Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rights Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House backs state assertion of rights-of-way on federal lands; bill and resolution advance to Senate
Summary
In a special session Oct. 11, 1993, the Utah House passed a concurrent resolution and amended House Bill 6 to reassert state authority over historic rights-of-way across federal public lands and to add mapping data to a state geographic database. Debate centered on a broad definition of ‘highway,’ liability and potential litigation; HCR 1 passed 69–2 and amended HB 6 passed the House 59–12.
The Utah House on Oct. 11 passed a resolution and an amended bill intended to strengthen the state’s claim to rights-of-way across federal public lands and to place historic mapping information into a state database, sending both measures to the Senate for further consideration.
Representative Dan Q. Price, sponsor of both measures, said the concurrent resolution ‘‘strongly oppos[es] any action by The United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, or the Department of Agriculture infringing on the authority of the state of Utah to administer rights of way across federal public lands of Utah,’’ and described the bill as a way to simplify access to historic right‑of‑way information by adding it to a centralized geographic information system.
Supporters said the legislation is aimed at protecting rural access and the economic base of small communities that rely on roads, logging routes, water transmission lines and other access across federal land. Representative Matt Johnson told colleagues the RS 2477 framework ‘‘is the historic name for easement’’ and that many rural districts ‘‘depend on’’ these routes for schools, fire services and hospitals.
Opponents questioned the bill’s scope and legal consequences. Representative Goodfellow argued the measure’s definition of ‘‘highway’’ stretches ‘‘so far that everything in the alphabet is an elephant’’ — a point he used to criticize provisions that classify paths, canals, ditches and informal trails as highways. Representative Davis warned that the bill appears to ‘‘waive’’ mapping and survey requirements for some rights-of-way and urged caution about exempting federal policy. Representative Oskarsen and others urged more public input and recommended handling the issue in a general session rather than a special session.
Representative Ted Carlson cited recent administrative data, telling the House that from 1988 through 1992 ‘‘hundreds’’ of requests for right-of-way access were granted and only a small number rejected, arguing that a widespread denial problem did not appear to justify the bill’s urgency. Supporters countered that the bill responds to perceived federal rule‑making and is part of a multistate effort.
The House adopted Price’s pink‑sheet amendment to HB 6 after briefly circling the bill to ensure members had amendment copies. The amended bill then passed the House by a roll-call vote of 59–12. HCR 1 passed earlier in the session by 69–2 and will be transmitted to the Senate with HB 6 for consideration there.
The next procedural step is Senate consideration; the measures contain provisions whose implementation could lead to litigation over definitions and to additional rulemaking or mapping work if the state proceeds to inventory rights-of-way on federal land.
