# A city on Utah lake?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I just didn't even know what to think about this story

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46233716&n...-island-city-on-utah-lake-to-combat-pollution


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Wow. I suppose this is one way for Ivory and other developers to get new land for development if their TPL schemes fail. I wonder what it will do for the fishing? 

My wife is the engineer of the family, but I'm not sure how practical this scheme is logistically. For instance, (from the article) "Arches Utah Lake wants to dredge the lake and use its own sand to build the city, ". If you dredge UL, you don't get sand, you get a fine silty mud. Not picturesque for a beach and not particularly structurally sound either. 

It would also seem that excavation and construction of this magnitude would have major environmental impacts as well.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

2 words. 

June sucker.

That little waste of space will make it nearly impossible for this pipe dream to ever become a reality. I guess those fish are good for something...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> 2 words.
> 
> June sucker.
> 
> That little waste of space will make it nearly impossible for this pipe dream to ever become a reality. I guess those fish are good for something...


Not if that pipe dream meant improved habitat for the June sucker.

I don't get why anglers are against the June sucker. Every single thing done to help June suckers benefits other game fish. Every. Single. Thing.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So I don't think there is any chance this could ever happen, and I'll just get that out of the way first and foremost. Now, with that said, I have to hand it to people...they are some seriously creative minds out there! 

I don't understand how taking islands and putting 500,000 people on them is going to help with the pollution of the lake, but this is an interesting proposal, to say the least.

And PBH is right with the June Sucker. I learned long ago what is good for the June Sucker is also good for the ducks. Duck hunters that want to improve hunting on Utah Lake should make the June Sucker their number one rally cry.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah, without the june sucker, Utah Lake is a carp pond. A really big carp pond.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Catherder said:


> My wife is the engineer of the family, but I'm not sure how practical this scheme is logistically. For instance, (from the article) "Arches Utah Lake wants to dredge the lake and use its own sand to build the city, ". If you dredge UL, you don't get sand, you get a fine silty mud. Not picturesque for a beach and not particularly structurally sound either.
> 
> It would also seem that excavation and construction of this magnitude would have major environmental impacts as well.


I know just enough about engineering to know that it would be a logistical nightmare. I don't think any of it is impossible, but it would be much more expensive to build in that location than most others. Then again, it's also expensive to buy land to develop. Maybe it's still cheaper to build islands than buy land elsewhere? I doubt it, but I wouldn't really know either.

I'm also struggling to see how they think they can clean up the lake enough to convince large numbers of businesses and residents to settle there. Throw the June Sucker in the mix, and I doubt the project will ever go anywhere.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not to mention that Utah Lake is a navigable waterway.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> I don't get why anglers are against the June sucker. Every single thing done to help June suckers benefits other game fish. Every. Single. Thing.


No kidding. I'll never get it either. After being in seemingly a million debates on here and especially BFT, I've wearied with engaging in further arguments. Folks never get it.

I will add though that fishing at UL was amazing this past year.  Something seems to be working with the recovery effort.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I agree with PBH, if these developers can prove that they can improve habitat for the June Sucker and also help improve the carp situation, this really could be a reality.

I dunno if anyone has ever studied the islands that were made in Dubai but this story reminds me a lot of what they did in Dubai. The interesting thing about the Dubai islands is that they have since discovered new species in the waters around these islands as they have created habitats that support these newly discovered fish and aquatic life. So in a quite real way, this project could get a green light if they can prove that the lake ecology will be improved by their efforts.

Now they just need to figure out how to improve the algae blooms in the lake and it could be a real interesting dynamic at that point....

I am reserving judgment at this point but its not on a list of ideas I like...


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Even if this had the stamp of approval from the State, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, etc. etc. etc. the price to purchase a "lot" to build, or lease would be like Manhattan. Guess Utah could have its own Long Island too??

As far as bringing it forth before a plan committee (if it was approved, after ALL testing of the soils to be used, and engineering reports.) I believe it would be 2040 before anything began. 

Your talking Lift Stations for the sanitary sewer, where is the storm water (storm drain system) going to be piped to? It cant go back to the lake without treatment. It would have to be Retained on site. This calculation deals with sheet flows, and the 90% retention of a 100 year storm. That alone is roughly .62" per hour for a 24 hour period. 

To many extremely high hurdles to overcome. I would love to be the PE designing this one! My cost for this scope of project would be so far out of the this world, that I could retire very well off just on the fees. 

Yup!! Pipe dream.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

But just think - it could be the "Venice of the Rockies". Can you imagine all the Hollywood ilks that would visit...?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Are they going to scrape up all the turds on the bottom to build the islands? 
I can't see this project ever getting approval or funding.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

There goes one of my old duck hunting spots.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Over 20 years ago a Utah County Planning Commissioner proposed the county dredge Utah Lake- which would have increased the average depth by 6-8 feet. Imagine a Utah Lake with a 16-22' depth. Dredging the lake would have produced an island which was proposed to be a recreation area. The project was estimated (by bid) to cost between $12-15 million. The proposal was shot down a few times. It was far too genius and ahead of his time. 

A dozen years later and I heard the idea was looked at again, but the cost had raised to $30+ million. I'd wager today the cost would be closer to $100 million. 

I personally like the idea of dredging the Lake and creating a resource usable by many different user groups. Not sure it could ever happen.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> Over 20 years ago a Utah County Planning Commissioner proposed the county dredge Utah Lake- which would have increased the average depth by 6-8 feet. Imagine a Utah Lake with a 16-22' depth. Dredging the lake would have produced an island which was proposed to be a recreation area. The project was estimated (by bid) to cost between $12-15 million. The proposal was shot down a few times. It was far too genius and ahead of his time.
> 
> A dozen years later and I heard the idea was looked at again, but the cost had raised to $30+ million. I'd wager today the cost would be closer to $100 million.
> 
> I personally like the idea of dredging the Lake and creating a resource usable by many different user groups. Not sure it could ever happen.


It has been looked at a number of times. One of the main logistical challenges of dredging the lake is the aforementioned silt/mud. With the lake being shallow, when the wind whips up the waves, they will stir up the mud and besides making the lake turbid, makes the silt very mobile. Any small to medium areas that get dredged fairly rapidly get filled back in by mud. To really effectively and permanently raise the lake level, it would require dredging a significant portion of the lake, which becomes a bigger logistical nightmare and much more expensive.

The only exceptions where the lake can maintain a persistent deep area are where warm springs provide a constant inflow to flush sediment out. (areas such as the so called "abyss". )


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> One of the main logistical challenges of dredging the lake is the aforementioned silt/mud. With the lake being shallow, when the wind whips up the waves, they will stir up the mud and besides making the lake turbid, makes the silt very mobile.


See? This is the direction this discussion should be going. Who said Catherder is a bad thing?

So, the main logistical challenge is silt / mud.
Question: Why is silt and mud such an issue at Utah Lake?
Answer: Carp!!

Historically Utah Lake was not turbid. It was a clear lake. This changed when carp showed up.

so, the answer to the challenge presented by the Catherder is not more dredging. The answer is: June sucker recovery!!

You want a silt-free, clear Utah Lake? Save the junies!!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

The problem boils down to one word...colloid

1.
a homogeneous, noncrystalline substance consisting of large molecules or ultramicroscopic particles of one substance dispersed through a second substance. Colloids include gels, sols, and emulsions; the particles do not settle and cannot be separated out by ordinary filtering or centrifuging like those in a suspension.

In the case of Utah Lake we have a SOL

2.
A sol is a colloidal solution suspension of very small solid particles[1] in a continuous liquid medium. Sols are quite stable and show the Tyndall effect. Examples include blood, pigmented ink, cell fluids and paint.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> See? This is the direction this discussion should be going. Who said Catherder is a bad thing?
> 
> So, the main logistical challenge is silt / mud.
> Question: Why is silt and mud such an issue at Utah Lake?
> ...


That's already happening, and has been happening for many years now. The one missing ingredient is an island with 500,000 people!

(On a navigable waterway. That the state has to hold the bed in trust for the public.)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> The problem boils down to one word...colloid
> 
> 1.
> a homogeneous, noncrystalline substance consisting of large molecules or ultramicroscopic particles of one substance dispersed through a second substance. Colloids include gels, sols, and emulsions; the particles do not settle and cannot be separated out by ordinary filtering or centrifuging like those in a suspension.
> ...


There is truth to this and originally, while the lake was less turbid than now, it never was Bear Lake clear. However, the effect of wind on the turbidity of the lake is profound. Compare water clarity between the windy spring and when the entire lake is frozen. When ice fishing there, the water gets markedly clearer when under ice and the wind cannot whip it up.

Which gets back to June sucker recovery. Get rid of or reduce the carp and aquatic vegetation will regrow, which will hold some of the silt in place and reduce turbidity a fair bit.


----------

