Huntsman is urged to veto second waste bill

Even as a jubilant Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. celebrated the success of his first major veto, activists are calling for him to shoot down another highly controversial environmental bill passed by the 2006 Legislature.

The Senate voted to override Huntsman's veto of SB70, the bill that would have stripped him of the authority to unilaterally ban establishment of a new low-level radioactive waste disposal facility or enlargement of the one operating in Tooele County. But on Wednesday, the last day of the Legislature's 2006 General Session, the House failed to take up the issue, meaning the veto stands.

It stands because, under the Utah Constitution's Article VII, Section 8, a special override session can be called if a governor disapproves a bill after the regular legislative session is over. But in this case, the veto came during the session, as did the Senate's override effort.

"The veto stands," Huntsman told reporters on Thursday.

He said he was jubilant about the failure to override. That outcome was "very, very important," Huntsman said.

He characterized SB70 as an attempt to "dilute the authority of the office of governor, or the executive branch, on matters as important as waste and radioactive waste. . . .

"These are significant policy calls," he said. It is important for the governor's office to retain the authority to make such decisions, Huntsman added.

Jason Groenewold, director of Health Environment Alliance of Utah, and a prime campaigner against SB70, praised Huntsman for "sending a strong statement that Utah will not make it easier to dump nuclear waste" in the state.

Without going so far as to promise another veto, Huntsman said he will take a hard look at HB100 (substitute version).

That measure, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, passed the House on Feb. 14 and the Senate late Wednesday night. If it becomes law, it will require "entities that do business in the state" to post a bond when beginning environmental litigation, whether in state or federal court.

The bond is supposed to cover lost wages and revenues caused by any delay attributable to the legal action. Otherwise, the corporation or group filing suit would have its corporate status dissolved, meaning it can no longer do business in Utah.

"There are, so far as I can tell, some constitutional problems to that," Huntsman said Wednesday, discussing the bill. "I'm not warm to it right now."