A History of Wasatch County

Years of decision and growth, 1975 - 1995

YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 T X he world has changed radically during the 1970s and 1980s, and the pace is not slowing down. Those who have lived through this period may not recognize all of the differences at first, but if they reflect on the world they knew less than twenty years ago, they will notice dramatic changes. For example, in 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. The wall symbolized the division of Germany and the Cold War between communist nations and the free world. A baby boomer generation since World War II grew up being told that the Soviet Union was the enemy and that the responsibdity of the United States was to protect free nations throughout the world. Now the arch enemy has reverted to its many components, and these new nations along with other countries struggle to find their identity in a chang­ing world. In this search, ethnic wars continued, new dictators arose, and people throughout the world suffered from famine. The United States also continued to change. In 1974 Richard M. Nixon resigned as president of the United States. A republican form of government that had survived for almost 200 years with an orderly succession of leaders now saw the worst of its political system. The 273 274 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY break-in at the Democratic headquarters at Watergate and the coverup that fodowed suggested that winning at any cost had become most important to some. Some questioned whether the country would survive, especially since vice president Spiro Agnew had also resigned. But the system worked. Gerald Ford took office for two years. In 1976, the bicentennial year, the election of Jimmy Carter returned American politics to normal. Economically the country was on a roller coaster. The national debt continued to spiral upward whde much of the time the nation was in the midst of recessions. The stock market soared and then dropped; so too interest rates. Some people prospered, and the num­ber of millionaires increased; however, other companies laid off people, the unemployment figures grew, and more people found it impossible to fulfill the American dream of owning a home and other possessions. More people lived on the streets, surviving day to day. America had become an urban society long before the 1970s, and cities continued to play an important role. With improved trans­portation, more people chose to live away from their work in smad, self-contained communities. Newcomers split their lives between their city work and the famdy country lifestyle. Old-time small-town residents saw their quiet world disquieted. Improved technology changed ad Americans. Personal comput­ers, faxes, and the Internet changed the business workplace and com­munication. Ad types of work-saving devices gave Americans more free time. VCRs and cable TV brought instant entertainment into homes. People sought wdderness experiences to escape the crowded cities. New farming methods increased production on less land. Many Americans became more environmentally conscious. Recycling became popular. People worried about protecting the water, the land, the ozone layer, and their bodies. Preserving the past through historic preservation continued. Federal- and state- funded projects required environmental impact statements and public hearings. The U.S. government continued to play an important role in state and community activities. Federal programs in education, high­way construction, business development, recreational programs, and reclamation projects provided funding for many projects and devel­opments. The government established regulations it could enforce YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 275 because it held the purse strings. These ranged from sports in schools to the amount of water residents could use. Many saw the federal assistance as a mixed blessing. Utah These national trends influenced Utah. The traditional economic bases of agriculture and mining continued to decline. New industries reflected the national technology boom and helped Utah's economy remain strong despite national recession. More people migrated to the state. Farmland became more valuable as home sites. Improved transportation made it possible for people to live in rural counties and commute to their jobs in urban areas. These outlying areas also became playgrounds to escape the urban life. Federal lands administered by the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attracted ever more visitors. The state park system also drew tourists. Many rural areas encouraged travelers because they brought business, but whde these visitors did not require year-round services like education, they did stretch limited water, sewage, and police facd­ities. With increased tourism, federal agencies including the Forest Service placed more emphasis on recreation and less on traditional uses such as grazing, mining, and timbering. Overgrazing threatened watersheds and wetlands and damaged the natural habitat offish and wildlife. Local residents who depended on the forest to run sheep and cattle resisted the impact on their livelihoods. Wasatch County Wasatch County has become a bedroom community for the Wasatch Front and a playground for others who do not live there. By 1996 the county included three large reservoirs: Strawberry, Deer Creek, and Jordanelle. Utah residents came to recreate at Strawberry, operated by the National Forest Service, and at Deer Creek, a state park. Jordanelle became a state park. Wasatch Mountain State Park continued to be a popular visiting spot, and privately owned facili­ties like the Homestead also attracted visitors. Important as recre­ation had become, the reservoirs primarily served other purposes. 276 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY They transferred water from Wasatch County and its back vadeys to the populated Wasatch Front. Wasatch County continued to export its agricultural goods to the Wasatch Front while importing finished products. There was very little industry in the county except for tourism, new residents, and federal monies. In 1977, according to County Commissioner Clyde Broadbent, 27 percent of the total county budget was federal money. He explained, "There was a time, years ago, when we could get along without it-when we had the mine, for instance-but now you can't expect to run the county on the taxes from a residential community." He continued, "We've been raised in a pioneer environment; we like to be independent." But, he argued, citizens pay federal taxes and might as well get back their share.1 Wasatch County residents remained confused on how to respond to growth. On the one hand, the county needed the revenue visitors and new residents provided. On the other, more people changed the lifestyle and threatened limited resources. Many county citizens were stdl trying to decide how they viewed growth. They wanted to avoid becoming Idee Park City, a thriving ski resort, but they also did not want to reprise the recession they had experienced in the 1960s and early 1970s. In the mid-1970s Wasatch County was stdl rural: fewer than 200 people lived in Wadsburg; 300 lived in Charleston; Daniel was a "tiny area that fodowed along Daniel Creek"; so was Center Creek. When Robert Mathis, the county planner, moved to the area, he recaded: "I could look out over a green expanse, an expanse that was watered with shovels. . . . It was like a house of cards. If the guy at the top didn't water, the guy at the bottom didn't water. There were these elaborate systems they'd worked through. It was very communitar­ian in its approach, much like what I saw as the plat of Zion." Heber City was "the queen city" of the county where everything centered. Midway survived in Heber's shadow because of the strong character of the people. The county was still very much Mormon. Communities drew their identity from church boundaries. The church gave the people a common set of values. Church members also were willing to do many things the church asked. But the church did not govern every aspect of their lives. When they felt that the YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 277 Wasatch County Courthouse and the Wasatch Stake Tabernacle, now the Heber City Hall, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) church overstepped its bounds into secular areas the people voted their conscience.2 In the years since Mathis came to work as the county planner, the area has changed "not so much because of the number of people but the type of people that have moved here They look at the vari­ous compromises that worked out through the fabric of the commu­nity and allowed it to retain its identity and retain its communitarian flavor. They say, 'This is dumb.'" They disagreed with how the long­time residents divided the water and participated in politics. While the newcomers did not want to fodow the old rules, they also did not want to see the area change too much. They often led the fight against developments. Whde county residents do not support development in the communities in Heber Valley, there has been less opposition to growth away from the main towns. No one is actively opposing a large development at Mayflower near the Jordanelle Dam. But, as Mathis explained, the county "is a vacuum of instabdity. It's ripe for 278 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY change because you can't encourage growth just eight miles from Heber City and not cause pressure here."3 Growth Between 1970 and 1980, the county's population grew from 5,863 to 8,523-a 45.4 percent increase. This rate was not sustained, and in 1990 the county's population was 10,089, a 18.4 percent increase. Most of the growth took place in Midway and the unincor­porated areas as new houses were budt. Midway went from 1,194 to 1,544-a 30.1 percent increase-while the unincorporated areas went from 2,408 to 3,165-a 31.4 percent increase. For the same decade, the county's growth was slightly less than the state's growth at 37.9 percent. Neighboring Summit County experienced a whop­ping 74 percent increase, the third largest increase in the state. The county's economic base shifted as farms became subdivi­sions and residents turned to recreational service businesses or employment outside the area. In 1977, 33.7 percent of the people worked outside the county and county officials expected that to increase with the improved highways to Utah and Salt Lake counties. Home construction broke records in 1975: seventeen homes and thirty-three multiple housing units were budt in Heber, fifteen homes and one four-plex in Midway, and fifty summer homes, twenty-three single-family homes, and one duplex elsewhere in the county. The next year there was over $6 mdlion of construction with a total valu­ation doubling that of 1975. Most of the growth was in subdivisions and summer homes. Police records showed a simdar increase in bur­glaries, automobde accidents, and people passing bad checks." When a "Profile of Heber Valley" was finished in 1975, the Wave declared it did not "wish to promote any activity that would greatly change our Heber Valley lifestyle." But the newspaper said those who saw a need for some growth "reflect [ed] more faithfully the tradition of progress which carved Heber Valley from the primitive wilderness over a century ago." The editorial concluded, "Changes are coming to this valley-changes of population and economic growth. To ignore them and ostrich-like pretend they won't happen is folly. Only through thought and planned action can the community assure a YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 279 A recreated radroad village in Heber City, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) controlled future growth and remain as it is 'Beautiful upon the Mountains.'"5 The county recognized in the early 1970s that it needed to mon­itor new construction more closely. Elmer Kohler headed the com­mittee that drafted a county master plan in which the major concerns were water and sewage service to the new homes and protecting the environment. Before the county zoning laws were written, subdivi­sions were going up ad over the valley. Roads were "too narrow and too steep." Kohler's committee talked to one hundred people from ad walks of life in Wasatch County, held meetings about the plans, and then "with the help of a trained planner,.. . wrote the first zoning ordinances."6 Residents debated the zoning regulations. Some saw the changes as government restrictions; others felt they would benefit the community by directing growth. The Wave's editorial in July 1975 contended, "The controlled growth encouraged by proper zoning assures that economic growth wdl come hand in hand with popula­tion growth. In this respect, zoning is not a restriction but a guaran­tee of future stabdity and growth."7 In 1976 Kohler's committee presented its report to the county 280 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY commissioners. The new regulations allowed planned residential growth that would "literady budd a new city." Developers would have to build roads and provide utilities. In areas where there was no sewer, density was limited to one unit per acre. In areas like Midway where the sewer extended beyond the town limit, the regulations allowed units on one-half acre lots. The plan encouraged homes in the valleys, leaving the mountains for recreation. Very few of the 170 people who attended the public hearing supported the plan, espe­cially the mountain rules. Head of the county chamber of commerce Gordon Mendenhall felt most of the county citizens supported the plan and just did not attend the meeting. In 1979 the zoning laws were modified to allow more summer homes whde trying to stdl pro­tect the sod, water, and animals in the mountains.8 Some county residents in the unincorporated areas opposed development. In 1975 nationady known golfers Don Codett and Bdly Casper along with rancher Jay Quealy planned to build a country club and residences for 6,000 people in Center Creek. Those living in the area strongly opposed the plan. They feared they would have less culinary water, would be unable to drive cattle on the road, and would be overwhelmed by increased sewage. The next spring the county held a public meeting to discuss rezoning the area. Center Creek residents turned out in force to protest the change. They explained that their culinary water came from weds and the develop­ment would affect the ground water. They did not want to see the road widened to four lanes. The developers responded that the improvement of the property in Center Creek would enhance the tax base which would pay for a sewer and in turn preserve the valley's beauty. MountainLands Planning Association estimated the project would cost a quarter of a mdlion dodars more than it would generate. Almost all comments from Wasatch County residents were negative. As one editorial explained, "We are not against planned growth in the Heber Valley. However, 2,400 housing units and nearly 6,000 people is simply too ambitious for this area of the valley."9 In the 1970s the county hired Dale Berg as its first planner. Robert Mathis took over the job just when the Center Creek proposal came to public debate. He recalled, "I came to understand it was my job to see that if this project wasn't right for the county it wasn't to YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 281 be built. If it was all right for the county, then it was my job to see that it was built correctly." The county developed a new zoning cate­gory that would allow for the development. Mathis recalled how unpopular the project was countywide: "People would tell me with almost murder in their eyes what they were going to do to me if this project came through." When the project fell through, he remem­bered, "I don't know that I was a hero, b u t . . . it didn't hurt my cred­ibility in the community. I was greatly relieved because I was never comfortable with their density. I don't know that I could have expressed at that time ad the reasons why."10 As Heber Valley became more of a recreational destination, developer Veigh Cummings planned Timber Lakes, a large summer-home resort ten miles east of Heber. He initially planned 9,000 homes using septic tanks. The county approved only 2,348 to com­ply with zoning regulations. Heber was especiady concerned because the development was right above the city's water supply. Timber Lakes developers tried to get around the restrictions by incorporat­ing, but this effort failed because most owners lived in the county part-time and were not eligible to vote. Still not satisfied with the county's decision to limit the number of units in his development, Cummings instituted a $30 mdlion suit against the county, claiming the commissioners had given him permission to budd 9,000 homes. As a result of the possible lawsuit, the county amended and clarified the zoning ordinance in 1978, but the basis of the ordinance still required one-acre lots. The amendments allowed more than the absolute density limit if the developer included improvements. These changes did not affect the number of units allowed in Timber Lakes. In 1980 the county and Cummings settled out of court.11 County residents remained concerned about growth. Paul Daniels had mixed feelings, "I guess you might say I have nostalgia when I look at changes. I miss some of the old things, but we have got to move on with the new and accept it because that's our way of life." Calvin Giles expressed more negative feelings. "The population growth worries me I would hate to see Heber City become another Park City. But the growth is coming here." He felt that "the planning commission is trying to organize it so that's it's a healthy growth and not scattered here, there, and all over." Giles expected 282 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY houses would soon surround him but grieved, "I hate to see it, but I cannot stop progress and growth." LeRoy Sweat reported that Center Creek lacked the community feeling that had been there when every­one knew everyone else. "Nowadays people are just too much to themselves." He also did not like the growth in the vadey although he knew he could not change it. But Irene Thacker in Daniel saw ad the newcomers adding to the community. "We're getting old, and it's hard for us to do so many things. Isn't it great that we have young people and new people coming in that are so enthusiastic that can do things for us?" She said some people were not the "best sometimes, but we shouldn't say that. We should look at the good side. We under­stand that we must put up with some of that."12 The growth brought not only more people but increased pres­sure on county services. Moroni Besendorfer described a common situation. "A farmer sells a one-hundred acre plot because it can no longer support a famdy. It is subdivided into two hundred lots, and then the county has to provide water, roads, and sewer." He contin­ued, "When we get into those outlying areas of one hundred acre farms and develop them into housing units, then some form of infra­structure has to be made avadable to them. They can't do it. We wdl podute the underground water which goes to Salt Lake and Wasatch Front."13 To meet these types of concerns, Heber City developed a new master plan in 1976 to deal with the next twenty years of growth. The plan caded for "the development of quiet, safe, attractive and digni­fied conditions suitable to family life and the rearing of children." With the new plan, Heber City annexed land and in 1977 approved five subdivisions. Midway proposed a new zoning ordinance in 1975. The 1961 plan provided for only residential/agricultural and com­mercial divisions. Earl Kohler explained at a public meeting that it would preserve "the town's present values. We like the rural flavor here." Alma Huber, chair of the Midway Planning Commission, said the old plan was "not up to date with the needs of the community." In 1976 the city maded a survey asking the residents what type of devel­opment they wanted to see in the area; 219 of the 500 surveys maded were returned. Most respondents were married men between forty and sixty-one years of age who had lived in Midway for more than YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 283 twenty-five years, had less than five acres of land, and had a family income between $10,000 and $20,000. Over 90 percent (92.2) wanted Midway to retain a rural atmosphere. Just over half (53.9 percent) did not think the city should encourage growth. But just under half (49.3 percent) supported recreational development. Almost 70 percent (69.9 percent) did not want industrial development. And nearly everyone (90 percent) wanted the hot pot areas protected. When asked if the city was doing a good job planning, 32.7 percent said yes, 22.3 percent said no, and 45 percent said they were not sure.14 Midway grew more rapidly than other areas in the county dur­ing the 1970s and 1980s; much of the new construction was vacation homes. Elmer Kohler said, "Ad around us to the north and across the street to the south we have got people that have parties, second homes, and summer homes." Alvin Kohler felt good about the growth. "As I think about the people that have moved into this area, I can't point to one that I know personally but what has been an asset to the community." Elmer Kohler recognized, "The good old Midway has gone forever and never can come back." He explained he knew "we can't cut growth," but he felt that the newcomers should pay for their impact on the community. He added that many new people were not getting what they were after. "The thing that so many people of late years have come to Midway for is the country atmosphere. That is being somewhat ruined by the vast number that are com­ing." 15 Population Of the 10,089 people who lived in Wasatch County in 1990,51.2 percent were male. Only 69 people, about 0.6 percent, were foreign born. Of these, only 19 had immigrated between 1980 and 1990. Over three-quarters (76.8 percent) were born in Utah. Nearly every­one (98.7 percent) was white. There were only six blacks, sixty-nine American Indians, sixteen Asian or Pacific Islanders, and forty-five "other races." When asked about their ancestry, several people listed more than one, so the total exceeds the population. Of the 13,649 people giving nationalities, 37.5 percent listed English. The next high­est were German (13.2 percent), Irish (8.1 percent), and Scottish (6.9 percent). Only 3.5 percent listed Swiss ancestry. The population was 284 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY split evenly between the towns and rural areas. The census listed 47.4 percent living in urban areas and 52.6 percent in rural areas. Of the 5,378 people over twenty-five years of age, 84.2 percent had com­pleted a high school or higher education; 18.5 percent held at least a bachelor's degree. The census listed 4,340 employed people sixteen years or older. Their employment included retad sales (17.3 percent), construction (13.4 percent), personal services (11.2 percent), educational services (10.4 percent), manufacturing (6.8 percent), and health services (5.4 percent). Only forty people worked in mining. Of 4,276 listing dis­tance from work, 31.5 percent lived less than ten minutes from work; 27 percent lived between twenty and forty minutes from their work place; only 13.8 percent lived between forty-five minutes and an hour and a half from work. Just over half (55.4 percent) worked in the county. There is a sense among the residents that more people work outside the county. As Douglas Merkley explained, "They're wdling to drive that two hours a day to commute to their jobs." Paul Daniels estimated, "Ninety-some percent is an urban work force and the other is rural. We may live in a rural area, but we work in the urban area."16 Agriculture By the 1970s, agriculture had declined in the county. Paul Daniels explained, "Farming is stdl important, but it's not as important as it was thirty years ago. Recreation seems to be the focal point." Douglas Merkley agreed: "In roughly forty-five years the whole thing has changed in terms of the economy of the vadey and the emphasis on agriculture." Those who continued to farm were generady older. In 1978 the average age of farm operators was 52.8; it rose to 53.8 in 1982 and 55.6 in 1987. Calvin Giles estimated that only seven men around thirty were still farming and that they were helping their fathers. Most of the ground had gone into developments. He contin­ued: "Farming has been rough in the valley. We have these rough winters. It's hard work. There are so many jobs nowadays that pay better than farming." The 1990 census confirms these opinions, list­ing a farm population of only 183. Those who did farm often had other jobs. Of 192 farm operators residing on the land in 1978, over YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 285 A modern sprinkler irrigation system in the Heber Valley, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) two-thirds (130) worked more than 200 days off the farm. Agriculture remains "the basis of wealth," but "it's not in the produc­tion of crops. It's the holding of land that makes up a large part of the wealth."17 The number of acres farmed supported this conclusion. In 1978 there were 211,040 acres in farms. That figure dropped to 207,130 in 1982 and to 159,854 in 1987. There was also a change in irrigated lands. In 1978 there were 224 farms with 11,940 acres of irrigated crop lands. Four years later the number of farms increased to 237 with 13,085 acres. The figure dropped slightly in 1987 to 230 farms and 11,809 acres. Farmers stdl raised the same crops. Most grew alfalfa: 199 farms in 1978 and 1987 and 200 in 1982. The acreage remained at about 8,000. The remaining crops included other types of hay, barley, and oats.18 Although hay was the major crop, farmers did not raise enough alfalfa to feed all the area's dairy cows and had to truck in "considerable" amounts even though there were fewer dairies in the area. In 1978, sixty farms had 2,062 milk cows. The number of farms 286 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY remained the same in 1982, but the number of cows increased to 3,000. By 1987 the number of farms with milk cows dropped to twenty-nine with only 1,915 cows. Alvin Kohler, who trucked milk during the 1950s and 1960s, estimated there were twelve or thirteen dairies left by 1994 but they were producing more milk than before. The dairies continued to mainly produce Grade-A mdk for drinking. This mdk had to travel through pipelines directly onto trucks. Smafl-time operators were forced out of business because they could not afford the equipment.19 Livestock ranching continued to decrease as the Forest Service cut back the number of animals allowed on public lands. The 1987 agriculture census showed a drop in the number of farms with graz­ing permits from fifty-two in 1978 to twenty-nine in 1982. The num­ber rose again to forty-three in 1987. Meat production continued to play a role in the area's economy. Calvin Gdes explained, "The live­stock industry has gone by the wayside.. . . But there's still a lot of livestock and sheep in the vadey." In 1978 there were 103 farms with 3,003 beef cows. The numbers dropped to 99 farms and 2,641 cattle in 1982 and slipped again to 93 farms but increased to 2,682 cattle in 1987. The drop in sheep was even more dramatic. In 1978 there were 39,537 sheep on fifty-four farms in the county. The total number of sheep dropped to 38,385 in 1982, but the number of farms increased to sixty-seven. In the next five years there was a significant cut. Fifty-two farms still had sheep, but the total number of animals had dropped 50 percent to 18,990 in the area. Most of these operations ran their animals on their own property, not on Forest Service lands. Horses were the only livestock that increased in number, and they were used for recreation. There were 696 horses and ponies in 1978; by 1982 there were 908, and in 1987 there were 979.20 Mining Summit and Wasatch county residents were shocked when Park Ventures announced on 13 January 1978 (a Friday) that the company would close the Ontario Mine in February. While the major blow to the mining industry had struck when the Mayflower closed, the Ontario was the last operating mine in the area. Park City Ventures, a company representing two mining firms, Anaconda and ASARCO, YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 287 had leased the Ontario from the United Park City Mines Company a few years earlier. Stanley Walton, a miner, explained that the company "claims [to] have put in the neighborhood of thirty million dodars in that place in about the last four or five years. It's a lot of money to walk off and leave." Some remained optimistic. Shedey Christensen, a twenty-two-year-old from Heber, preferred mining work over her previous office employment and she was sure the mine would open again. As the mine closed down to a maintenance staff, Dallas Peterson, who had been in charge of production at the mine and headed the maintenance crew, also felt the mine would open again.21 The present was not bright. Of the 350 miners who had been employed at the Ontario, only thirteen were kept. Wasatch County's unemployment jumped to 15 percent. Half the miners moved to Carbon County. However, not long after Park City Ventures lost their lease, United Park City Mining Company leased the Ontario to Noranda Mining Inc. of Canada. By 1982 Noranda left Park City. In 1994 only a handful of employees were working the Ontario and other mines owned by the United Park City Mining Company. Most were office staff at the Number Three Shaft and miners who main­tained the underground workings and managed the pumps.22 The company no longer produced ore in Summit or Wasatch counties, but it continued to operate, focusing on recreation and tourism. In 1995 company officials were constructing a historical mining museum, both surface and underground, in Park City. Recreation As mining and agriculture declined in the 1970s, Wasatch County residents had to decide what they wanted it to be. Did they want to attract business? Did they want to encourage recreation? To help answer these questions, in 1976 the county commissioners formed the Wasatch Committee on Industrial and Commercial Growth. Commissioner Harold Smith explained, "Our tax base needs to expand to include more than residential and agricultural invest­ments, and our recreation and tourist facdities need to be expanded." With money from the room tax fund, the lodging association, and the county chamber of commerce, the new council hired Monte Bona as executive director. Two years later he resigned, explaining 288 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY that when he came to Heber Valley he hoped to attract smad industry but by 1978 he believed the county should focus on recreation. He concluded, "Our future is to provide recreation for the Wasatch Front. Tourism and recreation and filming are the cleanest industries you can get."23 Others also encouraged tourism. According to the Wave: "The local businesses wid have to cater to a different population than just the county residents. Local ordinances will have to reflect the needs of visitors as well." Former county commissioner Harold Smith declared, "Our future wdl lie in increasing recreational programs, and our ability to adapt and still keep the recreational programs provid­ing a livelihood for our people." Lowe Ashton pointed out that attempts to attract light industry had failed and concluded that bringing people to play in the area was the best answer. Like other residents, he looked to the rapid development in Park City and did not wish that on Heber Valley. He argued, "Recreation need not be bad for us. With the park and a merger between private and public, we can develop with taste." He added, "I'm not speaking of growth if you consider growth to be an increase in the number of bodies. I'm speaking of growth in the sense of people being able to have year-round employment at decent paying jobs." In 1978 the Wave con­ducted a pod to see how the residents felt about tourism. The outside consulting firm found that 80.7 percent of the Heber residents approved tourism promotion, as did 74 percent in Midway. They also supported water projects that would expand recreation: 77.9 percent supported Jordanede and 82.4 percent favored expanding Strawberry. An editorial in the same issue claimed tourism "is the only major industry that we have."24 What type of recreation did Wasatch County residents want to promote? Developers tried several. Some were successful; some faded miserably. One large push was for the Heber Creeper. As one of his responsibilities, Bona received $500,000 worth of federal grants to upgrade the railroad. Lowe Ashton, the owner, had ambitious plans which appeared feasible. He had convinced the Sons of Utah Pioneers to close down their museum at Corrine in Box Elder County, a town the freeway bypassed, and donate the buddings and railroad items to a museum in Wasatch County. Wasatch Mountain State Park owned YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 289 The Heber Creeper, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) seventeen miles of the track from the old Denver and Rio Grande Railroad and the state agreed to support the idea although it made it clear it did not want to run a railroad. To help in the effort, Ashton and others formed a nonprofit organization, the Timpanogos Preservation Society, to receive government grants and donations.25 The Creeper ran for over a decade, but financial problems came to a head in 1990. The Timpanogos Preservation Society folded, and the Ashton family took control of the property again. The Ashtons lobbied the state legislature to continue the railroad, but some state officials disapproved. The deal fell completely apart when a state gov­ernment audit turned up some irregularities. The Heber Creeper stopped operation in 1991. County leaders stdl had hopes for the rad­road and asked to use state properties. The state recovered all its assets from the Ashtons and approved plans for a new Heber Valley Railroad Company. In 1995 the state-operated railroad ran from Vivian Park in Provo Canyon to Heber Valley. The Ashtons had retained the name "Heber Creeper" and the railroad vidage. In 1994 the vdlage was sold and attempts were made to revive it.26 Other recreation possibilities included ski resorts. The state 290 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY reconsidered a plan to build a tram in the 1970s. The plan looked possible in 1977 until a report showed many ski resorts planned or operating in the area. Only if developers did not complete Deer Valley in Summit and Wasatch counties or Heritage Mountain in Utah County would there be room for the tram. On the down side, Monte Bona argued that skiing might bring more second homes and more sewer and water problems into the county.27 There were also attempts to develop ski resorts in Wasatch County, including Brighton's plan to expand over the mountain. Mathis favored the ski resort's plan to install two lifts coming over the mountain between Pioneer Peak and Clayton Peak. He explained, "I was sure that the project could be done in such a way that it would not damage the fabric of the community" and "would implement the master plan" which called for "putting in four-season resorts includ­ing a ski program." The developers presented a plan to adow ski lifts, a base facility, and a restaurant at the top, whde it denied construc­tion of condominiums in Snake Creek Canyon. At a public hearing, a member of the Midway city council complained that the resort meant bringing a ski rental shop in Midway. When Mathis responded yes, the man responded, "We don't want that." Midway citizens feared the resort would "strike at the heart of the unique rural flavor of the community." The Brighton proposal failed.28 Another proposed ski resort was at the site of the Mayflower Mine. Plans started in 1972 and continued during the next few years. When the Mayflower Mine closed in 1974, New Park City Mining Company separated the surface interest from the mineral rights and sold about 6,000 acres of surface rights to Lon Investments. The new owners proposed building a new ski resort. Some Wasatch County residents felt it would revive the economy. The Wave explained, "Since the Wasatch Valley is primardy known and famed as a sum­mer resort recreational center, the addition of a ski resort would greatly enhance the possibdities of growth."29 The timing was not right for the resort in the mid-1970s, how­ever, and plans were dropped. In the meantime, a developer sold property interests to investors in Hodand, teding them the resort was completed. The developer was later convicted in Los Angeles of fraud. Nine years after the resort was first suggested, it was stid in the YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 291_ design stages. The county planning commission had approved the plans, but the commissioners had not because of concerns about sewage facilities and possible pollution in the Jordanelle Reservoir. The new European owners were looking at an enlarged 9,000-acre development and hoped to move on it. They also hoped Salt Lake City would get the 1980 Winter Olympics and use the facdity. Many felt that when Salt Lake did not get the Olympics bid, the resort also died. There were also concerns about the costs of bringing in a resort larger than any other county business and its dependence on com­pletion of the Jordanelle to make the site a true four-season resort.30 Before the resort could be completed, sewage facdities needed to be developed. In 1980 the county commissioners asked for a fee to defray review costs and got $25,000. An agreement was made for a new sewer district that opened in July 1995.31 Part of the Deer Valley Resort is in Wasatch County, although most of it is in Summit County. Deer Valley did not obtain permis­sion to put ski runs in Wasatch County. In 1980 when the resort attempted to correct the mistake by giving $2,500 to the Wasatch Economic Development Committee, the county commissioners refused the offer and planned an investigation. Two weeks later the county accepted $5,000 and the developers agreed to rewrite their environmental impact statement.32 Wasatch County also tried other recreational projects. The Heber Valley Horse Association improved the facilities at the county fair­grounds and promoted horse racing. Whde there was some criticism, the county commissioners helped finance the costs of horse stalls. The fairgrounds were also used for snowmobiling races, and in the 1970s, the county chamber of commerce helped sponsor state snow­mobile championships. Snowmobiling continues to be a popular winter activity at Wasatch Mountain State Park, though the state park manager rejected a proposal by a West Yellowstone group for a hotel and a theme park centered on snowmobding.33 Heber Vadey is an ideal place for nonpowered aircraft because of the afternoon updrafts. The Federal Aviation Administration has dis­couraged gliding activities since the nonpowered craft interfere with powered aircraft; but in 1994 there were stid two gliding operations at the airport. The same winds that make gliding interesting also power 292 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY The Children's Swiss Chorus at Midway's Swiss Days, September 1986. (Betty North) windsurfing in the area. Sometimes there are so many windsurfers on Deer Creek Reservoir that powerboats cannot travel north and south. In the 1970s the National Laser Sadboat and American Windsurfing group held championship races on Deer Creek. In 1977 the organizers of an Indian powwow came to the vadey. They said, "The way they treated us, the people up there are ready pro­gressive. Also we wanted to get into a rural area, and the facdities in Heber were the best we've seen." Bdlie Garmick, the fiscal manager of the Utah Native American Consortium, was "delighted with the way Heber treated u s . . . . We would like to come back if they'd let us." The group had expected a bigger crowd; seventy-five famdies stayed on the fairgrounds and there were 2,500 Native Americans. But the total gate was 5,000 for the two days, and the organization hoped that with pub­licity the event would grow. A regular powwow started in 1987, and in 1990 the group held its third annual event in Heber City.34 The county and community also continued to sponsor events that had been successful in the past including the county fair and the Midway Swiss Days. Swiss Days grew until it attracted more than YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 293 70,000 people over Labor Day weekend in 1993. Residents turned the main square in town into a miniature Swiss village with craft shops and food booths. Performers entertained the crowds from a small stage. Additional concerts and events occurred in the WPA town budding. Parades marched down Main Street. While sandwiches were no longer free, there were snacks ranging from traditional Swiss bratwurst to "Swiss tacos." Swiss Days combined the energy of the local Mormon church and the Midway Boosters Club.35 State Parks Recreation includes the three state parks: Wasatch Mountain, Deer Creek, and Jordanelle. More than 650,000 people visit Deer Creek each year where they do sightseeing, picnicking, swimming, fishing, and boating. The state also plans a trad system that wdl con­nect the state parks from Echo Junction in Summit County through Wasatch County.36 Reclamation-Strawberry When the Bureau of Reclamation budt Strawberry Reservoir in the 1920s it expected the major use to be the storage of water for southern Utah County. In 1926 the Strawberry Water Users Association took over the management of the reservoir and began developing its recreational possibilities. With no established guide­lines, the first fishing villages sprang up at random along the reser­voir's shores. By the late 1970s old house traders, buses, cabins, and boats dotted the landscape in an unsightly clutter. Uncontrolled development along the reservoir shores threatened to pollute the reservoir. According to the Wasatch Wave: "The area around the reser­voir is a study in contrasts. Sections of immaculate green lawns sit next to parched patches of sagebrush and June grass. Battered buses, their windows long since demolished, are parked next to newly-painted cabins. Pdes of trash and rubble assault the eye where com­fortable cottages once stood." Sanitation facilities were even worse. "Sanitation practices were eclectic. They would dig pit latrines, and when they were filled up, they would move them." Robert Mathis compared the camps to ones in the Grapes of Wrath, explaining the users grew up in that era. And although they were a health hazard, 294 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY people "tolerated and loved it." Even his "really fastidiously clean" aunt told him, "I hope you're not going to be too rough on those people. It's just kind of fun."37 But the situation could not continue. In 1973 the Strawberry Water Users Association met with Wasatch County and Utah State health board representatives to decide how to control development around the reservoir. The major problem was that the cabins did not have proper sanitary facdities. For nearly a decade Wasatch County officials, the Strawberry Water Users, the state board of health, and the Bureau of Reclamation continued to debate who was responsible for establishing and maintaining cabin regulations. In 1975 the state board asked trailer owners to move 100 feet from the reservoir to protect the water, but the owners protested. When it looked like no one would take action, Wasatch County officials complained that the Strawberry Water Users Association was only collecting fees and not helping to protect the area. The Utah County water group countered that the reservoir was primarily for agriculture and that the recre­ational uses were a county problem.38 State and county officials agreed that the trailer camps on the reservoir had to be closed. The Strawberry Water Users then devel­oped a plan to meet the state health board's requirements, including charging higher fees to cover the cost of renting chemical todets and requiring trailer owners to meet county sewage guidelines. By October 1976,80 to 90 percent of the owners were fodowing the new rules and the board of health was condemning those who did not comply.39 The county officials had other problems with the Strawberry Water Users group. The water users required fishers to pay a fee. However, when the organizers tried to file a complaint against those fishing without paying, the county attorney found no documentation authorizing the fee. The county decided that whde the water users could continue to collect the tod, they could not stop traffic on the county road. This adowed recreationists to avoid paying the fee. This issue continued to be a problem in 1983 with the Bureau of Reclamation supporting the water users' right to control access and the county supporting public access to roads and right-of-ways. Other county and water users disputes included complaints that the YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 295 water users had established an dlegal landfid and had not paid taxes on the reservoir lands.40 In 1978 the Bureau of Reclamation began plans to enlarge Strawberry Reservoir. Some cabins at the reservoir would be inun­dated, and owners were given three years to move the cabins from the area. Some owners simply abandoned their cabins, opening a new dispute between the water users and county officials. The water users contended that the county should remove the buildings because Wasatch County codected taxes. The county officials, however, said it should be the water users' responsibdities since they had codected the fees. In the end, the water users moved the cabins under the direction of the Bureau of Reclamation.41 What has been the impact of Strawberry Reservoir on Wasatch County? The reservoir has brought in many recreationists. In the late 1970s the Bureau of Reclamation caded it "Utah's finest fishing hole." Visitation increased from 168,629 in 1973 to 248,338 in 1975. A study showed it was the sole destination for most of these visitors; they did not add Strawberry to a longer trip. Eighty-five percent of the visi­tors came from the populated areas of the Wasatch Front. Most visits were on weekends and holidays, and 75 percent of the people stayed overnight. Nearly everyone, 99 percent, came to fish. People stayed longer if they had success fishing.42 At first glance it might appear that Strawberry added to the econ­omy of Wasatch County by bringing in over 200,000 visitors; but that has not been the case. People came to Wasatch County to play, but a Utah State University study found that these visitors spent very little money in the county. About 80 percent spent less than five dollars whde they were at the reservoir; 44 percent spent nothing at all. Most people came with their own supplies; they did not stop in other parts of Wasatch County to buy them. Whde Wasatch County received very little revenue from Strawberry, its expenses were high. The county officials were responsible for public health and safety, fire protection, and law enforcement.43 Reclamation-Jordanelle The idea for the dam at Jordanede was not new. In 1905 an engi­neer suggested diverting Colorado River water from the south side of 296 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY the Uinta Mountains to the Wasatch Front by constructing dams and tunnels. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Basin Compact of 1948 guaranteed Utah a share of Colorado River water. To transport this water to the populated areas, Utah officials and Bureau of Reclamation engineers began planning the large and com­plex Central Utah Project (CUP) in 1956. The largest unit of the CUP was the Bonneville Unit, which included the Jordanelle Dam, the crown jewel of the CUP. The Jordanelle's purpose was to help main­tain a fitil Deer Creek Reservoir and to store approximately 320,000 acre-feet of exchange water which was earlier stored in Utah Lake for the Great Salt Lake Valley.44 The Bureau of Reclamation planned to budd the Jordanelle Dam near the border of Wasatch and Summit counties on land belonging to the Jordan famdy. John Jordan came to Heber in 1859. He bought a ranch north of Heber and moved there in 1875. John's son George and his sons ran cattle and sheep there untd George retired in 1931. George also budt a small resort with a store and cabins. The famdy brand was Jordan L, so they named the resort Jordanelle.45 As Jordanelle was in the planning stages, the Bureau of Reclamation asked Wasatch County residents for their reactions. A telephone survey showed that 30 percent felt the dam would bring tourism, 25 percent said more employment, and 21 percent said improved water. On the negative side, 42 percent opposed the growth the dam would bring, 15 percent were concerned about safety, and 11 percent expected an increase in crime. A Bureau of Reclamation study in 1978 pointed out additional benefits. Irrigation companies would receive 26 percent more water, which could boost farm income by a mdlion dollars a year. It would also bring 100 jobs and seasonal housing. The study said the reservoir would create 1,300 jobs but acknowledged that most people would probably commute from areas other than Wasatch County. On the negative side, the reservoir would bury 3,060 acres and require use of another 3,000 acres.46 Jordanelle threatened the lifestyles of thirty-eight families, approximately one hundred people. The dam's water covered three businesses, farms, and a family cemetery, and it also destroyed wildlife and river habitat. The Jordans wondered where food would come from if reservoirs covered farmland. County Commissioner YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 297 Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) Tom Baum complained, "Private land is continually being used here for public uses and we are losing out. We have two reservoirs, fish and game land, mitigating land and with the possibdity of the reservoir, our private lands are slowly diminishing." Residents of Keetley protested that the relocated Highway 40 would split their farms. While the environmental impact statement talked about the recre­ational advantages for Wasatch County, some residents complained that the focus was all on leisure activities and ignored those who made their homes in the area.47 The citizens had an even greater concern. What would happen if the dam did not hold and the stored water dumped on Midway and Heber City? Just before construction began, the Teton Dam, a large federally constructed project in eastern Idaho, broke, flooding much of the downstream area. Could the same thing happen in Utah? Mining interests were especiady concerned. During hearings in 1979 Clark L. Wilson from the United Park City Mines Company reported that the dam was on a fault line. However, some questioned the min­ing companies' motivation. Were they trying to prevent water from backing up into the mines? Did they recognize their mines were now 298 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY worthless? Were they trying to get a higher settlement from the gov­ernment for burying the nonproductive mines?48 Initially the county commissioners gave cautious support to the Jordanelle project, but when other studies showed the fault line through the proposed dam site, county officials and citizens expressed more concern. One geologist, Leon Hansen, declared the dam site was unsafe and said that if it broke "a minimum of 50,000 lives would be lost." Four geologists from BYU questioned the safety of the dam because of the geological conditions in the area. The Bureau of Reclamation geologists agreed there was a fault line in the area but argued "lay observers . . . and even experienced geologists are not qualified to comment on whether or not engineering can compensate for site problems."49 As the groundbreaking date neared, many Wasatch County resi­dents saw the disadvantages outweighing the advantages. As Robert Mathis explains, "People were really unhappy. They were unhappy about water rights, unhappy that the dam was here, and unhappy about the loss of tax base. I thought most importantly they were unhappy about being left out of the basic planning." In 1975, by a vote of 1,090 to 853, they rejected requests by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to enter a supplemental repayment agreement. Along the Wasatch Front voters had agreed to the proposal by a 73 percent margin.50 Changes in the CUP continued, and Wasatch County residents became increasingly upset. The original CUP bid had caded for $20 million to provide pressurized irrigation systems for Heber Valley. With the cutback in water, the farmers would have to make better use of their water, sprinkling instead of flood irrigating. In 1990 Congress changed the bid and cut the provision to a $500,000 feasibdity study. Other CUP projects would transfer water from Daniels Creek. The Wave protested in March 1990: "First Wasatch people lost rights to Strawberry Water. Then almost an entire community was uprooted from their family farms and homes to make room for Deer Creek Reservoir to store downstream water. Then the bureau took more homes and farms to store upstream Provo River water, and now their eyes are on Daniels water. We'd share our water-reluctantly, yes, but we will share. However, we expect a fair deal, including a place in the YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 299 front of the line for our own water and a sprinkling system, free of charge without having to grovel for it."51 County commissioners Moroni Besendorfer and LeRen Provost went to Washington, D.C., to protest the loss of water rights in Wasatch County. They claimed, "It would take twenty percent of the county's irrigation water and dry up Daniels Creek in order to increase flows in the Upper Strawberry River tributaries." The county officials formed a partnership with state environmentalists and pre­sented the argument that adapting the project to meet the needs of Wasatch County residents would also preserve the wetlands. Congress modified the legislation. The county now has two repre­sentatives on the Central Utah Water Conservancy District Board, but "people are still somewhat distrustful. They have felt that by getting the CUP Completion Act through that a deal had been struck which allowed us to receive some benefits from the project and pre­vented further changes in lifestyle."52 In 1994 Besendorfer thought people stdl worried about the loca­tion of the dam. He said he tried to watch the construction and "a couple of times they kind of ushered me away from the areas because I'm not sure they wanted me to see what was there. Hopefully noth­ing ever happens because if it does, it's not just going to affect our county. Utah County would be wiped out. That would be a sad thing because we'd lose a lot of lives."53 The construction of Jordanelle prompted the Bureau of Reclamation to look at recreation possibdities not only on that reser­voir but also on the Provo River between Jordanelle and Deer Creek. The bureau first asked for a fifty-foot access right-of-way. Property owners protested that they did not want to deal with the trespassers, trash, and garbage that would come with the public access and that they did not want the area fenced off because they wanted their ani­mals to be able to get to the river. According to Tom Baum, "We are tired of giving up our land in Wasatch County so that others can come in here We have already given up hundreds of acres of land here for recreation use and it's our economic loss." Later the govern­ment condemned the fifty-foot access area.54 300 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY Dams, Reservoirs, Recreation, and Irrigation Despite the problems, the reservoirs may benefit Wasatch County. During periods of drought, Jordanede wid provide a way to save more water than was possible with the pioneer reservoirs. It also provides an opportunity to modernize the irrigation system. This may be a mixed blessing for the Wasatch Front. The areas down­stream have benefited from the overwatering in Wasatch County. The excess water went directly through the sod and back to the river. With improved irrigation, there may be less return. The completed reser­voirs and planned parkways wdl also bring more tourists to the area. The state parks at Deer Creek and Wasatch Mountain brought almost 1.5 million visitors to the area in 1994. Jordanede State Park and the proposed trails wdl increase that number. More business may come to the area. At the same time, many Wasatch County residents ques­tion how much growth they want to see in the area.55 County and City Governments The community and county governments provide many simflar services. In 1972 some felt that their working together would improve service at less cost. The various governments formed a Wasatch County Councd of Government which controded the landfill and the united fire department. The library and the health departments were also combined. Other efforts at combination faded, however. At one point the Wasatch County Council of Governments suggested com­bining police forces. Heber city council members disagreed, fearful the police might focus on the county when 90 percent of the busi­nesses were in Heber. The councd also worked on arrangements to share a building inspector. A 1980 audit suggested that the council had misused its money, and the organization was disbanded. Many felt that it had just added another layer of government. The commu­nities feared a loss of identity.56 There also were disputes over the airport. In 1976 the Heber city council decided the airport was unnecessary and asked the county government to take the airport over. The city planned to lease it from the county. Throughout the next year, citizens debated the airport's value. City leaders argued that the community lost money on the air­port; others felt that it brought business to the area. County com- YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 301 Glockenspiel added to the Midway Town Hall in 1987. (Allan Kent Powell) missioner Thomas Baum pointed out, "Mining and agriculture are rapidly being dispossessed" and the new attractions were the "attrac­tive endowments created by Mother Nature." He contended that there 302 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY needed to be an airport to expand the community's recreational pos­sibdities. 57 Sewer and Water Systems With so much of its water going to serve the Wasatch Front, Wasatch County had to protect its water sources. Much of the water in Deer Creek, for example, is destined to be culinary water for Salt Lake City residents. Polluting that water with sewage from Wasatch County could create a disaster. Federal legislation in 1973 mandated clean water, and Heber Valley residents had to respond. Heber City applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for funds through­out the 1970s and eventually received a grant.58 Later the entire valley needed a sewage treatment plant. The communities organized into the Heber Valley Special Services District in 1977 which overlapped town boundaries, and by late 1977 the federally funded project was ready to begin. Center Creek and Daniel decided not to join the special district. The cost of a trunk line to these communities was more than those towns could support. In addition, the two communities feared they would be inviting large development if they budt the sewer facdities. Charleston was inter­ested but had to develop a codection system. Midway and Heber City already had sewer systems which could be hooked into the regional system.59 After studying a variety of options, the special service district chose a lagoon system. Midway and Charleston protested. They claimed it would not have been considered if it was closer to Heber City and maintained that it was sad to turn a lovely meadow into sewage. There were also concerns about how the lagoon would affect irrigation water. The county residents debated for two years before deciding to put the lagoon in Fox Den. In August 1978 the Heber Vadey voters passed a $2.95 mdlion bond by a three-to-one margin.60 Landfill Smader communities in Wasatch County often felt that the larger towns and the county pushed them around. In 1978 the county and Heber needed to find a new landfill site, and the most likely place was on county-owned property near the airport. Daniel residents YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 303 objected since the site was near a residential area. They felt the land-fid would "blight our end of the vadey." The debate continued to rage for a year. Eventually the landfill was placed at the airport, but the county commissioners bought more land and operated it.61 As that landfill reached its limit, the county started looking for another site. The land was so porous that waste was leaching from the former landfill. The commissioners had to locate a site outside the valley. They suggested an area near Wallsburg on property belonging to the Division of Wildlife, but the state overruled the plan because it would disturb elk winter range. To solve the garbage problem, the county formed a sanitation district and trucked the garbage to Duchesne County. According to County Planner Robert Mathis, "We don't think there will ever be another landfill in Wasatch County. With the current emphasis on recycling, mulching, and composting, there wdl likely be less garbage. Untd that is the case, we'd probably take the garbage out to Duchesne. It apparently has enough place in their laying field to go forever."62 Businesses Wasatch County's economic base was dependent on other areas, especiady the Wasatch Front. Most products left the area as raw mate­rials. The area also provided the water for the populated area and gradually became a playground for Wasatch Front residents. With few new jobs and taxes, the county was rich in natural resources but rather poor economically. In 1983 the largest employers in Heber City were the federal, state, county, and city governments-employ­ing 593 of the 1620 workers. County residents also depended heavily on service industries and construction. A Jordanelle Dam feasibdity study showed the three major employers were the Wasatch School District, the Granite Construction Company, and the Homestead resort. The school district had between 300 and 399 employees; the Homestead and Granite Construction Company each had under 200.63 Wasatch County also wanted to attract new business. In 1976 Heber City bought land and then applied for an Economic Development Administration grant to budd an industrial park. The city received some of the requested funds to start work on the park 304 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY but spent most of it on drought relief during the summer of 1977. More funds were released in 1978.64 The Heber City Industrial Park has never been very large, and some of its tenants have gone out of business. For example, Cloyes Gear Company made machine-geared parts for transmissions. The city worked with the company to build a suitable building, but shortly after the company began production, the industry changed over to plastic parts. When the business began to fail, the city required it to vacate. Several other companies, including a garage door manufacturer and a boat manufacturer, tried using the facdity. In 1994 a food wholesale business was using the facility. County Planner Mathis explained: "They added fifteen new employees the first quarter of this year. That was one of the significant changes in our job economy if you can imagine fifteen jobs making a difference." Other businesses in the industrial park include a cabinet shop and a plaque-making business. One company, Accuracy Machinery, started out in the park but moved onto Highway 40. According to Mathis, the park "is only now, some eighteen years later,. . . beginning to show some fruit. They are landscaping it and bringing it to grade. But it doesn't have enough room. If we wanted to bring a business in that employed one hundred people, we'd have to develop land adjacent to the park."65 Education As the local population increased, the school board worried about how to educate the students. The tax base was severely affected by the closing of area mines. The mill levy on property had to be increased to support the schools. Superintendent Douglas Merkley complimented the residents, "They passed the mdl levies without any hesitation. That allowed us to move ahead with the program."66 More students also meant larger schools. The district opened bids for an addition to the high school in 1979. That same year county residents approved a bonding issue to budd a new elementary school in Heber and to add on to the middle school. The district then purchased land on the north end of town for the J.R. Smith Elementary School. In 1981 the board accepted bids for the middle-school addition. By the end of the decade, the schools were too small YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 305 Midway Elementary School, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) again, and the county again bonded for additions to the middle school and high school. The board of education opened the bids for the enlargement of the schools in August 1990.67 The new schools and the changing population base meant adjusting where students from outlying areas attended. With the increased classrooms, the board suggested moving the Heber, Daniel, and Charleston students from the Midway school to the new school in Heber. Wadsburg parents protested because they wanted their chd­dren to have an early bus schedule and preferred returning them to the Midway school. Even then the new Heber elementary school was not large enough. The board put the kindergarten classes on the ground level of North School even though parents complained it was not safe.68 All these changes affected education in the county. Super­intendent Merkley believed that the new residents came to the area to escape "crowded urban conditions" and wanted the same educa­tional opportunities there. Moroni Besendorfer, former principal of the Midway school, felt his elementary school became less "famdy." There were more students, which led to increased discipline problems 306 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY and less support from parents. By 1994 the school had 425 pupils, wed beyond its capacity of 350 students.69 Provo Canyon Road During the 1980s the Utah Department of Transportation pro­posed widening Utah State Highway 189 through Provo Canyon. Residents of the canyon, including Sundance Resort owner Robert Redford, fought the proposal on the grounds that the wider road would impair the beauty of the canyon. Wasatch County officials, however, favored the plan. In 1986 Heber City Mayor Gordon Mendenhall explained, "Our people drive up and down Provo Canyon constantly to jobs, to shop, to conduct business, and to do [LDS] temple work. And a lot of people come here from Utah County for business and recreation." He continued, "People tell me that they have close calls every time they have to travel on the road." Four years later, in 1990, the Wasatch County Board of Education requested a better road since students used the road regularly. It claimed, "Safety is the priority issue with regards to individuals trav­eling Provo Canyon."70 Despite opposition, work has continued on widening road. Soldier Summit During the 1970s Soldier Summit's population continued to drop. By 1979 only some ten to thirteen adults lived in town. The only businesses were a cafe, a motel, a service station, and a bar. The only paved road in town was four hundred yards of Highway 50. Town residents, however, demanded that motorists on the highway respect the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit. Those driving through complained that Soldier Summit was a speed trap, claiming the police department was issuing more than one hundred speeding tickets a day and netting $9,000 a month. Police Chief Roger N. Anderson said it was "ridiculous, downright impossible" for the four part-time police officers to issue that many tickets a day and that they were only collecting $4,500 a month. The Soldier Summit council also defended its ratio of one officer to every seven residents because speeding threatened residents. Police Chief Anderson insisted there was not a speed trap. "Our phdosophy was not to see how many tick- YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 307 ets we could give, but to save lives and do a good job." Because of the speed limit, 1.5 midion vehicles had passed through Soldier Summit in 1977 and there had been no injuries, deaths, or property damage.71 Because of the charges made by motorists and the defense of the Soldier Summit police, the Utah Attorney General studied the situa­tion. The Utah Chief of Police Association also investigated the police department and concluded, "Our evaluation reveals that the appar­ent ulterior motive for having a police department in Soldier Summit is to support basic city services such as sewer and water. . . . It is doubtful Soldier Summit or any other town of its size should have a part-time town marshal, let alone a police department," adding the usual ratio was one police officer to one thousand residents.72 After the investigations, some citizens pressed for Anderson's res­ignation because the town leaders "were adowing Anderson to oper­ate in such a way as to bring scorn, ridicule, humdiation, and disgrace to the good name of our town." All registered voters except the elected officials signed the letter. Anderson eventually resigned in April 1979 though he continued to claim he was a victim. Kenny Pruitt, a construction worker, replaced Anderson as police chief. But after only a few weeks Pruitt quit, saying there were no law-enforcement problems. The town eventually disbanded the police department. New mayor Don Chambers said, "We would like to put our heads in the sand and forget that the entire thing happened."73 Solving the police problems did not stabilize Soldier Summit. County officials in both Utah and Wasatch counties recommended that the town be dissolved or be made part of Utah County. In 1978 Wasatch County Attorney Harold Call wrote that Soldier Summit had closer ties to Utah County (which surrounded it) than it did to Heber City, concluding, "It is difficult to manage and supervise a town so far away." The Utah State Chief of Police Association also recommended the town become part of Utah County. But the citi­zens of Soldier Summit did not want to disincorporate, explaining, "Soldier Summit has always been a nice little place to live and raise children and a town we could be proud to call home." The issue resurfaced in 1979 when Soldier Summit accepted a $10,000 fee from RLC Investment and attempted to annex 4,000 acres of Utah County. It was a move to escape Utah County's restrictive zoning ordinances 308 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY and develop a resort they touted as "the Queen of the West." Despite opposition from the town residents, Wasatch County agreed to dis­incorporate Soldier Summit and Utah County agreed to participate in a special service district for the area.74 County Alignment Woodland was split by the Provo River; those on the south side of the river lived in Wasatch County. Some residents, including Debbie Fields of Mrs. Fields Cookies company, pressured the state legislature to transfer her home (and others) to Summit County since her business was in Park City. There were concerns with the transfer though. The Wasatch County Attorney feared that "to adow the first annexation could establish that as the solution for the problems and we could end up chopping away at Wasatch County." Wasatch County commissioners feared both the loss of tax revenue and the deterioration of water quality of the Provo River. Both Wasatch and Summit county voters defeated the change, but the election did not resolve the issue. According to Mathis, "There is stdl some uneasiness between the areas. There is some feeling among people in Bench Creek that they aren't quite loved or appreciated. When we enforce zoning ordinances against them, it's almost as if they feel like they're being regulated without appropriate representation."75 LDS Church and County Policies The Mormon church continued to play an important although declining role in the county as nonmembers moved into the area. A classic example was the 1970s debate over Sunday beer sales. In 1975 the county government, beer license owners, and LDS church stake leaders met to discuss the beer laws. Those selling beer asked the county not to ban Sunday beer sales. The commission agreed as long as the merchants strictly enforced closing hours and laws against sell­ing to minors. Three years later the issue resurfaced. A group of LDS church leaders went to the Heber City council meeting, and although it was not on the agenda, they asked the governing body to eliminate Sunday beer sales. The councd voted to ban Sunday beer sales.76 A community school advisory councd then took the issue to the county commission and on the basis of the ban in Heber City asked YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 309 LDS Church in Midway, March 1996. (Allan Kent Powell) for a countywide policy. The chair of the advisory councd presented the proposal: "We feel that the quality of life in our county is deterio­rating, and we think banning the sale of beer on Sunday would improve the quality of life." Lowe Ashton, who owned the Heber Creeper, came to the same county commission meeting with a peti­tion bearing 867 signatures he had codected in eight hours asking the commission not to ban Sunday beer sales. He argued, "We have one future, and that's recreation. And those 15,000 people are here to buy the goods and services, and we who pay the taxes and employ the people are entitled to an opportunity to sell them any legal product." He also felt, "You cannot pretend to be an open society and adow free­dom of religion and let your religion dictate whether I can drink beer on Sunday." The debate continued throughout the meeting with some people arguing newcomers would not come to the area if the county passed the ban and others saying it would not make a difference. For some people it was strictly a Mormon issue; others felt that it extended beyond the church. Ron Crittendon, for example, felt the ban would create more of a famdy recreation orientation in the vadey.77 After Heber passed its ordinance, Midway also banned Sunday 310 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY beer sales. The concessionaires at Wasatch Mountain State Park ral­lied and convinced the state park people not to go along. Some busi­nesses tried to sue Heber City to stop the ordinance from taking effect but an injunction was refused. Since Midway and Heber both had laws banning Sunday beer sales, the county commissioners agreed to pass a countywide ban. Clyde Broadbent, a commissioner, claimed that the county needed to go along with the ban or it would defeat the purpose of the Midway and Heber laws.78 Some Heber and Midway residents, however, did not like the laws. They called for a referendum in the November poll. The issue was hotly debated. The newspaper carried articles on both sides of the issue from both Heber and Midway. Those who opposed beer sales said that the sale of the beverage any time and especially on Sunday "in a Christian community [was] undesirable." The residents of the towns needed to set examples. Those who favored the beer sales said that prohibition had failed in the 1920s, banning sales would hurt tourism, and banning beer sales would hurt other sales and thus hurt all of Wasatch County. More than 80 percent of the registered electorate voted. In both Heber City and Midway more than 50 percent of the voters agreed to Sunday sales. Utah law did not allow a county referendum, but the county officials agreed to a straw vote to see how those in the unincorporated areas felt. Those resi­dents voted 540 to 414 for banning Sunday sales of beer. Again the county commissioners felt there could not be two separate laws, and the county also agreed to allow beer sales on Sunday. The residents debated so furiously that the Wave editorialized that it had "split the community into two polarized factions which cannot agree on any­thing." The Wave asked residents to "bury the hatchet" and ad work together. The outcome did not surprise some Wasatch County resi­dents. As one citizen explained to Robert Mathis, "These Mormons wdl vote with the stake president in the open, but when they get in a ballot thing they'll strike it down."79 Religions Other religions have had small local congregations but have always been in the minority. During the 1920s boom, Baptists had a building in Soldier Summit. In 1980 the American Baptist church YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 311 Heber Valley Baptist Church, March 1996. (Allan Kent PoweU) attempted to revive it. In 1980 Thom Ernest was pastor of the Heber Baptist church. He explained to the Wave that he would like to con­vert Mormons but added, "I'm not out to cram it down their throats." Whde he agreed, "We're a minority," he saw "no ostracism." The major problems he saw were that the Mormon church sponsored the Boy Scouts and that Mormon youth avoided non-Mormons. Reverend Patrick Carley of the St. Lawrence Catholic church felt Mormons were "a little bit oppressive at times." The thirty Catholic families in the Heber Valley area were strong, however, in part because they were a minority. Bob Richards, the pastor of the Heber Vadey Bible church which opened in 1980, explained, "We are aggres­sively evangelistic, but we feel this is a demonstration of our love for people, not hatred." He and his wife spent eighteen months fund-raising throughout the United States for money to support their church in Heber.80 Life in Wasatch County What do people like about living in Wasatch County? A tele- 312 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY WESTX CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT BonneviUe Unit, Central Utah Project phone survey conducted for a Jordanelle Dam study found that 59 percent said living in the county was very pleasant and another 40 percent said it was pleasant. People enjoyed the rural atmosphere (59 percent) and the environmental quality (23 percent). Only 7 percent said they enjoyed the recreation most. They disliked the area because there were few services (31 percent), the area had been growing too YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 313 fast recently (17 percent), there was a lack of employment opportu­nities (10 percent), and they disliked the people (10 percent). Most said they would like to see the community remain the same during the next twenty years (60 percent). Half that many (29 percent) wanted to see gradual growth. Only 5 percent wanted to see the area become a recreational community. What is the future of Wasatch County? Government officials pre­dict additional growth. In 1994 county commissioner Moroni Besendorfer reported that developers hoped to put in from 7,000 to 10,000 units over the next few years. He added, "We can't afford to make mistakes if we want to preserve our lifestyle and what our kids need for the future." Robert Mathis sees more growth in tourism and the service industries supported by visitors. And he sees more people moving to the county and working along the Wasatch Front.81 Wasatch County is at a crossroads. The area wdl probably con­tinue to grow as improved transportation facilities give people a chance to live further from their work. But how much growth will Wasatch County allow and how much can it sustain? Since 1976 county residents have opposed certain types of growth. The trend seems to favor controlled growth in areas outside the present com­munities. Despite this growth, Wasatch County's communities basi­cally remain small LDS colonies dependent on other areas, but the products are now less agricultural and more recreation-oriented ser­vices. ENDNOTES 1. Wasatch Wave, 14 July 1977,2. 2. Robert Mathis, Oral History, interview by Jessie Embry, 19 July 1994. 3. Ibid. 4. Uinta National Forest Plan, Draft environmental impact statement, Intermountain Region, Forest Service, 1982,3-3; Jordanelle, III-l; Wasatch Wave, 15 July 1976,1; 22 January 1976,1; 26 May 1977,1; Wasatch County 1990 Census Record. 5. Wasatch Wave, 9 January 1975,1; 27 March 1975,2. 6. Wasatch Wave, 17 January 1974, 1; Elmer Kohler, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 1993, 7. 7. Wasatch Wave, 10 July 1975, 2. 314 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY 8. Wasatch Wave, 8 April 1976,1; 5 August 1976,1; 19 Aprd 1979,1-A. 9. Wasatch Wave, 14 August 1975, 1; 28 August 1975, 1-2; 29 July 1976, 2. 10. Mathis, Oral History, 3. 11. Wasatch Wave, 10 March 1977, 1; 21 March 1977, 1; 11 August 1977, 1-2; 26 October 1978, 1; 28 February 1980, 1-A; Elmer Kohler, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 1993, 7. 12. Paul Daniels, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 1993, 4; Calvin Giles, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 13 January 1994, 10; LeRoy Sweat, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 13 February 1994,10,12; Irene W. Thacker, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 4. 13. Moroni Besendorfer, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 25 February 1994, 9. 14. Wasatch Wave, 4 November 1976, 1; 24 June 1976, 1; 1 December 1977,1; 20 March 1975, 1; 13 January 1977,1; 19 February 1976, 1. 15. Elmer Kohler, Oral History, 9-10; Alvin Kohler, Oral History, inter­view by Rebecca Vorimo, 21 October 1993,2. 16. Wasatch County Census Report, 1990; Douglas Merkley, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 12 November 1993,6; Paul Daniels, Oral History, interview by Rebecca Vorimo, 1993,4. 17. Daniels, Oral History, 1; Merkley, Oral History, 2; Calvin Gdes, Oral History, 9; Mathis, Oral History, 29-30. 18. All types of hay were the most popular harvest: 10,214 acres in 1978; 11,153 in 1982; and 10,697 in 1987. 19. Daniels, Oral History, 2, 3; Alvin Kohler, Oral History, 8. 20. Gdes, Oral History, 10; Agricultural Census, Daniels, Oral History, 3. 21. Wasatch Wave, 19 January 1978,1, 9; 7 September 1978,1. 22. Wasatch Wave, 7 September 1978,1; Wasatch County Commission minutes, 19 November 1980,175-G; Mathis, Oral History. 23. Wasatch Wave, 29 January 1976, 1, 2; 28 February 1978, 2. 24. Wasatch Wave, 6 May 1976, 1; 30 December 1976, 1; 27 October 1977,1; 16 November 1978,1-2. 25. Wasatch Wave, 28 September 1978,2; 9 August 1979,1-A; 9 August 1979, 1-A. 26. Mathis, Oral History. 27. Wasatch Wave, 9 December 1976, 1; 10 February 1977, 1; 23 June 1977, 1; 13 July 1978, 1. YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 315 28. Mathis, Oral History, 6. 29. Wasatch Wave, 23 January 1975,1. 30. Mathis, Oral History; Wasatch Wave, 27 September 1979, 1-A; 21 February 1970, 3-A. 31. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 19 May 1980, 141-G; 19 December 1980,209-G; Mathis, Oral History. 32. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 20 June 1980, 149-G; 15 August 1980, 164-65-G; 5 September 1980,171-G. 33. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 5 February 1982, 373-G; 4 September 1973,26-E; Wasatch Wave, 30 January 1975,1; 5 January 1978, 2; 26 January 1978, 1; 22 January 1976, 1; Mathis, Oral History, 40. 34. Wasatch Wave, 2 June 1977, 1; 23 June 1977, 9; 30 May 1990, 1-A. 35. Alvin Kohler, Oral History, 9. 36. Mathis, Oral History. 37. Bureau of Reclamation, "Strawberry Reservoir Enlargement: Recreation Master Plan," 1978, 3; Wasatch Wave, 7 October 1976,1; Mathis, Oral History, 17. 38. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 3 April 1973, 453-E; Wasatch Wave, 17 July 1975, 1. 39. Wasatch Wave, 7 August 1975, 1; 4 December 1975, 1; 22 April 1976, 1; 7 October 1976, 1. 40. Wasatch Wave, 7 August 1975, 1; 18 September 1985,1; 21 August 1975,1; 18 September 1975,1; 6 May 1976,1; Wasatch County Commission minutes, 17 February 1983, 504-H; 3 September 1974, 95-F. 41. Wasatch Wave, 31 August 1978, 1; Wasatch County Commission minutes, 17 February 1983, 504-H; 7 August 1983, 565-H. 42. "Strawberry Reservoir Enlargement," 55-58; "Supplement to the Final Environment Statement for the Recreation Master Plan, Strawberry Reservoir Enlargement, Bonneville Utah, Central Utah Project, Utah, 1978, 56. 43. "Supplement to Strawberry Reservoir Enlargement," 95. 44. Wasatch Wave, 21 November 1985, 1; 14 March 1985, 2-A; Jordanede, 1-5. 45. Mortimer, How Beautiful, 406. 46. Wasatch Wave, 16 March 1978,1-2. 47. Wasatch Wave, 19 April 1979, 1-A; 9 October 1980, 1-A; 6 November 1980,1-A; 24 May 1979,1-A. 48. Wasatch Wave, 24 May 1979,1-A; Mathis, Oral History, 24. 316 HISTORY OF WASATCH COUNTY 49. Wasatch Wave, 24 May 1979,1-A; 5 Aprd 1989,1; 18 Aprd 1990,1- A. 50. Mathis, Oral History, 25; Wasatch Wave, 21 November 1985,1. 51. Wasatch Wave, 15 August 1990, 1-A; 7 March 1990, 2-A; Mathis, Oral History. 52. Wasatch Wave, 5 September 1990,1-A; Mathis, Oral History. 53. Besendorfer, Oral History, 6. 54. Wasatch Wave, 13 September 1979,1-A; 14 March 1990,1-A. 55. Mathis, Oral History. 56. Wasatch Wave, 20 Aprd 1978, 1; 8 June 1978, 2; 28 February 1980, 1-A; Mathis, Oral History. 57. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 14 December 1976, 243-F; 21 December 1975,246-F; 14 December 1976,243-F; Wasatch Wave, 2 June 1977, 1; 9 June 1977, 1, 6. 58. Wasatch Wave, 10 August 1978, 1; 13 February 1975, 1; 24 July 1975, 1; 11 February 1976, 1. 59. Wasatch Wave, 7 October 1976, 1; 19 May 1977, 1; 17 November 1977,1; 20 January 1977,1. 60. Wasatch Wave, 8 December 1977, 1; 27 April 1978, 1; 10 August 1978, 1. 61. Deseret News, 4 September 1978; Wasatch Wave, 12 October 1978, 1; 11 October 1979,1-A; 25 October 1979,1-A. 62. Mathis, Oral History, 33-34. 63. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Utah, "Profile of the Heber City/Park City Labor Market Area" (August 1983), 14; Jordanelle, C-31. 64. Wasatch Wave, 18 November 1976,1; 23 June 1977,1; 15 December 1977,1; 20 April 1978, 9. 65. Mathis, Oral History, 30. 66. Merkley, Oral History, 3-4. 67. Wasatch County Board of Education minutes, 14 June 1979, 1272; 21 June 1979, 1273; 4 October 1979, 1286; 25 October 1979, 1287; 31 January 1979, 1258; 26 March 1981, 1343; 21 December 1989, 1686; 29 March 1990, between 1698-99; 16 August 1990, 1711. 68. Wasatch County Board of Education minutes, 1 June 1981; 25 April 1985,1506; 16 August 1986, between 1562-63. 69. Merkley, Oral History, 5; Besendorfer, Oral History, 4. 70. Salt Lake Tribune, 2 August 1986, B-3; Wasatch County Board of Education minutes, 2 May 1990,1702-3. YEARS OF DECISION AND GROWTH, 1975-1995 317 71. Deseret News, 9 January 1979; Wasatch Wave, 20 October 1977, 8; 18 January 1979, 2. 72. Wasatch Wave, 18 January 1979,2. 73. Wasatch Wave, 22 February 1979, 7-A; 13 September 1979, 7-B; 5 April 1979, l;DesererNews, 17 September 1979, 12-A. 74. Salt Lake Tribune, 10 January 1979; Wasatch Wave, 22 February 1979, 7-A; 15 November 1979, 1-A; 13 April 1979, 1-A; Deseret News, 14 October 1978; 3 January 1978; Wasatch County Commission minutes, 6 April 1983, 512-H; 15 July'1983, 557-H; 3 August 1983, 560-H; 23 November 1983, 601-H; 15 August 1984, 705-H; Mathis, Oral History. 75. Mathis, Oral History, 37-38; Wasatch Wave, 6 April 1988, 3-A; 12 October 1988,1. 76. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 7 May 1975,140-F; Mathis, Oral History, 10-12. 77. Wasatch Wave, 13 Aprd 1978, 1, 2; Wasatch County Commission minutes, 7 April 1978, 376-77-F; Mathis, Oral History, 10-12. 78. Wasatch Wave, 27 April 1978, 1-2; 4 May 1978,1; 11 May 1978, 2. 79. Wasatch Wave, 12 October 1978, 12; 9 November 1978, 1; 9 November 1978, 2; 23 November 1978, 1; 25 May 1978, 11 May 1978, 1; Mathis, Oral History, 12. 80. Wasatch County Commission minutes, 7 November 1980,190-G; 5 December 1980, 202-G; Wasatch Wave, 31 January 1980, 2-A. 81. Besendorfer, Oral History, 5; Mathis, Oral History, 26.