This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Utah Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, believes the federal agency set up to protect Americans from chemical pollution in air, water and land is illegal, and she tempers concern for Utah's environment with a bizarre caveat: That any such protection should keep in mind "Utah values."
We can only assume that by "Utah values" Dayton really means Republicans valuing industry interests over the individual health of their constituents.
So it's not surprising that Dayton is sponsoring a bill to shrink and dilute the authority of five citizen boards in Utah. The boards' mission is to watch out for the environmental health of Utahns, which may sometimes be at odds with the bottom-line health of polluting industries.
Like it or not, it is accepted practice for legislators to sponsor bills proposed by special interests. This one was not written by Dayton but by the Utah Manufacturers Association and its attorneys. It was not vetted by the public or public-health advocacy groups before being rushed to approval in committee in a way that will grease its passage without public hearing when the full Legislature meets in January.
Dayton says she plans to hold a public hearing on the measure, even though she has purposely had it labeled a "committee bill" in order to avoid one.
The boards now oversee and hear permit appeals in the departments of air quality, radiation control, drinking water, water quality, and solid and hazardous waste. Dayton's bill would reduce the size of the boards to no more than nine members and transfer to the Division of Environmental Quality executive director the boards' authority to adjudicate appeals of permit decisions and other rulings. And, of course, that one person — appointed by the Republican governor — is much more easily influenced by partisan interests, which, for Republicans, are often industry interests.
Although none of this is surprising, it shows the stunning arrogance of Dayton and her colleagues and their determination to keep ordinary Utahns from having a say in issues pitting business against public health.
After all, when your party has all the power, there's no reason to clutter the process with comments from ordinary citizens, or to give boards that safeguard the people's interests any authority to question your decisions.
We have often decried the negative impacts of single-party rule in Utah, where decisions that are clearly against the public interest — and in this case damaging to public health — are made in secret to avoid having to answer this simple but crucial question: Who benefits?