Money or Environment?

According to the Utah Legislature and Governor Gary Herbert, the idea of an Inland Port (House Bill 0433) would continue the economic opportunity to further Utah’s economy by creating a 2nd rail-yard increasing commercial traffic and commerce. There are multiple points of concern that show this bills negative effects towards environmental impact that can cause harm not only to Utah’s air quality but also to its residents and wildlife, the subjects of tax and land use, & the ban of lawsuits against the port authority power. Utah’s current economic climate is ranked #7 out of the total 50 states in an article by U.S. News & World Report, who collected data from Mckinsley and Company (USNews). Though the outlook of Utah’s economic growth is already promising, the manifestation of adding House Bill 0433 (Utah Inland Port) towards it has already shown excessive & questionable acts of authority.

UNETHICAL PROCEEDINGS

At this moment in time there is no clear cut, definitive piece in the bill that will monitor the Inland Ports output of pollution towards Utah’s air quality, water sources in the surrounding area, or noise ordinances. Utah’s air quality being one of the largest concerns due to the history Utah has with a federal failing grade and lack of change towards improvements required by the EPA (Utah Business). The Inland Port location will be take up specific proportions out of West Valley and Magna.

“Data from the U.S. Census shows that people of color make up about 21 percent of Utah’s population, and 27.9 percent of Salt Lake County’s population. In comparison, people of color make up 53.2 percent of West Valley City’s population and 36.4 percent of Magna’s population. As such, the placement of the port alone is an illustration of environmental racism. The implications of the port are even worse considering that residents of the area are already disproportionately burdened with pollution from refineries and traffic.” (The Salt Lake Tribune).

Principal Heidi Greene of Meadowlark Elementary that serves an at-risk population near the proposed Inland Port has said,

"When the air quality is poor it actually brings on asthma. And, so for our students, when they may not have any insurance, it is a hardship for their parents to take them to clinics and get off work to help them.” (ABC 4 Utah).

Not only can the Inland Import affect the children’s health in those communities, the air quality can potentially affect their learning as well due to lack of outside school activities, field trips, etc.

In an article by Utah Business that covered a portion of Governor Gary Herbert’s 2017 Energy summit reports that 39 percent of Wasatch Front pollution comes from area pollutants, 48 percent from mobile, and 13 percent from point pollutants (Utah Business). The information is outstanding that the already 48 percent of pollution is already stemming from cars, trucks and buses for the Wasatch Front. Yet the legislation wants to an Inland Port that would add to the toxicity of air quality already being created in Utah with additional traffic, trucks, trains, and airplane travel. Opponents for the bill claim ‘the law would prohibit any ban on the storage of natural resources’ (FOX 13 SLC).

The accountability that this bill lacks is that there are also no clear terms in the Utah Inland Port Bill (HB 0433) that states that kind of language. Denni Cawley who is Executive Director of Utah Physicians for Healthy Environment says, “What does this mean? Does this mean coal ash? Does this mean oil and gas products?" (FOX 13 SLC). It is highly important to question all acts of the Utah Inland Port Authority. The Great Salt Lake has a diverse ecosystem that is continually changing. Many species of plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds rely on this lake for survival (The Great Salt Lake Institute). The Great Salt Lake is home to millions of migratory birds and the impact on wildlife in the area can be detrimental.

“Potential storage, even if its temporary, causes some really large risks to the community of spills, leaks and possible contamination of groundwater,” said Steve Erickson, Utah Audubon Council (FOX 13 SLC).

-The Utah Audubon Council is an environmental group with special emphasis on birds and their habitats.

Just recently in Eureka, Juab County — A Union Pacific train derailment of 23 train cars caused the release an unknown quantity of propane after one car overturned about six to eight miles south of Eureka, prompting the response of multiple emergency crews (Deseret News). It’s situations like this that create concern with Utah citizens who currently have a bill that lacks the proper language that states what will be done in situations like these and how air pollution will be prevented and monitored. If such a crash with an unknown amount of spillage of coal, propane, oil, etc. into the land were the Inland Port is proposed to be built on, it could ravage nearby communities, seep into water lines, & hurt the wildlife as close as these areas would be to the Port.

TAX & LAND USE

The Utah Inland Port is looking to become a global trade hub that would be made of import-export network of shipping yards, rail, truck and air connections; it is expected to be the largest economic development project in Utah’s history (HEAL Utah). But looking further into the bill, it shows a different side that is not clearly as written. Right from the beginning on this bill it states,

“H.B. 433 authorizes the Utah Inland Port Authority to adopt a project area plan for an area outside the authority jurisdictional land under certain conditions and modifies related provisions,” (Utah State Legislature).

Not only did the Port Authority authorize the power of its land use, it also allowed to receive tax fund money from projects across Salt Lake City. On March 11, 2019, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office, at the direction of Mayor Biskupski, filed a lawsuit with the 3rd judicial district court of Utah challenging the constitutionality of the Inland Port Authority (SLC.Gov). Mayor Biskupski strongly believes the state violated the rights of Salt Lake City and all cities with this action.

Without taxing and ultimate land use authority the city has virtually no control over what the development will look like and will receive none of the taxes generated from the project (SLC.gov). House Bill 433 would also allow the port authority to capture 100 percent of the area’s property tax growth for an additional 15 years beyond the 25 years previously allowed in original legislation, as well as half of all sales taxes collected from transactions (involving construction materials transported from out-of-state) and delivered within a port authority project area (Better Utah).

The Utah Inland Port Authority would take power to use land that it saw fit and it also would take away tax money for school funds, road projects, public safety, public transportation projects across the city, etc. (Heal Utah). It is schools like Meadowlark that are in need of crucial curriculum like STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), visual arts and mental health that rely on these tax dollars to assist in those programs. So on top of these children having to deal with air quality issues beyond their control for their own health as mentioned earlier, the port is also going to impact their learning additionally by money taken away because of the Inland Port.

THE BAN ON LAWSUITS

In review we have looked at environmental impact, improper holdings for tax and land use and now we move on to the ban of lawsuits against the Port Authority. The original bill stated it would “ban political subdivisions from bringing legal action to “dispute the creation, existence, funding, powers, project areas, or duties of the authority,” and prohibit public money “from any source” (Utah Legislature). The problem is shown that this bill has too much power. It can expand its reach far beyond property lines and can try to exhibit that power over its local citizens if it deems it necessary that the property of land they see fit to expand on is suitable to its needs.

“Rather than seriously address the significant issues of transparency, environmental impact, and respect for local control, the bill released today reinforces the worst parts of the original legislation… This bill effectively creates a government entity, not only unaccountable to the community but immune from judicial scrutiny, closing the courtroom door to local communities.” -SLC Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Better Utah).

In an interview with House Majority Leader Francis Gibson (UT-R) of Mapleton (chief sponsor of the bill & appointed to the port authority board by Governor Gary Herbert) claims to Deseret News that the goal of House Bill 433 is to create a “hub and spoke” or a “spider-leg” model for the inland port, to allow other counties or cities to join the project (Better Utah). The problem I have with this is that the Port Authority originally set out to take full control of land and taxes, but in-between the lines of this “promise of opportunity” is that they will spread out and those that live near or in the way of its growth will suffer the consequences of noise pollution, environmental pollution, and the possible loss of their homes/property which troubles me deeply.

CONCLUSION

As it has been shown, a multitude of evidence over the relationship of the questionable acts of authority and rightful concerns over this bills negative effects towards environmental impact that can cause harm not only to Utah’s air quality but also to its residents and wildlife, the subjects of tax and land use, & the ban of lawsuits against port authority power. It is critical that the public understand the seriousness and health risks associated with House Bill 0433. This bill will only benefit those who are involved from the politicians to the contractors.

Those are the only people who will actually benefit from the Utah Inland Port. This bill will affect all members of our communities and even more to those who are already dealing with the Utah’s environmental climate of pollution. It will clog our roadways and potentially damage an existing fragile ecosystem, it has a high potential to take land from those they see investment in. With all the research presented, please consider the information and take action to say "No Inland Port!" to the Utah Legislature & Governor Gary Herbert.

Works Cited