This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
There may be a new reason for Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to exercise his second veto of the year - this one on the newly passed Legacy Parkway backlash bill.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raised its "potential concern" Friday about HB100.
In a letter to the governor, the EPA Denver regional director suggested Utah may not be able to properly do its job carrying out federal environmental laws that have been delegated to the state, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and Superfund cleanups.
"[T]his pending legislation raises concerns about whether important parts of the state's federally approved environmental programs would meet federal requirements for EPA approval," said the letter, signed by Kerrigan D. Clough on behalf of the regional administrator, Robbie Roberts.
HB100 would require nonprofit organizations, including green groups, to post a bond before they seek a stay of new projects under state or federal environmental laws and regulatory decisions. The bond would cover any delay-related costs for developers, including lost profits, employee wages, construction costs and taxes.
On Thursday, Huntsman indicated he, like the EPA, was concerned by constitutional issues the bill might raise and indicated he might veto it before the March 21 deadline.
Mike Mower, the governor's spokesman, indicated a final decision has yet to be made.
"Our legislative team is currently reviewing this letter and other comments about the proposal," Mower said. "And we look forward also to having further discussions with the legislator who is sponsoring this legislation before a final decision is made."
Sponsoring Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, said Friday he had requested a meeting with Huntsman. He also said he had spoken Friday with Clough, whom he called "uninformed" about litigation bonds and "biased" because of his past role in the Legacy Parkway.
"It's a process, and the eventual success or failure is not determined by the ups and downs," said Tilton, who is in the pharmacy and energy marketing businesses. "It's determined by the outcome."
In the past, the Utah County lawmaker has said the measure would rein in courts that grant stays with little regard to the impact on businesses and government agencies that have received project permits. Tilton also has said the measure would not prevent anyone from filing legitimate lawsuits.
Environmental groups have denounced the legislation as unconstitutional, saying it would be a barrier to the courts while Congress intended to rely on citizens to help enforce environmental laws.
Tilton and some of the 73 state legislators who voted in favor of the bill have said the bill would prevent "frivolous lawsuits" like the one that delayed the Legacy Highway for three years. The courts ruled in favor of environmental groups' claim that the highway had shortcut federal law. Last year, the case was settled with a compromise before going to trial.
Sarah Fields, a member of the Moab-based Glen Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, told the state Radiation Control Board on Friday she was worried how the bond legislation might affect the state's ability to carry out NRC laws. She urged state environmental regulators to study the issue and offer advice on any "possible conflicts" between the legislative proposals and the state's responsibility to administer federal laws.
Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, testified against the bill during the 2006 Legislature, predicting it could have unintended consequences and was unnecessary because of many protections at both the state and federal level against baseless lawsuits.
"Represenative Tilton brushed aside the warnings that this could happen, and it would be a good dose of humble pie for legislators and industry groups who so arrogantly endorsed this bill," Groenewold said Friday. "In the end, if the governor doesn't stop [HB100], the courts may."
Dianne Nielson, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, noted that she and her staff had worked with Tilton during the Legislature to minimize the likelihood of HB100's interfering with state law. She said Huntsman will be looking at the public debate, an assessment of the bill made by the Legislature's lawyers and now the EPA's letter.
"The governor can take a look at all of that."
Other considerations are likely to be financial.
Although HB100 did not include a special fiscal-impact note, the state Department of Commerce estimates the expense of administering it at about $110,000 a year. The bill's fiscal note makes no reference to potential legal costs of defending the measure, saying it does not have a "high probability" of being struck down by courts.
Bill at a glance
* The bill singles out 31 state and federal environmental laws, as well as decisions made by any state or federal agency that deals with environmental issues.
* The legal action that might be taken could potentially affect the EPA, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, all of the programs under the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and some programs under the state Department of Natural Resources, the Utah Agriculture Department and the federal Interior and Agriculture departments.