House approves $3 million appropriation to pursue public-lands litigation

The Utah House on Feb. 26 passed first substitute House Bill 324, a measure directing the Attorney General’s Office (under the oversight of the Constitutional Defense Council) to pursue litigation related to access to school trust lands and appropriating $3 million over three years from the land exchange distribution account to a restricted account to fund those efforts. The substitute passed the House 56–16 and will be sent to the Senate.

Sponsor Representative Sumption described two parcels targeted in the measure (the Spring Creek property and the Red Spur property) that, he said, have been blocked from access and would produce revenue for trust lands if access were restored. Sumption cited Utah v. Andrus (the “Cotter” case) as existing precedent that supports state access to trust lands and argued the litigation is necessary to recover revenue for schools. “If we do nothing…we will never get a dollar off of this property,” Sumption said, and estimated that access to certain parcels could yield about $1.5 million each to trust funds.

Members pressed the sponsor on funding sources and risks. Representative Lipback and others questioned where the land-exchange distribution funds are typically allocated and whether pulling $3 million would reduce allocations to counties, universities or other recipients; the sponsor said excess funds were available in the SITLA management account and that the transfer would not reduce current allocations. Representatives also debated whether contingency-fee outside counsel could be used to avoid taxpayer risk; the sponsor and other backers said they preferred keeping recovered proceeds with the trust rather than sharing them with private counsel, and noted that the Constitutional Defense Council could negotiate contracts for specialized attorneys if needed.

Opponents and cautious members pointed to the legislative review note and constitutional concerns, with one member noting a high probability the courts could find the state lacks standing under the property clause. Supporters replied that precedent and legal analysis gave reason to pursue the cases and that multi-state participation and outside support might follow. The House approved the substitute 56–16; the bill will be transmitted to the Senate.

Voting and next steps: First substitute HB324 passed 56 yes, 16 no; the measure is on its way to the Senate.