Municipal and Industrial System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, Utah: correspondence and documents, 1979

Page 55

( 5 t" 4. Where is the market for the M & I water to be made available? Provoand a number of surrounding communities havefailed to contract for the water. How many public entities have agreed to purchase it, and how much of it? Further, the DES depicts no market ,'.o r t.h .e «_a,dd irrlc:-: tional 40,000 acre feet to be left over after the Uintah Basin-Utah Lake-Jordanelle exchange. Have re-uests for this water been received from UP&L? V/ATER QUALITY ISSUES: The DES provides no analysis of data on water quality impacts of the M & I system, nor does it study related water oualitv impacts of the Strawberry collection system. What will be these Impacts on the Provo nlver? on Utah Lake? on the Jordan River? on Farmington Bay? For example, the DES refers to heavy metals toxicity in the Jor­danelle. What are the concentrations of these metals? -'hat is their toxicity? Why is this information not included and evaluated? If it is simply not available, then hqw can we determine effects on fish? a_.^Jr~ ^ d ^ i ° ^ ' \h e extensive recreational activity planned in and around the Joraanelle, including oower boatiner and body contact «norts will add organic nutrients as well as other kinds of human wastes to the water. who will pay the additional treatment costs to *et rid of the^e pollutants further downstream? Similarly, while the DES states that it is uo to local and state pollution control programs to eliminate further water quality degrada­tion on the Jordan River, it fails to note that while state and local Programs aim at preventing pollutants from entering the river, the~effect Ox the Joraanelle will be to increase them. rpHll,Llov; reductions in segments of the Provo River will also result in ntfh nn "?ve r +°-U a4t y; ^ticularly during the serins months when e ' n o ^ l E H r h ^i £ * l s c h a r ^ heavily into the Provo River. Without the normally high spring flow to heir dilute this serious pollution source, recuirementsfor discharge permits will have to be raise- and more entlrs the river6"1 " ^ ^ r € Q U l r e d tc c l e s ^ u^ u r b a ^ run-off before It redueIdef?nwpai«°f.faJ;18 t 0 exarrine t h e impacts of the nrc-osed reriodlc r e ! ^ ? / i 2 W f u 0 n T f i s h ^ n d t h e l r spawning activities, oarticularly in segments ol the Lower Prove which may be dry in some months. SECL03ICAL ISSUES: The DES notes that seismic and landslide orobiems associated with filling and damming the Jordanelle are unsettled and that the data are not yet all in. Indeed, it cites problems with all three da'7 sites-con sidered. Analysis of ^eclo^ical hazards based on all trc should be oart of the DES. 'if at that time 31aniflean certainties remain concerning dam safety for that Jordanelle plan shculd be abandoned " ' ~~ " needed data Questions or un-reason alone the WATER SLTrLY A'S.D CONSERVATIVE!: is based «5lf Mrt* llllcl^L^16.^™*' aemand t h s t t h e ^oject Dossloilltv of ea«iiv reluM^ conservation measures are mentioned, the u u c a i u i i i i j u> e a s i l y reCUClna w a t e r use bv mnrp t h a n f<„0 •« 4.^ cent is not considered realistic tfhv ZJ+l 2 , V tQ t e n D er IiC.H77 vw,aat.eerr s^noor^ta-gee , cnu,rt lmmufn«icJi pa%l way tenr o tu? se 'dAer oknnooewd tkhj%at . duIrnins~ta ltlhaet ion