Developers are fighting hard for Utah Lake – we need to fight harder

Earlier this year, Utah’s Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) and the federal Army Corp of Engineers both rejected the ridiculous proposal from Lake Restoration Solutions (LRS) to dredge Utah Lake, pave over 20% of the surface of the lake, and create 34 artificial islands on top of the dredging material.  

View of Utah Lake and the Wasatch Mountains in Utah County, taken from Saratoga Springs in February 2012. Photo by Renphoto

The proposal was ruled a violation of the Utah constitution and public trust. The proposal had no scientific backing, and would be an environmental disaster if brought to fruition. It would have decreased the level of the Great Salt Lake even further for the entirety of the project, which would likely be a decade or longer.

Aside from the environmental consequences the proposal poses, the finances behind it are questionable, at best. The company planned to partially pay for the $6.5 billion proposal by selling around 16,000 acres to developers. The lake is a public resource, which is why FFSL deemed the LRS proposal for management of it illegal. 

Utah has historically put forth a develop at all costs attitude. The rejection of this proposal was an encouraging step in the direction of sustainable development. The decision put the public first, protecting our public natural resources.

 We aren’t all that surprised that the developers don’t want to accept “no” for an answer. They are demanding that the governor’s office, via the director of the Department of Natural Resources, overrule the state agency

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on the petition filed by LRS. “The petition claims only the Legislature or governor is authorized to assess the project’s legality and accused FFSL of trying to create new law. The company argues the division’s job should be limited to promulgating standards, criteria and thresholds for assessing whether the dredging project would meet the requirements of the 2018 law.”

UPHE joined with several other environmental groups in sending a letter to the state urging them to remain firm in opposition to LRS’s proposal.

Read the Tribune coverage here.

Background on the issue.