H.B. 509 Wetlands Study Amendments: transcript

Representative Owens, the floor is yours. Good evening. Be brief. I hope. Uh, I, I'll be speaking to this second sub of, uh, HP 5 0 9. Okay. Wetland study. And, uh, the, the purpose of this, uh, bill was in the aftermath of a decision a couple of years ago from the Supreme Court called Sackett versus EPA, that, uh, removed the ability of the EPA to regulate disc disconnected or intermittent wetlands. There was a lot of reaction to that decision, either for or against it, uh, depending on where you stand. But the fact is that a lot of federal regulation of wetlands is gonna go away. And, uh, so what this bill says is that let's not, let's not let that, uh, change in regulatory environment catch a by surprise. In Utah, this says that in 18 months, the, um, Utah Geological Survey will do a study of our wetland situation and how the change in regulation may affect us going forward. Um, and again, not to develop an edge or a policy direction about that. Only that we don't want to be surprised about what may happen to us as a state. The second sub limits the action of the study to the four big counties on the Wasatch front. So it's, it's in the interest of, I think, duck hunters and wildlife, uh, the preservation of wildlife, not, not accidentally losing something that we don't want to lose. So it, it's just asking for that situational awareness. Um, it does not impose any regulation whatsoever. It's just taking a look at that. It had a pretty hefty fiscal note at about 150,000. I'm hopeful that this second sub will reduce that quite dramatically. Um, but I don't know that for sure yet. But I do anticipate it going down and I hope it'll be substantial. Um, so again, just trying to pay attention to the impacts of that change in regulation at the federal level, and what more or less may we want to do as a state and make sure we don't lose our hunting or other wildlife interests accidentally. So that's the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, it's late in the day. I'll keep this brief. Matt Anderson, uh, director for the Utah Sportsman's Caucus representing hunters, trappers, and anglers across the state. Utah's wetlands are the jewels of the Intermountain West, especially those that surround the Great Salt Lake, the state surveying wetlands, identifying those at risk and making recomme recommendations is good science and good science makes good policy.

Nathan Tweach, uh, deputy Director with Department of Natural Resource Resources. Just want to, uh, appreciate express appreciation to the bill sponsor. There. There is some uncertainty with, uh, decisions made at the federal level as to impacts on wetlands. Um, the Utah Geological surveys in a position to, to do this study, provide you with, with good information and good data, so you can decide as policy makers what's in the best interest of the residents in, in the state of Utah. And, uh, and we're happy to work with our sister agencies and with within DEQ and, and DNR to, uh, to bring, bring forward some, uh, some, a good study. So, appreciate it.

Thank you. Uh, my name's Jack Gray. I'm here on behalf of the Utah Waterfowl Association. We appreciate this bill. Um, Utah has long been at the vanguard of states that have taken an interest in, um, crafting innovative policy solutions and initiatives to try to, um, incentivize the protection or, um, management of different areas that have value for the state and the state's policy objectives. And we see the foundation for that being, uh, having good information. And I believe this bill would help provide information that would inform the state, um, the legislature and the administration on things that can be done to, um, identify and manage areas that are appropriate for management or preservation, or where incentives might be appropriate for landowners. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Uh, the fiscal note's pretty small. Does the geological survey work cheap, or have you got some matching funds? How's, how's this gonna work?

Well, I thought it was pretty hefty. I, I thought they could do it within their normal, kind of, within their normal workload, but they, the fiscal note was 150,000. So I thought that was kind of hefty in this, in this environment. So I thought we could try to reduce that by focusing on the area of most in, you know, greatest interest. So they're no people hired for, they're gonna work within.

That makes sense. I just wanted to see how that was figured. Yeah.

Yeah. And I hope it'll come down fairly dramatically. 'cause I think a lot of that cost was associated with some of our more isolated wetlands in other parts of the state that I don't think are the primary concern.

Okay. And by the way, Sackett was a good thing.

Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair, do we need to move the second sub?

Um, I'll make a motion that we favorably recommend. Um, second sub HB 5 0 9. Uh, 5 0 9. Yeah.

Representative Owens Thank you Chair and Senator Vickers. Uh, I know it's late in the session, I'll be brief. This, uh, as y'all know, uh, wetlands are important for hunting interests in the state. In, uh, just a few years ago, the Supreme Court in the SAC versus EPA decision removed federal regulation from intermittent or, or, uh, discontinuous wetlands. And, um, I know that for many that's a good decision. But however you think about that, it has a potential to leave a vacuum in, in regulation on our wetlands. And so this bill just says, let's make sure we don't have a vacuum. Let's not accidentally, um, let that, uh, vacuum develop where we, we actually do may want some regulation or protection. And so, uh, it asked the DNR to study the situation and make recommendations for legislation. Um, we had some members of the house committee that were concerned, uh, about statewide applicability. So we, I did a sub to narrow it to, um, just the four big counties on the Wasatch front. There are a few wetlands out around the state and other places, but, um, the, the, the worry was that maybe we were gonna get entangled somehow in that. So at the request of those representatives, I narrowed it to just be supported, uh, just to apply to the four big counties. And, uh, again, it's just to avoid inadvertently, you know, letting some situation develop in the absence of, uh, federal regulation in the wake of that decision. So that's the bill. And, um, and that that'll conclude my presentation.

Thanks. It must be either getting late in the session or I'm getting tired 'cause I'm starting to pick at things. Um, uh, so representative, I guess my concern is when we take a look at just the last, uh, five year timeframe, um, how does that play into now the lawsuit that, that we're facing or a, not a lawsuit, excuse me, a listing for the Wilson Fowler up and as we, if, if we're compelled to c create a study based on the last five years, um, what, uh, what does that do? Uh, I I think that may hurt us in that, in that case, I think it may, it may lead to us, to some of our demise in allowing the federal government to look at that. Whatever it is, I don't know what it's gonna say, but I do know that, uh, it will have changed. And by highlighting that and making our own department do that, I'm afraid that we may give a little credence to some listing of the Wilston Fup. I'm a little concerned that we may head down that road in this direction. What, what would you respond to that?

I'm not wedded to that timeframe. That certainly never crossed my mind. It was really, uh, talking to the sportsman when I read the decision about the decision in the newspaper article, got thinking about, well, are we gonna, is this gonna impact our hunting down the road? So the, I don't know. I hadn't thought about that. Um, if, if changing the timeframe would affect your concern, I'd certainly be open to that. Um, I, I don't, I'm not, I'm not sure. It's just the timeframe that concerns me. I'm, I'm, I'm a little concerned that by in statute placing this in, in a study that, uh, that it may sometime in, in, in the future, be held against us in what I would consider a detrimental listing to our state of any, any game bird species in and around the lake. That's, that's my concern. And, and I don't know if, I don't know if you have a, you probably like the bill file, but that's my concern. So, um, that, that's why I'm just wondering about this bill. Well, I guess I, I would just say I, I I think we could still assess our own, the, the impacts for us. I, I, uh, I think that's gonna still be open for people who are litigants in the lawsuit to be arguing about that. I certainly didn't have any intention to mess around with the lawsuit, um, created, Sorry, it's not a lawsuit, it's a potential listing at this point, I believe. I'm sorry, but there was a Yeah. Yes, you are right. There's an administrative proceeding. I beg, I beg your pardon, but, uh, I, I guess I just hadn't thought of that, Senator. I don't, I didn't see the potential there. I, I do think there's a good potential for a real vacuum to have, um, be emerging in the wake of, uh, the federal regulation going away and just wanted to make sure that our legislature was paying attention to not having some inadvertent loss of hunting. That's, I, I don't, I'd be happy to. Thanks.

Thanks for that answer, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'd be happy to try to get some information before floor time on that.

Like I have two. Go ahead, Chair. This'll be the last time that you hear from me today. Matt Anderson with Utah Sportsman Caucus. Wanna speak to Senator Sandall concern here with the, the bill? Um, any potential listings are going to be looked at by the federal government studies done. I personally, depending on the administration, would much prefer our good biologists here in the state of Utah and with our Division Wildlife Resources doing those studies, then the whims of a political, political whims of an administration, depending on who's in deciding whether or not it gets listed. Um, I believe that those closest to the issue generally make the best decisions and have the best science, um, good science make good, good policy. So I'd actually argue personally that, um, having this bill ensures that we actually get the right science and not political wins dictating, uh, potential listings. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Great, thank you. Um, I hope you can hear me. I echo uh, um, Matt's comments. I think this allows us to get good information and based on good information generated by our state experts, we can make good decisions. And those decisions hopefully will lead to a strengthening of Utah's longstanding heritage of waterfowl and waterfowl hunting conservation. As a result, Jack, the Utah Waterfowl Association supports this.

Oh, I'm Jack, Jack Ray with the Utah Waterfowl Association.

The Waterfowl Association supports this bill. Thank you.

You, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name's Soren Simonson. I'm the Executive director of the Jordan River Commission. Good be with you today. Friends. Uh, we appreciate the work of, uh, Representative Owens and, uh, bringing this bill forward. We, we actually are, uh, seeing some exact, um, challenges of, of what this will, uh, help address, uh, playing out around the Jordan River, of course. Um, we're, we're in the first and second counties where the Jordan River, uh, lies, uh, in Salt Lake, Utah and Davis County. And, uh, areas in municipal plans and, and, uh, county plans that have addressed wetlands based on prior definitions, which has changed because of these, uh, some of these recent court rulings. Uh, there, there I think is still a lot of interest in making sure that we can move forward with plans. They're still important wetlands, both for recreation, hunting, other kinds of recreation, water quality. And, uh, so I, uh, notwithstanding Senator Sandall your concerns. Um, uh, we think that this is an important way to understand what we're working with and how we address really important, uh, uh, areas of our natural, uh, habitat and environment. And this will go a long way to help us better, uh, def define as a community, uh, how we move forward. So thank you. We support this bill.

Uh, Nathan Schach, deputy Director Department of Natural Resources. Just to wanna share our, our appreciation to, I guess, support for this legislation and the study to, to go forward. I think there's value in gathering good information and good data, um, that can then be shared with the legislature as you make policy decisions. Um, and, uh, and that concludes my remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion we pass out, uh, house Bill 5 0 9. Second substitute favor, recommendation.

Yeah, I, I'm not gonna try to fix this on the fly, so I'm gonna be a no in committee, but I do think that, uh, five-year window look, um, is just in the drought, the most drought years that we've had and probably needs to be a little broader perspective of, of where we're looking at. Um, I, I know that's what we're all focused on, but, uh, but I, but I think we need a, a wider look at that. So that's, that's just explaining my vote.

Just costs more money, that's all probably huh? To go 10 years instead of five, whatever. Anyway, I, I'd, I'll, I'll just say that. Just let's pass it out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, as any duck hunter will know, the wetlands are important for hunting in our state. And in, uh, 2023, the Supreme Court or the United States issued a decision in Sacket versus EPA that, um, withdraws federal regulation of any intermittent or discontinuous wetland, non-connected wetland. And so that creates a vacuum of federal regulation and there'll be many in the body who will recognize that as a positive change. But however you view that decision, um, it does create a vacuum on, uh, how we look at our wetlands. And so this bill tries to make sure we're not gonna accidentally do something or ignore doing something in relation to our wetlands. And asks the division of natural resources to study, um, the changes, uh, that may come about because of that difference in federal regulation and suggest any, uh, needed action on the part of the state. There's no regulatory action with the bill whatsoever, and it only applies to the, uh, four big counties on the Wasatch front. And the bill is supported by the Sportsman's Caucus, which, uh, includes the Utah Waterfowl Association, trout Unlimited, mule Deer, Rocky Mountain Elk, and the Farm Bureau. And that concludes my presentation, Mr. Speaker.

I'll waive summation is waived.

Yeah. So we're gonna, we're gonna move the third substitute it, it removes the five year restriction on the study, including a technical fix requested by LRGC. There was just some concern that if we did a study based on the last five, five years, it might be skewed because of, because of our current drought conditions.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. So this bill requires a study assessing wetland changes in light of federal reg regulation. In particular with an eye not losing hunting resources. This study will, will support the division of natural resources by requiring a holistic look at wetlands on the Wasatch front. Helps the state proceed on endangered Species Species Act listing. Um, I I've got a whole bunch of talking points from from DNRI know they've been supportive in working on this bill as well. But with that, I'm open for questions.

Okay. Before I, before I do that, can I, can I phone a friend? Senator Sandall? I've got a red on, but the third substitute should resolve that. I just wanna make sure before I make a motion. Okay. I got a thumbs up. So my motion is this bill under suspension of the rules passed. Thank you. And the question is, under suspension of the rule, shall second substitute of house bill five oh nine pass rule call vote.

We substitute. Well thank you. We, that bill was substituted. So we'll send it to the house for further consideration.

Um, motion and to encircle house Bill 1 46 please. Mr. President,

Thank you. So I, uh, also moved to, uh, delete and title

Motion to Concur in Senate amendments.

Minor clarifications.