Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate over conservation easement fund focuses on donor-directed spending and legislative appropriation
Summary
Lawmakers debated SB 67, which creates conservation-easement restricted accounts funded by donations and grants; opponents warned donor directions could bypass legislative appropriation, and members proposed inserting 'may not expend' language, substitute motions, and ultimately considered circling the bill for further work.
SALT LAKE CITY — The House floor on Feb. 15 carried an extended debate over SB 67, a bill to create restricted accounts for conservation-easement monitoring funded by grants and donations.
Representative Menlove, sponsor, said the measure establishes two restricted accounts to pay for monitoring and enforcing easements held by the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture and Food and cited roughly 59 easements currently held by Natural Resources divisions. Representative Snow moved to delete language (lines 45–46 and 62–63) that he said would allow donors to direct expenditures without appropriation by the legislature, arguing this would erode legislative control over public funds.
Menlove described a prior amendment (Amendment 3) that prevents the department from using donations from the account to acquire conservation easements, and said he considered Snow’s deletion friendly. Floor members debated whether the language amounted to donors directing expenditures and whether the department might improperly expend donations without appropriation. Representative Becker asked that staff check statutory cross-references; Representative Ferry proposed inserting 'not' so the text would read 'the department may not expend donations as directed by the donor without appropriation by the legislature.' The substitute motion to insert 'may not' was discussed and later accepted by some sponsors, but there were competing motions to circle the bill for further work.
Multiple members noted the potential policy tension: attracting and stewarding donor funds for easement monitoring versus preserving legislative appropriation authority. The record shows a motion to circle was made and floor discussion continued; sponsors and opponents asked for staff review of statutory cross-references and potential drafting fixes before final action.
Next steps: Floor motions involved circling and substitute language; the transcript shows the question was unresolved on the floor and further instruction to staff and potential circling were used to manage drafting concerns.
Representative Menlove said the bill would allow monies to be set aside for monitoring and enforcement of conservation easements held by state agencies and that the measures were intended to be practical for long-term stewardship.
