i heard on the news today something about D.W.R. wanting to turn off the provo for the june suckers any one know about this??????????
[signature]
I think it's the Federal Wildlife Commission, not the DWR.
[signature]
I could care less. First it isn't that great of a river to fish. Most overrated river in the state by far. More importantly these landowners got their real estate buddy governor to sign a law saying for the first time ever in Utah or the U.S. that private landowners own the river. It's their problem not the public's anymore. Let them spend their private money to fight it with a lawsuit if they don't want to sell or have eminent domain take the land and move the river.
[signature]
lol I like that, riverdog. "Their" river, their problem. [sly]
Do want to point out one thing, though--governors don't MAKE laws. He simply signed a law that the Utah legislature passed. (Not saying he has no culpability, just saying he's not the only one with culpability.)
[signature]
To bad they don't spend the same time and money and energy on humans that need to be saved.
[signature]
Riverdog, this section of river that is being considered is public. Only the south side is private. The north side is public and access is available from the Jordon River Parkway.
Do I think this is a good idea? NO, I do not.
[signature]
The Coalition brought this case to overturn Utah’s ill-named Public Waters Access Act (HB 141) on constitutional grounds. In 2008, in the case of Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously held that the public’s right to lawfully access and use its public waters in place for any lawful activity, including recreation, allowed the public to reasonably touch the privately-owned beds of public waters in ways incident and necessary to such use. In 2010, with passage of HB 141, the Utah legislature purported to overrule the Conatser decision and to abolish the public’s right to touch privately-owned streambeds when using public waters in place. The Coalition contends that the public’s right to use public waters in place was recognized and confirmed in the Utah Constitution at statehood and that HB 141 violates this right. It further contends that HB 141 violates constitutional and other public trust and separation of powers principles. A favorable ruling in this case will restore the public’s right to use public waters in place as confirmed in Conatser.
To think Herbert (and his relatives) isn't at fault is just wrong[
]
[signature]
As part of the June Sucker Recovery effort, the Provo River Delta Restoration project deals with a short stretch of the River as it enters Utah Lake. The short version is that they want to restore the river delta, the wetlands and floages that form at the mouth of a river, to a somewhat original state. To do so, the proposals are that the river will be diverted north at a point about 2 miles up river from the lake and be allowed to meander through it's former natural courses.
There were 5 proposal that were submitted for comment last night at a public meeting at the State Park. Because there were so many people there, there will be a second meeting, possibly next week. You can go to the Provo River Delta Restoration web site for details.
There were a lot of concerns for several of the proposals and a lot of unanswered questions on the others.
Till now, most of the recovery efforts have been focused on Utah Lake environment, improving water quality, removing carp, etc. We are now going into the phase that I have always warned everyone about, where the project impacts private property and water rights.
There were several hundred people there last night that were mostly concerned about the impacts on private property along the river, impacts on several business' , and water flows and rights. This is where it gets dicey and where the Endangered Species Act has it's major negative impacts, as it take precedent over everything else.
There was some really good discussions and the folks in charge did a good job in moderating all the views. Encourage you all to check the web site, become familiar with the project, the proposals, and attend the next meeting and participate.
[quote LurkinLizard]lol I like that, riverdog. "Their" river, their problem. [sly]
Do want to point out one thing, though--governors don't MAKE laws. He simply signed a law that the Utah legislature passed. (Not saying he has no culpability, just saying he's not the only one with culpability.)[/quote]
Quite right.
March 10 2010
2shb 141
43yea
28 nay
That 19 month legal trespass window in Utah is closed.
Likely forever.
This "right" long held by land owners in Utah does not give them any say so about flow control. Unless they own enough water rights to make such a diversion.
[signature]
It takes a two thirds vote to override the Governor's veto.
I'm not sure where you get 19 months window. It was legal to use waterways in Utah since the pioneers arrived. They followed the same laws and precedents in Utah the the U.S. did in this regard and were in force since colonial times. When Utah became a territory and then a state this right continued. The Utah Supreme court upheld this right twice.
The illegal activity here in Utah was on the part of landowners. No insult but I take it you don't bother with history much of this state or our country. This was the first law restricting use in Utah so technically it is illegal for the first time now. Ultimately if pressed far enough it will be overturned as unconstitutional either by the state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of public access in these types of cases consistently for over a hundred and fifty years. The greedy and ignorant have lost on this issue over and over. When I read about the long history of these types of cases a decade or more ago about the only restriction the Supreme Court ever placed on water access was usually high water mark. The public isn't entitled to use the waterway above that in times of unusual flooding.
[signature]