Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House endorses resolution backing trust-lands interests over Escalante National Monument
Summary
The Utah House on Feb. 11 debated Substitute HCR 1, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Hatch, urging support for the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration’s management of assets within the Escalante National Monument; members split on litigation and negotiation strategies.
Representative Thomas Hatch, sponsor of Substitute HCR 1, opened the House debate by framing the measure as a defense of assets held for Utah schoolchildren and urged members to support the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) in protecting those interests. He cited a Utah Geological Survey estimate of large coal, methane and oil resources within the monument and said potential revenues should benefit public-school beneficiaries.
The resolution, Hatch said, is “an issue about money, fairness, and kids,” and he asked members to give SITLA and its trustees their full support. Hatch noted that Conoco held existing leases and was preparing to drill within the monument, and he argued the state must protect trust revenues for schools.
Supporters across the floor described the resolution as nonpartisan and focused on protecting trust beneficiaries. Representative Gowen said the measure was a fairness issue for children, and Representative King Hammond urged support for litigation as one tool to defend trust interests, citing past litigation by the Ute tribe as precedent for legal action in land disputes.
Opponents cautioned against beginning with litigation. Representative Becker said litigation historically fails in disputes between states and the federal government and urged negotiation and participation in the federal planning process. Trent Carlson said he could not support parts of the resolution he called rhetorical excess and urged a narrower statement that supported trust management without committing the body to all the resolution’s language.
Procedural actions: Rep. Hatch moved to “uncircle” the resolution so it could be considered immediately; that motion carried and debate proceeded. The transcript records the resolution as subsequently passing the House and being sent to the Senate for consideration; the transcript text for the tally is garbled and does not provide a clear, unambiguous roll-call count for the final House tally.
What happens next: The House-recorded action sends the substitute resolution forward for Senate consideration. The transcript shows members remained divided on remedies — some favor pursuing litigation to protect trust revenues, others favor negotiation and participation in the federal planning process — and the resolution itself reflects those tensions.
Ending: The House moved on to other business after the HCR 1 debate and later took up House Bill 27.
