# How they keep the UWA quiet



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Here is a link to a KSl.com editorial about a bad bill that keeps small groups like the UWA from contesting bad envirnmental decisions by our government. This will make it almost impossible to fight in court for our wetlands in the future.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=238&sid=14774159

R


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

And here is the UWA alert that was sent out to the members:

*The Utah legislature passed a bill that will severely limit small organizations like the UWA in our ability to contest environmental decisions by government agencies. HB399 will force any citizen that wants to place a temporary stay on an environmental decision or permit issued by UDOT, School Trust Lands (SITLA), or the Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to purchase a bond from a surety company. This bond would be payable to all individuals affected by the contested permit. The UWA would not be able to risk sizable sums of money in the effort to protect Utah's wetlands from a bad decision by one of these agencies. The public process should be open to all citizen instead of just the rich organizations that can afford to buy a bond each time they disagree with a bad decision. Although this bill passed easily through the Utah house and Senate, the Governor has yet to sign it. Me must urge him to veto this bill in order to send a message to our legislators that they need to stop passing laws that force the citizenship (like Utah waterfolwers) out of the public process. HB399 (Environmental Litigation Bond) is yet another attempt to shut us up and make it too expensive to complain about issues that affect waterfolwers and our wetlands here in Utah. UWA members can have an impact by contacting either Ted Wilson or Mike Mower directly regarding HB 399 and urging a veto. Ted is the governor's environmental advisor and his number is 801.538.1502. Mike is the governor's deputy chief of staff and his number is 801.538.1924. The call wouldn't have to be long and in fact it's more likely that you would be leaving a message - the key point would be telling them that this law affects you as a Utah citizen. If you can leave a callback # for them, so much the better.
Your participation in this action item is urgently needed!!*R


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

This is the type of bill that would have saved the state millions as a result of the ridiculous delays that the environmental groups created over Legacy Highway lasting multiple years. I like the general idea of the bill in that it reduces the delays and unnecessary litigation from frivolous suits. If you feel strongly about your cause then you better back it up! I don;t know if this is the perfect answer, but I do like the general intent. 
In a similar case where tort reform is so very necessary, but will never happen with 60ish percent of congressmen being attorneys. In this case, I know of a soil engineering company that has had about 20 lawsuits brought against them that are all 100% frivolous as there is virtually no cost to file the suit, but the defendant must invest no less than $30K to defend, so the plaintiff knowing this offers to settle for $20k knowing full well that the suit is completely frivolous. What happens is the new home owners have an issue with, for example, plumbing with the developer and the general both having gone BK as well as the plumber who are the only possible responsible parties, but as there is no recourse there the homeowner gets one a POS ambulance chaser to sue every single sub in this manner hoping to settle for $20k each splitting it with the attorney who accepted the case on a contingency... with subs such as the soil engineer going almost out of business due to this completely frivolous and completely legal practice. Someone wanting to sue should have to put something at risk to be able to sue rather than make the state flip the whole bill. Again, this may not be the perfect bill, but I do believe in this idea.


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

I have to agree with the concept as well. I think that too many times special interest groups are allowed to tie things up, without any fear of financial recourse. Most of the times I feel like they do it, simply to cos the other party time and money.

I think in this case however I think it would be wise to include some sort of special provision, where a group could file for some sort of waiver, before the process starts.

I don't know, there really is no answer. As much as I would like to think the UWA protects my interests, I'm sure there is someone else out there that feels just as strongly about the Sierra Club, or PETA. Bottom line, I think is that somehow there has to be protection for the majority, from the minority, or it would end up costing the majority millions if not billions, defending themselves against frivolous attempts, by a select few.

Later,
Kev


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> This is the type of bill that would have saved the state millions as a result of the ridiculous delays that the environmental groups created over Legacy Highway lasting multiple years.....


The delay here was the State's fault to try and defend a proposal they knew couldn't be won.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*As the law stands now, a judge can impose a bond on ANY contested environmental decision. This helps avoid frivolous lawsuits by whacko extremists.* The new law, HB399 would make it mandatory for ALL people, large groups, small groups, ect to post a bond. The big environmental groups will surely pay the bond in order to contest a bad decision by a govt agency. The small groups like the UWA, or the Mudmotor Assoc or the Airboat Assoc...we will not be able to challenge any bad decisions concerning our wetlands because we can't risk our personal financial position. This bill takes away the threat of a court case and gives no incentive to agencies to COMPROMISE. Now they know that we won't sue, because we have been priced out of the process. See how smoothly they work the laws to keep us quiet? Still think it is a good law? Unless you are a member of the Sierra Club which most of us are NOT, *we all lose*...thanks to our wonderful legislators.
P.S. Here is a link to an article in the Tribune today on the same subject, it also addresses the Legacy Highway argument:

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/slt ... d=51446030

R


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Is that an article or a letter to the editor from the town drunk? If we call it illegal it must be, right? This law changed the law how is that illegal? Care to cite any sources? 
Posting a bond is how many people have to start with litigation; why would this be any different? Just because the frivolous cases are wasting everyone's money so it is a diluted figure? Again, this may not be THE answer, but I like the general idea.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> This law changed the law how is that illegal? Care to cite any sources?


As was pointed out, there's that bothersome First Amendment thing.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > This law changed the law how is that illegal? Care to cite any sources?
> ...


Yep, that dumb Constitution is always getting in the way of our legislator's bright ideas. As I recall, the original Legacy work was done in violation of EPA rules. The state was in the wrong and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. UDOT caused the lawsuits and increased cost. You remember UDOT, they're the folks that paid $13M hush money to cover up the fact that their bid process was suspect.

HB 399 is unconstitutional, something about the public right to redress. It will be interesting to see what Herbert does, as he has shown poor judgement and lack of a spine thus far.

Huge, you're way off base.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Holy &%@# I couldn't agree more with PADDLER on this. **** the torpedo's Drill baby drill.
Or actually in this case it would be sell baby sell or pave baby pave :shock:


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

udot is like libeya; and they getting bombed right now


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > This law changed the law how is that illegal? Care to cite any sources?
> ...


Great, please cite the part about never requiring a bond before wasting the government's money so that we can all pay for your opinion! My wallet edition is too small to read the fine print.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> [quote="Finnegan"Great, please cite the part about never requiring a bond before wasting the government's money so that we can all pay for your opinion! My wallet edition is too small to read the fine print.


How is it that the voice of the public is "wasting the government's money"? That money is the public's money, and ours to "waste" as we seem fit.

Despite the 12th Article of Faith, we retain the right as Americans to challenge our government and that right does not require a bond.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The new law might be more acceptable if it was for *all* contested permits for *all* types of issues...but this law specifically targets environmental issues and seeks to punish the big groups (like the Sierra Club and SUWA) because they cause Rep Noel some grief down in Kane County. The unintended consequences of passing a bill specifically intending to take away the rights of one group that is disliked (Sierra and SUWA), is that it really only shuts down small grass roots organizations like the UWA, or a neighborhood group that is trying to save a park or a wetland in their area. Our constitution guarantees us all the right to have our day in court if necessary...this law says you only get to participate if you are rich enough to buy a bond. So much for equality. It will be challenged in court and *once again, Utah will blow a million dollars fighting and losing* because they passed another unconstitutional bill. Maybe the legislators should have to buy a bond for a million dollars every time they present a bill that violates our rights and loses in court. 
R


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> How is it that the voice of the public is "wasting the government's money"?  That money is the public's money, and ours to "waste" as we seem fit.
> 
> Despite the 12th Article of Faith, we retain the right as Americans to challenge our government and that right does not require a bond.


I don't know what religion has to do with this????, is that your usual shot shot below the belt or did I misread it?
Back to my original post citing examples about clearly frivolous civil suits obligating the government to defend at the cost of a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars to defend what is clearly frivolous with minimal cost to the plaintiff. Let me preface my next comment by the fact that we should not use case law from international cases as they have nothing to do with our constitution, so a case from France should not ever be used by a SC judge even though they sometimes do. There are numerous countries in the world (not third world countries) that have laws where the plaintiff has to cover the defendant's cost when the plaintiff loses the case. I like that general idea, but not to the extent of paying all expenses, but the plaintiff should definitely be adversely affected monetarily by losing a case IMHO. My opinion is that our society is way too litigious and oftentimes the innocent (as in the case I mentioned in my original post as well as others with which I am familiar) are significantly hurt by the actions of an immature sue happy counter. That will not ever happen where the majority of our congressmen are attorneys. There certainly are some good attorneys, it is unfortunate that the 99% make a bad name for the 1% that are good. :mrgreen:
For the 3rd time, this bill is certainly not perfect, but I agree with the intention. I just really have a bad taste in my mouth from the contractor case I cited and another where my employer was sued for an equally ludicrous case, the judge essentially laughed the plaintiff out of the court, but at a cost of $30K to my employer and literally zero cost to the plaintiff as the attorney accepted the case on contingency, so the attorney is out all of his time and fees, while the plaintiff has felt zero consequence just using the court system in a spiteful manner. I don't think any of you guys would agree with the plaintiff's actions and I certainly don't 100% agree with this, but something does need to be done in tort reform.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Amendment I

*Congress shall make no law respecting* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or *the right of the people* peaceably to assemble, and *to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*

Huge 29, you are sadly and completely mistaken. What part of the First Amendment don't you understand? Or, are you taking the position that placing financial obstacles to redress of grievances doesn't violate it? If so, you are a complete idiot. Likewise, supporters of HB 399 should forfeit their elected positions, as they are too stupid to serve the populace. Utah lawmakers really need to read the Constitution they shroud themselves in but flagrantly ignore.

Similarly, it seems that SB 165 should be ruled unconstitutional. As E signatures are used for all other government business, prohibiting their use for petitions is also a violation of the First Amendment. HB 477, which seeks to restrict public access to government records, could also be broadly interpreted as unreasonable restriction of the right to petition the government. Bottom line, any elected official who seeks to do public business in secret, restrict the right to petition for redress, or eliminate public input is unworthy of their office.

Anyone who supported any of these three bills should be repudiated and soundly defeated next election. That would include Waddoups, Lockhart, and the spineless dishrag who currently occupies the office of Governor.

Sheryl Allen, former Republican representative from Bountiful, has an interesting Op-Ed in today's Trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51 ... l.html.csp


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or *the right of the people* peaceably to assemble, and *to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*


It would appear that you have given up on a logical discussion by you calling me an idiot. That is the best sign of the lack of your intellect, so you move to the first grade debate tactic of calling names! Good work! You don't in any respect even address what I posted, but I do like how you did make a reference to the constitution, unfortunately that was the only part that you did not write yourself and therefore the only intelligent portion of your post. Rather than continue a discussion that you apparently don't understand, I will leave this one be. My intellect is apparently not good enough to communicate with you, so I will let you continue to think that our court system is perfect and that our budget mess is also perfect while I continue to think that we need some tweaks. This type of bill does address both issues in reducing frivolous suits and in reducing govt costs.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Holy &%@# I couldn't agree more with PADDLER on this. **** the torpedo's Drill baby drill.
> Or actually in this case it would be sell baby sell or pave baby pave :shock:


I would not expect any different of you; you are drunk on the blue cool Aid, heaven forbid that you did any thinking for yourself. In the meantime, here we are with an absolute disaster in our budget and fellars like yourself think that doing the same thing over and over (or doing more of what we know does not work) will eventually get us better/different results, yes, that is the definition of insanity.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry, Huge, don't mean to insult you, but I get tired of Utah politicians violating the US Constitution because they think they have a better idea. Doing so is wasteful and places their ignorance in full public view. Supporting HB 399 is indeed illogical, so you have not posted anything logical on this thread. I don't really care if you are ignorant of the rights of all citizens guaranteed by the First Amendment, but you really should attempt to educate yourself before posting stupid stuff. If you cannot explain why HB 399 doesn't violate the First Amendment and thus validate your position, perhaps it's better that you don't provide us with any more of your "insight" on this topic.


----------



## beretta2 (Jan 5, 2008)

> If so, you are a complete idiot.


Nice one Paddler! :roll:


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

beretta2 said:


> > If so, you are a complete idiot.
> 
> 
> Nice one Paddler! :roll:


Thanks, B2. I'm not one to advocate violating the Constitution because of anecdotes, or budget fluctuations, or for convenience. Those are the reasons Huge29 gave for supporting HB 399, and they are not good enough. The US Constitution reigns supreme in our land; HB 399 will not pass muster. Requiring citizens to post a bond before seeking redress of grievances is obviously unconstitutional. This is not a gray area, or open to interpretation, as the First Amendment clearly and specifically prohibits doing so. To compound their errors, the authors of the bill went out of their way to target environmental groups, thus adding discrimination to stupidity. HB 399, should Herbert sign it into law, will be challenged and found unconstitutional after costly legal battles. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Our legislature pulls this BS every year, and in so doing wastes time they should be spending more productively in addition to wasting taxpayer dollars. Sorry, but this behavior qualifies as idiocy, and Utah taxpayers are left holding the bag.

PS. I just linked this thread and the one on the other forum to Mike Mower at the Governor's office.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> If you cannot explain why HB 399 doesn't violate the First Amendment and thus validate your position, perhaps it's better that you don't provide us with any more of your "insight" on this topic.


 Start by using 1st grade technique of calling names once you don't have the intelligence to discuss then move onto the 2nd grade technique of trying to bully or whatever you call that? I can certainly see why you don't get it! 1st amendment is indeed very important and very basic, which I believe in wholeheartedly! 
After three posts of you claiming high intelligence in such a condescending way, here is your chance to show everyone just how you are smarter than everyone else. Would you care to truly show us just how much of a legal scholar you are, Mr. Paddler? I am just a complete idiot, so I could use some help. 
Please share how a bond works, other times when it is required (in legal situations) and what this extravagant cost is that you insinuate? Secondly, what is this discrimination of which you speak? Since this is a legal topic, please cite your source in how an environmental group is a protected class (from discrimination as you just posted?)? 
Third, since this topic was specifically about UWA and therefore wetlands; how will it work when/if the the new road does go through wetlands in Kaysville? 
I will post for the fourth time, since you missed it on the first three. I don't know that this is anywhere near perfect (nowhere previously stating that I support this bill) and I don't think it should be limited to environmental groups, but a defendant (gov or private entity/individual) should have recourse over frivolous suits brought on by the plaintiff up front (not only by having to counter sue further increasing legal costs and holding up the legal system). Tell me that you don't agree with that, that is my one and only point, yet I have not seen a reply touching that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, I'm no attorney, nor do I play one on TV. But the impetus behind HB 399 is to discourage environmental groups, specifically those pesky SUWA and Sierra Club wackos, from challenging decisions made by various government entities. The sponsors chose as their roadblock a financial burden, requiring posting a bond before seeking redress. I assume that the party seeking redress would have to somehow raise and place in escrow monies before they could challenge decisions. Now, the First Amendment says that you cannot pass any law regarding the citizens right to redress, yet this is the specific and stated objective of HB 399, aka "Legacy Law". If you are an attorney, please educate those of us who are not how HB 399 is not in violation of the US Constitution. Everything I've read says it does and will get Utah sued once again.

I am not against limiting frivolous lawsuits, and I have a bit of insight as to how attorneys will sometimes sue simply because they know the defendant will settle as a business decision. But HB 399 is merely an attempt to eliminate challenges to decisions made by government entities, and will be struck down. That was the opinion of Huntsman when he vetoed a very similar bill. According to the KSL editorial, which is not known to be an environmental extremist organization, the legislature's own lawyers told them it violates open court and equal access. So please, explain how HB 399 is okay. I am anxiously awaiting enlightenment.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Tort reform is a worthy goal. All accross the nation, there are thousands of frivolous lawsuits being filed for dubious reasons. HB399 does not address this problem. This bill targets a specific segment of society for penalty. The penalty is placing an udue burden upon this segment of the citizenship in the right to redress. Current law allows a judge to decide if a suit is frivolous and that judge can then require a bond on the litigant to help even the playing field in the case of a lawsuit that appears to be unjustified. That law has worked pretty well. It is a balance between a citizen's right to thier day in court and a business' ability to operate without unfair encumbrances. If Rep Noel actually cared about tort reform, this bill would not target his enemies, and it surely wouldn't have been heard in the Natural Resources Committee. This bill took about 2 1/2 days to get through both houses. I couldn't get any legislator to discuss this with me, and the one guy who did speak to me, didn't understand it but voted for it in comittee. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
P.S. *Sheryl Allen is very brave* to actually come out and publicly say how the legislature REALLY works!
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> P.S. *Sheryl Allen is very brave* to actually come out and publicly say how the legislature REALLY works!
> R


Agreed, rjefre, and she should be our lieutenant Governor right now. There's no way Corroon would have signed HB 477, HB 399, SB 165, etc. I heard back from Mike Mower. He said he would "make certain" my (read: our) viewpoint is part of the HB 399 discussion. He copied Ted Wilson, who is a level-headed guy.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Yeah, we have to keep fighting for the right to protect wetlands. I respect Huge 29's feelings about tort reform, and I hope that there will be meaningful reforms in the future (but not targeting decent folks that just want to protect our marshes). Unfortunately, this will probably become law very soon, and we will spend and lose our tax money in an effort to defend a poorly written law. I really feel that most of us here on these duck hunting forums mean well, and the Utah Waterfowl Association is the best means to fight against laws that fail to protect our marshes. *This law will make it much tougher for us, but we will persist!*
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Here's an idea. How about requiring our legislators to post a bond if they pass a bill that their own legislative review committee says is unconstitutional? In other words, if by majority vote the attorneys tell Noel, et al, that a given bill is most likely unconstitutional, each legislator who votes in favor of a bill must share the responsibility of defending said law when challenged in court. That would indemnify the taxpayers from paying money in defense of silly, even whimsical laws and message bills our legislature is so fond of passing. If they were personally responsible for their actions, they may be more circumspect in their efforts.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

FYI- The governor signed HB399 into law this afternoon. Let the lawsuits begin.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51476 ... d.html.csp

R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> FYI- The governor signed HB399 into law this afternoon. Let the lawsuits begin.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51476 ... d.html.csp
> 
> R


Now that's just amazing. Oh, maybe not so much in Utah.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think we all pretty much agree on this one, but may not have seemed like it at first possibly due to my poor presentation. I am not an attorney, but I know just enough to be dangerous. In short, bonds are often required in litigation generally when appeal is sought so as to accomplish exactly what lawmakers are after here, essentially protecting the defendant's legal costs. The cost can vary greatly, but is derived from the risk. rjefre hit on the mitigation/destruction of wetlands pretty well in the other thread about ??? I forget, but is one of the few active threads in waterfowl, I think?? The more I think about this one the more I think this one will be shot down in a hurry. Redress against the government is pretty distinct from what I was thinking of in dealing with civil suits, I guess it just hit my nerve since it has been such a hot topic at work and therefore fresh on my brain.
Paddler did bring up another nerve of mine when speaking of message bills, this one does appear to be off of the mark, but some message bills are pretty important. For example, the intrastate gun mfg/sale bill to copy what MT did is huge! This really puts a foot down on the federales in showing just how far they have stepped out of bounds on what the constitution grants and how it specifically leaves powers to the state...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks, Huge. I'm a simple-minded guy, and believe that the US Constitution and Federal law supersedes the state Constitution and laws. If Utah passes a law that conflicts with Federal law, it will be struck down. Therefore, debating it's merits or philosophy is pointless. This is especially true here in Utah, where most of the questionable bills are intended to reduce or eliminate public input.

Equal access for redress of grievances is different from tort reform. I share the concern over frivolous lawsuits, but meaningful tort reform is unlikely. You see, it would violate what my buddy calls the "attorney full employment act". Sad, but true.

I see by the paper that the UEG is suing Utah for dragging it's feet over counting petition signatures. Good!! Also, It's likely that the ACLU will sue over SB165, which as I mentioned above looks pretty fishy from a Constitutionality point of view. I emailed Mike Mower the following this morning:

*Hi Mike,

I see by the Trib this morning that the ACLU is likely going to sue over SB165. I expect HB399 to be similarly contested, and so am disappointed that Governor Herbert signed it into law. It is fiscally irresponsible to have done so. I understand that he is under pressure from the Tea Baggers and the far right, but he needs to provide stronger, more balanced leadership. Also, the UEG is suing. I hope that they prevail, and that Utah's political leaders learn some valuable lessons about truly representative government.
*

Lockhart continues to insist that no rules were broken re HB477. I guess she doesn't think violating the public trust counts.

Can you believe Herbert gave the legislature an "A" this year? He must grade on the curve.


----------

