Contrasts in the great Utah Lake debate

 This Utah Lake saga has been a dizzying lesson in contrasts.

Restoration vs. reengineering

Data vs. marketing

Volunteers vs. lobbyists

Reality vs. renders

Conservation vs. consumption

Independent coverage vs. paid advertising

Conversation vs. lawsuits

Legacy vs. land grab

Gratitude vs. greed

It was especially clear last night in Salt Lake. 

Pictures by Decker Westenberg of the Daily Universe

Nearly 600 citizens from every walk of life gathered at the capitol to celebrate the lake that sustains us and demand accountability and protection. Mary explained the Indigenous worldview, reminding us to look seven generations back and seven generations forward. Gabe powered the event with bicycles, and Byron led us in song. Children shared their hope for a natural and intact lake ecosystem. Leaders linked arms with the crowd, seeming to understand that we must work together with respect and commitment. Creation is sacred and so much more than what we could sell it for.

At almost the same time, in the Grand America Hotel, the developers wined and dined influential invitees at their closed-door event. Their paid experts explained how no one cared about the lake or knew how to care for it before they arrived. They graciously offered to do the great service of filling in our largest freshwater lake at no cost to taxpayers. The lake is broken they said: too wild, too windy, too wet. Our creator must have made a mistake when making the lake.

The contrast was clear again today in the committee hearing for H.B. 240. 

Representative Keven Stratton proposed modest amendments to the Utah Lake Restoration Act—a law custom built for the island project. Stratton asked for clarifications about how to make the process more transparent, fair, and constitutional. Representative Casey Snider spoke clearly: a company that can’t stand up to scrutiny—that chooses to silence critics with lawsuits rather than answer their questions—isn’t a company we should do business with. During the public comment period, dozens of independent citizens spoke in favor of increasing oversight and exercising prudence and science-based management during these crucial early stages of the lake’s convalescence. The lake is a living thing worthy of our respect and reciprocity. Tara called for all our leaders to learn about the lake’s ecology. Kaye described how she used to waterski across the entire lake—changing course when needed to avoid obstacles. Peggy asked who would be responsible for maintenance and pointed out that the “land” couldn’t be sold without clear title.

One person spoke against the amendments: Jeff Hartley, one of the developers’ many professional lobbyists. He said that one minute wasn’t long enough to describe how misguided and unfair these amendments were. Despite the common-sense nature of the bill, 6 of the 13 representatives sided with Hartley. They said it would be unfair to move the goalposts during the game. The developers have held more than 100 closed-doors meetings, and it wouldn’t be right to clarify the conditions they agreed to at this point. Who else would want to “invest” in the lake if they weren’t sure they could get their money out of it?

I know a few. 4 Abbott kids, more than 50 cousins, 117 experts, 563 citizens at the capitol, 6,000 petition signers, and soon all 14 generations of Natives and newcomers in this valley.

The vote count was 6 for and 6 against when it came to Keven.

“Does the bill sponsor vote for these amendments?”

“Damn right I do.”