# More news on the war on public lands....



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Just got this email from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:

272 has passed the house last night. It goes in front of the Senate Natural Resources Committee today at 4:13pm room 415 State Capitol. If you can make it, please attend. Please contact your state senators ASAP.

"Currently, Utah Lake is facing what is nothing short of a land grab by a private developer. HB272 will give 20,000 acres of State Sovereign Lands to a private real estate developer who has offered to complete a seemingly impossible restoration of Utah Lake. The project includes dredging the entire lake, removing invasive plant and animal species, and restoring the clarity and quality of the water of the lake. Concerning to all public landowners is the Bill's mention of the "Utah Lake Land Exchange Offering". The means by which The State will transfer ownership of State Lands to a private developer. Bill: https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0272.html

Find your senator: https://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp"

Anyone care to discuss?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/22-everything-else/189922-city-utah-lake.html


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm not sure that it is actually feasible for the developer to actually improve the quality of the water, substrate, vegetation, etc. However, I don't think the state legislature actually cares a whole lot about that. 

I think it may be illustrative of the state's willingness to "exchange" state sovereign lands.

No one is arguing that Utah Lake doesn't need help. I'm unsure, at this point, if trading state sovereign land for a hope and a prayer of fixing the lake is the right move.

Plus, I kinda like catching big catfish in that turbid water. Not some wet sock Bonneville Cutts.;-)


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

HB272 passed favorably out of committee yesterday afternoon. The bill says that the state should consider potential for revenues to state and local govt, and when the Utah Lake land sale takes effect, it will be subject to municipal land use and development rules. 
To me, this says that the state will sell our state owned sovereign lands to developers when the profit is there. If they will sell the land under Utah Lake to a developer under the guise of improving water clarity and habitat work, they will SURELY entertain the idea of selling land under the GSL. These are the same legislative hucksters that tell us all the time that they have no intention of selling our public lands...
R


----------



## maverick9465 (Nov 21, 2016)

Here's the response I got my representative before the bill passed the House. I've also contacted my senator. 

"This is a long way from reality. The environmental impact hurdle alone is a stopper. We will follow but we are not losing any sleep over this proposal. Bests, Stewart Barlow"


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

rjefre said:


> HB272 passed favorably out of committee yesterday afternoon. The bill says that the state should consider potential for revenues to state and local govt, and when the Utah Lake land sale takes effect, it will be subject to municipal land use and development rules.
> To me, this says that the state will sell our state owned sovereign lands to developers when the profit is there. If they will sell the land under Utah Lake to a developer under the guise of improving water clarity and habitat work, they will SURELY entertain the idea of selling land under the GSL. These are the same legislative hucksters that tell us all the time that they have no intention of selling our public lands...
> R


Whether the proposal is realistic or not, the fact that the bill was drafted and has any traction whatsoever is further indication of our state representatives' intent regarding state lands.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

After yesterday's favorable Senate vote, it will probably get to the Senate floor for final vote next week. I am saddened by the lack of truthfulness about selling our public lands, but all I can do is email my Senator (again) and hope.
I've had a few fellow waterfowlers contact me and say (in jest) that we need to get our claim in to dredge up a little sand island in the Great Salt Lake, build a shack, and call it our own duck club. Genius!
R


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Utah Lake is a federally navigable waterway, no?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Utah Lake is a federally navigable waterway, no?


Does it fall into a federally protected migratory bird and waterfowl flyway and resting stop? And what about those federally protected endangered species June Suckers?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

HighNDry said:


> Does it fall into a federally protected migratory bird and waterfowl flyway and resting stop? And what about those federally protected endangered species June Suckers?


I don't know about the resting stop stuff, but I have to imagine that the June Sucker is a big part of the response from Rep Barlow that was posted above. Unless this passes what will be a rigorous environmental study, it has no shot with the June Sucker involved.

On top of that, the reason that I bring up the navigable waterway issue, is that if it is navigable (which it is), the state my NOT divest the beds of that navigable waterway. They have to hold them in trust for the benefit of all. They can't be sold to a private third party.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I've seen a few responses form legislators, and they all seem to downplay the idea that it will actually happen. This is disturbing on many levels. Why would you vote for it if you don't think it will ever happen? And even if you don't think there is a chance of it happening, you must agree with it in principle or you wouldn't vote for this bill. Right?

This truly shows the colors of our elected Utah representatives. They will sell off ANYTHING if there is profit involved. Sad.
R


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So I went and took a look at the bill. It authorizes the disposal of some state land on Utah Lake as compensation for an overall clean up of Utah Lake. The criteria for the project must do the following to be considered: 

 (a) restore the clarity and quality of the water in Utah Lake; 
(b) conserve water resources in and around Utah Lake; 
(c) preserve the water storage and water supply functions of Utah Lake; 
(d) remove invasive plant and animal species, including phragmites and carp, from Utah Lake; 
(e) restore littoral zone and other plant communities in and around Utah Lake;
(f) restore and conserve native fish and other aquatic species in Utah Lake, including Bonneville cutthroat trout and June Sucker; 
(g) increase the suitability of Utah Lake and its surrounding areas for shore birds, waterfowl, and other avian species; 
(h) improve navigability of Utah Lake; 
(i) maximize, enhance, and ensure recreational access and opportunities on Utah Lake; [and] 
(j) preserve current water rights related to water associated with Utah Lake; and 
(k) otherwise improve the use of Utah Lake for residents and visitors.

Now, I let's just play in hypothetical world, for one minute, because I don't believe that this developer can do all these things, and I don't think others do either. But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume they can. Which of these things above would be objectionable to anyone here? And if all these things could be accomplished, would you be okay with a floating civilization out there as a trade off?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> So I went and took a look at the bill. It authorizes the disposal of some state land on Utah Lake as compensation for an overall clean up of Utah Lake. The criteria for the project must do the following to be considered:
> 
> (a) restore the clarity and quality of the water in Utah Lake;
> (b) conserve water resources in and around Utah Lake;
> ...


The implausibility of the whole thing renders the question posed as kind of a moot point IMO. But, to play along, the trade-off could be beneficial for sportsmen IFF everything was required to be completed up front and to exact standards(Which no developer would actually agree to and keep his job).

The worry in all this is that I assume they'd be allowed to do their development and complete specified reclamation projects to attempt to remedy a lot of the problems listed. Then, down the road when they can say, "Hey, we tried everything, and threw $XXXXXXX at this project." but nothing has changed appreciably, they would be allowed to move on to the next project. I don't see the state holding any feet to the fire in exchange for a resource(state land acreage) they don't deem of any value on it's own anyway.

At that point we are left with:

1) A floating community with corresponding restrictions to hunting/fishing around the area.

2)Less state land acreage

3)The same Utah Lake, full of carp and experiencing increasingly frequent algal blooms.

I may just being pessimistic though.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Did I also mention, that I'd rather catch(and EAT!) 5+ lb. channel cats than out of UL's murky water than hope and pray for a return of the cutt?

I think there are a lot of problem's with the lake, but I just don't see anything feasible on the list that would justify sacrificing state lands, and the corresponding loss of surface area to accommodate an ambitious developers' pipe dream.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> At that point we are left with:
> 
> 3)The same Utah Lake, full of carp and experiencing increasingly frequent algal blooms.


Well, if we are back in reality world, I think this is what we will be left with, without the other things above.

I'm just trying to point out that not every action by the legislature is a terrible one. The bill, as written, requires all those things (notice the "and" in the language) to happen for the land to be qualified to be divested as compensation. I agree with you that it is not only unlikely, but more likely impossible for this to happen. But, at least it's in law that all of them have to happen for this project to go forward. Of course, they can always change the law...but they can do that with or without this law.

Give me all these things and I would be 100% in favor of this development happening on Utah Lake. But, that is only in hypothetical world, and in the real world, we are back to a crappy lake that used to be awesome, from what I read.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Well, if we are back in reality world, I think this is what we will be left with, without the other things above.
> 
> I'm just trying to point out that not every action by the legislature is a terrible one. The bill, as written, requires all those things (notice the "and" in the language) to happen for the land to be qualified to be divested as compensation. I agree with you that it is not only unlikely, but more likely impossible for this to happen. But, at least it's in law that all of them have to happen for this project to go forward. Of course, they can always change the law...but they can do that with or without this law.
> 
> Give me all these things and I would be 100% in favor of this development happening on Utah Lake. But, that is only in hypothetical world, and in the real world, we are back to a crappy lake that used to be awesome, from what I read.


I tend to agree with you. If all those things were to happen, it would likely be a good thing for everyone that uses the lake and everyone surrounding it. I think my pessimism about this specific proposal is colored by my general distrust of what the state lawmakers do when it comes to public lands and waters.

As far as Utah Lake goes, I think it would be awesome if they could get the algal blooms under control and get rid of the carp.

I really do think that people that rag on it in its current state, haven't really given it a fair shake. I'm a lifelong fly-fisherman and can't get enough of catching those big cats by drowning bait from the shore.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

kwalk -- why would you have to give up premier catfish fishing by improving water quality, and other improvements??

Catfish thrive in many a clear waters...

I know that there are a lot of significant issues with this bill / proposal. But what I don't get is that whenever a project comes up that proposes to clean up the lake, anglers are against it. I don't get it.



Vanilla said:


> Now, I let's just play in hypothetical world, for one minute..
> ... Which of these things above would be objectionable to anyone here? And if all these things could be accomplished, would you be okay with a floating civilization out there as a trade off?


I would. How could any sportsman not?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Agreed, PBH. But I'd extend that to any lake user, not just sportsmen. 

Heck, even the most extreme enviro-whackos should support it under the hypothetical the law lays out.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> kwalk -- why would you have to give up premier catfish fishing by improving water quality, and other improvements??
> 
> Catfish thrive in many a clear waters...
> 
> ...


PBH. That certainly isn't how I intended to come across. Reading my words back, I can definitely see that's how it sounds though.

I am definitely in favor of cleaning up the water. No use having catfish or anything else in there if you can't fish there or consume them. The algae blooms put a damper on summer night-fishing trips for sure.

I am unsure that water conditions in Utah Lake, for a variety of reasons, will ever be enough to sustain a coldwater trout fishery like it once was. I may be totally off there though. That shouldn't stop efforts to remove carp and other methods of cleaning up the lake. The fishing for Cats and Walleyes and everything else would benefit.

At the same time, I was pointing out that Utah Lake, in it's current state, still has something to offer Sportsmen. Still some killer fishing to be had. It gets a bad rap from a lot of guys who assume it's nasty and don't ever try it or consume the fish they catch there. That's more what I was getting at, though not in a very clear manner.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

This bill lays the groundwork to allow the disposal of state sovereign lands under Utah Lake to a private entity if they promise to do all of these things. 
First, I do not trust that a developer can/would actually accomplish these things.
Second, I do not agree in selling off our state lands under Utah Lake because it sets a dangerous precedent for other waters (Great Salt Lake).

I can just see it coming---A developer will say that they will kill the phragmites along the GSL shoreline in Davis county in exchange for selling him/her some sovereign land below the surface of the Great Salt Lake to build a few subdivisions. It would be easy to access, provide housing for a growing population, and the trade-off would be killing the destructive/invasive phrag that the state has not been able to accomplish in the last 15 years of trying. Now please remove "Great Salt Lake" and insert Utah Lake, and you basically have HB272...
R


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Long shot but if they could restore the lake minus the islands I'm all for it. 

I did get an email from BHA. Just proves they are about lobbying for $$ and not logic. Does Utah Lake qualify as backcountry? Do-Gooders!!


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Just got this email from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:
> 
> 272 has passed the house last night. It goes in front of the Senate Natural Resources Committee today at 4:13pm room 415 State Capitol. If you can make it, please attend. Please contact your state senators ASAP.
> 
> ...


 Private developer , Is his last name Ivory? I wonder


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Just an update: HB272 passed the senate last night and now goes to the governor for signature. Our legislature has crossed the threshold now...our state-owned sovereign lands are no longer safe from legislative plundering. Sad.
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Just an update: HB272 passed the senate last night and now goes to the governor for signature. Our legislature has crossed the threshold now...our state-owned sovereign lands are no longer safe from legislative plundering. Sad.
> R


Was the vote along party lines, R?

Never mind, I looked for myself. The 15 Yea votes were all Republicans, one of the Nays was a Republican, the other three Democrats. There are only 6 Democratic senators, so the other three abstained. Seven Republicans abstained, which seems higher than usual. Perhaps they realize what a turd the bill is. The one Republican Nay vote was a guy appointed to office this year. Funny.

All 54 Yea votes in the House were Republican. A couple of Republicans broke ranks and voted Nay. All Democrats voted Nay or abstained. Not funny.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hey, there was some good news in the public lands battles today.

http://kutv.com/news/local/rep-mike-noel-retires-after-16-years-in-the-utah-legislature

Not sure the successor will be much better though.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Rumor is he is possibly eyeing a high level BLM position. Haven't seen verification anywhere but coming from someone I trust and isn't prone to exaggerating.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Rumor is he is possibly eyeing a high level BLM position. Haven't seen verification anywhere but coming from someone I trust and isn't prone to exaggerating.


I think that rumor has been around since Trump's inauguration. Maybe the tipping point was when he tried to rename the highway after Trump. He apparently took a lot of heat. I liked Dabakis' retort. He said if that were to happen he'd add an amendment to rename the frontage road after Stormy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/donald-trump-highway-utah.html

Anyway, good that he's gone. His failure to get the highway renamed is the capstone of his career. He'll not be missed. As above, hopefully his successor will be in favor of public lands. Surely the fine people of Kanab can do better.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

paddler said:


> I think that rumor has been around since Trump's inauguration.


Yeah, I've heard that rumor for a least a year too. Talk about a fox guarding the henhouse. I suppose it is possible but he isn't a spring chicken. He may indeed be leaving the public arena.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Would be more than happy to see him retire. I would hate to see him managing the BLM in any capacity so I hope it is just a resilient rumor with no truth.

I dislike the guy but his capstone will be how the monument reduction is ruled in the courts. If Trump's decision is upheld then he'll have a huge legacy to stand on with his constituents. If it fails, which I think is likely but I'm not putting $ on it, than I think his record will be tarnished.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Would be more than happy to see him retire. I would hate to see him managing the BLM in any capacity so I hope it is just a resilient rumor with no truth.
> 
> I dislike the guy but his capstone will be how the monument reduction is ruled in the courts. If Trump's decision is upheld then he'll have a huge legacy to stand on with his constituents. If it fails, which I think is likely but I'm not putting $ on it, than I think his record will be tarnished.


History, if he's mentioned at all, will not be kind to him. He'll be a footnote, described as a small-minded, self-serving enemy of conservation and keeping public lands public.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I see by the paper that Noel looks to have conflicts of interest regarding the Lake Powell Pipeline. Of course, he has filed no conflict of interest statements, which he is legally required to do, since at least 2006. As I mentioned above, his career as a legislator has been nothing if not self-serving. Looks like Lyman, of let's tear up Recapture Canyon fame, wants to succeed him. Can't we get a decent guy to represent that district?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

More bad news from Zinke and Trump:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...lly-rich-southern-utah-lands-for-oil-and-gas/


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

That seems par for the course for managing federal land for multiple purposes. Not saying I agree with the decisions for every parcel but there will always be contentious decisions that abut these areas. 

I think its fair to point out the preservation creep that happens outside of designated monuments and parks. I tend to lean towards less development but it would be intellectually dishonest to deny anti-environmentalist rhetoric is often accurate in critiquing how one designation begins to affect non-designated land (ie land near Hovenweep, etc in this article). The lands in question are still designated for multiple use including extraction yet their proximity to monuments draws environmentalist ire. Its a type of informal incrementalism that benefits the preservation ideology. And heck, I'm likely in favor of many of those outcomes I just wish it would be done through comprehensive land policy not through this odd informal push back.

It does make wonder what framework they use to define acceptable quantities and qualities of field investigations for Antiquities. I know for biological purposes we often had to have three years of repeated transects before presenting projects but Antiquities are likely a different ball game.


----------

