| OCR Text |
Show Asgf 6. Questions are arising about whether the Bonneville Unit, as presently planned, can even reach its water supply objectives, and abcut whether buyers can oe found who will pay the expected high charges for CUP water. Meanwhile, interest in alternative water supply sources is crowing. One promising alternative is installation of a dual water iystem~In Salt Lake and northern Utah Counties, utilizing currently unused Utah Lake water for municipal outdoor use. (Half of the total year around municipal water use is for outdoor amplication). A dual system has operated successful!*/ for twenty yesrs in Davis, county, immediately adjacent to Salt Lake County but outside the boundaries of the Central Utah Project. The State of Utah has recently completed a cost analysis for installing a dual system in West Jordan, one of Salt Lake1s fast-growing suburbs. This study concludes that if the cost cf CUP water rises above §184.00 per acre foot, a 'dual system will be more economical. Under the proposed repayment contract referred to above, the minimum per acre foot cost of CU? water will be |163.00, and it could rise to 3339.00. Moreover, the state study magnifies the costs cf a dual system and fails to incorporate energy producing features such as low head hydrcpower generators at the reservoirs which would further improve the cost-benefit ratio of a dual system. Now is the time for judicicus surgical cutting of the Bonneville Unit. This should be coupled with a thorough study and ccst-benefit analysis of alternative water supply sources, such as a) installation of a dual water system; b) construction of smaller reservoirs •to capture local mountain runoff along the Wasatch Front; c) fuller use of good quality ground water in Salt Lake City, where the ground water table is actually rising; and d) more efficient use and distribution of exis-tingwater supplies to reduce waste. An. appropriate combination of these and ether alternatives could be much less costly and even more effective than the CUP. We strongly urge that funding for the Bonneville Unit cease until alternatives are examined and evaluated, including the alternative of a vastly scaled down Bonneville Unit. Funding for such a study would be cheap by comparison with fundin- for"the Bonneville Unit, and it would be a much mere efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The great expense and questionable need for the Bonneville Unit contrasts with the Jensen, Vernal, and Upalcc Units cf the CUP, which represent much smaller investments and car. improve the economic climate cf eastern Utah. Calvin Csburn 1304 South Fourtee^h last Salt Lake City, Utah 5^105 The Utah /."ater Resources Council i s a non-profit citizens organization j ^ T "••• %T9^t ; "--:•?." ;•>-:•_-;'"";--^ < ' - ' : •,..'"; :' |
