A record-breaking 1,021 bills were considered this session, with 541 passing into law. Save Our Canyons members stepped up and sent 4,998 messages to legislators, while our staff spoke at two committee meetings and coordinated with dozens of lawmakers on policy changes. We supported six bills, five of which passed, and opposed four bills, three of which passed.
Bills impacting the Wasatch this year were numerous: some sought to bring resources to problems our public lands face — such as recreation pressures, accessibility issues, and wildfire risk — while others sought to increase state authority over these lands. The reality, though, is that many of these bills attempted to do a little of both, making it difficult to parse through the nuance to understand the true impacts to the beauty and wildness of the Wasatch.
To understand what’s happening in state politics, it’s helpful to have a basic knowledge of recent changes to federal land management. The Trump administration has slashed USFS budgets and staffing, attempted to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and limited public accountability during Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments. This created a greenlight for two things: state takeover of our public lands, and increased demand for resources to manage them.
Save Our Canyons believes that the US Forest Service (USFS) is the most stable authority to manage our shared public lands and forests of the Wasatch. We also acknowledge that under certain presidential administrations, including the current one, resources for on-the-ground management of wildfire risk and visitor use can become scarce. Through that lens, we are excited to see bills that encourage partnerships and resource sharing so that on-the-ground work can be done. The problem comes when those resources become the carrot that pulls us toward state control of our shared public lands.
Bills that passed
| Bill | Description |
|---|---|
| H.B. 376 (Support) | H.B. 376 – Land Management Funding Amendments establishes the Utah Forest Restoration Institute (UFRI) at Utah State as Utah’s first Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute (SWERI), something each of our neighboring Four Corners states have benefited greatly from over recent years. This bill also directs UFRI to coordinate closely with and inform Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI) efforts. We support sound science and resources to apply research to forest management, especially when it deals with watershed health and keeping our communities safe. As such, we support this bill – we do, however, affirm our belief that additional resources do not entitle the state to the takeover ownership or authority of federal lands. Save Our Canyons Executive Director, Jack Stauss spoke in support of this bill in the 2/18 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee. |
| H.B. 546 (Oppose) | H.B. 546 Public Lands Duty of Care Amendments stands on the flawed assertion that Utah never ceded control of federal lands to the United States Government. Well, in a way that is true because the State of Utah never had ownership of these lands. In fact, the United States acquired these lands from Mexico via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 – decades before Utah even existed as a state. Consequently, the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause grants Congress the power to manage these lands, not the State Legislature. Most concerningly, this empowers the state to declare forests “landscape public nuisances”, likely overriding local forest plans, travel-management plans, and agency-level policies like the beloved 2001 Roadless Rule under the guise of “abating” these nuisances. We support collaborative, comprehensive forest management strategies that address the risk of catastrophic wildfire; unfortunately this bill uses the nuisance of wildfire risk as a trojan horse to bring more state control, more permanent roads, and more development to our forests, something we cannot get behind. The Salt Lake Tribune published an informative article on this bill, with a quote from John Ruple, research professor at the University of Utah College of Law: “The bill is little more than pre-planning based on the state’s unflagging belief that federal public lands in Utah — lands that belong to all Americans — will someday be gifted to the state.” Save Our Canyons members sent 4,998 letters to elected officials in opposition to this bill. Our Policy Manager, Doug Tolman spoke in opposition to this bill in the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee on 2/23. |
| H.B. 481 (Neutral) | Because H.B. 481 Transportation Modifications covers a much wider range than our scope, we haven’t taken a position on it. There is, however, one provision that aligns closely with our comments on both the Big Cottonwood Canyon Environmental Assessment, and implementation of Little Cottonwood Canyon EIS Phase 1. To improve ridership and rider experience, we would like to see amenities provided in the mobility hub(s), and this bill supports UDOT’s ability to coordinate leasing portions of the hubs for that purpose. |
| S.B. 284 (Oppose) | As initially drafted, S.B. 284 Local Land Use Modifications heavily undermined the ability of local governments to enforce the zoning laws that are carefully crafted to maintain the character and way of life these towns and counties value. It has been significantly watered down, with only a few remaining provisions that we are in opposition to. Our primary concern is that it strips the rights of “adversely affected parties”, such as neighboring community groups, technical experts, and conservation advocates to bring certain enforcement actions against unlawful uses, reserving that right solely for the land-use applicant. It also restricts public participation by mandating that appeal authorities may only allow the applicant or the municipality to speak during hearings. Furthermore, it prevents elected legislative bodies from acting as appeal authorities, reducing democratic accountability from land-use decisions. Local input on land-use applications are limited by this bill, impacting our work to limit the expansion of gravel pits and parking lots onto undisturbed lands in the Wasatch. |
| H.B. 30 (Support) | H.B. 30 Wildlife Management Area Amendments addresses an access issue created last year, when H.B. 309 Wildlife Amendments established that Wildlife and Waterfowl Management Areas (WMAs) in high-population counties could only be accessed by adults with active hunting or fishing licenses. This created access issues for non-consumptive wildlife enthusiasts and recreationists, including along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail within the Timponogos WMA. WMAs are managed specifically for wildlife, and are an important tool for preserving habitat, and a portion funding for these WMAs comes from hunting and fishing licenses. We understand that recreationists can have impacts on wildlife habitat, and that funding is needed to maintain WMAs, but we also believe that hunting and fishing are just a few of many ways that Utahns can appreciate our wildlife and wildlife habitat. H.B. 30 which goes above-and-beyond just rescinding the troublesome code, by implementing a new stewardship fund and educational tools for people accessing WMAs. |
| S.B. 44 (Oppose) | S.B. 44 Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendments adopts a new version of the State Resource Management Plan (SRMP). Within that plan is a section encouraging state divisions to study the implementation of a State Park in Millcreek Canyon. Millcreek Canyon is cooperatively managed by Salt Lake County and the US Forest Service, and though it has seen increasing visitor pressures as the neighboring Wasatch Front grows, management strategies have largely been capable of handling recreation pressures while prioritizing forest health. The most recent example is the current implementation of the Millcreek Canyon Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) Grant, which brought $15 million in federal funds to the canyon for improvements. Though we remain open to what the State of Utah could offer to improve the status quo in Millcreek Canyon, we remain opposed to this SRMP language, which would fundamentally shift a status quo that has immense local support. |
Bills that failed
| Bill | Description |
|---|---|
| S.C.R. 11 (Support) | Had it passed, S.C.R. 11 Concurrent Resolution Supporting Federal Public Lands in Utah, sponsored by Senator Nate Blouin, would have expressed support for the federal government’s continued preservation of Utah’s public lands for future generations. We worked with the sponsor on language in this resolution, which unfortunately did not make it to a committee hearing. |
| H.C.R. 5 (Oppose) | H.C.R. 5 House Concurrent Resolution on State Management of Federal Public Lands would have urged federal and state entities to pursue additional opportunities for federally managed lands to convert to State Parks, Monuments, and Recreation Areas. Included within this broader resolution is an initiative to turn portions of USFS land along Skyline Drive, a portion of the Wasatch Mountains above Davis County into a State Park. While we value our existing state parks and other recreation opportunities provided by the State of Utah, Save Our Canyons is fundamentally opposed to dismantling or transferring of USFS land to state hands unless there is explicit approval from the local community and Forest Service Ranger District. In many other attempts by the State of Utah to gain control of federal lands, we have seen initiatives focused on grazing, mining, and urban development. It should be noted that this attempt is focused around recreation opportunities provided by State Parks, which we acknowledge is not the same as chipping away at public lands for extractive uses. Representative Eliason has long been a champion of the State Parks, which we applaud him for, but this large-scale transferring of ownership and decision-making authority to the State of Utah, even if in the form of State Parks, is something that is fundamentally counter to our mission of preserving the beauty and wildness of the Wasatch Mountains. While we remain fundamentally opposed to provisions that encourage encroachment into USFS land management authority, we also support more resources to manage visitor use in the Wasatch, and are open to discussion on collaborative approaches that do not transfer land or management authority. |
To support our ongoing work on state-level policy, consider making a donation: https://saveourcanyons.org/donate/
