Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate Approves $90 Million Water-Projects Fund After Floor Debate
Summary
The Utah Senate voted to advance SB 49, a dedicated sales-tax fund for water projects, after floor debate on funding structure and priorities. The measure passed 21–5 with three absences; a senator disclosed a potential conflict of interest before voting aye.
The Utah Senate advanced Senate Bill 49 on Feb. 2, 1995, creating a dedicated fund to support water projects after a daylong floor debate over scope and priorities. The chamber recorded 21 yeas, 5 nays and 3 absences when the bill was called for third reading and passage.
Sponsor Senator John Holmgren framed the bill as a necessary, long-term revenue stream for water development, saying Utah’s quality of life and economy depend on secured water supplies and that the state must prepare for shortfalls. "We are going to have something unique happen in the Northern Utah that's never happened that I know of in history," Holmgren said, describing a projected "call on the river" for the Bear River region and stressing urgency for projects and funding.
Holmgren described the bill’s financial structure and administration: the fund is intended as a general water account, with allocations directed to water resources and the Department of Environmental Quality. "This is the money is is dedicated to water resources, 1 half 1 half to the Department of Environmental Quality, of which 1 quarter goes to wastewater and 1 water quarter goes to safe drinking water," he told the floor.
Other senators spoke in support, noting that water projects require sustained funding rather than one-off appropriations. "Water projects are not things you can build with even $25,000,000 now," said one supporter. Senator Watson added that unless projects are developed now, the state risks losing water-right opportunities in some basins.
The floor also aired proposals to change the bill’s funding detail: Senator Howe suggested earmarking part of the proposed $90,000,000 for specific priorities (he mentioned $50,000,000 as an example), a change that senators said could be explored but did not resolve on the floor.
Before the final roll call, Senator Peterson made a required disclosure: "We represent clients who are involved in the design and development [of] water projects," she said, declaring a potential conflict of interest and nevertheless voting aye. The roll call then recorded the 21–5 result with three absentees.
Next steps: with the Senate’s approval, SB 49 moves to the House for consideration under the legislative calendar.
