House removes eminent-domain authority from Great Salt Lake diking plan; amendment passes after floor fight

The Utah House on Feb. 16 amended and passed changes to the Great Salt Lake Development Authority Act that narrow the authority's powers and require its study recommendations to return to the Legislature and governor before any further action. Lawmakers voted 43–27 to pass the bill as amended.

Supporters said the change preserves legislative oversight. The bill was amended at the governor’s request to ensure that after the authority completes a feasibility study it must obtain both legislative and gubernatorial approval before seeking public bonding or other implementation measures. “If the legislature and the governor approve the recommendations of the board, the board would then take the matter to the public for a vote for bonding,” the sponsor said in floor remarks.

Representative Howard, who offered a floor amendment to strip the authority’s eminent‑domain power, said the body should be limited to study functions and not be granted powers appropriate only for an elected municipal body. “I would like us to take out this eminent domain power, which they do not need to perform a study,” Howard said, arguing that creating an unelected entity with power to take property was premature.

Proponents resisted removing eminent domain, saying that tax‑exempt bonding and financing options commonly require one of three powers — taxing authority, eminent domain or police power — to qualify. Legal counsel and bond counsel advised that without eminent‑domain authority the authority could not issue certain tax‑exempt bonds. Representative Smithley, defending the bill, said the amendments narrow the authority’s scope and include procedural safeguards: the study must come back to the legislature and the governor and, if either declines approval, the project cannot proceed.

The House adopted a series of technical and pink‑sheet amendments during the discussion and then voted on the Howard amendment by division; the amendment to remove eminent‑domain authority carried in the division vote and was incorporated into the bill as amended. The amended HB 4‑17 passed and will be referred to the Senate for its consideration.

The House debate highlighted two policy tensions: ensuring public review and local consent before giving broad powers to a state authority, and preserving financing tools proponents say are necessary if the project ultimately requires large‑scale land acquisition and tax‑exempt bonding. The bill now moves to the Senate for further action.