| OCR Text |
Show Editorial . Study sets stage for CUP compromise s So much has been written ;J nd said about the Central 1 Utah Project, especially about the proposed aqueducts through this part of the county and the alternatives to those Jaueducts, that it isn't hard to get tired of reading about it. ? And the problems are so complex, that the more one reads, the less one un- n derstands what is going on With the issue and why those ;, involved say the things they " say and do the things they do. gut with the release of the i. jatest study, there seems to be , something to hold on to a ;'. foliar figure that starts to ! look good. It would cost $51 million to i. Ungrade the Murdock canal to enlarge it, line it with k concrete, and fence it so children would be forced to stay awav rorn it so the (canal could carry all of the water it was originally designed to carry as well as the water now planned for the two aqueducts that no one except the Central Utah Water Conservancy District wants built. That's a lot of money. But when it's compared with the cost of building the aqueducts-$73 million it doesn't look so bad. The $22 million saved would be tax dollars, and that would make everyone happy. The water would be delivered in tact where it is supposed to be delivered, and that should satisfy the CUWCD. And the construction of the pressurized aqueducts through our communities would be eliminated while the canal would be made more safe, and that should satisfy the needs of our communities as represented by the Tim-panogos Tim-panogos Planning and Water Management Agency. Now that's a simplification. The CUP with all its attendant problems and blessings is much too complicated to have all the ramifications spelled out so simply. But it demonstrates a solution that everyone could live with, even if it's not their idea of the ideal solution it's a classic compromise. The Timpanogos Agency has given up some of its goals in suggesting the compromise. com-promise. Surely, a box culvert would be safer than a fenced, open canal, although more expensive than the aqueducts. Now it remains to be seen if the CUWCD board, in that same spirit of compromise, will adjust its plans to what has been shown to be the will of the people. If the compromise can be accepted on both sides, it will mean a satisfactory, though far from perfect, solution to a problem that has united the communities against the water conservancy district. AndUhe work of construction the CUP can carry on. On the other hand, if the compromise proves to be unacceptable and if plans proceed on the Jordan-4 and Alpine-3 aqueducts, it could mean extended court battles to determine the exact standing of the CUWCD with regard to county and state laws. It will definitely mean more delays. The next few weeks will determine if the "spirit of compromise" struck by the Timpanogos Agency will prevail or disintergrate. And for now that decision seems to be up to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District Board. |
