OCR Text |
Show Comment Thursday, October 22. 1981 CUP Water Secrete : For Yonur Eyes OMy The Central Utah Project (CUP) began as a reasonable way to help people in central Utah cope with a growing demand for water; instead, it is rapidly in becoming a massive, inflexible lever for outside interference and coercion local water affairs. Until recently, however, that message was lost in the of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (the bureaucratic double-tal- k and the ILS. Bureau of Reclamation (its builder). administrator) project's Last week this newspaper obtained a copy of a suppressed report, prepared for the Utah Division of Water Resources, that raises sobering questions about the proper role and operation of water conservancy districts in developing the state's water potential. The report was compiled in January 1977 by a local engineer and two professors from Utah State University. It is probably the most damaging document yet written on the CUP. In 31 pages, beginning with a printed warning on the title page ("This document should not be cited or quoted"), the authors reveal startling facts about the operation of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, its unchecked taxing and contractual powers, the potential for conflict of interest, the lack of public voice and representation and its alliance with the federal government. One of the report's - Carl Carpenter, is a reliable authority on the subject he is now chief engineer for the Central Utah District. Several water experts have said they beard about the report but haven't seen it - not a surprising situation, judging from its contents; understandably (from the point of view of a water agency) it has never been made available for public inspection. areas are absorbed and taxed by the District that "may never receive benefits" from the project. According to the report, the Central Utah WCD entered the water treatment business because it could not afford to repay the project by selling irrigation water. Treated water is much more profitable. The District subsequently went on record proposing to treat all areas equally by supplying treated water and storage tanks throughout the district. This is what is now proposed in north Utah County in the form of the Alpine Aqueduct. But the idea raises an interesting paradox: CUP needs to sell us treated water help pay for pipelines; we don't need treated water. That fact may not stop them from proceeding anyway, however. The BOR has been trans-mounta- Taxation without representation According to the Carpenter report, Utah law allows large water conservancy districts (WCD's) to operate with "substantial immunity from pressures and direction of those over whom they have broad powers to tax." Under the Water Conservancy District Act, passed by the Legislature in 1941, members of the Central Utah WCD board are seated by judicial appointment, not through the executive branch of government which is directly responsible to the voters. The report indicates the Act may have overstepped proper bounds, saying that "having the district judge make these appointments instead of the governor may well be an unconstitutional intrusion on the executive powers." Further, it alleges that reappointments "seem to be almost automatic," and a board member is continued in office "long after ... he has lost close contact with those he is expected to represent." Perhaps the Utah Legislature should now reevaluate the Water Conservancy District Act of 1941. Certainly there are reasonable alternatives that would provide ways for voters to have a more direct voice in the affairs of the CUP. of governThe principle that the taxpayers ought to control the purse-string- s ment is one of the fundamental principles of American society - and we ought not to lose that right in bureaucratic entanglments. - busily acquiring pipeline rights of way outside municipal boundaries - which would give them leverage in court. They could say it would not be in the public interest to deny passage through a city since most of the right of way had been purchased already. Paying for nothing Taxpayers in the Central Utah WCD may have to pay the costs of the CUP if the project is never completed. Officials at the District strenuously deny the possibility, but ambiguities in the wording of the federal repayment contract are prompting some observers to speculate that the in court. According to the question may lead eventually to legal Carpenter report: "If the district fails or refuses to accept delivery of the contracted amount of water it does not relieve the obligation to pay for the water in the same manner as if the water had been delivered. While no liability accrues to the U.S. in case (congressional) funds are not appropriated, the district is not relieved of obligations to pay for water committed by block water even hair-splittin- g CUP gets special treatment The Carpenter report says that under Utah law "special treatment" is given to projects in their filings for water rights: Water filings for the time period the CUP are allowed to remain valid far beyond the five-yestate normally requires to put water to actual use. This is the case now with the federal Bureau of Reclamation. A blanket Bureau water claim for 300,000 acre-feof Provo-Jorda- n drainage water has been on file with the state engineer's office since 1962. But the state engineer only made the initial allocation. After that, the report says, neither the WCD nor the BOR is required to follow state allocation criteria - a situation recently denounced by the U.S. Department of the Interior when it said that its agencies should follow state water procedures. In addition, the Carpenter report points out a striking Catch-2- 2 in the relationship between a water district and the federal government: "Water rights are generally acquired in the name of the BOR," the report says. "However, the contracting district may be required to defend those rights in any legal action if requested to do so by the BOR." notices." Other problems The Carpenter report outlines numerous other problems inherent in large water conservancy districts in general and the Central Utah WCD in particular. Among these are conflict of interest arising when a District board member is also a member of some other agency (a city, for example) ; disapproval of a city expanding its own water works because of interference with a District's future water market; and the power to extract unlimited Class B property taxes from project water subscribers. But the title of this report indicates it is only a "cursory review" of the problems. If questions of such magnitude can be raised by a superficial examination, what sorts of frightening possibilites might be found if the subject were probed in detail? Waiting too long for the answer to that question may preclude corrective action. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation should answer concerns raised by the Carpenter study immediately, honestly and publicly. And citizens should take the time to become informed about the incursions on their freedom that can come through the federal programs. entrenchment of WCD-Feder- ar et John Daly County Attorney Should Prosecute The Assistant County Attorney's decision to drop charges against John Daly, former Lehi City recorder, was Jay Fitt, the Assistant County Attorney who was prosecuting the case, said that he had the evidence to convict Daly but that the amount of evidence against Daly wasn't his basis for dropping the case. t Fitt maintains that other city officials are guilty of the same crime and therefore Daly should not become a scapegoat for the offenses of other people. It's true that Daly shouldn't be required to atone for the sins of other city officials but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for his own actions. Instead of dropping charges against Daly the County Attorney's Office should have brought charges against all public officials who were found to be engaged in felonies. Misuse of public funds for personal gain is a felony, a serious crime, and deserves the full attention of the County Attorney. The rationale of Fitt seems to be that if enough people are engaged in a crime then the case won't be prosecuted by his office. As an Assistant County Attorney for Utah County it is Fitt's duty to act as an advocate for the public and to prosecute criminal acts against the people. Fitt obviously believes that his decision is right and he should be commended for his sense of fairness toward John Daly. But justice must also be served. Buying tires with Lehi City purchasing orders has several advantages to the person placing the order. Because Lehi City is a public entity it is not subject to Utah State sales tax or the federal exise tax on tires. And there is also a discount to the city because it is a government body. ,., Fitt's decision not to proceed with the case open's a Pandora's box for enterprising citizens of Lehi. As it now stands Lehi is in the tire business. Any citizen of Lehi could now, conceivably, walk into City Hall e and place an order for tires. The contracts of City employees do not mention purchasing of tires through the city as a fringe benefit. Therefore, as a public corporation, Lehi City must provide the same service to all of its citizens and not just public officials. There would be no need for citizens to worry that they would be prosecuted for their actions because there are already so many people involved that the County Attorney has decided not to get involved. Admittedly there are holes in the above logic but then it's exactly what it happening. The County Attorney has decided that if there are enough people involved in a crime he won't prosecute the case. The only question that remains is a matter of numbers. Just how many people does the County Attorney require to be involved in a criminal act in order to gain immunity from his office? Is it five, 37, 14 or 68? We'll never know because Fitt hasn't revealed the nt Equitable benefits impossible Salt Lake County WCD is the main beneficiary of the Central Utah Project, and it has contracted in advance for most of the project water; but it is not property paying the full cost. Instead, the cost of water is subsidized by a tax collected throughout the area of the Central Utah WCD, prompting cries of unfair treatment. In fact, according to the Carpenter report, many ever-deepeni- (Complete copies of the water district report are available upon request from this newspaper.) COPYRIGHT 1981 American Fork Citizen GOOD THNKJd, A)0W WAT- YJC in BYS eGKfNS RTM CAM ' DOIA Jr. tax-fre- In appreciation of your business, help us celebrate our figure. Besides going unpunished for their actions there is one final absurd decision. None of the tires have been required to be returned to the city. Daly repaid the City of Lehi only after the County Attorney brought legal action against him. If people are to have confidence in their government leaders the public officials must not be involved in illegal transactions. First Year Anniversary SALE!- - FREE res tape recorder with purchase of The Complete Bible Now paying the highest rate allowed by law H2.1!4 tax free effective annual yield Wasatch Bank's All Savers Certificates am issued for one year and allow you to exempt the interest earned from federal income tax: up to $2000 tax free Interest on a joint return, $1000 on an individual return. Minimum deposit is $500. Early withdrawal will result in a loss of tax exemption and a substantial interest penalty. earns 30 month Certificate $1000 minimum deposit earns 14.045 14.25 1 JQ OREM at University Mall SAffTAQUM 100 East Mam St PLEASANT DROVE 225 South Main UM 620 East Mam St by Charles Freed $1IQ95 SERVICE YOUR MOBILE HOME GAS -- y alaHaaB yO- - Old Style - RECORDINGS. INC. Leather Triple Combinations FURNACE 53- t Small Print MONEY MARKET 2 YEAR SAVING CERTIFICATES CERTIFICATE $10,000 Deposit for six months I narrated V" 1 f Large Print Reg. $22.00 Reg. $27 - $32.00 $1495 $1 095 1? LAVELL BH EDWARDS H Wffli J (m : I I items limited to stock on hand Prices good thru Oct. 31st Price Alpine Book Radmalls 48 648 East State Rd. 15 South Main American Fork Shopping Center Pleasant Grow $4 'Keg. $8.95 756-524- 4 785-221-1 |