| OCR Text |
Show ff/ggpfflM r - y ^ o (11-/1) WuraaU of Ra'clamacion Awthor-Typlst-Dnts ' f (LS+^AJ LBR:JW Jensen/PB DeLong:jd 10/2U/T3 IN' REPLY ---/; , .. REFER TO: ^00/U'S 500.2 FAXOGRAM OCT 2-4 7 3 •'fr-:-:" • * > ' : ;" To: Commissioner, LBR, Washington, D. C. From: Regional Director,. LBR, Salt Lake City, Utah Subject: Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project We have given the memorandum "(undated) from Assistant Secretary, Program Develop- . ment and Budget, concerning the future of the Bonneville Unit cursory review :A .-;;• within limits of time available. Our comments are as follows. A . ; As we interpret the Assistant Secretary's recommendation, the irrigation and power purposes of the Bonneville Unit would be eliminated, except possibly irrigation to some degree in the Uinta Basin. Furthermore, the transmountain diversion from the Colorado Basin to the Bonneville Basin (Great Basin) would be essentially reduced to zero.- • The Unit would become essentially a single-purpose municipal and industrial water project with the supplies for such purpose to come from sources within the Bonneville Basin. 'A .;;. Such drastic modification of the Bonneville Unit plan would require concurrence of the Congress. Issues of concern to Congress (and the Secretary) include: 1. Disposition of $90 million already expended for facilities that will not -; be effectively utilized, if at all. ;/•";~A; 2. Virtual elimination of diversion of water from the Colorado River Basin to the Bonneville Basin, thus negating the basic purpose of authorization of the Central Utah Project Initial Phase under the Colorado River Storage Act. A sub- '• staiitial transmountain diversion was .basic in the authorization to permit the States of the Upper Basin to utilize the apportionments made to them. 3. Exposure of the United States to legal action because of the abrogation of existing contractual commitments to the Ute Indian Tribe, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, and Salt Lake City. In addition, there will be an abrogation of moral commitments to Utah people developed over, the years. Substantial amounts of non-Federal funds, and other actions have been'"'taken by local people on the basis of the Federal commitment. U. Reformulation of plan as proposed will require support of Utah. Such support has always been a condition precedent to water resource development under Reclamation Law. Based on recent resolutions from Utah's Congressional delegation, the State Legislature, the Governor, the Ute Indian Tribe, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Upper Colorado Commission in favor of the authorized •olan, local support for the proposed reformulated plan cannot be expected. Faxogram GPO 836-089 •«JHwy•<*»» • *'vm iWNHJW.wi-" winwwmMjy |
