| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 Behaviors Governor Leavitt and the Governor's Office The Legacy Project is only one of many projects that interest the Governor. Even though in his original announcement, which was a major action in itself, he asked UDOT to expedite the Legacy Project (Gov. 1996), before the 1998 legislative session he had to find money for the over-budget 1-15 project. To meet the demands of the increased cost of the I-15 expansion project he postponed the Legacy Project (Utah Governor's Office 1998). The Governor, however, only sees this as a delay. He has highlighted the need for the Legacy Highway in several major speeches and has defended it to the press. Consider the following excerpt from the 1998 State of the State address as an example: "Legacy Highway needs to be built. If we don't, within the first decade of the 21st century, Davis County will be a traffic congestion nightmare, and the rest of the Wasatch Front will follow...." Speeches like this are aimed at increasing the public's awareness of the issue and the Governor's interests. He is trying to build up grassroots support to help the project through what is likely to be a controversial period. Bob Linnell (1998) believes that educating the public is paramount. He said, "Once people see the need, they will see that we must build the Legacy." In addition, Linnell is working hard at smoothing out the project's wrinkles. Brooks Carter with the Army Corps of Engineers said, "The Governor has not tried to lobby us or intervene, but Bob Linnell from his office tries to make peace between all the interests" (1998). The Governor's Office tries to satisfy all the interests so that UDOT can start laying pavement. Linnell said that the Office had attended all the hearings, met with local government and federal government parties interested in the highway, and worked on the educational process. The good news according to Linnell "is that once we hammer out the details it will be built" (1998). The Federal Highway Administration FHWA has taken several actions to participate in the Legacy Project. One of its major actions thus far has been to demand compliance with federal laws. This has not always made FHWA popular. Bill Gedris of the FHWA said, "The Clean Water Act mandates that the chosen alternative have the least impact on wetlands. People complain and scream because they do not like this requirement. This decision goes back to Congress. FHWA is given orders from the Congress, and we follow them" (1998). FHWA is sticking to federal regulation first and foremost. It is well represented in meetings with other government agencies, but FHWA is not looking for a compromise if it means compromising federal standards. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps' actions contribute to the friction of the project. The Corps has tried to incorporate the importance of the wetlands into all areas of the planning process. The following except from a June 10, 1998 letter to the Wasatch Front Regional Council from Carter illustrates this point: Our understanding is that the Major Investment Study (MIS) is to establish the range of alternatives and serve as the alternative analysis. However, the focal point of the meetings attended by the Corps has been on the new highway as the alternative. We recognize that consideration of a new highway is well within the framework of the MIS, but we are concerned that an inordinate amount of importance is being placed upon it .... Presently, it appears that a new road would have that greatest wetland impact. Improvements to 1-15 in combination with other modes of transportation (high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, light rail, commuter rail, etc.) represent alternatives that may possibly have less propensity to impact wetlands. This approach shows a commitment on the part of the Corps to uphold its delegated duties. Perhaps the most important action the Corps has taken is to limit the land options within the transportation corridor by using the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For example, the Corps evaluated the options on the southern end of the alignments. One proposed alternative was to run west of the airport and tie into 5600 West. Another alternative instead proceeded south and connected to 1-215 at 2100 North. The Corps used the evaluating process outlined in the Section 404 guidelines to exclude the alternative that runs north of the airport (Schwinn 1996). Utah Division of Weldlife Resources The actions of UDWR for the most part have come in the form of letters objecting to certain aspects of proposed alternatives. Additionally, two boards of the Utah Department of Natural Resources-Forestry, Fire and State Lands Advisory Council and the Utah Wildlife Board-passed resolutions to the effect that certain possible alignments "should be disallowed" (Valentine 1996b). These actions show that UDWR, with its conflicting interests, walks a very fine line. Valentine has carefully opposed certain aspects of the Legacy without opposing the idea of the Legacy Project. In a November 6, 1996 letter, Valentine illustrates this attempt at compromise. He wrote, "It is important for the public to understand that we do not oppose the concept for a [Western Transportation Corridor]; however, the potential exists for finding a route that will benefit people while not compromising wildlife and wetlands." Environmental Coalition The most important action of the Environmental Coalition is that of forming a coalition in the first place. This has increased the influence of these groups and has provided organization. For example, Hawk Watch International stepped into the public policy ring for the first time over the Legacy Project when its board voted to oppose the Legacy Highway (Hoffman 1998). Roger Borgenicht, of Future Moves, is participating on the Envision Utah Project, which is tightly linked with the Governor. He is using the opportunity to 57 |
