it's great that Utah Lake is improving, but a bridge would be a disaster. They
wouldn't allaw a bridge over Lake Tahoe. Don't be stupid Utah.
I too am against the bridge idea, it would devastate the lake and undo any
attempts to make it usable for recreation or even living fish.In my
youth my family would drive to Utah lake east side for picnic's and fishing or
row boating that could be rented from shore line shops. There was a lot of small
perch then and you could fish them by the bucket, and no fishing licenses were
required. They came along in the 1950's to supplement government spending
habits. Then the Saratoga Springs really wasn't associated with lake use, it's
main attraction was swimming in public pools made of cement adjoining the lake
front and picnicking among the trees around that corner of the lake.What are the plans with lake front property owners when the program gets
deeper in to the reconstruction process? Will the lake front be declared state
property and how much of the beach will get swallowed by RDA reclamation
theft?Then if the state declares war on the US government for
property rights and shut down all funding from the EPA and BLM how will Utah
complete the cleanup and restoration process? Surely the state doesn't hope to
keep getting funds from the Feds if they are banned from the state?I
am for the restoration but what will it cost those families who bought the
shoreline property for its aesthetic appearance? Once the government financial
empire collapses Utah legislators should keep in mind the trillions of dollars
Utah will lose in funding for everything they are spending. The carnage that
lake has suffered will take 50 years to restore it to use for recreation.
I am not against a bridge because it does cut the time that cars are on
Interstate 15 and that in turn reduces emissions. I"m pretty sure they have
done a study and the conclusion was that the bridge would actually reduce
pollution. I have a better Idea though... an underground tunnel. just like the
huge ones in the New York area. that way everybody is happy, no ugly bridge and
The reason we want to restore the June Sucker is because it's on the endangered
species list. This means we get free federal money to restore the lake, wink
If they really want a nice lake, they need to split it in two with a double
causeway that goes from Provo Center street over to Pelican Point. Each causeway
needs to have two lanes and the two causeways need to be a few hundred feet
apart. Between the two causeways, they need to build a mound filled in with dirt
extracted from the lake using dredging techniques.This will create
two lakes, the North Lake and the South Lake and each one can be about 5 feet
deeper than the water currently is. This would create nice clear blue water that
everyone could enjoy. They would need three or four bridges that would allow
easy access for boats between the lakes and they could create a couple good
marinas out in the middle of the lake along those causeways.Environmentalists will hate this idea, but the lake would be better used than
it is now.
As I understand the situation with the suckers, the biologists are focusing on
the suckers because they are native to the area, while the carp are imported. I
go running along the Jordan River Parkway in southern SL county, and everywhere
I look I see bushes with red ribbons tied to them. I asked a man who was
cleaning out dead bushes, and he said the county will be spraying bushes to
remove those that aren't native. The red ribbons are tied to the bushes that are
native so they won't be sprayed. Suckers have no value as a game fish, but they
have one advantage: they are native to the lake.
If the west side of the lake keeps increasing in population, a bridge is
inevitable. Many lakes and bays have bridges. The San Francisco Bay has several
and it doesn't hurt the view at all. The Florida Keys are connected by bridges.
Bridges can be a good thing.
Just say "NO" to any bridge across Utah Lake. That would pretty much
ruin the scenery of the lake and would only benefit those property owners on the
west side of the lake at the expense of the entire population of the state. The
few should not benefit financially from the sacrifice of the many.
Carp is a fine edible fish, but needs grain for a couple weeks. They can be
used as dog and cat food, but people like them too. Absolutely net them out on
a regular basis. You won't eliminate them, but they can be significantly
reduced. I sort of liked the idea of a bridge, but I see many do not.
Humm...it sounds like a bridge to "no-where" is not wanted...
Our family uses Utah lake almost every Saturday all summer long for boating.
I guess I don't understand why we want the June Sucker back? It
really does not sound much different than carp. Maybe someone could enlighten
me on the benefits of the June Sucker (other than the simple fact it is
endangered). If you told me mosquitoes were endangered I would say good...maybe
it is the same with this sucker. What is going to be the
advertising moniker for the lake "come ski/swim with the suckers"! Not
to enticing.I wish they would double the speed of unloading the carp
When it come to pollution control, I think it's hilarious we're worried about
carp stirring up organic sediment but excited about building a bridge across the
lake and developing the shoreline.
"Call some place 'Paradise"....kiss it goodbye" - Don Henley, The
EaglesHow come every good place needs to be developed? Answer:
The proposed bridge location does little to save time or increase access with
the now finished Pioneer Crossing! If a bridge is built it needs to go from
Pelican Point to Center Street in Provo which will save significant time for
current and future residents on the west side of the lake.The lake
has amazing potential as a water sports destination. The government needs to
work with established groups like the Utah Water Ski Club that has been around
since 1976. The Utah Water Ski Club has tried without success to increased
access and develop permanent places for water skiing that can be used in low
water years without success.
Look at Washington Lake. When Mercer Island and Bellevue thrived, we built
floating bridges over it's shallow lake with soft bottom. The first bridge
seemed like a environmental success with the additional water parks, canoe
trails, etc. Now, there are three expensive floating bridges with
traffic gridlock, high tolls, high maintenance, and a terrible disaster in 1990.
A bridge may be good, but I caution, too much of a good thing may
quickly go sour.
I live in the SL valley not Utah valley, so I have no economic or other
interests in the lake or a bridge across the lake. I am concerned, though, about
an increase of pollutants from automobiles falling into the lake from a bridge.
I would be interested to hear the pros and cons about all effects of a bridge on
I want that brown water and my June Suckers left alone! Just because it doesn't
taste good and makes the water brown wherever it goes doesn't make it any lesser
than any other of Gods creatures. Heck, human beings don't taste very good and
look at what our bathtubs look like when we get out of them! June Suckers just
need a better name. Let's start calling them May French Kissers.
Build the bridge. It isn't just for the current west side residents. It's also
for future expansion, which won't happen as quick without the bridge. Provo/Orem
is running out of space, so west side development is needed.What is
the benefit of the June sucker? Quit spending money trying to save it. Made
efforts to allow trout to thrive instead.
Organic material from all the surrounding canyons have emptied into the lake for
thousands of years. Old timers will tell you the algae bloom has always been
there in the summer. The shallow lake will never be pristine. With
all the chemicals from auto traffic emptying into it from a bridge, we will wish
the carp were back. Get it as clean as we can and don't let
developers mess it up again.
Both Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake have a lot of unused potential. It would be
nice if they could figure out how to make both lakes more inviting to locals.
The old Saltair was amazing.
Those who decry the prospect of putting a bridge across the lake are maddening.
You want all the improvements (carp removal, shoreline reclaimed, Geneva
removed, etc.), but to heck with a bridge that will benefit untold others. Your
selfish, bleeding heart environmentalist stance makes me sick.
would it make sense to put a bridge across the Bear Lake and you will ruin the
beauty. NO BRIDGE please1
Another one hoping there is no bridge.Also, it is a very underrated
pure waterskiing lake. Great calm water and relatively warm. Since it's
shallow it can get bumpy quick if the winds pick up but overall is very
underrated.. Though when we want to get more than just skiing out of the
boating experience, we usually go to Deer Creek or elsewhere.
This is a great piece. I am so happy that Utah Lake has come this far. Please
don't ruin the progress by building a bridge across the lake. Think of the
environmental and aesthetic considerations, please! People who live in new
developments along the West side of the lake knew what they were getting into
when they moved there.
Oh, for George's sake, don't built a bleedin' *bridge* across the lake. You
want to revive the lake as an aesthetic and natural resource, and then you build
a commuter bridge across it? FAIL.
We are out there all summer long. It is a great lake for waterskiing. It is
big enough that it isn't choppy from other boats and you can get out to where
you don't have to worry about some drunk crashing into you like on Deer Creek.
I'd love to see all of the carp gone but I would hate to see a bridge go across
the lake. It isn't necessary.