All Roll Calls
Yes: 150 • No: 30
UtahH.B. 5912026 General SessionHouseWALLET
Nuisance Amendments
Sponsored By: Colin W. Jack (Republican)
Signed by Governor
NuisancesJudicial OperationsSunsets and RepealersCivil Litigation
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
20 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 1 costs, 18 mixed.
Lower criminal penalties for home violations
Cities and counties generally cannot impose criminal penalties above an infraction for violations involving a person's pet or home use. Higher penalties remain allowed for a private nuisance threatening health, safety, or welfare. They also remain allowed after three previous fines involving the same pet or residence within 12 months. The limit does not cover building-code or fire-code enforcement.
Ignoring nuisance orders brings daily penalties
Knowingly violating a court judgment or order stopping a public or private nuisance is a class B misdemeanor. The person also faces a $50 civil penalty for each day the nuisance continues in violation of the order. The daily civil penalty is added to the criminal exposure.
New limits on nuisance lawsuits
Beginning May 6, 2026, Utah replaces its former nuisance laws with a new statutory system. People other than the Attorney General generally cannot bring nuisance suits based on common law rather than statutes. Claims that arose or were pending in court before that date remain allowed. The Attorney General retains authority to sue over substantial ongoing harm affecting many Utah residents, including at the governor's direction. The Attorney General must report on this authority before October 1, 2029, and every four years afterward.
Residents face strict public nuisance claims
Private parties can sue over public nuisances tied to foreseeable conduct, controlled activity, or neglect of a former owner's continuing nuisance. Without the defendant's conduct, the nuisance must disappear or the plaintiff's cleanup costs must fall by at least 25%. Plaintiffs must prove a special injury with clear and convincing evidence and file a verified complaint stating each element in detail. Recovery covers only compensatory damages for special injury not reimbursed by government. Class actions for special injuries are barred.
Farm neighbors face tighter lawsuit limits
Farms gain protection from private nuisance claims brought by people who do not legally possess the affected property. Claims are also barred beyond one-half mile or more than one year after the farm starts or fundamentally changes. Ownership or size changes, breaks of up to three years, government farm programs, new technology, and product changes do not restart that clock. Normal operations or sound farm practices are also protected. Following applicable federal, state, and local laws, including zoning, creates a presumption of sound practices.
Households get clearer drug-fume claims
Beginning May 6, 2026, households can sue over fumes from unlawful drug activity drifting into their homes. Possible defendants include the person creating the fumes and renters who permit or fail to control them. Plaintiffs need not prove sole possession or use; knowing joint participation or evidence of ability and intent to control the substance can suffice. A landlord can be sued only after written notice and knowingly allowing the nuisance to continue. A defendant has a defense by proving a legal right to possess or use the substance.
New tests for neighborhood nuisance claims
A private nuisance arises from property use that harms a neighbor's health, safety, or property use, or is indecent or offensive. Listed examples include frequent party houses, unsafe buildings, prostitution, gambling, unlawful gunfire, and drug or tobacco nuisances. Tobacco smoke must enter a residential unit more than once in each of two or more consecutive seven-day periods. It must also create the harm described in the private nuisance definition. Rentals lasting 30 days or less, hotels, motels, and timeshares are excluded from the residential-unit definition.
Property holders get nuisance court remedies
A private nuisance plaintiff must hold a legal interest in property harmed by the nuisance or suffer reduced personal enjoyment. A winning plaintiff can receive damages, repairs, security measures, court orders, authorized eviction, and reasonable legal costs. Plaintiffs must show their claim is more likely true than not; legally allowed evidence includes community reputation. Courts may award unreimbursed investigation and discovery costs and reasonable attorney fees to the winning side in nuisance-abatement cases. Awards against landlords, owners, or designated agencies require actual notice of the case and a willful failure to act reasonably within a reasonable time.
Smoke waivers limit household nuisance claims
Beginning May 6, 2026, a written smoking disclosure and signed acknowledgment and waiver can bar a tobacco nuisance claim. The rental, lease, purchase agreement, or property covenant must warn that smoking is allowed elsewhere and smoke may drift inside. Renters can sue a landlord only if their contract bars drifting smoke, they give written notice, and the landlord knowingly allows it to continue. Claims can also target the smoke generator or a renter who permits or fails to control smoke in violation of the agreement.
Unsafe properties can trigger immediate eviction
County or city attorneys, counties, county residents, and businesses operating in the county can seek eviction to stop an unsafe place. Plaintiffs must show the required facts are more likely true than not. Courts must weigh irreparable harm, harm to the person evicted, public interest, and likely success or serious issues needing further litigation. Once those tests are met, the court must issue an order, which can be enforced immediately. Plaintiffs generally must provide security, with statutory exceptions.
Protected farms get shields and fee rules
Inside agriculture protection areas, public and private nuisance suits are barred for activity following nuisance-related laws or sound farm practices. Local nuisance ordinances cannot apply to normal farm operations or operations following sound practices there; legal compliance creates a presumption of sound practices. These provisions replace a former specific defense in civil and criminal nuisance cases. Across farm nuisance cases, defendants must receive costs and reasonable attorney fees when the farm is not a nuisance and the suit is frivolous or malicious. Plaintiffs must receive those costs when the farm is a nuisance and an affirmative defense is both frivolous and malicious.
Horse owners face reclaiming deadlines
Abandoned horses remain condemned public menaces, but are no longer declared public nuisances. The definition covers unbranded horses and related animals running on open range, branded animals missed for the prior year's tax assessment, and foals with qualifying dams. Open range is non-private land, including public roads outside private enclosures; county elimination drives require at least 30 days of posting. Owners have 30 days after initial notice to file descriptions or brands and 10 days to reclaim animals after county possession, paying care expenses. For animals killed by county order, owner damages are capped at $10 per animal, require paid taxes, and come only from sale proceeds.
Range users face access and fee rules
Group shooting-range use is recognized as lawful under the cited firearm laws. Firearms remain restricted in school buildings, but statutory exceptions and direct access through a range's outdoor entrance are allowed. Fences, structures, or gates cannot be used for the purpose of blocking a range's outdoor entrance. Public ranges failing the applicable OSHA ventilation standard allow only air guns, excluding larger-caliber pneumatic weapons, paintball guns, and air shotguns. Publicly operated ranges can provide a certified official when a group lacks one available and charge for the official's time.
Bird production areas gain lawsuit protection
Beginning May 6, 2026, public and private nuisance suits cannot target lawful nuisances normally associated with migratory bird production areas. The nuisance must occur inside the production area and must not violate federal or state law. The law removes the former complete defense in civil and criminal nuisance cases and replaces it with the new framework.
Governments get defined nuisance cleanup powers
Government entities and legally authorized officers can stop public nuisances without removing the right to bring statutory nuisance suits. Government lawsuits must link the nuisance to a person's conduct, controlled activity, or neglect of a former owner's continuing nuisance. Without that conduct, the nuisance must disappear or government cleanup costs must fall by at least 25%. Local governments can sue only over nuisances entirely within their boundaries, and verified filings must state each element in detail. Relief covers orders and resources needed for cleanup, not damages or future nuisances; ongoing obstruction of a public right has no filing deadline.
Public nuisance rules protect several activities
An unlawful act or omission can count as a public nuisance when it meets the private nuisance test. Other tests cover public decency, public roads or waters, and specified harms affecting at least three people. The definition excludes normal farm and infrastructure-materials activities conducted with sound practices; following applicable laws creates a presumption of sound practices. It also excludes manufacturing activities covered by the law's factory defense and lawful, normal activities inside migratory bird production areas. Shooting-range noise is excluded when the range predates noise rules or follows the rules from its opening, without substantial public health or safety harm; noise following nationally recognized standards is also excluded.
Shooting ranges retain strong noise shields
Beginning May 6, 2026, qualifying Utah ranges and their users are protected from noise nuisance suits. A range must predate noise rules or comply with the rules from its opening, without substantially harming public health or safety. Noise following nationally recognized standards and operating practices is not a public or private nuisance. The law removes the former noise-liability and criminal-prosecution protections and establishes these nuisance rules in their place.
Night construction permits require nuisance review
For department nighttime construction with a local noise permit, local authorities must review the private nuisance effects. They must determine that those effects can be reasonably reduced. The requirement covers activities directly related to and necessary for the permitted project.
Carbon storage gains conditional nuisance protection
Carbon dioxide lawfully injected and stored in a reservoir does not count as a public or private nuisance under the new chapter. The board must find, and the operator must show, that leakage cannot exceed the lower of 1% or the EPA-recommended standard. Operators cannot add substances that could weaken reservoir integrity. They must also have a plan to maintain that integrity.
Factories and mines gain nuisance shields
Factories operating more than three years, without being nuisances when they opened, are protected from private claims based on changed nearby land uses. Protection ends if the factory increases the problem or operates negligently or improperly; local ordinances declaring or abating that protected nuisance are void. Critical infrastructure materials operations are protected from private claims over normal activity or sound practices, with legal compliance presumed to show sound practices. Vested mining uses following sound practices cannot count as public or private nuisances under the specified laws. After more than three years, later changes to nearby land cannot make those mining uses nuisances.
Sponsors & Cosponsors
Sponsor
Colin W. Jack
Republican • House
Cosponsors
Brady Brammer
Republican • Senate
Roll Call Votes
Senate vote • 3/6/2026
Senate/ floor amendment
Yes: 0 • No: 0
Senate vote • 3/6/2026
Senate/ substituted
Yes: 0 • No: 0
Senate vote • 3/6/2026
Senate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension
Yes: 21 • No: 6
House vote • 3/6/2026
House/ concurs with Senate amendment
Yes: 47 • No: 14
Senate vote • 3/4/2026
Senate Comm - Substitute Recommendation
Yes: 6 • No: 0
Senate vote • 3/4/2026
Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation
Yes: 7 • No: 0
House vote • 2/27/2026
House/ passed 3rd reading
Yes: 60 • No: 9
House vote • 2/25/2026
House Comm - Favorable Recommendation
Yes: 9 • No: 1
Actions Timeline
Governor Signed
3/25/2026House/ to Governor
3/17/2026HouseHouse/ received enrolled bill from Printing
3/17/2026HouseHouse/ enrolled bill to Printing
3/12/2026HouseEnrolled Bill Returned to House or Senate
3/12/2026Draft of Enrolled Bill Prepared
3/11/2026Bill Received from House for Enrolling
3/11/2026House/ signed by Speaker/ sent for enrolling
3/11/2026HouseHouse/ received from Senate
3/11/2026HouseSenate/ to House
3/10/2026SenateSenate/ signed by President/ returned to House
3/10/2026SenateSenate/ received from House
3/10/2026SenateHouse/ to Senate
3/6/2026HouseHouse/ concurs with Senate amendment
3/6/2026HouseHouse/ placed on Concurrence Calendar
3/6/2026HouseHouse/ received from Senate
3/6/2026HouseSenate/ to House with amendments
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ floor amendment
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ substituted
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ Rules to 2nd Reading Calendar
3/6/2026SenateSenate/ 2nd Reading Calendar to Rules
3/4/2026SenateSenate/ placed on 2nd Reading Calendar
3/4/2026SenateSenate/ comm rpt/ substituted
3/4/2026Senate
Bill Text
Enrolled
3/12/2026
Amended 3/6/2026 23:03:447
3/6/2026
Substitute #3
3/5/2026
Substitute #2
3/4/2026
Substitute #1
3/3/2026
Introduced
2/20/2026