| OCR Text |
Show November 17, 1982 Newsprint Huge 8 Water is one of the Basin's natural resources, a precious commodity that has been used, abused, ignored, coveted and has even been a political tool. In the recent political campaigns some use of Central Utah Project was madejn about all of the candidates speechs and visits to the Basin. Before going into some of the current water considerations in the Basin perhaps a review of the background of the C entral Utah Project would be in order. According to Jay Fransen, Bureau of Reclamations Central Utah Project spokesman, the project was first authorized in 1956 and work on the project began shortly after that. He stated that the general concept of the project has remained the same since the Thompson stated that the Tribe is dollar currently looking at a multi-milliexpansion of their water system. We are currently looking at projections of cost and where pipes would be laid, etc. he said, and the expansion would increase their water supply substancially. The primary purpose being to assure and increase How and service to our present customers.. .but, maybe in the future adding customers, which is a natural outgrowlh of any expansion, Thompson stated. With projects like Moon Lake, on Midview Big Sandwash, Browns Draw Reservoir, some may think that this is mostly a Duchesne County project. But the Red Fleet, or Tsyak, Dam is also one of the CUPs babies. One Ashley Valley resident doesnt think that the Red Fleet is really the best place for that dam due to flood control, percentage of drainage, or the best culinary water. Wayne Batty, a local farmer rancher, spent quite a bit of time back in 1980 researching the Annual Report by Dave Rasmussen, Ashley Creek commissioner. Battys goal was to find out if Ashley creek could provide culinary water for the Ashley Valley Water and Sewer District. What he found out wasn't necessarily about culinary water but about potential destructive 1950s. With delays caused by funding problems, the 60s environmental laws that required some time to bring the project into compliance and the size of the project, Fransen said it was not unusual for large water resource projects to last for years and years. The project should still be completed by the target date of the late. 1990s. But further delays at this stage of various parts of the project (e.g. Upper Stillwater Dam and Tunnel) could cause delays in water delivery to the Wasatch Front. The first water, deliveries through the Strawberry C ollector System is due to start in 1985. Fransen said that many parts of the project are on the critical path that could mean the successful delivery, on time or further delay of the projects sevice... Uintah Basin water being delivered to the Wasatch Front. Fransen feels that the history of water Sttf 1 resource management projects I'm not an alarmist but water. historically there have been flood problems along the Ashley, Batty said. And with the recent growth, buildings and homes along the creek the potential for a real disaster is building, according to Batty. In June 1976 a Trout Creek Reservoir was considered but the cost was less for in I Utah...benifits most areas by allowing d development to continue in those 5 areas. ..as well as economic benefits, ' recreational benefits. These projects also by j aid with flash, flood protection, A reservoirs of the the . peaks reducing 1 floods, he said. i The primary purpose of the Central Utah Project is to manage one of the I major resources of the Basin. Water runs 3 off the spring and then in the late summer and fall you have to ration water and let the crops dry; but with proper water management projects you can get some d or even water in storage to use during the drought years. Even though they are expensive, these projects are on a large scale so they are more efficient than several different groups each going out and building several small projects, Fransen said. The Bureau designed these projects so that they are independent and can operate independent of each other, if necessary. We also try to work with the Public; which to me means the water users, people andor agencies interested in the unit. We hold hearings where' information is gathered both from the public and from the technical evidence, he stated. After all the testimony is heard it is a matter of judgement. Although the Bureau works closely with the Army Corp of Engineers, especially in the area of flood control figures, other technical data is often openly asked for as well as public opinion. Sometimes due to data sometimes due to public input, but we have made adjustments. For example, the Duchesne canal rehabilitation project has some pipe, where that was preferred, and later down the canal others wanted concrete lined open canal. So we are flexible, given the information at the proper time, Fransen year-roun- - claimed. From the aspect of the Bureau of Reclamation, the two things that are needed are congressional support and public support and input. The congressional delegation can be helpful. the Red Fleet site so the Brush C reek drainage got the reservoir. According to Batty. Brush (reek provides only 25 percent of the water for the area. THe Ashley Dry Fork drainage provides the remaining ma jorit v of water. Along the Ashley. Rasmussen has the responsibility to report as to its How, peaks, etc., annually. Review of these public records brought out the following facts of interest. Between 1964 and 1980 there has been a sustained annual loss of 19.000 acre feet which equates to some $1,930,000 annual loss of income, or over $30 million over the past six years. The 1977 drought brought some 26,981 acre feet of water along Ashley ( reek and a 210 second foot peak, which was the low for the 16 year period. The highs were during 1965 (a peak of 4110 second foot). 1968 (a peak of 4000 second foot flow), and 1973 (with a peak at 1600 second foot) and 1975 (flow peak at 1673 second foot (low). The I973figure, as some may remember, was the year of the Ashley Creek flood, showed a 953 second foot flow' at the time at the flood. Batty claims that if the flood would have occurred during a peak of 4000 second foot flow the damage could have really been much more extensive and costly. Bad flooding is possible in this valley. What it would take is a good snow pack being released by a hot spell, Batty said. So far the weather had been working along with us, but sooner or later itll catch up with us. Battys solution is to build some dams in the mountians. In the 60s 10 or 2 small dams were proposed. If they go out it wouldn't be too bad. But in 1973 the highline canal overloaded and broke...and exposed some culinary waterlines besides destroying the roadway in a spot or two, - : , Exchange. Upalco. Is Flooding a Problem in Basin? but they cant really push the CUP over some other projects.. .let'ls face it we have a small delegation. But the biggest thing we need right now and in the near future is input from the public. People support by awareness...coming to public meetings and expressing ideas, especially positive comments. It seems like most of the vocal ones at the hearings are opposed to some aspect of the project, but the written and oral testimony in the positive vain is also something we need to reach our decisions, Fransen said. Some of the current impediments to the project are institutional problems, as Fransen called them, in northern Utah County and in the Uintah Basin. Perhaps some of those impediments will overcome, as far as the Basin in concern, with the approval of a tresspass permit, with several conditions for Upalco exploration and testing,accordingto Ute Tribal Attorney Robert Thompson, on November 9, and the hand delivered permit Friday (the 12th) to the Bureau in Provo for their comment or signature thereby agreeing to comply with the two and a half pages of conditions. No one at the provo offices was available to comment on the recent development, as of Monday morning. The Tribal attorney declined to comment on the conditions requested since the Bureau may not be amendable to comply and I would not want to seem to force them in any way, Thompson said. However, on the recent comment regarding the Tribes attempted stall of the Upalco project Thompson stated that the Upalco unit itself was not the hangup, but assurance for reciprical construction.. .on the third stage of CUP.. .or the Ute Tribal Storage project. They are afraid of the Upalco being completed and the stage affecting the tribe most directly being delayed or dropped other fundingtimeor considerations. due to Since the Tribal sale of water to many of the municipalities in the Basin is. and will probably continue to be. a touchy matter with many; the fact that, according to Thompson. Roosevelt City is looking for a secondary water source is a matter th tribe is well aware of. We know the needs of Roosevelt...and we wont try to impecd them in any way. In fact, the current negotiations regarding an increase in the amount Roosevelt pays the tribe for water should be completed well before the end of the year. All of the primary elements of that contract are in place. All that remains is making everyone aware that the Tsare dotted and TV are crossed, Thompson said. Roosevelt isn't the only one that is looking for. additional water sources. 1 Batty said. This type of situation shows'a need for water resource management and perhaps a need for C U P to take another look at the Ashley Creek drainage. |
