10172017Headline:

Salt Lake City, Utah

HomeUtahSalt Lake City

Email Bret Hanna Bret Hanna on LinkedIn Bret Hanna on Twitter Bret Hanna on Facebook Bret Hanna on Avvo
Bret Hanna
Bret Hanna
Attorney • 435-649-2525

Proposed Bill Takes Aim at Canal Safety but Misses Target

Comments Off

I did a series of posts in the wake of the failure of the Logan Northern Canal last summer, that claimed the lives of three people and turned a spot light on the potential dangers posed by canals in Utah. You can find them here:

Canal Collapse in Logan Highlights Troubled History

Is Logan City Responsible For Canal Failure?

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Third Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Fourth Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Fifth Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Sixth Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Seventh Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Eighth Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Ninth Installment

Logan Northern Canal Disaster Tenth Installment

Despite the significance of this tragedy, canal safety has not been in the news much lately but that changed today.

Rep. Fred Hunsaker, R-Logan, is sponsoring a bill is designed to improve canal safety. He presented a draft of the bill yesterday to the Executive Water Task Force which has been reviewing canal safety issues. In summary, the bill requires canal companies that want state loan money to file management plans that include identification of hazards and plans for canal improvements. The plans must be submitted by 2013 and updated at least once a decade.

Hunsaker’s bill may be a good start, but it does not appear to have a lot of teeth as currently written. First, canal companies that don’t want state loan monies don’t have to submit management plans. Hunsaker’s response to this loophole is that canal companies will want to make improvements and the only way they can is with state funded loans. Time will tell, I suppose, but that seems like a pretty big "if." Next, the state will not do anything with the plans other than document that they are submitted. What good does that do? Companies can submit whatever plans they like knowing that no one is reviewing them with a critical eye. Finally, it does not appear that the public will have access to the plans. The bill precludes the state from disclosing the plans but there is a fuzzy area when it comes to whether local entities that own canal company shares must also keep the plans private. Either way, the public will not have open access to the plans.

Again, the bill may be a good starting point but it seems like the public is entitled to better protections than those provided by Hunsaker’s draft.