Utah Legislation Aims to Tackle Water Infrastructure Needs, Sparks Controversy
Utah is facing an uphill battle in maintaining and improving vital water and sewage management systems, with an annual requirement of roughly $1.2 billion. This sum includes $700 million designated for drinking water alone, as discovered in a state-sanctioned investigation last year.
State Representative Bridger Bolinder, a Republican from Grantsville, has been taken aback by the findings of the study. He is now pushing for a legislative solution to address these worrisome findings. His proposed bill, which aims to tackle this issue, successfully cleared its first legislative challenge this week. Despite its progress, the bill sparked a fiery debate among the members of the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee about how to cover the daunting expenses.
Understanding the Proposed Bill
The bill, identified as HB501 and sponsored by Bolinder, proposes a way for public water systems to secure state funding for water infrastructure projects. It suggests that these public systems should charge a minimum of 3% of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) to receive such funding. The MAGI is used to establish the maximum affordable water bill for a given water system.
The current requirement is a percentage point lower than what Bolinder's bill proposes. However, for customers who do not have the same provider for both drinking water and wastewater services, the minimum rate would be set at 1.5% under the new bill.
The bill does not dictate how water companies should set their rates, but they must meet the new requirements to qualify for state funding for water projects. All revenue collected from these charges would stay with the local water entity to support water-related projects.
Controversy Surrounding the Bill
The initial version of the bill raised eyebrows among towns and cities due to its language. Bolinder clarified on Tuesday that the collected funds would not be funneled to the state and removed any mandatory requirements on the cities. Despite these amendments, both the committee and audience expressed concerns over the updated version.
The bill could potentially hike up the fees for water and sewage services at a time when many residents are facing budget constraints, particularly those in rural areas or those on fixed incomes.
Other critics have referred to the proposal as a new water tax that would fund ambiguous water projects. Some, like legislative intern for Sierra Club Utah, Cecily Ross, feel this is a poorly timed imposition on the public, "During a time when everyone is feeling pinched by rising costs, adding another tax on top of what we already pay for our water seems ill-intended," she said.
Looking Forward
Despite the controversy, the state continues to grapple with a significant shortfall in funding for water projects. This is a concern echoed by House Majority Leader Casey Snider, a Republican from Paradise. The complexity and cost of these needs may only increase over time, a sentiment shared by many on the committee. They pointed out the frequent water appropriation requests with little to no contribution from the requestor, an issue this bill hopes to address.
After about an hour of discussion, the majority decided to advance the bill due to the pressing needs. "If we don't get ahead of our water infrastructure needs in a fair way, we will be in a deficit more risky than the drought that we're facing," Snider said. "These are hard conversations, but ... this is a good step in the right direction."
The bill will now move to the House floor for a full vote, where there may be further revisions based on the feedback collected so far. If the bill is approved, certain parts of it would become effective in May, with other parts following in July.