| OCR Text |
Show TT^y^u^ Introduction, continued in the leadership in Utah of CRCUP). The cost questionnaire is proving to be a real lever in our efforts. The Bureau does not want to provide written answers. It can't - and defend the economic feasibility of the CUP. We have and can use this fact - politically - if our CRCUP group can comprehend the importance of what they have. I have continued to press Secretary Andrus for a written answer and, as of a week ago, I was sent a one-and-one-half inch packet of cost data on the Bonneville Unit. The information is raw data and Is not broken down to answer our questions. This past weekend I attemoted to get University of Wisconsin Economic Professors to look at this and evaluate our questionnaire in the light of the data, but they really can't tackle it - unpaid. Therefore, I am mailing it back to our people in Utah who helped prepare it. If they recommend that we are not being provided VUKMJU written answers, as asked, we plan to have the media expose this. I have already forwarded background information to the Washington Post. Since being in Wisconsin this fall, I have provided background information to Interior Staff people, to the Office of Management and Budget, to the Council on Environmental Quality, to EPA, to the Water Resources Coundil, and to the National Wildlife Federation. In addition, I have sent cost information to Congressman Giamo, Chairman House Budget Committee and to Congressman Yates, Illinois, Chairman Appropriations Sub-Committe, Interior Committee. Gunn Mckay, Utah's Congressman is second in line on this Committee and has wangled millions of bucks out of it for CUP and probably other Utah projects.* I am in the process of contacting Senators Udall and Jackson and Wisconsin's Rep. Kastenmeier on the issue of re-authorizing the Bonneville Unit since the Bureau is now reversing the purpose of a System in the Unit since presented to the public in 1973. I'm also requesting information from EPA on projects the State of Utah has requested funds for and their plans for implementing Water Quality requirements. There may be a legal issue here. As you can see, the CUP has many complex issues involved in its development. Because of the failure of Utah residents to understand this complexity and significant issues they are really dealing with, Utah's past and present Governors and Congressional delegations have effectively misrepresented environmental impact significance as well as Utah's "water needs" before Congress and Interior to keep the CUP going. I was asked to lobby in Washington last May to help prevent the House overriding the expected Carter Veto of water projects in August. I heard two of Utah's Congressmen lie on the floor of the House at Appro- *Last year he blackmailed the National Park Director when plans for Canyonlands National Park were released for public comment. "No paved road in the heart of the wilderness to the Green and Colorado River confluence - no monies appropriated for National Park management!"This road had been "promised" by a former Utah Congressman, Sen. Moss. |
