Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 130

*&j Faxogram - 2 5 „ expenditure of Bonneville Unit funds on a ^ » - a t eliminates i r r i g a t i o n -and power as project purposes. ^ t to i r r i r a t i o n n r i o r i t i e s , we cannot agree that » * * « ^ f ^ n^ands A,?. r rr;;Peas or r e p r e s e n t s for fish v a i l ^ ^ c ^ l a r O y if the national e ^ o rt for food and fihre will continue to ^ ^ l e r a x e , p e t Q t a l a n c e i n t e r - ing instructions , 1. s* TT+«"h iq f«u nd*a me^notail +xno txh.uee lJAo^cOa-lI . and State A continued strong agricultural base in Utah xs * £ ^ v a t e r p l a n that rural^ e „ lb ^ ^ e H r ^ e M i g r a t i o n to urhan areas. This concept xs fur S £ e S S t S - 3 , S S S J use Planning efforts underway. T h e assumption that Creat Basin water r e g e n t s - he a d e ^ a t e l , ™ ^ < % > L e a l sources without assistance » « E r r o n e o u s . Appendix XVIII of the l e s s adverse impact on the t o t a l e n v ^ ™ * " t h a t c e r t a i n water supplxes are Great Basin Comprehensive Framework Study s t a t e s t h ^ ^ & t available only at the expense of other uses Fo P^ ^ ^ ^ ^ propa_ of principal streamflows would reduce xnixow gat ion.- «x. +1^ a-rppt Basin show an increase Projected water uses in the t h r e e , » o the Great^Ba ^ ^ ft over the 1965 w i ^ a ^ A ° ^ ^ T 0 ° ' a ° ° e ! f e e t to meet projected uses is 500,000 residual water supply of 1,170,000 acre " e * estiinat e s development of " r e - f e e t less than the projected »Ses ^ ^ J g n g w o u l d r e a u i r e 2,362 000 local Great Basin water supTlxesxn the three « ^ | lg m a j o r p u E i p i n g p i a n . s, acre-feet of storage, 617 miles of c ° ^ e y a n 1,200,000 a c r e - f e e t , and water and wastewater ^ ^ f ^ ^ ^ d l r a S ^ e Costs r e l a t e d to these facxlx-tfTAll S r e x = e f d T 2 " m i = n (see Tahles 55, 65, and 7*0- Appendix XI s t a t e s on page 10, "In the Great Bait ^ « = ^ * ^ ^ i c l P a l - i p s ^ ^ - - ^ ^ ^ S l S T t l l ^ water from the Upper be sufficient to meet the neeas. ±wyv ^ Colorado Region will be required . . . . i r r i g a t i o n water sources cannot he converted d i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S S ^ uses on a one-for-one hasxs ^ = ™ " * f i X and place of use. Usually ages, lower duality of water ^ ^ ^ c e f a c i l i t i e s are involved in converting great expenses in storage and conveyance iacxxx i r r i g a t i o n supplies t o M&I supplies. Only ahout 27,800 acre-feet of the Wasatch Front streams ^ f ^ ^ X X I ^ ' p r e s e n t l y used. Most of t h i s ^ / ^ r r ga t f t n water supply in Salt lake cannot he economically c a f n £ f ^ ^ i ™ therefore comes from Utah Lake. Of County that might * ^ f ^ * * g ^ S t Lake County, 1*0,000 acres are served the 52,000 acres of i r r i g a t e d land in bait x ^nicipal vater. from Utah Lake. Utah' Lake vater xs too salxne t o he used * "' • Faxogram - 2 »»-fwfjwgwy »im**w imtm.mimmsm