SB 236 creates a statutory framework for two new Utah state parks: Big Cottonwood Canyon State Park and Little Cottonwood Canyon State Park. The bill authorizes the Division of State Parks to enter into agreements with the U.S. Forest Service to manage and operate land in each canyon as a state park, and provides that if such agreements are made, the canyons are designated as part of the state park system.
The bill also gives the division authority to acquire land or facilities for either park through donations, land transfers, exchanges, or purchases. It specifically contemplates using these tools to assemble park land in Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon, while requiring the division to make acquisitions and capital investments in a way that keeps each park financially self-sustaining. The bill contains no appropriation and takes effect May 7, 2025.
Impact
SB 236 would add two new sections to Utah Code, Sections 79-4-609 and 79-4-610, and expand the state park system to include Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon if the required federal-state agreements are executed. It would also authorize the Division of State Parks to negotiate with the U.S. Forest Service and to accept, exchange, or purchase property interests for park creation and development, affecting land management, park administration, and potential future property transactions in both canyons.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears policy-oriented and administrative, with an emphasis on conservation, recreation, and self-sustaining park operations rather than new spending.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are land management authority, the role of the U.S. Forest Service, and the use of land acquisitions or exchanges to create the parks. Stakeholders concerned about federal-state coordination, property rights, canyon access, environmental impacts, or the financial self-sufficiency requirement could raise questions about how the parks would be assembled and operated. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.