Record Details
page 258
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 258 Final Environmental Statement : authorized Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, Utah, Volume II, page 258 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Source | Central Utah Water Conservancy District |
| Publisher | Brigham Young University |
| Date | 2005-10-14 |
| Format | 258 text/PDF |
| Rights | Brigham Young University; http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/generic.php Public Domain Public |
| Language | English; eng; en |
| Relation | Central Utah Project; Western Waters Digital Library; since so many questions were never addressed in the impact statement and since the other source is so misleading to the point of lying to the pub lic what can one believe in the entire report certainly dam safety information is totally unavailable are we to trust the bureaus judgment and the judgment of the outside consultant after the teton dam flood control project what would happen if the site was shown to be unsafe this possibility is not even hinted in the impact statement what is the cost of building a safe dam Is the bureau con cerned berned about costs another feature a federal agency should mention in an impact statement is the energy consumption of constructing the water project how many BTUs will be consumed our resources are running low perhaps there would be a less energy intense way of delivering water dow chemical has a sub sidiary that deals with such questions then suppose the M and I 1 system is approved who are the customers that will pay for the project are these the same customers who want federal and state taxes cut a balanced federal budget and suppose the cus tomers bomers never want the water what happens if the customers do not exist other alternatives can be utilized but the bureau states that the con sumer costs for recycled water would be 2 3 times the cost of the bonneville unit water where are the studies for this data why were they not in the impact statement are we to assume that the bureau is given the straight answer after its deceptive way of handling the hydroelectric power and the dam safety aspects L emmerich at some public meetings on water policy in utah mentioned that an averare average community loses 40 of its treated water through breaks in the pipes fifty percent of water goes for lawns and gardening consequently 70 of a communities water which is treated and culinary goes for non culinary purposes mainly ground water recharge or deposition into great salt lake with such distrust of the bureaus judgments I 1 become jaundiced when I 1 read of the mitigation benefits for wildlife and fisheries figure C 3 shows improvements of fishery habitat from interim operations in spanish fork diamond fork yet diamond fork power system would destroy any fish eries and wildlife in the region the bureau mentions all the benefits of flat water recreation and yet it wishes to dike off the most biologi biology cal productive natural lake in utah and convert this lake to a eutrophic reservoir and this natural utah lake is close to both utah and salt lake county populations and will the bureau actually improve the upper provo lakes or will it see to it that our washington delegates not fund that part of the project after the jordanelle Jor danelle is built much as had happen with the rainbow bridge protective measures the bureau mentions how the agricultural community will benefit yet there is no mention of the rate of farm lands lost due to urbanization will the farmlands be around to receive the irrigation water when the project is completed 258 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/9484 |
