Let’s get involved
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Unfortunately!
There is no reason make this thread political. These are the people currently elected and they will be deciding on the fate of a current topic with Utah Lake. Bend their ear, write emails, participate in townhalls, etc. People can choose to get on board and support or reject the proposed Utah Lake legislation. I have seen Rs and Ds change their stances with enough public input.
But stop with the R vs D and all the other political non-sense. This thread is about one topic- Utah Lake. If one wants to whine about other political topics, then start your own thread.
So, let me get this straight. Our political representatives are trying to enable LRS to dredge Utah Lake to "restore" it. The plan is to build 18,000 acres of islands. According to today's Trib, 4.7% will be for fish and wildlife habitat, another small portion would be for recreation, and 89% will be for real estate development. LRS will have title to the islands, they can sell them to developers, which I believe are over represented in our Legislature.
They started with the 2018 HB272, the Utah Lake Amendments. Introduced by McKell and Henderson, both Republicans, it passed along party lines by the supermajority Republicans. Now we have HB 232, whose primary sponsor is Brady Brammer, R- Pleasant Grove. I anticipate that if it passes, it will also do so, as all measures dealing with public lands or environmental issues, along party lines. Yet people say that this isn't political? That simply defies reality. "Stop with the R vs D..."? Pull your heads out.
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
This is one that fascinates me, actually. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, this company could actually do all the things they claim they can do. (For the record, I don't think they can...but for sake of this post, we're assuming they can.) I would actually be in favor of this proposal. Yes, it would change the dynamic of the lake, but with the positives it would bring, that change would be welcomed by me in a big way.
Now, back to reality. I don't think they can do what they claim they can, and therefore, believe this plan should be opposed. It is troubling the lengths that the legislature has gone to clear the way for this. Aside from the environmental issues involved, I think they would receive legal challenges based upon the navigable nature of Utah Lake. I do not believe the state can divest ownership of the beds, or even portions of beds, of navigable waters.
Now, back to reality. I don't think they can do what they claim they can, and therefore, believe this plan should be opposed. It is troubling the lengths that the legislature has gone to clear the way for this. Aside from the environmental issues involved, I think they would receive legal challenges based upon the navigable nature of Utah Lake. I do not believe the state can divest ownership of the beds, or even portions of beds, of navigable waters.
Interesting thought. I haven't heard that argument before. I wonder though if there could be a "work-around" devised where the developer leases the land instead? I still think the ESA challenge is especially strong. June suckers are endemic, currently on the endangered list, and I can't see any scenario where that much dredging wouldn't at least temporarily alter the water quality and environment to pose a risk to them. If the Center for Biological Diversity can sue over Bonneville cutts, and win cases regarding wolves and grizzly bears, June sucker litigation is a layup.
I thought I had a couple other documents on the subject but do not. Sorry. 🤷♂️
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
Let’s Go Brandon
Joined
·
551 Posts
This common attitude towards Utah Lake is why I fear this scheme might actually go through.
Most of our population only ever sees the lake as they drive past. Most believe it to be some sort of toxic dump and buy into the talk of it needing to be fixed.
No, I haven’t been to Lake of The Woods. If I was set on being a striper fisherman I’d live on the coast. But then I’d have to here all the tales of how polluted our coastlines are and how I shouldn’t eat anything out of their waters.
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
I’m not sure on the leasing, but if they were planning to build developments and have everything be a lease to be paid to the state? Can you imagine that monthly income?!?!? They couldn’t just do a cheap lease and let the developers cash in. And they couldn’t sell any of it, the state would retain ownership. Under federal law, the beds of navigable waters are held by the states (the people…more specifically) and can’t be sold. They are to be held in the public trust in perpetuity. The Utah legislature does not have the ability to change that.
I agree.
Joined
·
551 Posts
You’re good Jerry. I don’t know why but every night after a beer or 3 I get so worked up about this. Every day I tell myself I won’t even get on the internet but here I am again.
Remember the fight against Legacy Highway?
I’m glad guys stood up back then and we still have FB.
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
I realize this is an issue for some, but I live about a mile from the lake as the crow flies. I’ve spent plenty of time there doing all sorts of activities. When I read stories of the historic cutthroat populations that thrived there before people screwed it up, and then see it today, I can assure you with zero doubt in my mind that the place needs to be “fixed.”
I’m not sure it can. But given the choice, I’d take what it was over what it is any day of the week. If we could get that, I’d support it 100%. That would be incredible. But Utah Lake, even with its faults, is worth protecting today too.
Joined
·
551 Posts
Nilla
What do you like about the promised stuff? Not trying to bash here because honestly I’m kinda curious to what they could actually do myself.
If they could seriously eradicate phrag I think the state should keep them on full time. I can see the draw for sandy beaches and cold clear water for all the wakeboarding crowds but I’m just not into that.
I can’t help but think of San Francisco Bay. I loved fishing the bay while I was working out there. But what a changed habitat that place is. I can’t fathom all the wetlands lost there.
Joined
·
1,764 Posts
A beer or 3! You just more street cred from me.
Trust me, I am not just part of the population that sees they lake “as they drive past”.
I have driven my airboat almost all the way around the lake, caught hundreds upon hundreds of fish out of it, watched the old ice racing with studded motorcycles, ice fished on it out of vehicles on the ice, caught Rainbow Trout out of it, and owned waterfront property for awhile.
You?
What Vanilla said is true, back in the day when the lake bottom was covered with grasses and the lake was full of eight pound Cutthroat it does sound more appealing.
Don’t you agree it could use a restoration to return it to it’s old glory?
And MM is correct, the Junie is a dead fish swimming if the lake is not brought back to it’s pre-nineteen hundreds status.
We definitely don’t want it to go from being a lake, turning in to a swamp, and then becoming a bog.
We are only a 10-14’ sediment layer away from that happening.
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
Fair question. I’m talking about their claims to dredge it fully, making it a deeper, cooler, cleaner lake that could support native species again like the cutthroat. The islands for bird nesting, refuges, and general habitat could be really cool and in theory could really increase fishing and hunting opportunities. And as you said, phrag eradication would be incredible!
Now these are all their claims, and again, I don’t believe personally that they could pull all this off, so overall am against the project. But in my hypothetical where they are able to do it, I’d be all for it.
Forestry Fire and State Lands administers the lake bed of Utah and GSL. These are called "Sovereign Lands," which are based on the elevation of these bodies of water at statehood. Anything below those elevations are owned by the State. FFSL routinely leases sovereign lands via Special Use Lease Agreements (SULA). Currently any improvements made on a SULA are owned by the State. This would have to changed legislatively for any title/ownership to be conveyed. Any yes, I think it would surely get a legal challenge.
The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the back of the room is the US Army Corps of Engineers. They are very hard to please and do not work quickly. A project like this could take years to get permitted.
Let your rep know how you feel.
The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the back of the room is the US Army Corps of Engineers. They are very hard to please and do not work quickly. A project like this could take years to get permitted.
Let your rep know how you feel.
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
So, the goal is to get the lake back to a more "historic condition" by dredging but put islands with housing in the middle of it? How is that second part "historic" at all? I smell a rat. Housing would require access which would require roads which would require all sorts of modifications which would engender changes to the way the lake "breathes". Just look at the differences caused by the railroad causeway on the GSL that seperates the northern and southern portions of that lake. While not identical, the concept is the same.
Thanks for bringing this to light. While I don't use UL as much as many or most, I can see its importance and value. It should be protected and conserved - not developed and sold!
Thanks for bringing this to light. While I don't use UL as much as many or most, I can see its importance and value. It should be protected and conserved - not developed and sold!
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
I think you’ve illustrated why this is going to have a hard time passing the permitting process. This is a MAJOR project with a lot connected to it. This won’t breeze through a public process easily. Especially if people stay involved and speak out against it.
When I mention what the lake was historically, I’m talking more the health of the lake itself rather than the look of the lake itself. And for some of the reasons you mentioned (IE- causeways, etc.), I don’t believe they can restore it to historical health. And yes, if they could return the lake to a cutthroat trout paradise with all the ecological benefits they claim will happen, I’d be okay putting homes on some of the islands. But again, I don’t think they can do it. So it’s more than a pipe dream.
When I mention what the lake was historically, I’m talking more the health of the lake itself rather than the look of the lake itself. And for some of the reasons you mentioned (IE- causeways, etc.), I don’t believe they can restore it to historical health. And yes, if they could return the lake to a cutthroat trout paradise with all the ecological benefits they claim will happen, I’d be okay putting homes on some of the islands. But again, I don’t think they can do it. So it’s more than a pipe dream.
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
Phrag isn’t as big of an enemy to waterfowl or hunters on that lake as they want everyone to believe. It isn’t choking out the feed for birds like it does on other water bodies. Birds use it for refuge from the elements and hunters. It also creates incredible hunting pockets of you are willing to work to get to them. I’d be sad to see it disappear. I think others would too once they saw the impact it would have. And those island wont improve hunting opportunities for anyone. It’ll restrict hunting opportunities even more.
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
