| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 crease the quality of life in the populated areas (Summurcorn 1998). Second, the municipalities have an existing infrastructure and community. The cities want to protect existing developments if possible. Their theme is "We want the road, but we do not want it to cut communities in half (1998). One extreme example of the interests the cities have at stake is in Centerville. Centerville, which sits on the edges of Farm-ington Bay, does not have much room to expand. Frank Hirschi, Mayor of Centerville, pointed out the city's dilemma (1998) when he said, "By trying to avoid the wetlands, Centerville will be devastated. If the Legacy Highway takes the proposed eastern route, it would cost UDOT $11.5 million. If they moved the route by only 100 yards, it would avoid all of this damage and save UDOT $11.5 million." If this section were built through existing developments, it would cut through an industrial park and through some houses (1998). Third, the municipalities have a tax-base interest. If the Legacy is built, it is likely that commercial development will occur where there is no development at this point (Borgen-icht 1998a). In Centerville for example, "the western alternatives would allow Centerville to put in some commercial developments and even some low-income housing" (Hirschi 1998). The alternatives further away from the populated areas would increase the tax base. The municipalities want to protect their existing tax base and ensure future growth. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) UDOT is placed in the uncomfortable position of balancing all these interests and coming up with a project. UDOT's projections show that without a major transportation improvement, traffic just to the north of Salt Lake County will be characterized by gridlock. UDOT has a responsibility to meet this need. As the responsible agency it has an incentive to fulfill its responsibility; however, UDOT also has other interests to consider. UDOT needs to consider a broad range of interests in the process from "impacts to residential areas, businesses, tax base, property rights, historical sites, the local economy, the environment, commuters, parks, and farms" (Parker 1998). Each of these interests is important. However, since there is no impact-free route, UDOT is charged with determining the value of each of these impacts. In addition to the physical impacts of the Legacy, UDOT is forced to recognize the political implications of its decision. Legacy's Project Director, Byron Parker, said, "The Governor and Lane Beattie have let us know how they feel, and we do not treat their concerns any different than anyone else's concerns. I have met with every local official along the corridor and with President Beattie to hear their concerns. The Governor is prioritizing our project, but I have never met with the Governor" (1998). Although it is nice to think that everyone's voice counts to the same degree, that is not the case because the Governor has the ability to prioritize this project relative to others, and the "the legislature holds the purse strings to this project" (Nelson 1998). One voice has to be more important than others, otherwise the project would have to change plans after every phone call and letter. UDOT has to deal with some of Utah's most powerful people-people who have a direct influence on the future of UDOT and its employees. At the same time, UDOT needs to at least appease every relevant federal agency if the project is going to be eligible for federal funds (Parker 1998), which may end up being a deciding factor. With many other concerns about this project, this might not play into the equation too much, but UDOT is in the business of building roads. Road projects are a way for the department to increase its own support and power base. Clearly, UDOT needs roads to build if it is going to continue in its current path. Utah Transit Authority builds mass transit; UDOT builds roads. If possible, UDOT would like to build roads-maybe not this road, but some roads somewhere. Conditions Federal laws and policies in relation to this project are the most significant. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires, federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact study (EIS), for major proposals that involve the federal government (Kubasek 1997, 109). The Legacy Highway qualifies as such a proposal and thus requires an EIS. In the Legacy Project, UDOT is preparing the EIS, and the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for its approval or denial. An EIS must contain several items, namely: 1) the proposed action's environmental impacts; 2) "alternatives to the proposal" (including a no-build action); 3) all "irreversible commitments" of environmental resources; and 4) possible violations of federal environmental mandates (Kubasek 1997, 115). The federal agencies, FHWA and the Corps, vigorously defend the NEPA mandate. The Environmental Coalition also vigorously defends it. It is likely that without the NEPA process the Environmental Coalition would not play a significant role in the discussion. UDOT is trying to uphold NEPA, but it causes the agency trouble. It must jump through this hoop before gaining access to federal dollars. The county and the cities do not like NEPA because it often makes the decision-makers look more closely at the environmental impacts than the impacts on the communities. The Clean Water Act provides significant protections of the nation's wetlands. The main element of this Act's protection to wetlands, falls under Section 404- This section gives the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to deny projects that affect wetlands if these impacts are avoidable (Kubasek 1997, 239). The guidelines of the 404 permit rely partially on the Clean Water Act and partially on an administrative agreement between the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Much of the conflict involved in the Legacy Project stems from potential impacts to wetlands. Due to the significance of the Section 404 guidelines to the Legacy Project, these guidelines deserve further discus- 55 |
