House debates corridor-preservation bill; amends lookback and tables measure for further work

Representative Dilley introduced House Bill 165, the Transportation Corridor Preservation Act, saying the bill provides local governments and the Department of Transportation with voluntary tools to protect future rights of way and avoid displacing residents when projects occur. He described a joint study effort that included UDOT and BYU and cited a revolving fund estimated at roughly $4.5 million to $5.0 million annually to help purchase interests in property.

The sponsor said language from the state's property-rights ombudsman (Greg Kahl) was inserted to protect owners and to define when an official map may be used. "We've also brought into the process our property rights ombudsman, Greg Kahl, and he has given us specific language that we have inserted into this piece of legislation to make sure ... we have an interest in the property rights of individuals who could be impacted," Dilley said.

Representative Murray offered amendment number 3, which would require the department to offer the original grantor (or heirs) the opportunity to repurchase a parcel at the department's original purchase price if no portion of that parcel was used for transportation. Murray framed that change as a fairness measure to return land if it remains unused; the House adopted the amendment after floor discussion.

Another floor amendment, offered by Representative Brown, shortened the period during which an official map could identify a transportation corridor from 25 years to 20 years. Supporters said shortening the lookback reduced undue exposure on private property and better matched UDOT's 20-year planning horizons; opponents warned that shorter horizons could limit long-range preservation planning. The amendment passed and the bill as amended remained contested on property-rights issues.

Several members, including municipal attorneys and Representative Curtis, warned that identifying corridors far in advance might depress property values or limit owners' ability to use their land; they urged stronger protections or clearer compensation rules. The sponsor repeatedly clarified that the bill provides a voluntary tool for municipalities and counties and that eminent domain "is utilized by the Department of Transportation when a project begins ... and only then is eminent domain utilized," not simply for preservation activity.

Because members identified remaining conflicts and the need for conforming language on compensation and exemptions, Representative Garn moved to circle (table) House Bill 165 as amended so stakeholders and staff could reconcile outstanding drafting issues. The motion to circle passed on a voice vote; the bill was set aside for further work.

The House recorded committee and floor actions during consideration: amendment adoption votes and the final motion to circle. The primary outstanding issues to resolve before a final floor vote were the interplay between official-map identification, the timeframe for preservation, and protection/compensation rules for property owners.