Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HCR 32 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes resolution urging FERC to reconsider "Wasatch variation" route for Kern River pipeline
Summary
The Utah Senate passed Substitute HCR 32, asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revisit its decision to route the Kern River pipeline along the Wasatch Front; supporters cited fault-line crossings and proximity to schools, while opponents warned the resolution could deter projects.
The Utah Senate voted to approve Substitute HCR 32, a concurrent resolution urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reconsider its decision to adopt the so-called "Wasatch variation" routing for the Kern River pipeline.
Senator Beatty, who introduced the resolution, said FERC’s routing now "brings it right down along the most populous area of the Wasatch Front, including over several fault lines ... through the heart of Salt Lake City," and asked the commission to revisit the original 1986 variation supported by the Legislature. Beatty framed the measure as a request for reconsideration and public hearings rather than an outright ban on pipeline construction.
Senator Barton supported the resolution on safety grounds, saying the pipeline under the Wasatch variation "will come within 1 mile of about 8 schools," a proximity he said concerned constituents in Weber and Davis counties. Opponents, including Senator Black, cautioned that routinely opposing routing changes could hinder infrastructure projects and described some local resistance as "hysteria."
Senator Pollock cited a newspaper editorial that estimated about $200,000,000 in construction spending and roughly $4,000,000 in potential annual tax revenue and asked whether the resolution should leave open the possibility of rejecting the project if safety and environmental threats could not be resolved. Beatty said the resolution asks FERC to reconsider and emphasized the urgency of transmitting the Legislature’s position and obtaining the governor’s signature.
Under a suspension of the rules, the chamber read the substitute resolution for final passage and recorded a roll call of 14 ayes, 5 nays and 10 absent; the motion carried and the measure prevailed for the majority required. The resolution requests federal reconsideration and public hearings rather than imposing a state statutory prohibition; no binding state regulatory change was enacted on the floor.
