I blogged about this a few weeks ago, but here's an even more important opportunity to weigh in on the Provo River Delta Restoration Project. The federal government is moving part of the Provo River, and while there isn't much we can do about that, we can have some influence on how the area is developed for new recreational purposes. Do we want to see fishing? Kayaking? A beach? A water park? The project team will hold a public meeting on this topic on Thursday, January 12, at 7 p.m., at the Utah Lake State Park visitors' center. If there's anything we're interested in, we have to get it on the table so it is not ruled out down the road.
Here's how Deputy Public Work Director Greg Beckstrom explains it:
The Project proponents, who are preparing the Environmental Impact Statement, are soliciting public input regarding the future nature of the lower section of the Provo River channel, which will be abandoned with any of the proposed Project alternatives. Additionally, they are soliciting input on potential community recreation opportunities which could be accommodated in the area north of the to-be-abandoned river channel and south of Boat Harbor Drive. This area of land would be acquired by the Project under one of the proposed alternatives.
This meeting will be a significant opportunity to express preferences regarding possible recreational features in this area of the community. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is inclusive in nature. That is, the EIS document will include a number of possible recreational features which will be deemed as acceptable options. A recreational feature included in the EIS is not guaranteed to be implemented; and City encouragement of any particular feature at this point does not commit the City financially, or otherwise, to implementation of that option down the road. However, recreational features that are NOT included as options in the EIS document, would become nearly impossible to implement in the future within property acquired as part of the Project. The same things can be said regarding consideration of options for the future nature of the lower section of the Provo River channel.
If the proponent Agencies for this project conclude that potential recreational features do not have significant public support, or are not workable within Project boundaries; a scaled-back Project boundary would likely be pursued.
Why does the federal government get to decide where to move our river instead of the state government? And why are they moving it?
ReplyDeleteJason, see the first link above for the reasons for the move. Basically, to create habitat for the endangered June Sucker.
ReplyDeleteThis has me particularly troubled. I've done some extensive research on the June Sucker recovery program, I understand this issue well. It seems morally irresponsible to spend money on the river project when it's money we don't have...for a fish...yes, it's important to the eco system, I understand that.
ReplyDeleteThat amount of money could be used in many more productive ways to benefit the citizens of Provo - education for one, teacher's salaries, smaller class loads, just to name a few. Just because a special cause has money allocated for it doesn't mean it's a moral, sound project.
I believe we have a responsibility to care for our lands but I don't believe it outweighs our responsibility to be financially responsible, and responsible for the people who live here.
The river should be left as is. Period. Life will adapt. Species become extinct; it's part of life, part of change.
I will be highly disappointed in all involved if the river is moved. Our energies can and should be focused on higher priorities.