Trucks move shipping containers at the Union Pacific Intermodal Terminal on Nov. 22, 2021 in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)
Two environmental advocacy groups are suing the Utah Inland Port Authority, the governor and legislative leaders for what they describe as “a violation of the separation of powers,” arguing the board that governs the authority is “unconstitutionally formed” and under control of the Utah Legislature.
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and the Center for Biological Diversity, fierce opponents of the inland port project, argue that the change in code the Legislature approved in 2022 to empower the Senate president and the speaker of the House to appoint and remove the majority of the board’s voting members “effectively handed over control of executive functions to the legislature, in violation of the separation of powers enshrined in the Utah Constitution.”
At the time in 2022, Salt Lake City leaders supported the bill after heavy negotiations to change the Utah Inland Port Authority’s governance structure after its initial creation in 2018 upset Salt Lake City leaders, who claimed it usurped local land use authority. That bill dissolved Salt Lake City’s voting membership in exchange for a 25-year contract and a larger share of future tax increment within the port’s jurisdiction.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
According to the lawsuit, the Utah Inland Port Authority, a state political subdivision, is exercising core executive functions by financing and controlling the development of more than 95,500 acres of land across 11 project areas. However, the groups wrote, “those actions have been directed by an unconstitutionally formed board under the control of the Utah legislature.”
“This is not just a technicality,” Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment said in a news release. “The end result of this unconstitutional law has been the Utah Inland Port Authority flouting their statutory obligations to prioritize environmental and public health protection, and structuring their projects contrary to the public interest, and for the benefit of private developers.”
The suit is asking for a declaration that the state constitution was violated, a block against the authority board taking further action until it is “constitutionally formed,” and an invalidation of any previous actions taken by the authority board in its current form.
The challenge cites the Utah Constitution, stating that the governor has the power to “appoint all State and district officers whose offices are established by this Constitution, or which may be created by law, and whose appointment or election is not otherwise provided for.”
The Utah Inland Port Authority hadn’t been served with the suit as of 2 p.m. on Thursday, which made Ben Hart, executive director of the authority, question its merits.
“If and when we do get papers, I mean, we’ll always take these things very seriously,” Hart said. “But I’ll tell you, from what I’ve heard, their concerns — particularly with regards to wetlands — this is kind of borderline defamation on their part.”
According to the suit, the project areas “directly threaten the natural values and ecosystem health of the Great Salt Lake, the public health and safety of local residents, the public’s recreational, educational, spiritual, scientific and recreational interests, and nearby homeowners’ enjoyment of their homes and home values,” the groups wrote, referring to the proximity of the development to more than 73,000 acres of Great Salt Lake biological wetlands.
Though Hart couldn’t specify which points could be defamatory because he hadn’t seen the official lawsuit at that point, he said the inland port has “an excellent record protecting wetlands,” and “for them to give any portrayal otherwise is absolutely false and misleading.”
Gov. Spencer Cox also said he couldn’t comment on the environmentalists’ arguments, as he hadn’t seen the suit on Thursday morning during his monthly news conference broadcast on PBS Utah. But, he said he doesn’t believe these projects are too close to the Great Salt Lake.
“We’ve worked very closely to make sure that this type of development is actually protective of the Great Salt Lake, that we’ll be able to create some barriers there. And I know it’s something that the inland port is concerned about as well,” Cox said. “I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, it’s going to be the most environmentally friendly inland port in the country.”
Hart also criticized the groups for questioning the constitutionality of the board, calling those allegations “absolutely false” and arguing that there are a lot of boards in the state with members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders.
“It’s absolutely ludicrous. I don’t even know how to respond to that. It’s so misleading. I mean, it is quite literally libel,” he said. “When you’re claiming that the inland port is so much different than every other group that’s out there that’s had the same appointments, you’re completely ignoring the reality of how numerous other groups in the state of Utah are formed.”
However, in the groups’ perspective, neither the Senate president or the speaker of the House are as accountable to the public as the governor, the groups said, and the legislative leaders or their board appointees have a political incentive to respond to the concerns of local communities. That results in a new reality for families who live near the typically rural areas that have been selected by the authority for the port.
“UIPA has taken and will continue to take actions significantly affecting local communities, important ecosystems, and taxpayer resources without providing adequate opportunities for public participation or considering public input,” the groups said in the suit.
Hart defended the developments, stating that the authority doesn’t have any zoning or local land use rights. It’s up to local governments to approve what is allowed in specific areas when the port arrives.
“I’ve talked to the residents in Tooele, they knew what the zoning was. They knew that there would be industrial development by them,” Hart said. “For them to claim that now the port is upending their lives, that’s absolutely not true.”
Before the authority creates project areas, Hart added, besides the initial creation of the Salt Lake City inland port area that dismayed city officials in 2018, other local governments have to pass resolutions inviting the port in.
Though the environmentalists hope the suit can change how the authority conducts business in the state, in Hart’s view, the port is “stronger than it’s ever been,” and he doesn’t foresee the suit preventing it from maintaining its operations.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.