Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Wotous topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate focuses on federal water rule; sponsors warn of expanded federal jurisdiction
Summary
A concurrent resolution on the EPAs 'Waters of the United States' rule drew extended debate on Feb. 2, with the sponsor saying the rule expands federal oversight and could upend long‑standing state control; the transcript does not record a final vote result.
Representative Michael Noel (as stated on the floor) moved to uncircle House Concurrent Resolution 1, a resolution opposing the EPA's new "Waters of the United States" rule and asserting state concerns about the scope of federal authority.
In his presentation, the sponsor argued the EPA rule expands the definition of "navigable waters," runs counter to two Supreme Court decisions and "would greatly change" the state's longstanding authority over waters. He said Utah has joined litigation challenging the rule led by the attorney general, and he warned that the rule could make ephemeral drainages, gullies and other intermittent features subject to federal permitting and scrutiny (paraphrased from floor remarks).
Representative Joel Briscoe and others asked questions about the practical effects and noted the issue's complexity, including that some interior portions of Utah could be removed from federal regulation under certain readings of the rule. Representative Fred Cox pressed the sponsor on how prior state decisions concerning navigability might interact with the rule; the sponsor said he was not aware of a change to state subsurface holdings and reiterated the state's participation in litigation.
Representative Draxler urged colleagues to take the matter seriously and to participate legally if necessary, citing risks to water management in a dry state.
The transcript records extended debate and multiple questions and answers, but does not include a recorded final roll call or the outcome of HCR 1 in the excerpt provided to this package. The filing and discussion were procedural steps placing the uncircled resolution before the body for consideration.
Ending: The floor debate left the state's posture — including litigation and potential further legislative action — active; the transcript does not show whether the House ultimately adopted the concurrent resolution.
