OCR Text |
Show limp Agency needs fair CUP hearing By scheduling a decision-making session on the future of the Jordan Aqueduct-Reach 4 the same morning as four new members of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District are sworn in, the district has placed the new members in the position of making a decision of major proportions with minimal information. It is a position which is unfair to both the new board members and to the residents of north Utah County who oppose the construction of the aqueduct and favor refurbishing refur-bishing the Murdock Canal to carry that CUP water from Provo Canyon to Salt Lake County. It is also an action which is representative of the way the entire J-4 vs. Murdock Canal question has been handled by the CUWCD over the past few years. Water-related issues in Utah are complex ones, and require a great deal of study. The orientation meeting held with new directors last Thursday coupled with the discussion scheduled for today does not give the new members adequate time to familiarize themselves with an issue as complicated as J-4. Some will argue that the matter has been aired at sufficient length, that most of the board members are not new and are familiar with the controversial decision. Indeed, most of the board members have already supported a motion to go ahead with the aqueduct construction. But that action was one of the main reasons the Utah Legislature opted in its last session to change the way CUP directors are chosen because board decisions were't based I on what the people wanted. However, with three-fourths of the board unchanged from last year when the final J-4 vote was passed, the CUWCD seems unwilling to listen to the Legislature'se desire that the people have a greater voice. Despite mounting opposition, the district directors have ! maintained a single-minded stance that has allowed no variation from their initial position. And rather than listen to the public, they have continued to 1 downplay opposition to their plans, particularly with the J-4 issue. The district continues to characterize the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency as a collection of a few radical mayors bent on causing trouble with the CUP's master plan. ! Actually, the Timp Agency was formed with the concensus ! of each member city council, and a city councilman sits on the agency with the mayors. And over the past two years, the cities have continued to give their support to the agency. j Furthermore, the concern over the actions of the CUWCD hasn't been limited to northern Utah County. Virtually every mayor in Utah County has expressed concern with the way the conservancy district operates. And the opposition hasn't been limited to the cities. The Utah County Commission reiterated its opposition to the J-4 plan as recently as March 9 in a letter sent to Utah's congressional delegation. In the letter, Commission Chairman Chair-man Keith Richan states that as early as 1976-77, when he was chairman of the county's planning commission, he and ' other commission members felt that J-4 "was' a very poor way to go and told them so. This apparently had no impact on them whatsoever, as they made no effort to seek our input or keep us appraised of what they were doing and how they were proceeding. "I am totally offended at the independent, arrogant manner in which they have proceeded," Richan wrote. "They have completely ignored the county and apparently feel no need to touch bases with anyone. ' ' This typifies the district's entire approach to the aqueduct construction program. Opposition has come from other areas. Salt Lake City Mayor lea Wilson has favored the single conveyance plan that calls for a refurbished Murdock Canal over the J-4 pipeline. Rep. Howard Nielson has done the same. And yet the CUWCD continues to insist that opposition to the plan is limited to a few as the board has brushed off every attempt to make them consider the realities of the J-4 opposition. op-position. By the time you read this, the Timpanogos Agency will have had what may be its last chance to give the CUWCD, and especially the new directors, a comprehensive presentation about the J-4 controversy and why agency members think a single conveyance will save taxpayers dollars by delivering more water for less money. Once again the presentation is coming against what could be considered a stacked deck. On that same agenda will be voiced the concerns of the Provo River Water Users Association, the Salt Lake County Municipal Water Users and the Bureau of Reclamation all groups that have expressed a desire to see J-4 built and built soon. And all groups with an inordinate amount of influence over the conservancy district board, and little interest in what's best for the people of northern Utah County. The Timp Agency deserves a fair and comprehensive hearing. Then once the presentation has been made, CUWCD directors should act on that information, rather than simply dismissing it as the view of a few radical individuals. The wishes of the people who live where the J-4 will be built have been brushed aside for too long. It's time the CUWCD board listened. It may be the last time the directors will have a chance. |