H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So HB 5 91. Woo. So in 5 91, you'll notice that it is approximately 1 million pages long. No, that's, that's inaccurate. It's, uh, it's 50 pages long, which, which in the Utah state legislature is a million. Uh, what happened is that we have re codified, uh, public nuisance. And when I say we, I mean the drafting attorney, uh, as we were touching the issue of public nuisance, she noticed that the public nuisance, uh, sections of code looked like a run over lizard, and the parts were all out of order and scattered from every which way. And so she has brought them all back into one place. So it looks like a lot of change, but really what it is, is collecting all of this. And then there's a few changes. And so you will notice all of your favorite public nuisance. Uh, things are still in code, but now they're all collected. You've got, uh, uh, uh, letting loose of stray horses. So feral horses. You've got, uh, brothels that came in from two sections of public nuisance. Now they're all put together here, uh, drug houses, party houses. We've got all of the standard public nuisance items here collected. Now, uh, I'll give you the short engineer's version about what it is we're trying to accomplish. And I have the pleasure of sitting with, uh, the state's Attorney General, who will then give you the attorney's version of what's actually happening. But if, if I were telling you, uh, the engineer's version of what we're doing, uh, we have, we have an issue in the modern world where, uh, parties are trying to use courts to make laws and to drive policy rather than have legislators, uh, drive policy. And so, as we think about different things, uh, we need to protect here in public nuisance, we're continuing to protect our, uh, our farms as subdivisions grow out around them, uh, so that, uh, people don't shut down farms because animals are stinky. Uh, so those farms would be protected as people move out and subdivide next to shooting ranges. We're protecting the shooting ranges. So we've separated public nuisance into two categories, public nuisance and private nuisance. Uh, you have to be a public entity to file a public nuisance, and the private entity still has a private ability to file private nuisance. But, uh, we're just trying to not legislate from, uh, from the courts and instead save that to the, to the legislature. Anyway, that's, that's my quick, uh, engineer's overview. But, uh, if that's all right, I would have attorney General give you the, the official version of what we're doing. And I won't be using phrases like run over Lizard, although that is a, a good description, I guess, of the, uh, the, the drafting.

Although let me, uh, first of all, I, Derek Brown, Utah, attorney General, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I appreciate Representative Jack for taking on an issue that is something that we are starting to see in other states. And when I tell you about the problem we're trying to solve, you'll identify exactly what it is that we're trying to solve. So let me start with this. Um, years ago when I was in law school, we had the classic book on torts, which is Torts Law and Wrongs from one person against another. And it referred to public nuisance law as an impenetrable jungle, meaning public nuisance. Nobody knew what it was. And still to this day, we don't really know. We know what assault and battery and those kind of things are. Nuisance can mean whatever you want it to mean. And we're starting to see this in the courts. And what we have today is a patchwork of laws. Part of it is inherited from English law. Part of it is just scattered over statutes, and part of it really is just guesswork. And so what we have is when you're trying to protect your rights as a property owner or a business, what this means is unpredictability. You don't know what the law will result. And the consequences are not theoretical. They're real. We're seeing these in courtrooms, and we, in, as my office, we're looking across the country, I'm talking to other attorneys general who are seeing cases in their states that are filed against say, a, uh, a firearms manufacturer using public nuisance claim, or we're seeing them against, I mean, as crazy as it sounds against auto manufacturers, there was, uh, an auto company where one of their cars, there was a TikTok video showing how one of the cars could be hotwired, and it became one of the most hotwired cars in America. And then the plaintiff's bar said, Hey, this is a great opportunity for public nuisance. And most people would say, well, how does that fit within public nuisance? And the answer is, public nuisance means whatever you want it to mean. So I think what Representative Jack is trying to do is say, let's, let's take the areas of the code and let's create some predictability. So ultimately, and this is the way I look at it, we create laws in Utah through lawmaking and not lawsuits. So I think that would, for me, summarizes this bill lawmaking through lawmakers rather than lawsuits. And when you have laws through lawmakers instead of lawsuits, you have the kind of predictability that we need. And so what it does is this kind of gives clarity to the law in terms of what a public nuisance is. It creates accountability, it creates proportionate remedies, and then it protects some of the different item items that Representative Jack mentioned in terms of, um, allowing cities, for instance, to continue to use public nuisance if there's something wholly within their city or the Attorney General's office if it's within the state. And so that's, that reflects the kind of coordination that I think we need to have, as well as accountability and predictability. And so I think that, uh, Representative Jack has done some careful, thorough analysis here, and I think this creates the kind of predictability that the citizens of Utah demand from our judiciary. So, on that note,

Yeah. So if it's okay, Mr. Vice Chair, uh, we, we have another, uh, expert here with us from, uh, well, I'll let him introduce himself, but he is here with us from the Chamber of Commerce, uh, to, to give maybe more of a nationwide perspective about why it's important we address this in Utah at this time. Perfect. Thank you.

Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you Chairman Jack, and in the spirit of keeping this, uh, short and sweet as I know you guys have a lot on the docket today. Uh, real quickly, as Chairman Jack mentioned, my name is Roger Jabon and I come before you on behalf of the US Chambers Institute for Legal Reform. Uh, first of all, thank you to Chairman Jack for crafting and advancing this critical reform. Uh, as Representative Jack and and Ag Brown have explained, this is a really important reform, uh, that really brings together all of the different places in which the Utah Code touched on public nuisance. And the business community strongly supports this, uh, reform for, for two primary reasons. And, and Representative Jack and Ag Brown touched on both of them. First of all, it ensures litigation, predictability. Businesses large and small have a real problem when they can't understand what their potential liability is. And loosely defined or not defined at all, public nuisance creates vast unpredictability. And that's a big problem for businesses. And Utah is a, a great place to do business, and we want to continue to keep it that way. And I think this reform does just that. Second of all, it prevents policymaking through legis, uh, through litigation. And this is a big problem. We've seen this in a lot of different spaces where, uh, various different litigants will use the public nuisance cause of action to advance social and policy goals that they couldn't otherwise advance through the legislative process. And it inappropriately places litigants in the shoes of lawmakers like yourself. Uh, what this legislation does is very simply ensure that public nu nuisance has a clear definition in the code, and that all litigants, both government, uh, litigants and private litigants, uh, are, are to adhere to that code. So, uh, the business community and the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform strongly supports this bill and we urge its passage. If you have any questions on the technical aspects of the bill, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Alright, uh, Mr. Chair, I guess that would conclude the formal part of our presentation and we would open it back to you for further discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Uh, just a couple of questions, and I don't know if this is best for you or if, um, the ag should be answering this, but as we look at this piece of code that we're creating here, or go, we're not really creating, but we're fine tuning all these pieces. Um, do we see this as creating more lawsuits, less lawsuits? If we could speak to that. And then I had one other question after that.

So, um, from my perspective, this should create less lawsuits. Okay, great. By creating more stability and more, uh, guardrails in this space.

Okay. And then my next question is, how does this help the citizens? Like when we see this right in the moment, what does this look like for the citizens?

Yeah, excellent. So let me, I mean, let me, uh, try that. And if, and if the attorney general hears me make a mistake, he can come correct me or, or we have our expert here from the Chamber of Commerce, but how it helps the citizens. So think about, for example, um, if you have, uh, you know, whatever it is, there's a number that I already forgot 'cause I've slept since then, but like 90% of the plastic in the ocean comes out of two rivers. One comes out of India and one comes out of China. And so out of that comes all these plastics and a tortoise or turtle ends up with a plastic straw up its nose. And so now here in America, we have to stop drinking outta plastic straws because a turtle got a straw his nose over by China or India, one of those. And so now the businesses are like, well, am I getting sued for making plastic straws? Or now do I have to have paper straws whenever I go to seven 11 to get a big gulp? And so you can imagine then what that does for prices to the consumer, given that in uncertainty. And now the, the manufacturers are baking in the prices of, uh, lawsuits into their prices, or they're just abandoning products that we're used to using, even if we deal with them responsibly.

Okay. Thank you. And you know about those plastic straws I actually heard a little while ago, this might be hearsay, but that actually that was a planted photo in the end. Ha. Well, there we go. That's even better. Thank you.

We're gonna go now to Representative Dominguez. Thank you so much. Um, what is the public nuisance, if, like, how does the federal government define public nuisance?

Do you have that Or do you want, as far as I'm aware, the federal government doesn't define public nuisance. Public nuisance has traditionally been a, a common law cause of action, uh, at the state level. And over the years it's been codified into state legislation, just like what we're talking about here. Uh, as far as I'm aware, there's no federal cause of action that implicates public nuisance.

Okay. And then my next question is, if there was an event that happened in a park that maybe locals did not like, would that, then it would open up for litigation because it's at a public location? Or what would be the process to that?

So if, if it's something in, in inside a city, then it would be up to the city to declare that that was a public nuisance. Uh, it wouldn't be say, up to me as a citizen to say, well, that's a public nuisance. I'm going to sue whoever was responsible for the event in the park. I might want to take a private nuisance action, which is what this bill is distinguishing, but the pro public nuisance would be by the public entity.

Thank you so much for that clarification. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Olivia Michelle Toni McKee, and I am a Salt Lake City resident. Um, and just like I was opposed to the Utah inland port, um, and a lot of the rhetoric that was coming out of the Utah inland port was very reductive and very pro-business. And I'm not opposed to business actions, but what I am opposed to is continuously protecting and leaving these large entities with no, and, and, and citizens who these large entities are punching down on with no recourse. And just like the Utah and Inland port was significant, um, threat to public health, public safety, the, our, our, our wetlands, um, opening up protections for large entities opens up that same lack of accountability. And it opens up that same frustration that a lot of Utahans have when we prioritize and create these, these pedestals of businesses that do harm our communities. And oftentimes it's our most vulnerable communities, our, our, our disabled communities, our senior communities, our children. And so I want to make sure that we are avoiding further adding protections to communities and to capitalistic endeavors that if they don't have the line items to mitigate the accountability or the harm that they might potentially, um, cause to these individuals or to these to, um, you know, common citizens, then we need to be also addressing that and making sure that we are not bolstering the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, the lack of due diligence that citizens are still, like when a DA concerns come up. A lot of times here in these houses, we're prioritizing businesses, we're calling legitimate concerns and grievances. A very vulnerable, marginalized, often very poor people to have to put their bodies on the line when these people aren't really fighting that kind of fight. So I just wanna make sure as a common citizen, someone who does represent a large constituency of vulnerable people which are disabled people of color and homeless, that we aren't continuously to continue a pedestal businesses with no route for accountability for these smaller entities. That's it.

Yeah. Thank you. Um, Yes ma'am. Yeah, sorry. I, I just thought it, it was a public comment without, well, You know, every once in a while Sure. Ask the question and, and I appreciate your comment mm-hmm. And where you're coming from. And I think, you know, it always takes a lot of hard work and, and bravery to come up here and to make a comment. So I, I really appreciate that. For me, I don't think this is brave. I'm, I'm an auntie and I'm a chosen grandmother. I think it's my duty. Okay. Thank you. So, so my question to you is, you were mentioning about the businesses and, and how this favors businesses. The way I'm reading the legislation is that a pub a a private person can make a private nuisance claim.

Sure, sure. But a public, like a public, um, government or something could, like, say at a park or something could make a, but Do you understand how difficult litigations for people from my Community, would you let the, excuse me,

Yeah. Anyway, so I, I, I suppose my question to you is, do you feel like that private citizens shouldn't be able to make those types of Pieces? I'm not saying

they shouldn't be able to, but I'm saying that what I've seen from a lot of legislation, legislative procedures here over the last few years, um, one is a former duly elected member of Adapt Utah is what I'm finding is it's putting a lot of barriers on private citizens who don't have the resources to be able to do these things. That's what I'm saying. Thank you. And that there's often not, um, an empathy for common citizens in understanding that, like, even the civil or the civil avenues that give us some relief are incredibly difficult to navigate. Thank You. Like, that's what I'm saying. It's just, it's already a difficult process. Oftentimes it is intimidating for most people. For someone like me, it's really not intimidated 'cause I'm confrontational and I'm the eldest of nine. But for some other people, they don't feel as empowered. They don't feel as enfranchised. Thank you. And I just wanna make sure that we are making sure that we're not continuously to put burdens on people who are already finding these processes already intimidating, already difficult, and already resource costs.

Thank you so much for being here. Mm-hmm.

Thank you, representative. Uh, my name is Jenny Hoppy. Um, I am an attorney. And to tell you why I'm here today and, and why I'm interested in this. I was a paralegal for about 25 years before I Uintah Law School. Um, about five years ago as a paralegal, I was often, um, one of the first line communicators with clients. Um, and I have helped clients who have suffered harm at, um, you know, the hands of another seek justice through our, our litigation system. Um, I, I believe that that is a system that is, is designed and is used to help people receive compensation or injunctions or other, um, remedies where they're needed. Um, I am testifying today on behalf of the Utah Association for Justice, which is an organization, um, that advocates on behalf of consumers. Um, our particular concern with this law is that it gives specific protections against public nuisance claims. So long as the act or, um, has, uh, the action or condition is authorized, approved, licensed, or mandated by statute ordinance, regulation, permit license rule, or other similar measure issued, adopted, promulgated, or approved by a governmental entity. This is, um, subsection 10 C of the new section that is proposed. Uh, so it would be 78 B dash six a dash 1 0 1 subsection 10 C. Um, with respect to, um, the Attorney General's, uh, suggestion that we need to have more, um, reliability about litigation, I fully support that I don't mind. Um, and, and the Utah Association for Justice does not mind laws that clarify the kinds of, uh, causes of action that can be brought by Utah consumers, um, and businesses. Our concern is that this legislation specifically carves out claims for private nuisance, so long as the entity causing the nuisance has any kind of, um, license or approval or permit, which essentially means that any legislation in Utah and permitting should provide, uh, a floor for the kinds of things that should be avoided. That should be a base level of protection. Um, but sometimes even if an, uh, an entity is complying from the base level of protection, it can still create harms. And so this particular section removes protections from individual consumers because it prevents them from bringing a cause of action. In the event that there's any kind of licensing that is a complete defense, um, for people or entities that are causing instances, um, we request that this section of the bill be removed, it be amended, or, um, that, uh, this section not passed out of committee. And I'm happy to take any questions.

There we go. I think I got disconnected. Welcome. Uh, all right. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. I wanna, I'm gonna start my timer so I don't go past my time and respectful of your, uh, of your time. Appreciate Representative Jack. Uh, I'm Tammy Pearson, Beaver County Commissioner, uh, member of, of uac, Utah Association of Counties. And we support the, this bill and, and love the new language. Uh, it's, it's something we deal with on a daily basis in counties and zoning laws and those kind of things. So I, I'm speaking in support, so thank you.

Commissioner Pearson, are you still with us? I am. All right. We have a question for you. Go ahead. Thank You so much, and thank you for your comment. Um, I'm curious to know what types of situation the county faces that this has harmed them. If you have an example, a short example would be great.

Sure. Yeah, sure. Uh, um, some of the things that were, that are per permitted, so like the, um, ag protection areas and things like that, there's strict laws and regulations that are put in place before we approve those kind of things. And then after the fact, you know, somebody's already got that done. You have a neighbor moves in and they don't like what's happening in, uh, the area, but it's already set in place. It's kind of like the t-shirts we wear don't, California or Utah. Um, you know, somebody moves in and they wanna change it right back to the place they just left. They like what we do until they don't, and then they wanna move it back. So those are the kind of issues we deal with on, on county levels all the time.

Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you chair.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd like to, I move that we pass that with a Fable recommendation. Uh, I'm getting to the bill number 5 91, HB 5 91. Uh, and I'd like to speak briefly. I just think this is, uh, a good start on, on some of these types of things. Uh, and I, I fully support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, anything you think we need to add? All right. I'll just, I'll try to keep it brief. Just to sum, uh, what we're doing here is we're re codifying nuisance statutes from all over the, the codes we're bringing it in, we're, we're separating between public nuisance and private nuisance. And we're giving some stability to, uh, our public entities to allow them to defend their agriculture and their other businesses from nuisance suits so that we're keeping the law making where it belongs and out of the courts. And so, uh, this should give everyone more stability and more comfort in running their businesses and living their lives in a normal manner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Committee.

Yeah. I just wanna, uh, make another comment. Uh, this, uh, certain, where it talks about abandoned horses is it is a nuisance in Western Iron County. We have a lot of horses out there. And, you know, we talk about protecting the, the mustangs of old and so forth. Uh, and certainly that's important, but most of the horses out there are ones that have just been abandoned. Uh, somebody, you know, in hard times decided they couldn't take care of those horses, and so they just went and turned them loose, and they, and they cause a lot of damage to agriculture production and grazing and waterholes, and it affects the wildlife as well. So I like the fact that that's, that's in your nuisance, bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand you have the Attorney General here and he wants to say a lot of great things that he'll tell us out in the hall. So about the bill. Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee, the Attorney General's here. We have, we have, uh, many folks from the Chamber of Commerce and from pco, and they all like your bill and they all like my bill. Wonderful. If you want to do thumbs up, I can tell you lots of lawsuits that we would avoid with this or, okay. So do, and I'm moving sub two please. Sub two. Will you present sub two briefly? Yeah. So briefly sub two, what that is doing is it's making sure that, uh, we've given comfort to the governor that we haven't cut out or changed his ability to de declare a public nuisance that's already in code, but it's also in sub two, just to be sure. And what that does is it make sure that public nuisance laws aren't used to, uh, to hamper legitimate business, but we still have all of the same protections from public nuisance, like wild horses and drug houses and party houses and all your favorite nuisances.

I, uh, I'm not sure they told me. Okay. That's fine.

to make a comment as part of your present? Yes, please. If

You would. I had lots of great things to say, but as you mentioned, I'm happy to say them in the hall. And I, We've got time for a little bit. So,

Well, the, the, the, the fundamental point. And wait, did you want me to speak on the bill itself or this, This sub? Uh, the bill itself?

Okay. I, I have nothing. I just, what he said is it Tracks. Okay. So, so

Okay. The, the underlying bill itself, um, this is ultimately, uh, to make sure that there is predictability in the courts. I mean, the nuisance as a, as a common law concept has become really nebulous. And whenever there's nebulous legal concepts, lawyers thrive and make a lot of money. What this does is ensure that there's predictability and to put it bluntly to make sure that we, um, we have ruled by lawmakers and not lawsuits in the state of Utah.

Yeah. Although I did remember the answer to your question.

And they came to me and said, we're afraid that you're exempting, uh, chemical companies from liability. And I said, no. The chemical companies felt like they weren't exempted. They came and asked for that, and we said, no, that's not part of this bill. Okay. And then they said, darn, I wish I could change my vote.

and where you live. Thank You. My name is Jenny Hoppy. I'm testifying today on behalf of Utah Association for Justice, which is, uh, an organization representing consumers. Our opposition to this bill is focused on, um, two issues. Uh, the first is that, uh, the bill actually could give some of the exclusions, um, for, um, polluting, um, entities. Uh, if a condition is lawful or government authorized, it is exempted, um, from, uh, a private cause of action, uh, cause of action for private nuisance. The other element of the bill that's concerning is that the statutory, um, language limits, private nuisance actions, causes of action to those on adjacent or neighboring properties. Even though public nuisance by its nature is something that can, um, carry for longer distances, it can impact more than just immediately adjacent or neighboring properties. Um, so we feel that this un unreasonably narrows the scope of, um, causes of action that currently exist under the law. And while the legislature has, um, seems to have some opposition to courts interpreting, this is exactly where things have to end up. So, um, some of our judicial inform, um, decisions are helpful to us in understanding what the legislation means. Um, so that's the basis for our opposition.

I mean, I I, in terms of chemical companies, I, we haven't really talked about that. I think, you know, what this does is doesn't, it narrows the scope of, from a common law standpoint, but I I don't think that that would be, um, a concern as far as we are, we're aware and in fact, you, Roger, do you want to, can I, can I ask Roger who's been working on this to Sure. Also address that issue because I don't think we have, we'll Have 'em come up for public comment. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's no, 'cause that's, because this is something I I, in terms of the chemical companies, I mean, I don't, I don't think that's Okay. That's a

I just mention the Yeah. Chemical thing? Absolutely. My Name is Roger Gioni. I'm here on behalf of the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. And I believe the question was clarifying, you know, how would this potentially apply to chemical companies in particular? Correct. Um, this law is, is very specific that there is no change to the cause of action as, uh, it applies to interferences with land, air, and water. So if there is some sort of spill or, or environmental harm, uh, not only would you be able to address those through environmental laws, but, uh, the public nuisance cause of action would almost certainly be available. Uh, obviously that's circumstance specific, but this would not preclude, uh, litigation like that. Yeah. Thank You. All right. Thank you.

Oh, Senator Musselman, Um, there's an i i I, so this eliminates common law and Right. And, but it also says in the bill that you can still use it until 2 20 35. Is that the right date? Did I see that right?

That applies to the, the Office of the Attorney General. Right. So that'll, that'll sense it so that that's a provision that I can, but then that will, that will change at that point in time. Just, it'll be basically a reauthorization to, to review ultimately what it, you know, how it's been used, just to make sure that it hasn't, you know, to, to basically give you information on that issue. Okay. So the, the point is to provide information on, you know, to the extent that, that the officer of the Attorney General is, um, engaged in cases that, that are utilizing these theories. It's basically giving you that information so that you can assess should it continue or should it not. Okay.

Maryanne Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch. When I started reading this bill, I thought of the foothills when they started building up the foothills between Bountiful and Lagoon and all the people buying those new houses started complaining that their neighborhood smelled like cows because there were farms there. And I was really mad at that at the time. Well, since then, we now have a kind of a circumstance on the other end of the spectrum where we have, um, factories, manufacturers, um, providing marijuana and they are creating so much stink that we now we have businesses that used to have viable businesses that don't have viable businesses anymore because no one wants to come to their business where it stinks so bad. So I think this bill is the balance between those circumstances. And so I just think it's a really good piece of legislation. So

Senator Balderree, I recommend that we pass with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Please. I recommend that we adopt the second substitute house

Is that what you want, representative? Yes, please, Mr.

I would, I recommend that we pass out with a favorable recommendation, second substitute house Bill 5 91

I just wanna explain my vote. Um, I was a little worried that we are breaking new ground, but I have learned through research while we've been here that this is actually the fourth time we have codified the word ass in our code. And so, so I'm That is good to know. That's, that's Gonna be why I'm voting in favor

I'll, I'll just be brief. Just most of this. I know it's an intimidating long bill. Most of that is just compiling when we broach the subject to public nuisance, we compiled all of the pieces from all over, code brought it together and modernized and changed those few concepts we talked about.

I, I was just gonna say, I think this bill is awesome. So I'll be voting for this awesome ass bill That is in order.

I'm almost afraid to ask.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is a simple little 50 page bill. It, uh, I know it looks big and I wish I had anything that impressive to do, but, but really what it is, is mostly a re codification. Uh, we had to, we wanted, I think we need to change a few things in the public nuisance code, but as all good drafters have done for all of us, when they go into a section of code to touch it, they find that a lot of it hasn't been touched in many, many years. And so they found that we had 50 pages worth of stuff that all needed to be collected into one place. So almost everything is just moved together. Uh, so, so don't worry, all of your favorite public nuisances are still there. Still. It is a public nuisance for abandoned horses, brothels. We brought those from two different sections of code drug houses, party houses, all still there. It's all good. So you can put that on a t-shirt. Um, but, uh, and, and, and the public nuisance is still available for use, uh, in, in all the regular, in all the regular cases to protect your property rights and, uh, and your health and environment. Uh, but what we did is we separated things into what are public nuisance that would be brought by public entities. And we created private nuisances that would be brought by private entities. And, uh, what we've protected in the bill that has always been there is protected things like a farm that has now been built around. And now the new houses that live next to the farm, they don't like the stinky animals. And so they want to declare it a public nuisance. This will protect the farm. Or maybe you build out next to a shooting range and you don't like the noise, but we've said that a shooting range that was there first is not a public nuisance. Or say an airport you build next to an airport. Those things are already in code and we continue to protect those. But some of the things that are being misused across the country in public nuisance are, are similar to some of the other topics we've talked about. For example, uh, global warming lawsuits. The city of San Francisco, assuming hydrocarbon companies for causing global warming as a public nuisance. Uh, so this would protect against that. The city of Buffalo and the state of New Jersey are suing firearm manufacturers for public nuisance because because they have, they're blaming them for the crime rates in those places. And so this would protect against that. Uh, the state of California, particularly the city of San Francisco, is suing, uh, Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola Craft Nestle for making me fat. Um, there are, uh, there's lawsuits against, uh, the people who make plastic bottles. So when you buy a Coke or a Pepsi and a plastic bottle, if you throw that in the river, uh, people who want to sue, then the people who make the plastic bottles for creating pollution rather than the people who throw the plastic bottles in the river declaring that a public nuisance, this would protect against that. And als even here's, here's a good one. In case you were wondering what to do tonight, uh, you can watch on TikTok how to hot wire certain brands of cars. And so now some cities, uh, a dozen cities and counties are suing that brand, a car for, uh, being made too easy to hot wire as a public nuisance. Anyway, these nuisance lawsuits are coming against, uh, large corporations who can afford to deal with the public nuisance lawsuits, but also against mom and pop shops who can't afford the attorneys. And what we're saying is let's bring public nuisance back to where it was meant to be. And let's deal with the, the, the, uh, drug houses and party houses and, and the brothels and, uh, those and your, your, uh, your, uh, wild horses that you turn loose or your neighbor turned loose. But let's protect the legitimate businesses. And so that's what 5 91 does is mostly it just puts it all together in one section of code, but it creates some protections for small business against, uh, large lawsuits that they can't afford to deal with. And so, uh, Mr. Speaker, that, uh, that would conclude my presentation. Look at that. I did it in barely over five minutes.

Thank you, Ms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll wave and I'll be done before the 10 minute elapse.

Yeah. This, uh, removes a Sunset for statutory provision in one instance and then it also creates a reporting requirement to the judiciary Interim committee regarding an exception for the Attorney General to the abrogation of the common law. Civil right of action for a public or private nuisance.

Yeah. The main thing this does is it streamlines and organizes existing public nuisance law in the Utah Code. Uh, while assuring the ancient common law concept cannot be manipulated or misused to attempt to regulate industries, uh, and advanced social and policy priorities through litigation. Uh, in Utah, policy decisions belong to the people and their elected representatives, not to whoever files the most creative lawsuit. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

Um, it's a small amendment. And I'd like to move Amendment one.

I will call the question. The question is, under suspension of the rule, shall third substitute to house Bill five ninety one pass. Roll call

Senator Musselman. Oh, here we go Brett. Thank you President. There should be a substitute three on

Substitute House Bill 5 91. Nuisance amendments by Representative Jack.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to Concur with the Senate amendments.

Yes. Thank you. This is, this is an amendment that we made, uh, that I was there making with them. Uh, the only thing we really did is the governor has in statute the ability to declare a public nuisance. But what we did is we added that, uh, extra clarification into this bill so that, uh, there was no, so that there was no question about that. So, uh, that's what we accomplished here is we clarified this bill is consistent with the rest of code.

Mr. Speaker,