There are a couple of language problems with the Utah Lake Restoration Project. It sounds innocuous enough until lines 68, 68a, and 68b. The House Bill 272 amendments state: “Subject to the approval of the Legislative Management Committee the division (meaning the State Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands) may dispose of appropriately available state land in and around Utah Lake.”
The word “in” Utah Lake is bad enough, but what does “around” encompass? Does someone have future plans that we are not aware of? Another issue is that the Legislative Management Committee can authorize the transfer of these public, sovereign, state lands to a private party without going through the legislative process or a public process. This sets a bad precedence for the future transfer or sale of public lands.
It looks like the idea is to set up the process to transfer our sovereign lands to a private party without any due diligence. Why don’t we wait until we see how the restoration project will look and work, before setting up the process to transfer our land? This bill puts “the cart before the horse” and maybe that is the plan all along.
George Sommer, West Jordan