| OCR Text |
Show A Legacy of Conflict: Utah's Growth and the Legacy Highway Brigham Daniels economic interests. Farmington Bay acts as hunting refuge that is used by 50,000 hunters annually; and non-consumptive visits are estimated to exceed 30,000 visitors annually (1996). In addition, "large sums of public and private capital have been invested in developing and maintaining the more than 30,000 acres of managed wetlands in and around Farmington Bay" (1996). Farmington Bay Advocates claim that "Public and private interests have invested millions of dollars into improving and maintaining the wetlands in this area" (Battle 1996). Farmington Bay Advocates is committed to preserving this irreplaceable resource. Future Moves Coalition advocates an overhaul of Utah's planning mechanisms, which would incorporate the following items: transportation projects that reduce the public's reliance on vehicles; financial incentives for taxpayers who car pool or use mass transit; regional planning that combines transportation and land-use patterns; increased public participation in the planning process; and, development strategies that encourage mass transit, cycling and walking (Borgenicht 1997). This vision is based on principles that tie readily into the Environmental Coalition's objections to the Legacy Highway. In an interview by the author, Roger Borgenicht, Chair of Future Moves Coalition, said, "The Legacy Highway will accelerate urban sprawl. It is true that under the current system sprawl might occur anyway, but the Legacy Highway changes the form of development and the rate that it occurs. The Legacy Highway will lead to auto-dominated uses, urban malls, and accelerated growth." Borgenicht also points out that by spending money on roads, the state forgoes investment in mass transit systems and strategies to alleviate growth problems (1998a). A flyer advertising a rally co-sponsored by Future Moves stated, "We believe building Legacy will increase traffic congestion by generating more traffic, facilitate auto oriented development along its length, destroy many acres of fertile farmland and critical wetlands, diminish future air quality, and speed up sprawl" (Future Moves Coalition 1997). Borgenicht (1998b) observes that our lack of regional planning is based on the assumption that the Wasatch Front is made up of 70 cities rather than one connected community. Finally, as for public involvement, Borgenicht sees the Legacy Project as a case study of what not to do. He said, "In 1996 Governor Leavitt announced that we would build a highway. Rather than looking at the options, we make a declaration, and then make studies to justify the declaration. We decide the solution before we understand the problem" (1998a). Now that the most active groups in the coalition have been noted, we consider the Sierra Club. The Sierra club is the strongest voice backing all of the interests of the Coalition. Though other members of the Environmental Coalition have focused on particular issues, the Sierra Club has a broader scope of concerns. In a February 12, 1998 interview by the author, Nina Dougherty, the Utah Chapter's Conservation Chair, flatly said, "The Sierra Club opposes the Legacy Highway. We oppose it because of its impacts on the environment and the community. We oppose each segment of the project and the impacts of the total project." Some of the impacts that seem most critical are impacts that might diminish farmlands, wetlands, uplands, animal habitat, animal populations, traffic flow, communities, recreational opportunities, open space, air quality, water quality, sense of place, and the environment. The bottom line is that the Sierra Club does not want the Legacy. The overall coalition wants to use this project as a mechanism to educate the public and to increase its support base. The groups involved have an incentive to try to keep their momentum flowing. Now that these green groups are united and presenting a common front, the coalition members have an interest to make sure that the process does not work to their embarrassment. A united front is impressive but not nearly as impressive as a sound victory. Lastly, the coalition has every incentive to slow down the process. If the project is not completed by the time Governor Leavitt steps down, the project might disappear with his farewell address. Davis Coitnty and its Mi nicipalities' Officials Two days before the Governor announced the Legacy Project, Davis County released a draft of a wetland conservation plan (Davis County 1997, 1). Several days later, Davis County felt forced to choose between wetland degradation and community impacts. In a letter entitled "Official Comments on EIS," the County stated its position: "Davis County believes that the construction of LWDH [Legacy West Davis Highway] is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the residents and property owners of Davis County" (Smith 1997). Davis County has several interests in the Legacy Project. First of all, the community leaders fear the situation of 1-15 Construction even more than the Governor does. In the author's February 12, 1998 interview with Wilf Summurcorn, Davis County Community and Economic Development Director, he said, "With the growth of our county and the counties to the North of us along with a projected increase of vehicle miles traveled every day, we will need more transportation options to access Salt Lake [County]. Other transportation alternatives are important but will not make up the difference." The citizens of Davis County want an alternate route to Salt Lake County before the Davis segment of 1-15 reconstruction begins. The local officials realize that the lack of such an option makes for not only traffic jams, but also political turmoil. The cities that will have the Legacy run through them have presented a united front. Davis County Commissioner Gayle Stevenson (1998) said, "The County has no position on which route the Legacy should follow. The cities should decide the route." The cities, and thus Davis County, want UDOT to build the highway as far toward the wetlands as possible to minimize its impact on humans (Crandall 1998). The municipalities have several interests. First, the cities do not want the project to break up their communities or de- 54 |
