| OCR Text |
Show CUP fate in hands ff voters Teesdla v Ballot asks for decision on contract to pay for growing cost of water Droiect But the complete project is not the issue Tuesday. What voters will essentially be deciding in the election is construction of the Jor-danelle Jor-danelle Reservoir, a key part of the CUP's Bonneville Unit designed to deliver water to the Wasatch Front. The dam is planned to be built about eight miles north of Heber City on the Provo River. The Bureau of Reclamation, wnich is building the project, has recently given assurances they will build the Jordanelle if the contract is approved. But the BOR has stopped all planning on the controversial reservoir until after the election. A vote against the contract will kill the Jordanelle project. The dam is planned to store water from the Provo River's spring runoff run-off - and. supporters claim the Jordanelle will ensure a dependable water supply for north Utah County. "When voters go to the polls Nov. 19 to vote on the approval of the supplemental repayment contract with the Federal Government, they will decide the fate of the heart of the unit that will bring water to the Wasatch Front area," said Don Christiansen, general manager of the CUWCD, referring to the Jordanelle. Jor-danelle. ; Prior s to the election, several groups and individual have lined up in favor of the contract. One of the most recent is the Timpanogos Planning and Water Management Agency, a group formed by the cities in North Utah County several years ago to fight the CUWCD's plan to build two pipelines through the northern part of the county. Despite past animosity, the group approved a resolution last week urging voters to support the supplemental sup-plemental repayment contract. The resolution says local cities cannot receive their share of CUP water unless the contract is approved. Several local communities have approved similar resolutions, including in-cluding Pleasant Grove, Alpine and Highland. Supporters of the contract include a group headed by former Governor Scott M. Matheson called Water for Utah's Future Committee which includes several prominent Utahns. Also, the state's congressional delegation, Governor Norman Bangerter, the Utah Board of Water Resources, the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and the Utah State Economic Development Board have endorsed the repayment contract. Matheson pointed out that support for the CUP had been given by every governor and every member of the state's Congressional delegation since the project's inception in the 1940s and 1950s. "I cannot think of any other issue that has received the unanimous support of all these elected officials," of-ficials," Matheson said. "The support has come from members of both political parties and from elected officials in every part of the state." Other groups, however, has been just as vocal in their opposition to the repayment contract. Both Salt Lake City and Provo City governments have passed resolutions urging residents to vote against the project. Provo has taken the CUWCD and the BOR to court claiming that the Jordanelle would appropriate 50,000 acre feet of water each year that belong to Provo City. Other groups say a vote against the contract would force the federal government to adopt a scaled down model of the CUP which would be less costly and allow other water sources to be tapped. Christiansen counters that eventually, all of these other sources as well as the CUP will be needed to provide water for the Wasatch Front's growing population. Opponents also claim the CUP is detrimental to the environment, because it destroys natural habitat. I By MARC HADDOCK Voters in 12 Utah counties, in- ciuding Utah County, will go to the polls Tuesday, Nov. 19, to determine Oie future of the yet uncompleted Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. At issue will be a supplemental repayment contract for voters in the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) to pay back the federal government for an additional ad-ditional $335 million to complete the 1 project. When the CUP was approved by voters 20 years, they agreed to pay back $130 million to the federal government. ' CUWCD officials say the new contract is needed because cost 2 overruns, construction delays and 1 inflation have increased the cost of I the massive CUP up to six times the I original $324 million voters were told I the project would cost when they I approved the original contract in 1965. I Itis now estimated the project will (cost $2.1 billion before it is completed. For Tuesday's special election, Pleasant Grove has been divided into two consolidated voting districts., -Voting Districts 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 and 14 will all vote at Grovecrest Elementary. -Voting Districts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 will vote at Valley View Elementary. -All Lindon voting districts will vote at the Lindon Elementary. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Supporters of the CUP claim the residents of the 12 counties that make up the CUWCD are getting a bargain in the government's repayment contract, since it calls for local residents to pay around 30 percent of the cost of the construction. con-struction. Federal government money, along with anticipated electric power revenues, will make up the other 70 percent of construction costs. The contract also allows Utah to borrow its share of the CUP payback funds at a low 3.2 percent interest rate. - And voters won't be increasing annual taxes if they approve the measure, since the CUP is limited by law to only 2 mills of property tax - $2 for every $1,000 of assessed property valuation. That means the average homeowner home-owner is paying about $18 a year towards repayment of the CUP's initial contract - payments that will last another 40 years whether Tuesday's vote is for or against the new contract. Approval of the new contract will add up to 10 years to the payback time for the project. Tuesday's election has become a rallying point for opponents to the Central Utah Project, who say the CUP is out of control and unnecessary. un-necessary. Costs for the project have skyrocketed - and will make water from the project too expensive when other sources of water, such as the Bear River and ground water, could be developed more cheaply, they argue. |
