A couple of bills out yesterday that are more, shall we say, interesting and impactful.
The interesting one first. House Speaker Brad Wilson is the sponsor (it is unusual for the Speaker or Senate President to actually be the sponsor of a bill – when they are, it usually signals an issue of particular importance) of HB410 – Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement. Concern over the rapidly diminishing nature of the Great Salt Lake has become a top of the list issue for state leaders in the past year or so, as noted earlier. Legislators even took an aerial tour https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/2/15/22935079/utah-lawmakers-get-aerial-tour-of-great-salt-lake-drought-science-saline-lake-politics-environment in the last few days to see what is happening to the lake. Speaker Wilson sponsored a conference not long ago about the GSL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFKZVw1kvw, so it is no surprise to see this bill. The bill sets up a GSL watershed enhancement program, primarily to acquire water rights specifically for the lake itself. This is noted as being a first step, with others sure to follow.
The next bill definitely falls into the category of being “impactful”, so much so it’s hard to take seriously. Rep. Val Peterson, he who is also the sponsor of HB303 – Downzoning Notice Amendments, which we panned in an earlier post (February 3), yesterday unveiled HB416 – Property Rights Ombudsman Amendments. All I can say is, Wow! This bill would require the Ombudsman’s Office, every year, to conduct a review of every local government’s land use ordinances, policies, and written actions on land use issues for compliance with state requirements, and to issue a report on such by October 1 every year. The written actions to be reviewed include emails, citations and written minutes. Can you say, land use police? What would such an undertaking require? I can’t wait to see the fiscal note on this one! The bill would also allow any person to request an advisory opinion, not just from the PRO, but from “a neutral third party” to determine if a local government’s ordinance, policy or action is inconsistent with state law. It also provides that if a local government doesn’t cure the offending ordinance, policy or action within 30 days of the issuance of the advisory opinion, a court can award attorneys fees to the requester. So that would mean a local government would have to do what the advisory opinion says even if they disagreed with it, or risk having to pay attorneys fees. I talked with the current PRO, he had no idea this bill was coming.
In my posts from the last couple of days, I paid especial kudos to a state legislator who is very much persuaded that cooperation with local officials is more likely to produce workable and feasible solutions, Rep. Waldrip. I’m sorry to say, Rep. V. Peterson, with this bill and HB303, appears to be the polar opposite. ☹
By the way, HB303 was voted favorably(!) out of committee yesterday, but League staff assure us that amendments to this bill that will make it “better”(?) are coming. We shall see.