Yesterday, the website ProPublica published a story (jointly with the Trib) on machinations in this year’s Utah legislative session about water.  ProPublica describes its mission as “… expos(ing) abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”  The story includes some of the behind-the-scenes activity behind HB282 – Water Wise Landscaping Amendments, which created a new section in LUDMA dealing with this topic.

The title of the story is Utah Officials Called It the “Year of Water.” Special Interests Still Resist Conservation.  While the descriptions of some of the things that went on during the session as this and other bills were under consideration ring true, I don’t particularly agree with the writer’s characterization of them. The Utah League of Cities and Towns particularly gets a battering.  In the part of the story talking about HB282, it says:

“We recognize in Utah in a lot of ways we’re behind what Colorado and some of our neighboring states have done, and we as a state are focused,” said Rep. Gay Lynn Bennion, a Democrat who worked on turf legislation this session.

But internal communications suggest Utah is stymied by politicking, with groups such as the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which lobbies on behalf of municipalities, fighting against aggressive policy.

Rep. Raymond Ward, a Republican, proposed a bill to prohibit municipalities from requiring grass lawns. In January, he told ProPublica his idea ran into early opposition from the league, “who I knew would be the chief opponent because it impinges on what they think is their birthright, which is zoning,” he said.

Ward tweaked his proposal to assure the league that the bill wouldn’t get in the way of municipalities’ beautification ordinances. The group toned down its opposition, Ward said, but lobbyists from homeowners associations continued to attack and the bill failed.

A similar turf law did pass — one endorsed by lobbyists from municipalities and water districts — that Ward described as a “watered down version” of his bill.

The story goes on to suggest that League officials were more concerned about keeping local control of land use than they were about the main issue at hand, water conservation.

Wilcox (the bill sponsor) met with Lee (Justin, the League’s government relations director), the water district and several towns, and later that week he sent Lee a proposed bill substitute. “Please Review,” Wilcox wrote. Lee responded to the legislator, “This is exactly what we were looking for.” Wilcox introduced the substitute, and Lee showed up to support the bill, which had been changed to keep most decision-making on landscaping with local municipalities.

The Utah League of Cities and Towns has opposed turf bills for years. In 2016, then-Sen. Scott Jenkins, a Republican who was upset that a local ordinance compelled him to plant a lawn around his plumbing wholesale warehouse in Orem, filed a bill to curb such mandates. Jenkins told ProPublica that the league doomed the bill.

“Considering the fact that we’re hurting for water right now, especially in Utah and in the West, that’s just so dumb to do,” Jenkins said. “They ask us to not turn our faucets on or shut them off when we’re brushing our teeth, but they’re just flat out wasting water here.”

The league’s position statement on that year’s legislation noted that Jenkins did not first run the bill past a group consisting of the league and others representing towns, real estate and development interests. The bill died on the Senate floor.

While I agree that the League is very much about keeping local control as much as possible over land use policy and regulations (that’s who they represent, after all, are the local elected officials), I think it is rather unfair to characterize them as not concerned about water conservation.  The example with Sen. Jenkins was from several years earlier, when water was perhaps not as critical an issue as it is now.  And I will say, that in the meetings and discussions I’ve attended in the past year, League and local officials do very much express concerns about water availability and conservation.  Their position is, simply, “don’t impose the solutions on us, let us help craft them, we’re often on the front lines and have good ideas too.”

Now, I don’t intend to say that local officials are always right, or have the best answers (zoning issues at the local level can be frustratingly parochial).  But examples from other states have shown that where policies are imposed from higher levels without at least the attempt to work with local officials, those local officials can become amazingly reluctant and obstructive to implementation.

The story is worth the read, but given the stated mission of ProPublica, I’d take it with a grain of salt.

What this also tells me, is that we are nowhere near being done with water and land use issues in the legislature and in our local communities.  Put on your life jacket, lots more deep water (or lack thereof!) ahead.