03-22-2018, 08:11 PM
A few comments.
1. With Herbert's background being in real estate, I would be very surprised if he vetoed this. Additionally, during his administration, vetos have been fairly rare.
2. While I
ly admit that my "activism hat" has been in cold storage and I didn't talk directly to any legislators about this, I was told by some that even some of the legislators that voted for the bill don't believe it will happen, due to the obstacles involving environmental concerns. it is still concerning to me though that they are more than willing to cede away public lands to any smooth talking speculator. Says something about larger public lands issues that sportsmen face.
3. As for whether the project will eventually occur, I agree with Pat that it likely won't. The op-ed piece was well written and worth clicking on. The writer outlines a host of constitutional and legal challenges that would derail the bill. Opposition is already forming and legal battles will inevitably ensue. In addition to what the speaker talked about, the environmental issues presented by this project are enormous. The most obvious is the June sucker and the endangered species act. There is no way that dredging half of the lake, along with all of the other projects, will not negatively impact them. This alone would probably stop this project dead in its tracks. Other environmental issues can also be brought up and successfully litigated. Concerns about engineering are also profound and challengable, but Utah does have a track record of ignoring inconvenient truths to press forward with a building project, as evinced by all the houses sliding off of hillsides the past few years.
The thing about this though is that while I don't see the project happening and messing up UL as a fishery and recreation site, I do see passage of the bill wasting a lot of taxpayer (and private) money in long lasting court fights which enrich only the attorneys.
[signature]
1. With Herbert's background being in real estate, I would be very surprised if he vetoed this. Additionally, during his administration, vetos have been fairly rare.
2. While I
ly admit that my "activism hat" has been in cold storage and I didn't talk directly to any legislators about this, I was told by some that even some of the legislators that voted for the bill don't believe it will happen, due to the obstacles involving environmental concerns. it is still concerning to me though that they are more than willing to cede away public lands to any smooth talking speculator. Says something about larger public lands issues that sportsmen face.3. As for whether the project will eventually occur, I agree with Pat that it likely won't. The op-ed piece was well written and worth clicking on. The writer outlines a host of constitutional and legal challenges that would derail the bill. Opposition is already forming and legal battles will inevitably ensue. In addition to what the speaker talked about, the environmental issues presented by this project are enormous. The most obvious is the June sucker and the endangered species act. There is no way that dredging half of the lake, along with all of the other projects, will not negatively impact them. This alone would probably stop this project dead in its tracks. Other environmental issues can also be brought up and successfully litigated. Concerns about engineering are also profound and challengable, but Utah does have a track record of ignoring inconvenient truths to press forward with a building project, as evinced by all the houses sliding off of hillsides the past few years.
The
thing about this though is that while I don't see the project happening and messing up UL as a fishery and recreation site, I do see passage of the bill wasting a lot of taxpayer (and private) money in long lasting court fights which enrich only the attorneys.[signature]