| OCR Text |
Show Introduction, continued I was scheduled to return to Madison, Wisconsin, on September 15, for spinal surgery of my husband at University Hospitals. It was our plan that I would return to Utah for awhile longer, pending efforts to get funding for our CRCUP group of sufficient quantity that I could afford to commute on some basis of giving leadership in Utah. However, my husband's entire left side went out of action subsequent to the surgery. He is recovering slowly at University Hospitals, our Parish has gotten along with substitute priests, and the future capability of my husband to function sufficiently well, is as yet undetermined. While he is not personally permanently tied to remaining in this Parish, he is unwilling to be retired and,as he puts it shelved". He is 61 years old. This situation has had to be worked around - by both Utah CRCUP members and by myself. In some ways I have become effective on the level of tying in CRCUP efforts more closely with the Environmental Policy Center and with the Administration in Washington, which was inadequately dealt with before. However, I have been unable to communicate the degree of importance of this "tie-in" and its need, with my CRCUP group in Utah. There is a lack of communication through the Co-Chairman. I will discuss this problem further. Prior to leaving Utah in September, I put together our Issues Paper #1 and included a cost questionnaire on the Bonneville Unit which five individuals helped prepare. Two of these worked for the State and had to remain anonymous. The need for a questionnaire arose subsequent to our study of the University of Montana Economic Analysis. I mailed to Secretary Andrus, Dep't of Interior, the Issues Paper and the cost questionnaire, requesting written answers. This was mailed in early September, and we still have not been provided written answers. I appealed in November to Interior staff people for help. Early in December, the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director, Salt Lake City, called me in Manitowoc, to propose a meeting in SLC to discuss orally f-^uu Bureau methods of calculating costs. Since we are challenging the basis on which they develop costs , as has GAO in Washington, this did not serve our purpose. In consultation with several of those who had prepared the cost questionnaire, the decision was made and communicated to the Co-Chairman, and agreed upon by him, to continue to request written answers., I conveyed this decision to the Regional Director, via letter, detailing his explanations and "problems" in providing us written answers. (This letter is included here for you.) Unhappily, this decision was discussed at a CRCUP ADvisory Board meeting and a lawyer member was to call the decision to the Bureau. She was not provided the information I had passed on to the Co- Chairman and she agreed to a meeting. I learned about it from a letter from the Bureau and I then communicated to both the lawyer, the Co-Chairman, and to the Bureau our insistence on written answers. (The State employees who had helped prepare the cost questionnaire were angry and felt it was unfair to them for CRCUP to disregard their recommendations. I shared this feeling. I am telling this because it is an indication, of the inadequate understanding of political action which exists |
