Questions for the Bureau of Reclamation about the Central Utah Project, 1978-1979

Page 1

«?7g PROCEDURES OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WHICH RAISE QUESTIONS OF LEGALITY IN DEVELOPING THE CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT 1# At the time a referendum was presented to the public In Utah to determine support for the CUP, the purpose of the proposed Bonneville Unit was said to be that of irrigation. Water was to be collected from Rock Creek in the Uintah Basin and transported through and across the Uinta Mountains through the Strawberry Collection System to southwestUtah where it would be used for irri­gation. The public voted on this purpose and planning, favorably. (The public was encouraged to arrive at this conclusion by enormous publicity efforts by the water developers.) As presented later then in the Bonneville Unit EIS, the purpose was modified slightly to include municipal and industrial purposes. According to the Economic Analysis of Professor Thomas Power, some ^0 percent of developed water will now go for M & I use.,According to "inside" sources, farmers are now selling water rights to land around the proposed Intermountain Power Project develop­ment near Nephi to IPP. We are in the process of determin­ing from the Bureau of Reclamation whether Utah Power and Light has requested water rights to CUP developed water and whether the Bureau has granted these. (We know, In fact, that this transaction has taken place.) U.P. & L. requires 54,000 a f of water annually; 18,000 a f from CUP development, and 36,000 a f from wells and. from irrigation. How much water IPP is acquiring I do not now know. Questions a. Has there been a change in purpose here? At what point has this change been made, if it has? Does a change of purpose on which an SIS Is presented to the public, then invalidate the EIS? If it does, what are the procedures then? b. If the justification for the Transbasin Diversion of Water was irrigation and/or irrigation primari3.y on what grounds is water for irrigation being denied "dry farms" south of Utah Lake? On what grounds are water rights being sold to IPP from existing and supposedly needed Irrigated farms in the region of IPP development? How much is being sold and bought? What relationship does this have to amounts of water stated to be delivered through the Strawberry Collection System? And to which entities? e l s the diking of Provo Bay and conversion into agricul­tural lands (which will require extensive draining maintenance) utilized by the Bureau to justify con­tinued irrigation water development? d. The Draft EIS for the Uintah Unit, August Zkt 1978, stated that there was inadequate water in the Uintah Basin for agricultural purposes?