Legislative Updates

There was and is a graded road up that wash, probably initially leading to a uranium mine at the top of the wash. Our campsite was on the east side of the road, in the bowl.

Several years later, when we arrived at our camp spot on the east side, where we and others had camped for many years, we found that it had been designated “wilderness study.” We also noticed that another area , a little wash just south of our bowl, where there was a less traveled road, had also been closed to motor vehicles and camping because it was now a “wilderness study” area. We wondered how that could happen when both areas had been used by campers for many years.

Fortunately, the west side of our little bowl hadn’t been closed off, so we were able to often camp there, which has been more difficult in recent years, as the campers have increased.

I wished then and do now that there could be another kind of designation of public lands that would prevent them from being privatized and taken away from public use, as can presently be done with public lands; but would at the same time keep them public, not able to be made into a camp-for-fee area, not able to be made into wilderness designation, preventing motor vehicles or camping, not able to be made into a national or state park. Besides taking away camping opportunities for young families, wilderness designation takes away many scenic opportunities for disabled or older people.

So I hope that the bill doesn’t automatically make wilderness of all of the designated wilderness study areas, instead of returning some of those study areas (especially our old camp spot) back to be regular public lands with normal guidelines for use, such as when ATV’s can be used, etc.

Thanks for your service. Please take my concern seriously.

Sincerely,

Fred Ash, Legislative Chair of the Utah Retired School Employees Association

My guess is that many years ago, it became evident that specific rules needed to be put in place to protect cities’ watersheds as the population grew, so the law was enacted. And my guess is that some of the land within that 15 miles is now owned, with private dwellings, and those land owners don’t like having to abide by the rules established to protect the purity of the watershed, even though when they purchased the land, or tried to develop it, they were instructed as to what the rules are. So the sponsor of this bill would override the right and power of the city with the power of the state so that the landowners could better have their wants met.

The bill does give The Department of Environmental Quality and the local health department authority to establish standards and administer controls to maintain water quality in watersheds to protect human health, etc, but I question how much influence the local health departments will have in the decisions, and whether the state DEQ will empathize with the individual cities. Another micro-management of a local rights/responsibilities by our State Legislature.

I hope the bill doesn’t pass as is.

It doesn’t totally take away the rights/responsibilities of the local entity. But it definitely omits any kind of required action should the local entity be considering a shift from federal control to state control. I have openly stated that I do not trust the motives of some legislators when they fight so hard to get federal lands put into the hands of the state. I have been back east where there are no public lands, and I didn’t like what it felt like, and I know why when new states were approved, public lands were part of the agreements. So I suspect the motives of this bill.

HB255 was a bit longer and harder to understand. But if what I have been told, that this bill prohibits the use of watershed or open space dollars outside of a city’s municipal boundaries, I don’t like this bill. I think that there are times when municipalities need to be able to get together to accomplish things that they can’t do individually, like the way they did to protect Bonanza Flat a couple years ago. I don’t want all of our canyons developed, locked out of the use of the public. Also, this is another instance of a bill that would take away the rights/responsibilities of local entities. So I don’t think we need this bill as written.

I hope he is just playing with us, and is actually just being sarcastic. If he is not being sarcastic, instead of again robbing the public education fund, as was done when higher ed was allowed to share the Public Education Fund, and when the single rate tax was approved.; instead of doing that again, he should be spending his time finding ways to fund the increased needs of transportation and water infrastructure.
I hope no one takes this bill seriously, and it is thrown under the rug forever.

Sincerely,
Fred Ash, URSEA Legislative Chair

THE “OUR SCHOOLS NOW” INITIATIVE would basically restore about $700 million to the Education Fund, not quite as much as has been removed each year for the last 20+ years, since higher ed was allowed to share funds from the Education Fund in 1996, and since the single rate tax was approved in 2008, and other tax changes.

25% of the increase could be used to raise teacher salaries, and the rest to reduce class size, improve counseling conditions, support staff, early childhood education, any other purpose reasonably designed to improve student performance that is approved by the local school board. I listened to both sides of the issue at a WSLC meeting. As usual those opposed to the initiative exaggerated the cost to the majority of tax payers. The State Auditor would increase teacher salaries for teachers of math and science and special ed without increasing tax revenue, which would in effect take money away from teachers of other needed subjects, and he assured everyone that none of the Education Fund revenue can be used for other state purposes, such as roads, which is totally false, as the legislature just allows higher ed to use more of the Education Fund, so more money is left in the General Fund for roads and other state needs, and less money is left for public education. And this morning while I was present in a short meeting with the Lieutenant Governor, he expressed optimism about increased revenue for additional funding for Schools, but then he expressed concern that the legislature would move some of the available Education Funds around as I have just described it.

While the $700 million would restore some of the funding that has been lost, it wouldn’t be enough to completely solve the problems we are now experiencing in public education. The whole initiative process wouldn’t be necessary if the legislature would take steps to restore funding for public education in a secure process, but that doesn’t appear to be in the books. So if the Initiative becomes necessary, I hope it passes.
 
H.B. 41 MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS LINE AMENDMENTS. Chief Sponsor: Steve Eliason, Senate Sponsor: Daniel W. Thatcher

This bill addresses the operation of the statewide mental health crisis line and local mental health crisis lines. This bill basically directs the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (division) to enter into or modify contracts to provide the statewide mental health crisis line, requires the division to ensure that the statewide mental health crisis line meets certain staffing and operational standards, in cooperation with counties. There is no fiscal note, which I wonder about, as to accomplish what the bill wants there will obviously be expenses for the state as well as counties. But with the number of teen suicides in our state, it is clear that we need to be doing more to make sure there are sufficient counseling and treatment options readily available for teens with major problems. So I hope our legislature supports this bill.

It is a long and very detailed bill. It looks to me like Rep Daw doesn’t like or trust initiatives or referendums at the local level or at the state level. His bill basically makes sure that arguments for and against such political actions are required to be published in a timely manner with very specific detailed guidelines, etc.
At the state level, I would think it would be good to require general guidelines for local entities to follow, but I think the specifics should be left up to the local entities.

While the intent might be good, I think this goes too far, makes sponsoring an initiative or referendum much more difficult than necessary. So I hope you don’t support this.

S.B. 171 INTERVENTION Ŝ→ [AS A MATTER OF RIGHT] ←Ŝ AMENDMENTS, Chief Sponsor: J. Stuart Adams, House Sponsor: John Knotwell

This bill basically provides that the Legislature has an unconditional right to intervene in a state court action [when] if a party to that court action challenges the constitutionality of a state statute; the validity of legislation; or any action of the Legislature; and requires the attorney general to provide notice to the legislative general counsel in writing within three business days after the day on which the attorney general is officially notified of a claim filed in state or federal court, that challenges the constitutionality of a state statute.

I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the legislature has its own lawyers (legislative general counsel), and the attorney general is the governor’s lawyer. I think there is a legal process in most court actions, and I don’t think it is a good idea for our legislature to be trying to pass laws that mandate how a judge runs his court.

Our state constitution in most respects follows the pattern of our national constitution, with its separation of powers. This bill seems to be an attempt to give the legislature more power in the process than was intended.

Of course I could be really off base on this. But I don’t feel good about this bill.