Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves reallocation to Endangered Species Mitigation Fund after debate over earmarks
Summary
Lawmakers approved First Substitute HB 275 to redirect $3 million once paid for Central Utah mitigation into a state Endangered Species Mitigation Fund; debate centered on whether the change constitutes an earmark and on impacts to water and local road funds.
The Utah House passed First Substitute House Bill 275, a measure that directs a $3 million state payment previously earmarked for Central Utah Project mitigation into an Endangered Species Mitigation Fund once the final CUP payment has been completed. Representative Thomas D. Hatch, sponsor of the bill, said the reallocated money will fund mitigation plans, habitat-conservation agreements and recovery work and stressed it would not be used to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the species-listing process.
"Once that final payment has been made, that $3,000,000 that has been going in from those three water funds... will now be reallocated to the Endangered Species Mitigation Fund," Hatch told colleagues, noting supporting endorsements from the Sierra Club and Audubon Society for the prevention-focused approach. Hatch said the reallocation does not create a new tax but uses existing sales-and-use allocations.
Opponents pressed technical and fiscal questions. Representative Curtis moved to delete statutory lines that would move a share of general-sales-tax dollars into a transportation (B&C Road) fund, arguing that if the House chooses to earmark general-fund sales tax for endangered-species mitigation it should not simultaneously keep other earmarks in place. Critics warned the deletion would strip local governments of a previously established portion of general-fund support for local roads; the motion to amend failed on the floor after recorded votes.
Supporters said three water-related boards (Division of Water Resources, Division of Drinking Water and Division of Water Quality) had agreed to the shift and that the bill includes safeguards so the fund would be used primarily for mitigation, not for promoting additional listings. After extended questioning and floor debate about the distribution back into the three water accounts and the fund's intended uses, the House passed the bill by roll-call (reported 63 yes, 9 no) and referred it to the Senate for further action.
