Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Central Utah Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House unanimously backs Central Utah Project resolution, asks for public oversight
Summary
The Utah House on Feb. 19 adopted House Concurrent Resolution 14 urging support for completion of the Central Utah Project and requesting public oversight and state cost-sharing conditions; vote 70–0. Sponsors stressed water’s importance for rural Utah and set a path for negotiation with the Interior Department.
The Utah House of Representatives on Feb. 19 passed House Concurrent Resolution 14, a bipartisan measure backing continuation of the Central Utah Project (CUP) and urging careful state review of any cost‑sharing agreement with the Secretary of the Interior.
Representative Martmar Stevens, sponsor of the resolution, told the House the CUP "is vital to the continued long‑term prosperity of the state, especially for rural Utah," and said the resolution asks the legislature and governor to express support for continued federal participation only for project features that meet tests of economic and environmental feasibility. Stevens said the resolution also requests a broad review and recommendations to be reported in 1993 and emphasizes "public oversight over any increase in taxing authority."
The resolution references the federal Completion Act enacted in October 1992 and notes the act’s requirement that states contribute a significant share of certain up‑front design and construction costs (the text references a range of roughly 35–50 percent of front costs). Rep. Stevens and several colleagues argued the state must be prepared to meet cost‑sharing commitments where features meet economic and environmental tests. Stevens also said the Interior Department is required to enter a cost‑sharing agreement within a 120‑day window after passage of the Completion Act, making the coming months critical for state preparation.
Members from several districts asked whether residents of some taxing districts (for example, Summit County) would pay without receiving direct water delivery; sponsors replied the resolution establishes a review process and that the governor appoints any commission named in the measure. Representative Proxman spoke for minority leadership in support of the approach, describing it as a way to both secure federal funds and to set up a mechanism to address concerns about taxation and local benefit.
The House voted to lift the resolution from the Rules Committee under suspension and place it at the top of the third‑reading calendar; later roll call recorded 70 affirmative and 0 negative votes. The resolution will be transmitted to the Senate.
What happens next: The resolution is intended as a legislative endorsement and a request for oversight and reporting. It asks the congressional delegation and the secretary of the interior to proceed with cost‑sharing only for project features that meet economic and environmental tests, and it asks that a public review and recommendations be returned to the legislature in 1993.
