It’s been a big week for Utah Lake! Three weeks ago members of CUV met with Rep. Keven Stratton with concerns about a proposal for dredging Utah Lake and creating islands for various uses including innovative housing for Utah County. At that meeting we discussed the possibility of having a Utah Lake Summit to bring various parties to this very critical discussion. We chose a date before the Utah legislative session started so we had 25 days to pull it off, with major holidays sandwiched in those days.
On January 11th, we saw the fruits of the labor of many volunteers who worked tirelessly over that short time to host the first Utah Lake Summit, sponsored by Rep. Stratton and Conserve Utah Valley. Many behind-the-scenes details were addressed and ironed out. Invitations were made through email and social media posts. More than 200 people attended the UVU-based event with more participating online. (Masks were requested at the event.)
Scientists, experts, legislators, concerned citizens, conservationists and island proposers all came together to listen and learn about the lake.
Rep. Stratton welcomed attendees and mentioned the seven generations of his family who have loved Utah Lake. He said his vision is a hope and a desire to spend time with his great grandchildren on the lake enjoying it but also to see something wonderful become something better.
He said we are all stewards and asked for civil, fruitful, respectful discussions. Many experts from diverse fields and professions had been invited and were present.
Our executive director Craig Christensen gave Rep. Stratton nearly 4,500 signatures of those who signed a petition asking for the repeal or amending of the 2018 House Bill 272 which opened the door to potential development on the lake. (Signatures are still coming in!)
Craig also mentioned his desire for transparency and a robust, enhanced dialogue. He said we want more of these kinds of events where neighbors can come and hear what is going on. He asked for mutual respect during the meeting.
Ben Abbott, an ecosystem ecologist at BYU, opened the summit with a talk that included the history, current status, recovery and future of Utah Lake. I’ve heard Dr. Abbott speak several times now and I’ve learned he is a gentle, passionate teacher. He guides and enlightens – he uses science-based information to inform and educate.
Ben asked the audience to shout out words they think of when they think of Utah Lake: The answers he got were, “beautiful, shallow, birds, sacred, carp, green, mucky bottom, identity.” Ben stopped and said that Utah Lake is at the center of our community and is such an important part of our identity.
It’s this identity that fuels my own passion for keeping Utah Lake free of island development.
Following Dr. Abbott’s presentation there were two panel sessions where participants gave information and answered questions. For the most part, it was civil and respectful.
Information came from participants and even a few audience members. There is a lot of passion for Utah Lake and hopefully this summit be the hinge point for many more thoughtful, robust discussions.
A recording of the summit can be viewed here.
A few days after the summit, the Utah Lake Commission held a meeting where Dr. Ben Abbott gave his presentation including information about amending HB 272 from 2018. He said Utah Lake is not just a Utah County issue – we need to all work together and that it’s in the state’s best interest to restore and conserve this ecosystem.
He was followed by those who are proposing island development.
Also on the agenda for the Utah Lake Commission meeting was the vote to elect a new president. Provo Mayor Michelle Kaufusi is now the president of the commission with Vineyard Mayor Julie Fullmer as vice president.
A resolution from the Commission was put forward regarding conservation of Utah Lake and, after some discussion, it was approved unanimously.
An agenda and recording of the meeting are available through the Utah Lake Commission website.
Utah Lake is getting the recognition and focus it deserves as more people join the conversation about what is best for the future of the lake. Conserve Utah Valley invites you to be open-minded, listen to science-based evidence and even look beyond the science. The lake is beautiful and should be preserved as a place of peace, recreation and a living environment for many species. While Utah County might be “running out of space” to house people, the middle of Utah Lake should not be up for discussion.
I have been interested in the proposals for preservation and development of Utah Lake for at least sixty years (ever since my early days at BYU in the 1950s). I am aware of and have followed most of the major ideas and proposals put forth::
1. major and minor dredging schemes and uses of the materials extracted from the bottom,
2. various sorts of bridges and causeways, primarily to provide much shorter transportation access, moving water, power, and so on, to the area where Saratoga Springs is now located,
3. along with many ideas about water quality, wildlife conservation, improvement of recreational facilities, etc.
One large issue rarely dealt with or even mentioned, in the ideas and proposals discussed, is the fact that the South end of Utah Lake is “salty” and is otherwise very poor quality water, mainly due to the fact that the largest surface source into the Lake is the Provo River, which comes in at the middle of the East side, flows relatively intact across the Lake, with very insufficient mixing with the rest of the Lake water (especially that in the nearly stagnant South end) and exits to the Northwest as the Jordan River – with the South end left to concentrate its dissolved minerals by heavy evaporation and too little fresh water input.
That is the main reason a causeway, another vital factor little understood or properly discussed in past years, is essential to the recovery and continuing health of the Lake. The causeway must start just North of where the Provo River enters the Lake and go pretty much straight West across – this is so the fresh river water (or at least most of it) is forced to flow first into the South end of the Lake – and then be allowed to flow into the rest of the Lake through several bridged, flow-controlled gaps spaced evenly across the causeway. The causeway would need to be lined on both sides with large (outside) and small (inside) stones, to allow the dredged materials from the bottom of the Lake to firm up and dry and prevent them from dissipating and spreading back into the bottom. Other than to repeat that no other way (such as a bridge) would accomplish what needs to be done, I will not go into further details at this time.
None of the above is meant to say that Provo (in close coordination, of course, with the rest of the communities surrounding the Lake) should now undertake a master plan for recovery of the Lake – only that I would now favor a limited scope, but thorough and independent feasibility study, based on the above causeway idea. At this point, please don’t consider residential or commercial islands – I am not in favor of islands at all, except, possibly the bird sanctuary. (And don’t fantasize that you will somehow get rid of the poisonous smog of our temperature inversions that would cover those proposed luxury apartments and mall shops – in a lake at the very bottom of the valley – for many winter days each year).
I would also mention evidence of the “salty” / poor-quality of the water in the South end of the Lake and the failed attempts to use it as irrigation water, which includes:
1. In the late 1960s through most of the 1980s, a Payson fruit farmer named Reid Lee Wayman (who happens to be my wife’s brother) planted a large orchard on 100 leased acres in what is now the Southern part of Saratoga Springs. He pumped water from the Southwest shore of the Lake and, with some limited treatment, used it in a drip-irrigation system. To make a long, sad story short, with the rapid buildup of the water’s minerals into the soil over a relatively short ten years or so, the trees began to die. First to die were the stone fruit (mainly sweet cherries, apricots, peaches, and nectarines) and then the pomme fruit (apples, pears, and asian pears). The only remedy might have been large quantities of “pure” fresh water to flush the excess minerals from the soil – but there was none, of any sufficient quantity, so within a few more years, all the trees were dead.
2. There have been other attempts at fruit farming, using the South-end Lake water – at the far Southeast shore on the lower slopes of the back side of (Payson’s) West Mountain. I have heard that, with measures such as using greater quantities of water and mixing in other (including well) water with the Lake water, at least some of these ventures have been moderately successful, so far. But I understand that their long-range prospects are likely not much better than Mr. Wayman’s results.
Finally, I think my personal experiences with the I-Provo debacle are relevant to reviewing risks in the current proposal. I still can’t accept how much money was wasted there – and goes on far into the future. Back then, I wrote several times to the City about I-Provo, with advice not to undertake a hasty, poorly-evaluated project, with my predictions of what would be the result if they entered into it. I spelled out that it was based on the wrong technology, it was too late to get into that very competitive business, and the City did not have expertise or resources to do it. Sadly, my advice and that of many others was ignored. Then, actions of the Mayor and Provo Power people that tried to deal with its results were incompetent, spineless, and wrong. Worst of all no one was held accountable for it I !
Lew Burnham 4186 N. Canyon Road, Provo 84604 lewburnham@hotmail.com 801-221-0348
As I read the outline of the Jan 22 meeting it was interesting to note that Julie Fullmer, Mayor of Vineyard was elected Vice President of the organization. I find this confusing as it indicates she is in favor of the general consciences of the organization on preserving the lake and its environment, agrees with not building the islands but at the same time in 2018 committed 5 million dollars of the Vineyard RDA funds towards approving the application for the Lake Solutions company that wants to build the islands. It’s also interesting that the former Chief of Staff for the Senate and House of Representatives (Hartley) who was there during the passing of HB272 is now a lobbyist for the city of Vineyard and the Lake Solutions organization. Is this a series of conflicts of interest or untransparent political opportunities benefiting a developer?