OCR Text |
Show Distribution of Recoverable Fossil Fuels STATES 33 N USSR Yv OIL SHALE 1063 billion barrels 2. COAL 800 b. barrels-equivalent CRUDE OIL 35b.barrels V I TAR SANDS 16b. barrels - gQyff 1 All Other merica XAEwbDe Canada YV 6 China 10 Editor: This letter is in regards to the letter to the editor written in last week's paper by Charles R. Hunter. His letter was dealing with the Water Bond issue. I believe that a dry city like ours needs all the extra water we can get when we can get it. I also think it is about time the people of Cedar City start making their own decisions instead of always listening to Charles R. Hunter and Harry B. Leigh. I will admit they are successful in their own lives, but I don't want them making all my decisions for me throughout my life. Thank you Mike Swarz Editor: The letter written by Charles R. Hunter, Iron County Taxpayers Assn., Iron County Record, 7-6-78, did not cover the Water Bond Election in sufficient, detail. I also will vote against the bond but for reasons other than those stated by Mr. Hunter. On 6-17-78 the Salt Lake City Tribune reported that 53 percent of the 3.2 million dollar package (bond) is for 15 miles of new pipeline that would carry water from two new wells to a 1.5 million gallon storage tank that would be built on high ground above the "Cove" area on the city's west limits. On 5-11-78 the Cedar City Council approved ap-proved annexation of 160 acres west of Cedar City. (Color Country Spectrum, 5-14-78). On 5-18-78, one week later the City Council proposed the 3.2 million dollar Water Bond Issue. Prior to the above, the area now known as Cove and Cove II, were annexed into the city. All the above annexed property being developed by the same individuals with exclusive listings by one Realty Agency. Hook-up costs for water are being raised from $400 to $1,000. Normally when a city approves annexation an-nexation of land it is for the benefit of the city and not for accomodating developers. Did the developers of the newly annexed property turn over to the city sufficient shares of water to handle the new homes that will be built? Or is it that the city, by raising the hookup hook-up fee to $1,000, will handle the purchase of water shares for the developer. Why have the bond election on July 25, 1978? There are only four short months between July and the General election in November. In July the voter turn out will be poor. Why not have the bond election at the same time as the General Election in November when voter turn out will be better and more representative of the desires of the majority of the voters? An election was recently determined over an emotional "feaseability study" issue. When the Mayor and Council held a special session to approve the study, one of the candidates for councilman "sounded-off" "sounded-off" with a radio announcement on election day saying "How stupid do they think we are?" Basically, if the developer, who has the most to gain, would pay for the drilling of the two new wells, 15 miles of water pipe and the 1.5 million gallon water tank, and furnish to the city sufficient water right shares to handle the homes to be built then developer did all this there would be no need for the bond election. name withheld on request |