The Provo River Delta Plan
Those who know me are aware that I have argued against the need to “save” the June sucker from the very beginning. I still believe there was an intended or unintended fraud perpetrated upon us by those who “typed” this “hybrid” fish, and I’ve seen no science to disprove this statement. That being said, good old NEPA ( The National Environmental Policy Act) does seem to rule here and so if we want any more water in our transport systems from eastern Utah to Utah lake, we’d better face the music and realize we must play along with this unfortunate game.
Big Changes in the Provo River
The area proposed for the delta will completely alter and change the way the river enters the lake. This affects not only people who make their livings on or near the river, but it affects those who travel up and down the trails in the area, ride bikes, roller blade, and run. I strongly oppose any changes in the path the river takes.
If a delta is needed (which is still unclear in my mind since there is no data available from the Hobble Creek delta project), then I believe the water for such a project should be pumped from the current river, thus maintaining the flow we now have (with added CUP water) below the pumping area, yet allowing the Recovery Program to operate in their “new area”. Though we may need to “dance” with the June sucker, there is no need to pour salt and vinegar in the wound.
Fisher Ditch
There is a ditch in the general area of the proposed delta – the “Fisher” ditch that meanders through the fields to the north and west of the proposed area and ends in the lake. Why couldn’t that “established” ditch be expanded and used for your purposes? It is my opinion that sucker most likely already use that ditch at times in the year, and it would seem to me that you would have a greater opportunity to perhaps “train” sucker to use a 100-plus-year-old ditch rather than starting new again.
There Might Be A Better Way
I have more to say about the overall project. I would like to suggest a complete change in approach to saving and recovering the June sucker. As I see it, more than 80 per cent of my readers are opposed to ANY action to save the sucker. However, these same readers want better access to Utah Lake in general and Provo Bay to be specific. People want channels for fishing, boating, and recreating. They want parts of the lake dredged, deepened, and in short, cared for. So, why don’t you come up with a plan that includes spending money on improving the lake and as a spillover benefit, you get everything you need to help the June sucker? To me, this wouldn’t be a tough call. People don’t mind that you “save” sucker – what they mind is the arrogance with which the project is administered, and lip service that is paid to those who sincerely question the efforts of the agencies involved. We are in crisis mode with government spending and it irks people to see our hard-earned tax dollars being spent on something that even after 20 years of effort we don’t really see numbers improving, which has to be a PR nightmare. Five or so years ago, a few Gizzard shad escaped from a reservoir upstream from the San Juan River in Lake Powell. And, with NO help from the government, the shad have expanded to all areas in the lake. So, why hasn’t the June sucker done the same thing? People are asking that question of me almost weekly. If “saving” the June sucker were “part” of the Utah Lake Improvement District (or whatever title you wanted for it), I believe you would get immediate buy in and people would get off your backs and allow you to complete your work.
Finally, although this is near treason to suggest such a thing, if predation is one of the suckers’ biggest hurdles in its recovery, why wouldn’t having more forage fish in the lake help the project. Follow me on this: If the carp removal were to be successful, why wouldn’t a fish like the gizzard shad for example serve to protect the sucker as they expand to take the place of the carp. I know there will be those who would say that they would compete with the sucker for food, but simply consider what having another excellent forage species in the lake would mean as sucker develop. Remember, shad are not grass eaters and would not tear up the bottom of the lake. The sucker would become less of a target and could grow in relative peace. Just a thought.
About The Author
