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

Page 102

and in the EIS with 118,000 a f of the 136,000 a f of water committed to irrigation purposes, this System now becomes an M & I System. Moreover, the Bureau stated at the February 23 meeting that allocation of the water would be made after the project was constructed. No purpose will be stated now. In addition, in this letter, the fact is empha­sized that Utah Lake is a: separate Irrigation System. It appears to us that changes of planning and purpose and subsequent costs have transpired or are imminent from those existing at the time of Project authorization and at the time of public opportunity for input. Does a statement by the Regional Director of the Bureau at the February 23 meeting "that the project is going on the same as usual and will be developed in separate systems" legally justify project alteration? On what basis can the public address questions of cost? At this same meeting, the Bureau stated that it was under strict guidelines for cost allocations and determining cost/benefit ratios. Where do these guidelines fit into Project alterations? I would appreciate your answering the two questions asked at the beginning of this letter or suggesting procedures we think are required. Question #3 A recommendation of Salt Lake County Water Quality Department has been made for a $40,000,000 dual water manage­ment program by the State. Implementation of this program would negate the need for some structural developments by the State. Who is responsible for reviewing Bureau budget requests in relationship to State Water Management? How is the timing for the juxtaposition of planning by the two entities carried out? Other CRCUP Questions Addressed at the February 23 meeting. No cost figures on maintenance of projects is obtainable from*the Bureau since maintenance is turned over after projects are constructed to the Water Conservancy District. (Costs are thus insulated.) No cost figures on maintenance of fisheries is obtainable from the Bureau since this maintenance is turned over to the State Division of Wildlife Resources. (Fish hatchery costs, broken down by streams to be impacted, were unobtainable from the DWR.) The CUP then excludes costs subsequent to projects it has constructed. There is no dam safety insurance carried by the Bureau. Yet the Seismic Center, U.S.G.S., Palo Alto, recommends such insurance as a cost of water development. vJhcct x$. $^U*A4pi*Zcsri " CRCUP raised a question about the legality of