Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Facility Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate Pauses Landfill Siting Bill After Hours of Testimony on Water, Local Control
Summary
Senators heard extended testimony on Substitute House Bill 248 about siting and permit criteria for waste facilities. Residents and engineers warned the measure could protect water but also unintentionally restrict rural counties; the Senate circled the bill for more review and no final action was taken.
The Utah Senate spent a lengthy time‑certain session hearing local testimony on Substitute House Bill 248, a bill that would add citing requirements and procedures for waste facilities and require more local input and hydrological studies before siting new landfills.
Senator Alden called the committee of the whole and invited residents, local officials and technical experts to the floor for a focused discussion. Box Elder County resident Reggie Peterson told senators, “We have a very, pristine water system,” and said the bill’s purpose is to ensure local people are contacted and consulted before siting decisions are made. He argued the measure “only requires that local people be contacted” and does not prohibit future landfills in the state.
Opponents and several county engineers warned the bill’s criteria could have a broader effect. Brian Bremer, Garfield County engineer, told the Senate the proposal “greatly restricts siting criteria in rural Utah,” and said the state’s federal and existing rules already provide strong groundwater protections. Bremer urged lawmakers not to drive a technical decision by emotion.
Alan Sullivan, attorney for the local Safe Drinking Water Association, acknowledged proponents’ goals but said the bill “will put an affirmative burden on proponents of landfill to make sure that those landfills will not affect drinking water sources,” adding that the bill creates an affirmative proof requirement beyond current practice.
Diane Nielsen of the Department of Environmental Quality told senators the permit review already considers many of the water‑protection criteria and that the permitting step addresses whether a design provides adequate protection. Senators pressed the distinctions between the allowance to ‘site’ a location and the later permitting review, with staff and the fiscal analyst clarifying that local governments would likely face increased upfront hydrological investigation costs.
After questions and a request for additional technical information (including a revised fiscal note estimating additional engineering costs in the range of $50,000–$150,000 per new site), the Senate moved to “circle” HB248 so members could consult outside the chamber with agency staff and attorneys. The committee of the whole was dissolved and the motion to circle carried; no final vote on the bill was taken during this session.
What’s next: Senators instructed staff and interested parties to meet in a back room for up to 20 minutes of additional briefing; the measure was circled for further review rather than advanced to final passage.
Ending: The Senate left the bill open for reconsideration after agency and technical clarifications are provided to members.
