Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project: documents and correspondence, 1979

Page 99

Citizens for a Responsible Central Utah Project 1445 N. 10 St. Manitowoc, Wis. 54220 Dorothy Harvey, co-chairperson Feb. 27, 1979 Fred Reimherr. co-chairperson Beth Duncan David freed Mrl Heidenreich Peter Hovingh David littlefield Dave McCormick Barbara Polich lames Talley Hartt Wixom Supporting Organizations • Utah Council. Trout Unlimited •Rocky Moum.an counci of the meeting with CRCUP and S i e r r a Club members. However, I will Federation of Fiy F.shermen indicate here impHcat ions of what I'm t o l d t r a n s p i r e d. • Utah Member Clubs of the Federation of Fly Fishermen Guy Martin Assistant Secretary Land and Water Resources Department of Interior Interior Bldg. C St. and 18th Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Martin: I am supposed to get a resume from the Bureau of Reclamation on the issues discussed at the Friday, Feb. 23, First, Mr. Plummer would not ask Gerry Kinghorn to the stoneny socery of the wastach meeting on grounds of "offending the Water Conservancy D i s t r i c t" sa.t Lake cry. utah j t v e n e V e r been sure which t a i l wagged the dog in Utah so •Order of the Royal Coachman P* nt r.rove Utah • Utal n maybe this is saying something or maybe it is an easy way out! Second, the Bureau would not let the meeting be taped and my colleagues don't insist on conditions I would! The Bureau had a large staff present as they did for a Feb. 1978 meeting with me: Solicitors, geologists, Project Directors, wildlife specialists, etc. About six of our members were present - no economists. An hour and a half was spent explaining the 2" packet of cost figures on the Bonneville Unit. Answers to our questions are in this mass of data. While members of our group were given insight into methods of Bureau cost calculations, our people are to meet in Provo with the one Bureau economics expert who understands all this. The Bureau stated that it would*cooperate in helping us obtain answers. Whether meaningful cost involvement can take place between the public and the Bureau may be questionable. Gerry Kinghorn has raised the issue that such discussion can have value onli^ if costs related to changes of planning and purpose are addressed. At this meeting, Mr. Plummer denied that changes had taken place (although I gather he also stated that the Bureau cannot develop the CUP on the basis of plans developed years ago.') I would like to indicate the nature of changes which have taken place, by what means, and ask two questions. 1. Under conditions of change in plan and purpose over what was presented to the public in the Environmental Impact process in 1973, what overview responsibility does the