In 2008 Salt Lake City’s City Creek Canyon caught fire.  Because of the lack of access more watershed burned than necessary.  The use of watershed protection funds to impede roads in the canyons increased watershed degradation.  Essentially, the public is paying  good money for a bad policy which decreases water quality.

In 2008, Alta, Utah offers: “Albion Basin Campground has 26 individual campsites (maximum 8 people per site) . . . Two group sites (capacities 15 to 25 people) . . . Each campsite has a fire grill, parking spur, and picnic table.  Vault restrooms, garbage service, and drinking water are also available.”

Why are high traffic campsites in and low traffic cabins sites out in the Albion Basin?  Water is made available for non-residents, but not land owners in Alta, Utah.  This makes no sense.

Why have Alta Residents, land and business owners been banned from the Alta Planning Commission?  If it is to protect watershed, then watershed trumps democracy in Alta?  Rain drops get to vote, but residents don’t.

State of Utah Town of Alta Ordinance 95-0-2: “Members of the planning commission shall not be residents of the Town, own real property within the Town, or have any other financial interest whatsoever in any property or business within the Town.”

It appears the Town of Alta, Utah is controlled by “Salt Lake City’s watershed management muscle.” (Exhibit-19). Is there any other municipality of Utah’s 243 towns and cities that bans residents, land and business owners from their Planning Commissions?

Is there any other town or city in the USA that has such an anti-resident, land and business owner policy?

Would Salt Lake City’s Council allows Alta residents to control the Salt Lake City Planning Commission? No.

“Hot bed” (nightly turn over) are in. “Cold beds” (owned seasonal use) are out.  The canyons in Salt Lake County are 81% owned by federal, state, county, and city government.  Isn’t that enough “watershed protection”?  How can a public employee decree one’s private property “Public Property,” devalue one’s private property by hoarding public resources and deny access to public resources like water without just compensation?

All land is watershed.  Everyone lives on someone’s watershed.  The Salt Lake Airport operates on someone’s watershed.  Downtown Salt Lake City is built on watershed.  The I-15 corridor produces a plume of foul and toxic gas that collects on the Wasatch Mountain Range impacting surface water supply sources.

What is real watershed protection? What is really protecting water monopoly,  a customer base, and a power base? What is public service versus personal agendas of bureaucrats?

What is real environmentalism versus using environmentalism for power and profit?

The canyons are used for a high impacting recreation industry generating large amounts of tax revenues, yet lessor impacting activities like living seasonally in the canyons is blocked.  This makes no sense. Depriving and devaluing a canyon property owner right to live in a recreation area, while flooding the canyons with picnickers and non-resident hikers is hypocritical environmentalism.  Private property owners are out to protect the watershed.  Non-resident public picnickers and hikers are in to protect the watershed. This makes no sense.