OCR Text |
Show Documents Withheld From Public Scret!v Behavior HMrt Mayors in northern Utah County are concerned that the Central Utah Water Conservancy District is not being honest with them -- and in view of some of the District's recent behavior, there may be good reason for suspicion. Water District officials claim to have carefully considered the ( proposal of the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency to build a concrete box-culvert in the Murdock Canal for transportation of CUP water through north Utah County instead of the two pipelines currently planned. But despite many clear benefits of such a change, the District board seems headed for a vote for the old plan anyway, and the mayors are getting mad. Local officials allege that Water District Manager Lynn Ludlow has launched a campaign to discredit their proposal - even after four j months of study produced a statement from Bureau of Reclamation engineers that the plan was both cost effective and efficient, and in fact had benefits not found in current plans. "I don't know why current twin-aqueduct system. Of course, making such a document public too long before today's board meeting would allow north Utah County time to frame a reasonable response before the matter comes up for a vote - making political manipulation more difficult. Elanor Olsen, a member of the water board, told the newspaper Tuesday she saw no reason the memorandum should not be released since it contained information on an important public matter; but after she telephoned Ludlow for approval, she changed her mind. , The district has also staunchly refused to release a second document - a letter to Ludlow from Provo River Water Users Association Superintendent Superin-tendent Hugh McKellar, which purports to be a point-by-point refutation of the Timpanogos Agency's box-culvert proposal. President of the Provo River Water Users Board of Directors Garn Holbrook said the letter is not an official communication since it was not approved by his board; they have officially taken a neutral stand on all reviewed its substance with Timpanogos Tim-panogos Agency engineer Lorin Powell, who called it "trivial and misinformed." Powell's comments and explanations of the box culvert plan were convincing. It remains to be seen if he and the mayors of north Utah County can convince the Conservancy Con-servancy District to vote for it. But the question of technical feasibility should have been settled long ago when the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the box-culvert box-culvert plan is equivalent to the current plan. Why does the District continue to dredge up supposed technical problems when the engineer of Reclamation" (who should have the final word on technical matters) say the box-culvert box-culvert is a workable alternative? Common sense would seem to dictate that if you have two equivalent ideas it's smart to go with the one that ' avoids a fight. As the situation stands now, the mayors of north Utah County are prepared to go to court to block the twin-aqueduct plan - and though nobody wants the project to die, lengthy court delays could kill it. If the Conservancy District wants a fight, it seems that north Utah County is willing to give it to them. They can only lose, however. The Timpanogos Agency continues to accumulate support, and sources report that Robert Hilbert, manager of Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, says the situation is "out of control politically." t Central Utah Water Conservancy District is not accustomed to dealing . ' with'r serious political challenges until now it has always seemed to have its own way. But if the managers and the board do not now bend in response to the needs and demands of those they are supposed to serve, it may well be that no one will finally be served. they're so stubborn," says one Timpanogos Agency official. "I guess it: comes down to pride; they don't ' want anyone to show them they are wrong. It's a pet project to them, and they know how to get their way. Ludlow does a pretty good job of hand feeding his board and keeping them informed on the side of the issue that he would like them to be informed on." ;At the same time, it seems Ludlow prefers to keep the Timpanogos Agency and the public in the dark. Earlier this week he refused to release a memorandum he distributed among the members of the water board - a memorandum that reportedly lists "reasons" the board should now vote in favor of the proposals affecting the Murdock Canal, over which they have jurisdiction. According to a secretary at the Water Conservancy District, and to the District's public affairs officer, Eldon Laird, the McKellar letter was to have been attached to the memorandum to the Water District Board. But when the newspaper contacted Ludlow in an attempt to get copies of the two documents, he denied that the letter accompanied the memorandum. Ludlow refused to provide copies of the documents, saying that some things ought to be withheld from the public. Meanwhile, the newspaper obtained ob-tained a copy of the McKellar letter from a confidential source and |