OCR Text |
Show x ; y CUP still faces big PR problem There are few surprises in the draft of Utah State's review of the Central Utah Project's Bonneville Unit. The review was carried out by the state's Department of Natural Resources at the request of Gov. Scott Matheson who received a suggestion from Cliff Barrett, regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation. To say there was a popular demand for such a review is an understatement. And basically, the draft demonstrates that the review was basically carried out to reassure the state, as well as the counties that are part of the Central Utah Project, that the project is really accomplishing it's goals. The report is basically supportive of the CUP's approach ap-proach to developing Utah's allotment of water that eventually flows into the Colorado River - with a few exceptions. It does say that CUP plans to dike Provo Bay should be dumped, and suggests-that similar plans to dike Goshen Bay need to be looked at more carefully.- And the probable reclassification of the June sucker as an endangered species will make the diking project even more difficult. The study also points out something local water experts ex-perts have known all along. No one knows how much CUP water will cost when it finally flows through the pipes and comes out the faucet. The current estimate of $211 per acre foot for CUP water does not take into account future cost escalation (or reduction, for that matter). It also depends on "the continued acceptability to federal authorities of a cost allocation procedure that deviates from established practice." In other words, unless the BOR continues to treat the CUP as an exception to established practice, CUP water costs probably go up even higher. The high cost may be hard to swallow. But the fact is, there is no more cheap quality water to be developed in the area. But areas that depend strongly on the CUP's Bonneville Unit for their water will certainly be hit the hardest. And, the study points out, Salt Lake County will need all of the water it has requested from the CUP, and possibly more --depending on how costs affects water demand. The study supports the location of the Jordanelle Dam site, urges that zoning and planning be used more effectively ef-fectively to assure recreational and water quality on CUP facilities, and says the scaling down of the Diamond Fork power facility was a good idea . The only failing in the report is in dealing with the problem that prompted the study in the first place the inability of CUP officials to tell their own story effectively. ef-fectively. The study points out that hearings held earlier this year indicated "that rapport problems exist between the developers of the Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project and the communities affected by the project." In other words, the CUP faces a credibility problem with the taxpayers who are footing the bill for CUP construction. It was that gap that prompted the review in the first place, in an effort to separate fact from gripe about different aspects of the huge Bonneville Unit. Subsequent public hearings on the draft study may show whether or not the work will help do that. Rather than address the individual issues that demonstrated the lack of credibility, the study urges the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the BOR to consider ways to improve rapport with those communities. com-munities. The study "concludes that CUP water-will-be needed and the development of the project is vital. What life -CUWCD and BOR still have to do is convince the persons living in the district and paying taxes to support the project that this is true. |