| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 tinues to act as a voice for this group, an alternative is likely to need their approval to make it through the State Senate. President Beattie's threat to block the funding is a serious threat to the project. UDOT has acted as the Legacy Highway's most loyal advocate. This group's EIS document is likely to make or break the project. UDOT has worked hard to find an alternative that will at least appease the parties that can stop the project. UDOT's determination of the alignments will set the project's fate. All of the actions of these interest groups along with the actions of groups not addressed in detail in this paper (such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Utah's Congressional delegation, individual elected officials, commuters, developers and private property owners, construction contractors, the voting public, etc.) will make the process more dangerous politically to participate in and more interesting to watch. Conclusion The Legacy Highway is controversial because there is no easy way to resolve the competing interests. Part of the problem is due to diverse interests of the groups trying to influence the project. Another part of the problem is due to Utah's general policy about growth. Regardless of how controversial regional planning is, this surely is one case that could have benefitted from it. The Wasatch Front Regional Council acknowledged that this project has been in the works for 30 years, but the nature of the planning system has not allowed much to go on until the project was considered a top priority. Due to Utah's lack of regional planning and the dim prospects of regional planning in the future, the Legacy controversy may be a foreshadowing of things to come. Sound environmental policy relies on an ethic completely different from Utah's current growth strategy-forethought of the consequences. It considers the long-term consequences of actions. The Legacy Highway certainly looks ahead-the entire project is based on population predictions, but after 2020 the Legacy Highway lets the future work out a solution for itself. Ann O'Connell asks this important question: "What about 2025? What about 2030, or even 2100? What do we do then?" (1998). Certainly an alternative route is tempting to temporarily ease congestion, but what do we do when this road is congested? The entire framework relies on looking far enough ahead to fight the short-term consequences. We need to change the paradigm to consider the future. When Governor Leavitt announced that Utah would build the Legacy Highway, he called it "a big picture, long term proposal"-a proposal that would serve as a reminder that "quality of life is our heritage in Utah, and it must also be our 'legacy'" (Gov. 1996). The issues surrounding environmental policy and the Legacy Highway are a legacy that might make future generations have to choose between unpleasant options, such as dividing cities with a major highway or destroying some of the nation's most important wetlands. Our children and their children will not remember us for building a highway, but they might resent us for leaving them with a legacy of gridlock and conflict. Still, it is difficult to assign blame in this regard because many of Utah's past decisions about planning are affecting the choices we have today. Questions still remain. What controversies is our inability to plan creating for Utah's future generations? How will our decisions to avoid the controversy surrounding regional planning affect our grandchildren and their grandchildren? When thinking about our legacy, we need to be willing to make some sacrifices at our expense, or be willing to accept the likelihood that our posterity will end up paying the high price. Since the author's initial completion of this paper, the Utah Transportation Commission (the policy making board for UDOT) has chosen a preferred alignment of the Legacy Highway. UDOT staff requested that the commission approve the most westerly alternative still on the table as the preferred alternative of their draft environmental impact statement. It is appropriately called the "locally preferred alternative" since it is designed to satisfy local government interests along the corridor. The Corps has hinted that this alignment will not meet the standards to receive a 404 permit, under the conditions outlined in the Clean Water act and in a memorandum of agreement signed by the Corps and the EPA. In addition to the Corps, several other federal agencies have expressed an interest in the project. The EPA has speculated that if the Corps permits the Legacy Highway, it is likely to overturn such a decision, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has threatened to put a halt to the project, because the locally preferred alignment encroaches into the Great Salt Lake's flood plain. The Governor has continued to be Legacy's greatest champion. He has outlined a mitigation strategy to the wetlands that the Legacy will destroy under the locally preferred alternative. He proposes that ten acres of conservation easements be purchased for every acre destroyed. He has claimed that because of these easements the Legacy Highway is better for the wetlands that might occur anyway without the highway. The Federal Highway Administration has been silent on the project at least in public. The Utah Department of Natural Resources has also been markedly silent on the issue in public, despite the fact that the preferred alignment encroaches on the Farmington Bay Wildlife Management Area. The environmental coalition has been very vocal about its opposition to the project. For example, at UDOT's single public hearing approximately 800 people showed up, nearly all of them opposed to the highway. In this hearing nearly everyone who commented from the floor opposed the highway. Due to the complexities involved in gaining approval of the highway, the project probably will continue to be characterized by conflict and gridlock in the near future. Other than this the end results of these efforts are largely undetermined. REFERENCES Adler, Robert, et al. 1996. Legal Committee, Utah Chapter of Sierra Club. Letter to Wilbur Jefferies and Tom Warne, March 20. 59 |
