| OCR Text |
Show Provo City Kiks to Join Timpanogos Water Agency was supposed to be the collector that would make operation of a twin aqueduct system possible, but Provo City holds the rights to the water. Officials say CUWCD and Reclamation have broken the law by going ahead with planning and construction of parts of the project without first having legally secured water to put in project facilities after completion. The say Utah's congressional delegation should avoid pushing for a potentially illegal project until the water right questions are settled. According to Christiansen, chairman of the Timpanogos Agency, other cities may follow Provo's example and ask to join the group. "I believe that by July every political subdivision in Utah County could be included in the Timp Water Management group," he said. "It won't be just eight cities. It will be all the cities and the county." Provo City brings a strength to the Agency that it did not have before, Christiansen said. "There's no question that they do," he said. "We've got to have them along with us because this problem is much bigger than just north Utah County. We're just skimming the surface. Provo is in the real guts of the issue, so they've got to be involved - as does the rest of the county." By RANDALL WRIGHT Provo City last week officially asked for membership in the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency, a group of cities in north Utah County that has been fighting current plans for high-pressure Central Utah Project water pipelines for more than a year. A letter making the request, signed by Provo Mayor James E. Ferguson, was delivered last Thursday to the chairman of the Timpanogos Agency - Alpine Mayor Don A. Christiansen just before mayors of north Utah County met in Alpine's city hall to discuss the CUP controversy. Current members of the Timpanogos Agency are American fork, Pleasant Grove, Lehi, Lindon, Alpine, Highland and Cedar Hills. Provo is virtually assured of having its request for membership mem-bership granted, according to Christiansen. "I think I can guarantee a unanimous vote of acceptance from our seven members," he said. Pleasant Grove Mayor David Holdaway said later that he will make the formal motion to accept Provo at tne next meeting of the Agency. "The thing that makes Provo the most interesting addition to our group, as I see it," Christiansen said, "is not their size but 'heir basic involvement in the water rights issue. ' ' Provo City has extensive water holdings in the Provo River drainage - a large watershed area that is the source of all CUP water now scheduled to be transported in high-pressure aqueducts through north Utah County to Salt Lake Valley. According to numerous water experts, the strength of Provo 'y's claim to that water - recently reaffirmed by the Utah preme Court -- will be a major stumbling block to aqueduct Plans of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. But Provo appears to have its own reasons for joining with the Wies of north Utah County - among them the continued operation of Olmstead power plant, located at the mouth of provo Canyon. Current CUWCD pipeline plans would force the 12-megawatt nydro-electric power plant to close by diverting water that uld have pushed the turbines before it had a chance to reach I flumes. An alternative proposal by the Timpanogos Agency -to improve the existing Murdock Canal and use it to transport p waler - would keep the plant operating at near peak opacity most of the year. erguson, the Provo mayor, says using the canal right-of-way . save Olmstead is "a very reasonable option that should not be 'gnored." 11 has some obvious merits to my community," said erguson. "And it has some real merit from the standpoint of "g-range water conservation and development." rovo's membership in the Timpanogos Agency may give the sroup enough legal leverage to force CUWCD and Reclamation u, "sle, the Murdock Canal right-of-way, or at least to bargain w"h the cities for water. At present, according to water officials in Provo and north w ah County, neither Reclamation nor CUWCD has confirmed r riShts at the necessary points of diversion to fill the v oposed Jordanelle Reservoir above Heber City. Jordanelle June 16 1982' Ksyor Don Christiansen, Chairman Timpanogos Planning and Water aocinefit Aye-icy P.O. Box 51$ HlsM:3&Scith" Mi in lllllll;llaanrov':(Jtah 84062... Dear Don: IlllllflK con.ierrw&$W'SM City as a member. IS?-! Please advise us as to what process1 we should follow to obtain ; llh:::fs:f membershtp; : : I f all that is necessary U an official request, please consider this letter as such. . -;.J:!.. ); "j;-;;:!!;W'.1!"' : : Respectfully, Janes E. Ferguson - .Mayor ; t I . - f . i Provo City Offices 351 Vest Cemer Street Post Qthct Sox 184 Provo, IK ah 801-375-15 Pipeline Funding May Be Illegal North Utah County mayors and Provo water officials told representatives of Senator Orrin Hatch last week that Utah's congressional delegation may be helping fund an illegal water project. Because of the efforts of Hatch and others in Washington, federal money was authorized recently for Central Utah Project's Jordan and Alpine aqueducts - a high-pressure pipeline system beginning in Provo Canyon that is scheduled to slice through north Utah County cities enroute to Salt Lake Valley. But local officials allege that neither the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (CUP's builder) nor the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (its sponsor) have been granted confirmed con-firmed rights to enough water to fill the pipes once construction is completed - even though planning and construction of the system have gone ahead. It's a federal offense, Hatch's representatives were told, to appropriate money for a project where resources are not yet available, and Utah's congressmen have asked for funding "year after year." Reclamation has filed for enough total water to fill the pipelines, but it's not in the right place. Current plans would require exchanges for points ot uiversion high in the Provo River drainage - where Provo City has extensive rights. Because of a recent Utah Supreme Court decision in Provo's favor, however, those exchanges may be impossible. Meanwhile, the CUWCD has been advertising in the Deseret News to buy additional water rights in Utah and Salt Lake counties - possibly to use for exchanges. Provo City last week aligned itself strongly with north Utah County, officially asking for membership in the Timpanogos Planning Agency. Continued on page 3 From the Front CUP Continued from front page Ron Madsen and Holly Hicks, members of Hatch's Utah staff, listened to a plea for help from north Utah County mayors who want Hatch to get involved in settling a dispute over whether the aqueduct system should be built at all. The mayors, operating as the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency, have proposed a plan to run all CUP water in a single conduit -an improved Murdock Canal. Wayne Hillier, head of Provo's Metropolitan Water District, said a single conveyance system is far superior to dual aqueducts, which "would cut up north Utah County cities like a stick of baloney." Hatch has thus far stayed away from the controversy, claiming it is not the role of a federal representative to help settle what he says is "a local issue" -- a change from his position in 1979 when, in letters to Pleasant Grove Mayor W. Cornell Haynie, he listed criteria that would have to be met to earn his support. Now the Timpanogos Agency says it has more than met Hatch's own criteria, and mayors want him to take action. But Madsen said there's not much Hatch can do anyway. Members of the Agency disagreed, however, and provided Madsen with a written list of six specific requests to the senator. Among the requests are : -that Hatch justify his efforts to secure federal funding for a project that has no secured water "as required by Reclamation Law and CUWCD requirements. ' ' -that Hatch direct the federal Bureau of Reclamation to return to an attitude of cooperation. -that Hatch demand that Reclamation restore power costs associated with the Provo River to its criteria comparing water conveyance alternatives. Timpanogos officials say the power comparisons were deleted. -that Hatch "inform us specifically why he will not support us, since we have met all the criteria" outlined by Hatch in a December 5, 1979 letter to Pleasant Grove. According to Madsen, "The senator does not want to get involved in-volved if it's going to hurt you, and in his opinion it may very well hurt you by not getting the issues resolved on the level at which they should be resolved. ' ' Madsen says Hatch's position is that the aqueduct dispute and problems with state agencies such as CUWCD should be settled by state officials. He said any statement Hatch might make at all would be viewed as politically motivated since he is up for reelection. re-election. Mad.jsen would not commit to any public statement on the issue from Hatch. Responding to Madsen's often-repeated question, 'How could Senator Hatch best help you today,' American Fork Mayor Malcolm Beck said, "He could straighten up the Bureau of Reclamation." "For the last two months we've been stonewalled by the Bureau of Reclamation," said Beck. "Because of the way government operates, we know - being in politics as long as some of us have - what Senator Hatch can do. I don't agree that Hatch can't become involved in certain things. Because of the political nature of this problem I think he can . " |
