Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — As a final decision looms on an expansive industrial development project adjacent to the Great Salt Lake in western Weber County, opponents have renewed their public push for more study into the plans.
"This is a generational decision that's being made. Once you pave these areas, there's no going back," said Deeda Seed, with Stop the Polluting Ports, a Utah organization formed to halt the varied Utah Inland Port Authority projects around the state.
Ben Hart, executive director of the port authority, said inland port officials are mindful of the concerns some have brought up and are in contact with the varied stakeholders. They are working on a set of guidelines meant to safeguard the wetlands in and around the project area, one of the key sticking points, and will likely create sections to be held in conservation within the zone where development wouldn't be permitted. "I share many of their concerns, quite frankly. We want to make sure we're responsive," Hart said.
Seed and other foes attended Monday's meeting of the port authority board in Salt Lake City, presenting officials with a list of the names of some 1,500 people from outside Weber County who signed a petition opposing the plans. They're asking for more study into the possible environmental impacts of the project, located over 8,785 acres of largely undeveloped land near the Great Salt Lake and the Harold Crane and Ogden Bay waterfowl management areas. Seed said the plan's opponents are even mulling legal action to push the issue if the plans — tentatively up for consideration at the port authority board's next meeting on May 20 — proceed.
"What we're saying in our petition is they need to answer lots of hard questions first before they greenlight this project," Seed said. They worry about the destruction of wetlands and the possible harm to the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, particularly as Utah leaders put a focus on boosting the flagging water level of the lake. Moreover, they worry about pollution brought on by truck and train traffic in the remote area if the project moves ahead.
Inland port reps have offered assurances that development is possible in the area that's harmonious with its natural attributes. Development would not occur in the entire 8,785-acre expanse, nor in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Moreover, by law, if development occurs on wetlands, replacement wetland areas would have to be created as an offset.
What's more, new guidelines require investment of funds to protect wetlands areas within inland port project zones, 1% of property tax revenue generated by new development, and Hart thinks that could generate $30 million to $40 million over 25 years. He didn't say exactly what portion of the Weber County project area would be set aside for conservation, but indicated that conservation is a key consideration. "We perceive this being a balance between development and conservation," he said.
Nevertheless, the Weber County project seems to have sparked something strong in inland port critics. The state is driving the inland port initiative — so far entailing industrial, warehousing and other development at eight sites across Utah in cooperation with private developers — as a means of spurring the economy. The aim also is to encourage increased rail traffic for transport of goods, thereby reducing trucks on the state's highways.
The Weber County project is the biggest in terms of the potential harm it could have on wetlands areas, Seed maintains, hence the focus among the environmental advocates. She didn't delve into possible grounds for a lawsuit, if the opponents go that way, but said they "have some ideas of deficiencies in the process."
In tandem with the outreach to inland port board officials, Weber County foes of the project have reached out to Weber County commissioners, seeking a meeting with the officials. Patty Becnel, of Pleasant View, one of the Weber County critics, said more than 200 people from the county have inked a petition seeking more study of the proposal.
"The commissioners could change their mind. We would love for that to happen," Becnel said.
County commissioners last January formally approved a measure asking inland port officials to craft a plan for inland port development in the county. County leaders have long envisioned industrial development in the more undeveloped western expanses of Weber County.
The next step in the process would be final approval of the Weber County project plans, tentatively up for consideration at the May 20 inland port board meeting, according to Seed. However, development of the varied inland port areas is expected to occur gradually over a period of many years.
