| OCR Text |
Show COWAOO W. CLYDE P. C. . CCUOTT tEC P?»ATT WlLL'AM G. GIKUD " O L A N O R.WHICHT J O H N T. EVANS ftlCMARD C.CAHOON P. C . HOONEY G.SNOW STEVEN E.CLYOE THOMAS K.CLYDE L.MARK rERRE J O H N L.DAVIS Ci.YJ>!2 6V P K ' A TT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3 5 1 S O O T H S T A T E S T R E ET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH OAltt February 15, 198 0 PHONE 3 2 2 - 2 5 1© AREA C O D E OOl o r COUNSEL FRANK J . ALLEN Mr. William Plummer, Regional Director Water and Power Resources Service P. 0. Box 11568 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Dear Mr. Plummer: Upon returning from Washington, we reported to the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District the various alternatives which had been discussed in Washington concerning the Repayment Contract problems.for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. We reported that your Department, at least at the Washington level, appeared to favor cancelling the existing repayment contract in its entirety, and in its place have the District negotiate either a. new repayment contract, substantially different in terms, or as an alternative, a water service agreement, which would present a substantially different conceptual approach to the delivery of water. I was askedby the Board of Directors, as its legal counsel, whether or not, in my opinion, the Federal Government could unilaterally cancel the existing contract, and thus force the District to negotiate a new less favorable contract. I indicated that my opinion was to the contrary. The 1965 repayment contract was negotiated in good faith by both parties, signed in the authorized manner, ratified as required by law by the voters, and confirmed by the Court. Although the Secretary reserved discretionary judgment in some areas, it ' was an agreement calling for performance on the part of the District and on the part of the United States. The District has performed, and'will continue to perform its part of the agreement. The delays and underfunding have not been the District's fault, and there is no reason- why the District should be called upon to forfeit or surrender its contractual rights under that agreement. There are many practical reasons why the District should not abandon this contract. It has spent millions of dollars for treatment plants and other facilities to take delivery of the water. It has with the consent of the Bureau approved petitions for the allotment of irrigation, municiual and industrial water. A total of 50,000 acre-feet of M&I water was so allotted to the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District. Another 7,500 acre-feet of M&I water was allotted to the Metropolitan Water District of Orem. Allotments have also been made to other cities, districts and individuals. The District has no assurance that organizations like the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy |
