OCR Text |
Show ItUP Meeting: Mayors Dissatisfied atrit By CARL HAUPT A meeting between the mayors of 1 1 North Utah County and several board "I members of the Central Utah Water NConservancy District Tuesday night was intended to help the opposing sides reach a compromise - but when ft the meeting ended it was evident that the Conservancy District and the cities of Northern Utah County are headed for a showdown. I The local cities, members of the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency, have been appempting to convince the CUWCD to build a single water conveyence i system through their cities instead of ;the currently planned twin high- pressure pipelines, the Alpine-3 and the Jordan Reach 4. I Tuesday's meeting was scheduled last week during the CUWCD March Board meeting. During the Con-a Con-a servancy District Board meeting on March 11 Board members representing Salt Lake County urged a vote on the decision to construct the 'Jordan Reach 4 aqueduct. The vote m was delayed until the Board's April meeting after Paul Barber, an aide to I I ; Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson, convinced the Board of Directors to postpone the vote for 30 days so that Wilson could meet with the mayors of the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency. Tuesday's meeting never even - started with a reconciliation effort on the part of the CUWCD Board when Dave McMullin, a board member representing southern Utah County, told the mayors "we have to start with a premise that it (the vote for Jordon Reach 4) will come to vote in April. It appears that it will pass." The board members representing Utah County expressed qualified sympathy for the cities of the Timpanogos Tim-panogos Agency but claimed they were helpless to change the outcome of the board's vote in April. Board members representing Utah County are McMullin, Eleanor Olsen and Marion Hinckley. "There's not much we can do about it," said Olson. "We're only three" of the members of the 19 person board, said McMullin. Hinckley agreed with the other board members saying that "they're all with the Salt Lake City group," while referring to the other members of the board who did not represent Salt Lake County. Representatives of both the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency gave presentations presen-tations outlining their plans for transporting water for Salt Lake County though the cities of North Utah County. Sheldon Talbot, project engineer for the Conservancy District, explained ex-plained the controversial proposal of the CUWCD. "I've lost trackof the number of times I have met with the people of Utah County to work on a solution," said Talbot, refering to the pipelines. Alpine Mayor Don Christiansen, representing the Timpanogos Agency, countered Talbot's claim saying that his group tried ' during April of 1981 to present its plan for a single conveyance system to the Board of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District but that his group was given a cold shoulder. "We tried to present our plan in April but we were not successful until September," Sep-tember," said Christiansen. Talbot repeatedly stated that he was not at the meeting to argue about the merits of the competing proposals. "Politically I don't care," said Talbot about which system he preferred. "As an engineer I prefer an eliptical shape " pipeline. "We really don't care what shape the pipeline is," answered Christiansen. "What we want is a single conveyance system placed in the Provo Resevoir Canal right-ot -way." Another concern of the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency is that the Olmsted Power Plant would be closed is the Central Utah Water Conservancy District gets its way "We spend a lot of money in Utah to produce power and yet we have a facility that produces power that the district is going to take out of production," said Lorin Powell, engineer for the Timpanogos Planning Plan-ning and Water Management Agency. The CUWCD plans to divert the Continued on Page A-3 Continued from Front Page would be a delay -in -the project but questioned whether it would be that long of a delay. Talbot admitted that "the work would, go faster," if a private engineering company was hired instead in-stead of havig the Bureau of Reclamation work on the engineering plans. CUP- Continued from Front Page water necessary to run Utah Power and Light's Olmsted hydroelectric plant into pipelines before it could reach the plant's turbines. This would result in a loss to Utah of 60,000 megawatt hours of electricity each year. The plan proposed by the local cities would keep the power plant producing about 50,000 megawatt hours of electricty per year. Talbot agreed that the Conservancy District would shut down the Olmsted plant. "We are looking at a long-range long-range phasing out of the Murdock canal," said Talbot. Talbot said that the Conservancy District had two main goals it wanted . to accomplish through its proposal. He said that the District was committed com-mitted to cover the Murdock canal and to provide a dual water system. The Utah County Commissioners attended the meeting. Commissioner Keith Richan questioned Talbot about , the relative dangers of the competing proposals as they pertain to earthquake ear-thquake resistance. "I really can't answer that question specifically," said Talbot. If the CUWCD pipelines were built there would be two large high-pressure high-pressure pipelines constructed un derground from Provo Canyon to the north end of Utah County. The Timpanogos proposal would only have one line - a gravity flow line - running through the county. Since the Timpanogos Agency proposes laying their box culvert pipe inside the Murdock canal water which escaped from the pipe during an earthquake would follow the path of the present canal. The idea of the box culvert hasn't much of a chance of becoming reality, according to CUWCD board member Eleanor Olsen. "Salt Lake City (board members) will never agree to the box culvert," said Olsen. This is a paradox because the box culvert would deliver more water to Salt Lake County than the Jordan Reach 4 pipeline which the district is anxious to approve. The Jordan Reach 4 aqueduct is designed to carry 270 second-feet of water to Salt Lake County. The mayors of the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency propose that their box-culvert system would deliver 400 second-feet of water to the Salt Lake area. Talbot admitted that the District's plan would not be able to deliver the difference of 130 second-feet to the Salt Lake Area. "That's the first time the District has admitted that to us," said Christiansen. Salt Lake City has a claim to 130 second-feet of winter water which has never been delivered to that city. It still would not be able to be delivered to Salt Lake City under the CUWCD proposal because the Jordan Reach 4 will only carry 270 second-feet of water the the Alpine 3 aqueduct would stub-out almost 10 miles short of Bluffdale in Salt Lake County - the location where the water could enter the Salt Lake County water system. Christiansen wasn't pleased with the result of the meeting. "We compromise and end up with nothing," Christiansen said to Talbot. Talbot claimed that if the CUWCD dropped its plan for the twin aqueducts and decided to construct the single conveyance system -construction would be delayed by as much as five and one-half years. Talbot said that the CUWCD would have to drill new test holes, make environmental impact studies, hold . public hearings and engineer new blue prints for the construction project. The mayors agreed that there |