Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Species Protection Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State presenters ask lawmakers for $5 million one-time boost to Species Protection Account
Summary
Russ Franklin of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District told the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee that Utah’s Species Protection Account has prevented federal listings for 27 species since 1997 and asked legislators for a $5 million one‑time appropriation to bridge funding while a bill to add ongoing revenue is considered.
Russ Franklin of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District told the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee that Utah’s Species Protection Account (formerly the Endangered Species Mitigation Fund) has worked since 1997 to both recover listed species and prevent new listings under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Franklin said the program has helped block federal listings for 27 species and cited a 2016 study estimating the account’s work has saved Utah more than $240 million in costs associated with federal listings. He told the committee the account was flat-funded from 1997 until a one-time $2 million increase last year and that program buying power has declined with inflation.
“It's been around since 1997,” Franklin said. “This account has 2 goals. 1 is to recover species that were already listed under the Endangered Species Act. And number 2 is to prevent the listing of species.”
Franklin outlined recent uses of the additional funding, including work on brine flies, Wilson’s phalarope and snowy plover at the Great Salt Lake, pinyon jay conservation, the June sucker on Utah Lake, Virgin River fish projects, bat conservation and expansion of the MOTUS (bird-tracking) tower network. He said the department and its advisory committee — which includes representatives from oil and gas, mining, Farm Bureau, water users, and NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy — rank incoming project requests and allocate funds across a range of species.
The presentation included a one‑time funding request: Franklin asked the committee to consider a $5,000,000 one-time increase to the Species Protection Account as a bridge until a legislative bill proposed by Representative Craig (Representative Snyder referenced in testimony) could create new, ongoing revenue streams. Franklin said he expects the Representative’s bill, if enacted, to improve the account’s purchasing power in 2026 or 2027.
Representative Snyder told the committee a bill is being pursued that would identify new revenue sources and treat wind and solar revenue in a manner similar to how oil and gas revenues are treated for mitigation. He described the Species Protection Account as “critical” and said the proposed revenue approach looks at treating wind and solar like oil and gas to help fund mitigation work.
No committee vote on the $5,000,000 request or on Representative Snyder’s bill was recorded during the meeting; Franklin presented the request for the committee’s consideration and took questions.
Why it matters: Franklin and others argued that preventing federal listings keeps management at the state level, which they said preserves “agility” and potentially reduces regulatory delays and economic costs tied to federal listings. The committee heard examples of species and projects the account supports and that demand for the account’s funding far outstrips current appropriations.
Next steps and unanswered questions: The presentation left the request before the committee; Franklin asked members to consider the one-time increase while legislative work proceeds to secure ongoing revenue. Committee members asked clarifying questions but did not take a formal vote on the funding request during the hearing.
