legislature.

Municipal water systems are often inefficient and may lose a significant amount of water
each year through leaks and other structural deficiencies.19 Studies indicate that municipal
systems can leak between 5-15% of their water delivery through leaky pipes and other
infrastructure. Leak detection solutions utilize accounting software technology to determine
where leaks are occurring, and this software is quite popular in states outside of Utah because
many other states value water conservation.

House Bill 40, Water Loss Accounting Act, proposed in the 2020 Utah Legislative Session
was written in collaboration with the American Water Works Association, the largest water trade
organization in America.20 This bill would have saved municipal water by identifying leak
locations, and the bill was supported by several city water suppliers.21 The bill would have
appropriated $1.5 million for new technology and for staff training. The bill appropriated
$300,000 annually thereafter. It was estimated that somewhere between 25,000 – 40,000 acre-
feet of municipal water could be saved through this program, nearly half as much water as the
proposed $2.4 billion Lake Powell Pipeline would deliver.

Email communications received by the Utah Rivers Council via GRAMA from the
Washington County Water Conservancy District in the Spring of 2020 demonstrates opposition
to this water conservation bill by Finlinson & Finlinson. The emails include legislative
reports and memos written by Fred Finlinson. In November of 2020, Fred Finlinson placed HB
40 into a category of “Flat Out Ugly” bills in a legislative report.22 Specifically, he noted:23

Flat Out Ugly

Water Infrastructure Leakage Reporting- Rep. M.G. Ballard

Public water suppliers have both the budget and authorization available to contract for
water audits now, not sure who gets the $1.5 million at the state for a water audit for
existing Public Water Suppliers, or does it go to the DFCM to find the leaky pipes for the
state of Utah?

After HB 40 was introduced, it was held in the House Natural Resources and
Environment Committee. Fred Finlinson authored and implemented a substitute measure
eliminating its water conservation prescriptions and instead created a working group to study

19 American Water Works Association, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, Manual 36, 1996, 4th ed.
20 American Water Works Association, January 2020, https://www.awwa.org/.
21 Water Loss Accounting, H.B. 40, 2020 General Session, https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0040.html.
22 Fred Finlinson, Utah Association of Special Districts 2020 General Session Water Legislation, November 8th, 2019.
23 Ibid.

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 13
the initiative.24 On February 15th, 2020, Fred Finlinson sent an email to the General Managers of
four water districts and the Director of the Division of Water Resources, explaining their
participation in rewriting the bill. He even went so far as to call the bill the “Prep 60 Substitute
HB40 Bill,” seeming to take credit for its rewrite. Mr. Finlinson states in the email:25

To all: I want to thank each of you for responding so quickly with comments and
suggestions. I have taken the comments and blended them into the attached 2/15/20
Draft. I plan to send the revised document to Rep. Ballard on Tuesday that she can take
it to LR&GC for drafting. I’ve included Todd Adams recommendation to allow the working
group to determine the size of those being required to do the water loss accounting
rather than limiting in the scope the action to just 1st and 2nd Class Counties. This will
allow the subject to be developed by the working group. Hopefully you can find your
favorite recommendation in this revised draft. If I have really missed the boat, please
advise. Unless directed otherwise, the revised draft will go to Rep. Ballard on Tuesday
morning. Thanks and hope you have a great week end. Fred.

C. Finlinson & Finlinson opposed secondary metering legislation at the Utah

Legislature.

Installing meters on secondary water systems has the potential to greatly reduce Utah’s
municipal water use. These secondary water systems deliver surplus irrigation water to urban
users after farmland is converted to municipal landscapes. Secondary systems allow residents
and institutions to irrigate grass with untreated water through either sprinklers or by flood
irrigation. Secondary water users overuse water because these systems are generally
unmetered, and the water is offered at extremely inexpensive rates. Utah has the largest
secondary water system in the U.S., according to the Weber Basin Water District. Installing
meters on secondary water users significantly reduces water waste by 30-50% or more.26 This
has the potential to conserve a significant amount of water and extend Utah’s current water
supply.27 Several bills have been introduced to the Utah Legislature to require water meters on
secondary systems.28

SB 204, Secondary Water Metering Requirements, proposed in the 2018 General

Legislation Session, would have required the use of metering technology on all new secondary
water systems implemented after the bill’s passage. SB 204 would also have phased in meters
on all secondary water systems statewide over time. However, the bill was substituted and
ultimately only required that all secondary water suppliers shall report their water use data to the
State Engineer and the Division of Water Rights.29 Because of these substitutions, there were
no tangible provisions to actually reduce water use. Even still, the substituted bill failed to pass
the senate.

24 Fred Finlinson, Personal Communication, February 15th, 2020.

25 Fred Finlinson, Personal Communication, February 15th, 2020.
26 Ibid
27 Secondary Water Requirements, S.B. 51, 2020 General Session, https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0051.html.
28 Western Resource Advocates, "Accelerating the Implementation of Secondary Water Metering in Utah" (2018). All

In-stream Flows Material. Paper 4. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/instream_all/4.

29 Secondary Water Requirements, S.B. 204, 2018 General Session,

https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0204.html.

14
 Mr. Finlinson makes several explicit warnings to the bill’s cost in his testimony before the
Senate Business and Labor Committee.30

When we saw Senator Anderegg’s bill we thought we better talk to him, so we met with
him and there is a technical side of this issue and then a very difficult how do we pay
for it side. We have given suggestions to him that he has explained to you that help on
the technical side, the implementation to provide the time and that process. The difficult
one is the question of how do you pay for it…We think we need to struggle a little bit
more with how do we fund that unfunded mandate, but the Senator has allowed an
appropriate amount of time to deal with those reservations.

Senate Bill 51, Secondary Water Requirements, in the 2020 General Legislation Session
was a second attempt to meter secondary water users and to report secondary water use data
to the Division of Water Rights. 31 SB 51 also would have allowed the Board of Water Resources
to allocate $10,000,000 annually in low interest loans to help water suppliers address the
financial concerns associated with implementing this technology.

On February 1st, 2020, in a legislative update to the general managers of several water
districts, Mr. Finlinson opined that funding for this water conservation measure could jeopardize
funding for new development projects. He wrote:

He also set up a restricted account to deposit $10,000,000 a year to cover

the costs of the grants. This appropriation is to last until December 31, 2040.
The Senator has been listening to what the water community has been
saying, sort of. The difficulty is that the Legislature may not appropriate the
$10,000,000 for the grants for even one year of the 20 provided in the
Legislation. Allocation $10,000,000 each from the C&D fund eliminates
$10,000,000 for some other water project. The Legislature with this bill
is saying that secondary metering is more important than other
projects. 32

Combined, Mr. Finlinson’s testimony and emails on these two bills demonstrates
opposition to spend money on metering instead of his preference to see that money spent on
development projects, presumably the same projects his clients are sponsoring (the $2.4 billion
Lake Powell Pipeline and $2.9 billion Bear River Development projects).

A substitute bill was signed by the Governor, but the substitute only applies to first and
second class counties and new systems being installed, thereby exempting all existing users.
Any county can also be excluded on the basis of water quality. The substitute bill eliminated the
mandate within the bill and limited its scope of application, reducing the scope and impact of the
bill’s ability to conserve water.

D. Finlinson & Finlinson opposed property tax relief and water conservation
legislation at the Utah Legislature.

30 Fred Finlinson speaks at the Senate Business and Labor Committee, March 1st, 2018, Audio minute 1:23:15.
https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?timelineID=115182.
31 Secondary Water Requirements, S.B. 51, 2020 General Session, https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0051.html.
32 Fred W. Finlinson, Legislation of Interest, February 1st, 2020.

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 15
 Congress directed the CUWCD to consider eliminating or reducing property tax collections
to charge the full price of water to water users,33 but Finlinson & Finlinson opposed this measure
at the Utah Legislature.

Utah’s municipal water rates are widely regarded as being among the least expensive in the
U.S., which explains why urban Utahns are consistently one of America’s highest per capita
municipal water users. These inexpensive rates are achieved through the collection of property
taxes on homes, businesses and automobiles by water conservancy districts, which artificially
lower the price of water, especially for large institutional and exempt water users which pay no
property taxes whatsoever.34 These artificially subsidized rates lead to Utahns using more water
per person than nearly every other resident in the American West.35

As simple market economics dictates, when large users like government and other exempt
institutions face a higher cost for water, they reduce their use.36 Research has shown that
eliminating property tax revenues for the Washington County Water Conservancy District would
lower use by 27 percent, effectively using market economics to reduce water waste.37

SB 151, Property Tax Relief Modifications, was proposed in the 2017 General Session. It
would have set a 15% total revenue limit that water districts in the urban counties of Utah could
collect from property taxes.38

Ron Thompson, the ex-General Manager for the Washington County Water Conservancy
District, one of the entities that Finlinson & Finlinson is listed as a principal lobbyist for, wrote in
an email to several legislators on February 1st, 2017 that:

This is a bad bill aimed directly at Washington County and the Lake Powell Pipeline. It is
likely that it was drafted by somebody opposed the Lake Powell Pipeline and then given
to Senator Dubakis for introduction. The problem is also created for Jordan Valley in
case they needed a little more revenue to deal with additional capital needs. We will
definitely need your help to kill this bill.39

The bill was tabled by the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment
Committee and failed to advance out of committee.

SB 214, Property Tax Reporting Modifications, proposed in the 2019 General Session
would have put a 15% cap on the amount that urban water districts were able to collect in total

33 Central Utah Completion Act, PL 102-575, Section 207(c)(3)(G), 1992.

34 B. Delworth Gardner, Aquanomics: Water Markets and the Environment, Chapter 9: The Economic Effects of Using
Property Taxes in Lieu of Direct User Fees to Pay For Water, The Independent Institute, 2012.
35 B. Delworth Gardner, Aquanomics: Water Markets and the Environment, Chapter 9: The Economic Effects of Using

Property Taxes in Lieu of Direct User Fees to Pay For Water, The Independent Institute, 2012.

38 Property Tax Relief Modifications, S.B. 151, 2017 General Session,

https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0151.html.
39 Ronald Thompson, Personal Communication, February 1st, 2017.

16
revenue.40 In an email update to several water districts on March 16th, 2019, Fred Finlinson
warns of the potential lost revenue noting:

The bill was written for Senator Jim Dubakis in 2017 as SB 251. The bill restricts
property tax collections for water conservancy districts in 1st and 2nd counties except for
the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to 15% of the total revenue of the
District…. The adoption of the drafted substitute is a major resolution for the benefit of
the Water Conservancy Districts.41

The original bill was replaced with a substitute measure that only requires these water
districts to report to the Revenue and Tax Committee about their funding sources.42 In not
reducing the rate of property tax collection, the bill encourages the continued subsidization of
the cost of water, encouraging higher water use and opposing water conservation.43

E. Finlinson & Finlinson opposed the planning of water conservation

legislation at the Utah Legislature.

Water conservation planning is critical to ensuring that ratepayers are receiving the least
expensive sources of water. It also helps to ensure that water suppliers have reduced the wear
and tear to their facilities by reducing water demand and hence, treatment costs, operation and
maintenance costs, and other delivery costs. Yet the Finlinson & Finlinson in its representation
of the four largest water districts in Utah has opposed even hypothetical exercised designed to
simply ask questions about the feasibility of water conservation.

House Bill 143, Water Conservation Plan Amendments, proposed in the 2019 General
Session, would have required water suppliers to simply consider how they might reduce their
water use to 175 gallons per capita day (gpcd) and the potential costs of such conservation
measures.44 Nothing in the bill required these water suppliers to reduce their water use
whatsoever, they simply had to evaluate what they could do to reduce water use to the 175
gpcd figure. By studying what it would take to reach this goal, a water supplier could determine
the feasibility of conservation programs that could get statewide use to 175 gpcd. Many Utah
water suppliers already are below this 175 gpcd threshold.

Finlinson & Finlinson were vehemently opposed to the bill and in a February 8th, 2019 email
to the general managers of several water districts, Mr. Finlinson wrote:45

The Rep. did back off the statewide number, but then she wanted a
discussion of an extra 10% reduction from the study goals. (Maybe we
ought to give that to them and let everybody know who is going to
destroy their communities as we know them.) The requirements to reach

40 Property Tax Reporting Modifications, S.B. 214, 2019 General Session,

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/SB0214.html.
41 Fred W. Finlinson, 2019 Critical Legislation Memorandum, March 11th, 2019.
42 Ibid
43 B. Delworth Gardner, Aquanomics: Water Markets and the Environment, Chapter 9: The Economic Effects of Using

Property Taxes in Lieu of Direct User Fees to Pay For Water, The Independent Institute, 2012.
44 Water Conservation Plan Amendments, H.B.143, 2019 General Session,

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0143.html.
45 Fred Finlinson, Personal Communication, February 8th, 2019.

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 17
 the 2030 goal will be pretty rough, and the 2040 and 2065 will be really
rough. If she isn’t willing to go through with this proposals, her bill will likely
remain in the House Natural Resource committee for the rest of the session.

In the attachments to the above email, it is clear that Fred Finlinson again worked with
Todd Adams, the Director of the Division of Water Resources, to revise the bill and strike
through the bill’s goal to consider reducing water use to 175 GPCD.46 The characterization
that simply asking a question about how much water could be saved in a minor
planning effort is typical of the hostility to water conservation that the water district
lobbyists have demonstrated at the Utah statehouse. This demonstrates that this
conflict of interest is fueling opposition to water conservation measures not just
inside the service areas of the Central Utah Water District, but in every Utah town
and city.

Figure 1: Attachment to Fred Finlinson's Email Demonstrating Revisions to HB 143

The bill was held in the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee and did
not advance.

F. Finlinson & Finlinson supported legislation that set aside funds for the
Lake Powell Pipeline and Bear River Development projects, both of which
disregard the legitimacy of water conservation policy.

Finlinson & Finlinson supported Senate Bill 281, Water Infrastructure Funding, proposed
in the 2015 General Session. This bill created the Water Infrastructure Restricted Account
(WIRA) and funded this account with a one-time appropriation of $5 million. WIRA is a holding
account where funds are set aside to pay for the future costs of advancing Bear River
Development and the Lake Powell Pipeline.47

46 Ibid.
47 Water Infrastructure Funding, S.B. 281, 2015 General Session, https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0143.html.

18
 Finlinson & Finlinson supported Senate Bill 80, Infrastructure Funding Amendments,
proposed in the 2016 General Session. SB 80 is the funding mechanism for the WIRA account
that allocates 1/16% of all sales tax revenue into WIRA. This account now continuously grows
and puts aside taxpayer dollars to pay for the development of the Bear and Colorado Rivers.48
The bill passed through the House Revenue and Taxation Committee by just one vote. After
contentious votes on both the Senate (19-10) and the House (48-26) the Bill passed. In a
November 3, 2014 report from Fred Finlinson, he expresses his support for the funding
mechanisms for water development writing:

The Risk of Raids. The full funding of the 1/16% approved in the 2016 General Session
will be phased in over a five year period. The risk for any funding accumulating for future
development is a raid by a competing state agency for the funds. So far, at least one raid
has been planned. The WIRA funding could provide the ‘soft landing’ for the B & C
Hardship Counties. These entities claimed they had not received a fair disruption of the
State B & C transportation funds. In the 2016 General Session, they sponsored some
technical corrections to the distribution formula, which turned out to be a little more than
a ‘technical correction,’ it was ‘flat out’ raid. So far Legislative Leadership has ruled out
the WIRA 1/16% as the source for the ‘soft landing.’ This is not likely to be the last raid
planned on the new 1/16%. ‘Diligence’ requires ‘Vigilance.’49

IV. CONCLUSION

The 2021 Utah Water Year is the worst on record for precipitation and it is critical to all
Utahns that we ensure that our water supply is safe and secure. A safe and secure water supply
cannot be ensured if the public water agencies delivering Utahns their water are not run in an
ethical and transparent manner and in full compliance with the laws of Utah.

Because water is important and owned by the public, we believe it is your responsibility
to investigate to what extent Utah laws have been broken by senior staff members of the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Investigating this agency will ensure that Utahns truly
are being provided the least-expensive water supply possible. We are concerned that the
personal financial needs or professional whims of the senior staff of the CUWCD have been
placed ahead of the needs of Utahns in providing an affordable water supply.

We hereby request that your office conduct a thorough investigation into these conflicts
of interest to protect the public interest of all Utahns. We would love to meet with you in person
to discuss our concerns and answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Zachary Frankel
Executive Director

48 Infrastructure Funding Amendments, S.B. 80, 2016 General Session,

https://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/SB0080.html.
49 Utah Association of Special Districts Annual Convention, Legislative Issues Prepared by Fred W. Finlinson

November 3, 2014. http://www.uasd.org/uploads/files/16060/Prep-60-UASD-Legislative-Report-11.2.16.pdf

1270 East 8600 South Suite 16 Sandy Utah 84094 801-486-4776 www.utahrivers.org 19