Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate sales‑tax dedication for water projects and earmarking concerns
Summary
Senate debate over dedicating sales‑tax revenue to water and road projects centered on the tradeoffs between long-term water infrastructure funding and reducing legislative budget flexibility; sponsors moved the bill’s effective date to 7/1/1995 and defended use of a revolving loan fund.
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers spent substantial floor time on Senate Bill 212, a proposal to dedicate part of sales‑tax revenue to a revolving fund for water projects and related infrastructure and to set an enactment timetable. Sponsor Senator John Holmgren argued the state must invest in water development to protect long‑term economic growth and public safety, citing past state loans and many existing projects supported by revolving funds.
Holmgren asked the Senate to move the bill’s effective date from July 1, 1994 to July 1, 1995 to align the schedule with current budgeting and to permit proper allocations for water and roads. He described the fund as a revolving loan mechanism — not a one‑time grant — that helps communities finance projects and repay the state.
Opponents warned against earmarking sales tax revenue because it could reduce future legislatures’ budget flexibility; Senator McAllister and others urged consideration of user fees or surcharges tied to water consumption instead of a permanent sales‑tax dedication. Floor discussion included detailed historical figures from prior loan programs and debate over whether the state has already invested heavily in water infrastructure and whether additional earmarks are warranted.
The Senate amended the bill to change enactment dates on multiple sections; floor debate continued and the item was placed for further action with caucus scheduling before final dispositions. Members emphasized the revolving nature of the loan program and the need to defend state water rights through adjudication funds included as a small carve‑out in the proposed allocation.
Next steps: Debate continued late in the day and the Senate recessed; final House action and any amendments were pending. Sponsors argued the measure is a practical mechanism to meet urgent water infrastructure needs; critics said earmarking could be short‑sighted.
