| OCR Text |
Show 1. The issue of the ethics of Senator Waddingham,et al, in contracting for the sale of this water. 2. The legality of the sale of water for industry when the articles of incorporation of the water companies originally have stated that the water is to be used for agricultural purposes only. The legal grounds, if they exist, by which the State Engineer can change the use of water allocation. 3. The Issue of the future use & timing of this use, of the 136,000 a f of water to be developed through the Strawberry Collection System. If 40,000 a f of water can be sold for IPP use without CUP water, what uses remain for the 136,000 a f? Utah Power &Light has requested and been granted from the Bureau a significant portion of the 54,000 a f of v/ater it requires for its power development at the Lynndyl site. Exactly how much will come from CUP and how much from wells? What will U P & L be charged for well water? For how much well water? Who will negotiate this contract? 4. If farmers have paid property taxes for as yet unreceived CUP water, and the Strawberry Collection System is now converted to M & I purpose, on what basis or by what means will the farmer be imbursed? IPP has to obtain v/ater rights sufficient to meet its power development needs before it proceeds. Until the power development takes place, what use is made of the water? By whom? For how long a time? Does the farmer lose immediate use of the v/ater upon signing of the contract? Who pays what for what and when? Once power development is completed, and the farmer has lost his water but retains his unirrigated land, and requests CUP v/ater for this land, on what basis has the Bureau of Reclamation calculated costs and purpose during and after changes of use and purpose? 5. How many farms will be affected in the region of IPP and U P & L proposed power development? Of what consequence is this in Bureau of Reclamation purposes for authorization? 6. |
