Senate advances amended Bear River water‑development bill after debate over ownership and fiscal language

Senator Finlinson moved a package of floor amendments to Senate Bill 98, the Bear River water development and allocation measure, and described the changes as aligning the appropriation with the governor's supplemental recommendation and strengthening environmental review and stakeholder participation.

The amendment revises the $4 million appropriation so it is funded as $1 million from the general fund and $3 million from a thrift account rather than a single general‑fund item. It adds requirements that projects include environmental planning and mitigation — including engineering and permitting, acquisition of land and rights of way — and it authorizes an environmental implementation team that must prepare mitigation plans tied to project approvals. The amendment also requires that, before construction begins on a project, 70% of proposed water sales be secured and that permits and mitigation plans be in place. Senator Finlinson said the amendment also authorizes the Division of Water Resources to spend $350,000 ‘‘on further engineering and environmental feasibility studies’’ to move the planning phase forward.

Much of the floor exchange focused on whether the bill's language would allow the state to ‘‘own and operate’’ hydroelectric generating works associated with the water projects. Senator Holden and others pressed to preserve a right for project sponsors to use internally generated power. Supporters, including Senator Oakey and Senator Finlinson, said the bill was not intended to put the state into the power business and that the preferred approach is for power produced beyond internal project needs to be offered to public utilities or municipal providers for distribution.

Senators debated restoring the phrase ‘‘construct and own hydroelectric generating works’’ on page 6 and adding a statutory cross‑reference to existing authority in title 73 to limit the state's role. The proponents argued the restored language would preserve flexibility — for example, allowing the division to be the owner in name while contracting with an agent or lessee to operate facilities — while opponents and some floor members said the change might be read as an expansion of state power functions and needed clearer drafting.

Beyond drafting language, members raised fiscal‑policy concerns. Several senators objected to sending a $4 million item to the House without prioritizing it among other supplemental requests; appropriations chairman Senator McAllister urged caution and recommended delaying final action until leadership could review all supplemental measures. After debate on precedent and budgeting, the Senate adopted a motion to ‘‘circle’’ the bill — temporarily removing it from the immediate third‑reading calendar so floor managers can resolve the drafting questions and coordinate with the House. Senators repeatedly stressed that the circling was procedural and not a final disposition of the bill's merits.

What happens next: The Senate advanced a set of amendments in principle, but took no final passage vote while the bill is circled for further technical and fiscal clarification and to allow House–Senate coordination. If circling is lifted, the bill will return to the Senate calendar for final action or be transmitted to the House depending on negotiated changes and fiscal decisions.