The project’s backers withdrew their request to use the water for industrial purposes instead of irrigation earlier this month after thousands of Utahns wrote to the state’s Division of Water Rights in protest. But Bar H Ranch, which submitted the application, “fully intends to move forward with the project” and come back with a new application and more information to make its case, a representative wrote in correspondence with the state.

As of May 6, a new Utah law limits the factors the state engineer can weigh in deciding to approve or reject such requests, narrowing consideration of any “detriment to public welfare” largely to questions of water pollution and water scarcity. Previously, State Engineer Teresa Wilhelmsen could consider almost any argument related to the greater good.

Some groups see the new framework as a major setback for Utahns seeking to warn of potential harms to wildlife, the landscape and public health, whether in relation to the planned 40,000-acre Stratos data center or other proposals.

“What we’ve done as a state now, by passing HB60, is taking a step closer to having more dust storms by removing one of the regulatory tools from our toolbox to keep water over the Great Salt Lake,” said Zachary Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, of the legislation governing how the state engineer weighs protests to water rights.

Others see the new law as less of an obstacle. To make a case against the Stratos plan and against other proposals, Friends of the Great Salt Lake has typically relied on other parts of the law that are still intact, said general counsel Rob Dubuc.

“I can’t speak for anyone else, and wouldn’t presume to do that, but from our perspective, it doesn’t hinder our ability to bring a protest to protect the lake,” Dubuc said.

His organization filed an objection to the proposed change in water use for the data center, raising concerns including about groundwater and the feasibility of the project, and condemning the “complete absence of details in the application.”

Powered by its own natural gas plant, developers say the project would produce 9 gigawatts of energy, which is double the state’s consumption. They’ve laid out a plan to use a closed-loop cooling system, recirculating the same water instead of continually drawing more.

Celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary of TV’s “Shark Tank,” who is backing the project, has stressed that the data center would not come at a detriment to the Great Salt Lake.

It’s not clear if the change to the law would’ve applied to the original Bar H application, had it not been withdrawn. The initial paperwork was filed in April, but a hearing for the protests hadn’t been held yet, and the arguments not yet scrutinized by the state engineer.

A spokesperson for the Division of Water Rights, led by Wilhelmsen, told Utah News Dispatch Friday the change is a “modification of code — it’s not a whole new approach.”

At the Capitol earlier this year, the measure’s supporters pitched it as a way to streamline Utah’s efforts to get more water to its ailing saline lake, depleted after decades of drought, climate change and redirection of water, mostly for agriculture. Bill sponsor, Rep. David Shallenberger, R-Orem, did not respond Friday to messages seeking comment.

University of Utah law professor Brig Daniels, who specializes in areas of property and environmental law, said before Utah attained statehood, courts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tended to consider community impacts from water projects.

“The roots of the public interest doctrine spring from Utah,” he said.

More recently, concerns about broader societal impacts have tended to receive less weight than other sorts of arguments, Daniels said, but the new law still has an “unfortunate” aspect.

“In some ways, it’s foreclosing a possibility where we start thinking about our shared stake in some of these decisions, just at a time as our resources are constrained such that it’s obvious to everyone who’s watching that we have a shared stake in our water, in our air, you know, all of these things,” Daniels said. “It’s at this time that we decided to walk away from that commitment.”