OCR Text |
Show A Legacy of Conflict: Utah's Growth and the Legacy Highway Brigham Daniels Governor Michael O. Leavitt and the Office of the Governor Since Governor Leavitt's declaration announcement put this process into action, we consider his interests first. The Governor and his office have several interests. First, as the Governor announced the arrival of the Legacy Project, the state was already facing some serious transportation problems. Governor Leavitt said at the announcement, "As Utah continues to grow, the need for an alternative route through our busiest area becomes apparent" (Gov. 1996). With the looming closure of 1-15 in the Salt Lake valley, accompanied by criticisms including, e.g., billboards and bumper stickers stating: "This Traffic Jam Brought to You by Twenty Years of Republican Leadership," transportation problems became apparent throughout the Wasatch Front. Governor Leavitt's timely proposal calmed Utah's nerves about our future quality of life and the adverse effects of growth. In addition to the general transportation malaise sweeping over the state, Davis County had some specific transportation problems looming in the not-so-distant future. UDOT had already released plans to begin 1-15 construction in Davis County after the Salt Lake widening project was finished. On the day of the announcement (1996) the Governor admitted, "My preference is to have the Davis County portion of the Legacy Project completed before we start widening 1-15 through Davis County. Currently, there are no satisfactory alternatives to 1-15 in Davis County. This new road will allow motorists to bypass accidents, construction or weather-related problems that may occur on 1-15." In a February 16, 1998 interview with the author, Bob Linnell, Chief of Staff for the Governor's Office, referred to all the problems and inconveniences that 1-15 construction is causing Salt Lake County. Then he added, "Salt Lake County commuters have many major roads as alternatives. In several years, construction crews will move north and work on 1-15 from 600 North all the way up to Farmington. Imagine how people would react if there were no alternative routes in Salt Lake County. This will be the situation in Davis County without the Legacy Highway." If the Legacy Project is not complete before 1-15 widening begins in Davis County, it will be a public relations nightmare based on actual human problems. Besides, since the Governor announced that the State would build the Legacy Highway, politically he is in a tough spot if he does not deliver. When asked about the Governor's Office's position on the Legacy Project's alignment, Linnell (1998) said, "Our office wants to make sure that Legacy Highway is built in a manner that does the least damage to the residents of Davis County and to the wetlands. We are working with the concerned parties." Linnell refused to take a position on the alignments, in an effort to keep all options to build the road open. He emphasized that the Governor's Office had hoped to have the alignment determined by October 1998, but ultimately the Governor's Office postponed the project for a year "so that all the government agencies could agree on an alignment." Before moving on, we must note one conflicting incentive: The Governor has many interests, and only a limited supply of resources. He certainly has his priorities, and though the Legacy is probably high on his list, this year it took a back seat to the 1-15 funding problem. The future may present other projects or crises that the Governor may support before the Legacy Project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The FHWA is charged with ensuring that the proposed Legacy Project meets all the federal government's regulatory requirements. As a federal agency, it has several incentives. The first is assuring compliance to federal laws. If nothing else, FHWA will make certain that it complies with its supervisors-the United States Congress and the President. Crossing the Congress or the President not only would injure the FHWA, but also could also ruin the careers of individual decision-makers within FHWA. Second, it does not hurt the agency to help states complete projects. Not only may it mean a stronger relationship with state leaders, but also the project might produce special consideration with some Congress members-particularly Congress members representing the area that receives the project. The completed Legacy Highway would run through all three of Utah's Congressional Districts. This potentially could endear FHWA to Utah's entire Congressional Delegation. In addition, with many of Utah's political leaders pushing the project, the project might garner favor with future leaders. The FHWA, particularly if it helps fund the project, will affect many citizens along the Wasatch Front. Developing a large project that economically and personally will affect many constituents, might help FHWA build its power base and public support (Clarke and McCool 1996, 7). Third, the Federal Highway Administration is apt to like highways. FHWA's main responsibility deals with roads. However, one must balance the FHWA's general tendency to promote road building with the degree of controversy of the project. It is not in the FHWA's best interest to support roads that alienate people to a degree that building the road is no longer considered a good thing. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Unlike FHWA, the Corps is not in a position to make friends in regard to the Legacy Highway. The director of the its local field office, Brooks Carter (1998), said, "The Army Corps of Engineers does not support or oppose the Legacy Highway. We are concerned with whether or not the proposed project and routes meet the requirements for the 404 Permit." The 404 permit gives the Corps the power to deny projects that threaten the wetlands. As a regulatory agency in this case, its main interest is to uphold federal law by preserving wetlands to the greatest extent possible. Beyond protecting the wetlands, the Corps is interested in making allies or at least in not making enemies. Forming 52 |