Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Straday, February 12, 1406 THE DAILY PERALD, Prong. Utebe – Page all

Letters

Dredging a bad move

the PRWUA get away with murder - lucer.

ally. Ooc would think buat the Soute of Uisch Now the BOR is going to scan aboc Oana tad Uch Comty would not be involved in Ourent programı turpion the local school syge the detaining of a Federally-established Wes tem, hoping to improve safay. What Lands Preserve. One would be wrong. smoke screen. Whaqabout the pre-schoolers

The Central Urabe Cannpletion Ad-Soc who are probably the most ac rick. They la 306(c) established a Wedands Preserve don't arend school, they ofica don't under In: pordon of Benjamin Slough which stend everything they're old: and even if drabs into Utah Lakepeer Lincoln Paimi. they did understand they don't says have

The Act suhorized the appropriation of the self-control or shought processes and $16.690,000 to ecgahre land and water and sery to make a good choice. to develop and preserve a Walard Preserve Éd Vidmar of the BOR is quoted as saying in Benjamin Slovghand Gosten Bay. thar gares and fences are only an “illusioa ar

According to the Act, the Preserves there safety." I disagree Gates and fences and to be managed by the Utah Redlerradioa mod real and camgiale. Bumping into a game will Conservation Commission in cooperation keep my 24-year-old away from the case. with the Urzh Division of Wildlife Re- burmy words can be igmored. Sources and da United States Fish and Wild

From what I read, the Otto Occer programi life Service. A preliminary draft for 20 20- will only be implemcated in Orem. Wher quisition and inanzgement plan for the

abour the kids in Hrovo, Lindon. Plexul Watands Preserve was prepered and issued Grove, etc.? by the Uch Division of Wildlife Resources I happen to live below the canal in Linon Sept. 30, 1994.

don, just yards from where the canal bank Reorandy. Acting by reason of a permit broke in the spring of 1988. I can look ou suund by the Uch State Engineer, Veh almost any window in my house and see County contracted for the dredging of Boer what's happening around the canal. You Crack in the lower part of Beer Creek wbicia wouldn't believe some of the things I've is bacured in the Benjamin Slough Wed=nà Sec - most are against the law. A lackad Preserve The dredging has been accons gate vo the canal would not keep all the plished under the direction of the Urah Ezwbreakers ou by certainly would curt County Engineer.

some of the activity there, which cca waly be la recent converszrion with the Coursy a posiave thing for the safery of the care Engineer, he reported that thus far che

banks. dredging had roduced the warer level in the I've also seen the PRWVA workers ia dredgod urez by approacimately one foot. "action. "Most of them are older area and

If the dredging of wetlands bordering rarely gatour of their pickup trucks. Beer Creek represents the messure of dedi Maybe I've rissed something, but from asion of the Central Uab Water Conser what I've seen the BOR and the PR WUA . Vency District, the Szate of Urah and the are not concerned about the chidren who United States Fusta and Wildlife Service to Live Deer the canals, and Ed Vidmar could the provisions for mitigarion of the Central reach a dass in how to talk a loi vichwa Undt Completion Act, fumme CUP appro szymy anything. Maybe he should become a poissions would be fitoing iremos or which a policjan. Presideor should exercise a line itemi velo.

Cynthia Toombai Lillier Hayes

Lindon Mt. Timpanogos Audubon Society

Provo

COMO TENTARY

Sunday, February 19, 1995,

Dredging Violated Preserve One would think the state and Utah County would not be involved m the Contriing at a federally established wetHunds preserve One would be wrong.

The Central Utah Completion Act as tabiished a wetlands preserve in a por

of Benjamte Slongh, which drains

Ubah Lalce near Lucoln Point. The tanthesized the appropriation of $16.7 lion to acqatre the preserve im Benja

Slough and Göster Bay. According to the act, the preserves were to be marraged by the Utah Beelz

ition and Conservation Commission in cooperation with the Utah Division of

dite Resources and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A preliminary dratt for

acquisition and management plan for! the Wetlands preserve was prepared sad orded by the Utah Division of Wildlife Lesources Sept 80, 1994

Recently, acting by reason of a permit hued by the state engineer, Ural Commiy contracted for the dredging at the lower pact of Beer Creek, which is located in

Benjamin Slongh Wetland Preserve Pat dredgmg has been accomplished under the direction of the Utah County enneer.

ha recent conversation with the countymgineer, he reported that this far the dredging had reduced the water level in the dredging area by approximately one foot. I the dredging of wetlands bordere by Beer Creet represents. Fine measure dedication of the Central Utan Water Conservancy District, the state and the US Fish and Wiatrie Service to the proIdions for mitigation of the Central Utah Coupletion Act, tmbare CU? approprio tions would be fitting items on which a mengident should evercise & line-item Tuta

LLLAN FAYES
VI. Timpanogos An.tubon Society

Picoc

[graphic]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The Utah County Mosquito Abatement Division supports the need for conservation and management of wetlands that gives due consideration to preventing the spread of human disease, and favors the continued development of technology that permits public health concems and production of pest mosquitues to be addressed while protecting wetlands. . The Utah County Mosquito Abatément Division encourages public education about wetlands and emphasizes that all future wetlands legislation should address disease vector/public health issues. Public health and safety cannot be jeopardized in favor of private property rights while preventing the spread of disease and guaranteeing a health environment for all.

Utah Courity Mosquito Abatement Divisiper

CATE STREET - PROVO, UTAH H4606

PHONE (101) 370-8700 - Fax (801) 370470 pope

POARD OF HEALTH

Donald N. Wright, Ph.D., Cicinas யப்

elecer loca Back Richari A. Frangon, M.o. une Lavison, RN, M.D. no, no

Woyar masio Hult

Meyer Rusku Gamma

So cegis

Daily Herald Property owners score win against environmentalists

[graphic]

By H. JOSEF HEBEAT news conference.
Asiscciated Press Writer Environmentalists predicted that

if the House bal survives in the WASHINGTON – Property Senate it could amount to destroyowners could set bilions of dol- ing wetlands and cadangered spelars for losses cansed by rest: ic- cies protection laws because agentions on the use of environmentally cies would be reluctant to press sensitive land under a bill passed enforcement, fearing compensaby the House ur Frigy.

tion claims tiey could not afford to The property rights bill, which pay. passed by a 277-148 vote, was bailed by supporters as long-await

Called the “Private Property od relief for landowners who have Protection Act," the House-passproperty devaloed because of wet- ed measure would broaden sublungs protection or rules sheltering stantially the definition courts tradendangered species

itionally have given to a. The bill will rein in "a bureata "Tegulatory taking of property. racy ou of control and running.

It would require a federal agenamok : déclared Rep. Richard cy to conpensate landowners if a Pombo, &-Calif. We want to ta federal action to preserve ecologi

ieve the power of the people hav- cally sensitive lands – such as Yng to live under this."

wetlands or endangered species The measure was the last of a. rutes-reduces the land's value by solog of anti-regalario bills pass

20 percent Courts have generally ed his week by the House moder ruled that a government taking thae GOP's "Corrad With Ameri

occurs when all value of a propery cu" beiner.

islost. The other bil's include measures

Originally designed to cover all that would require the federal gov

regulations, supporters during two content to pay moore attention to days of poor debate agreed to narcosts and compare risks against mw.itia cover only federal actions benefits when issuing regulations, teken to protea wedands and enespecially those dealing with the dangered species, and rules in

vironment and make it easier - volving federal water rights. neprically for small businesses

The water provision was includto challenge federal regulanons.

ed to gain support of many lawkwa wadlee. Zor the bills will makers from die West, where waface in the Senats, wbiere it is easic ter rights are crucial and for a small group of lawmakers w

consplated property. A rancher block législationMore modest . could seek compensation if the Inproperty rights and risks assess terior Department takes water

et bills have been introchiced it away from hinn and shifts it for the Senijo, but have yet to be de urban usé. butad

"People believe goverment no "We hope they will not weakes longer is their servant – it's their (the House-passed airasures). This master," said Rep. Bily Tauzin, is a strong mi regulation pack. Dla, odle of the most vocal adva age," House Republican Whip.cates for property rights legislation Tom DeLay of fexcas said a à in the Hour.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Chairman Hatch, my name is Gene Shawcroft, and I am the Assistant General Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Don Christiansen, the District's General Manager sends his thanks for being asked to testify and his apologies for not being able to be present personally. He has asked me to officer this brief statement of support for this important legislation.

The Central Utah Water Conservancy District applauds your efforts and those of Senator Dole and the many other cosponsors of the Omnibus Property Rights Act. This legislation is fundamental to providing the full protections embodied in the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing to each individual that his property may not be taken by government action without due process and just compensation. I am certain this Committee has heard numerous examples of how intrusive environmental regulations have denied a property owner the full benefit and enjoyment of his property. I am pleased today to be able to add the support of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to the enactment of this important legislation. If I may, I would like to take a minute to suggest an area where the bill might be strengthened with respect to water rights and the doctrine of western state water law primacy.

In the eastern half of the country, where water is an abundant resource, water law and water rights are based upon the riparian doctrine. Under the riparian doctrine, water rights run with the land and are attached to real property when it is sold from one owner to the next. Under riparian water law, the owner of real property also owns the water attached to it.

In the western United States, water is a scarce and limited public resource which is used over and over again by one downstream user after another. We westerners follow the doctrine of prior appropriation in water law. Western water rights generally follow a rule of first in time, first in right. The right to use water does not, however, convey the right to own water.

Under the prior appropriation doctrine the "right" to use water does not run with the land nor is it associated with real property at all

. As you know there are many stories of fraudulent desert land developers who sold property to easterners without any water rights attached to it.

Under western water law, the “right” to use water is regulated by the state water engineer who determines when, where, and how much water may be put to beneficial use by any individual. Western water rights issued by the state usually always have conditions placed upon them which burden their use.

Local governments often enact ordinances which further restrict an individuals right to use water during times of drought or for public health and safety purposes. In addition, the State Engineer will sometimes "adjudicate” the rights of a river system where there are many competing water right holders. Often after an adjudication, there are some disgruntled water right holders whose prior usage has been reduced.

Finally, when a water development project like the Central Utah Project is overlaid on top of preexisting projects such as the Provo River Project or the Strawberry Valley Project, there is a need for the State to obtain an operating agreement which will coordinate the projects water supply to produce more efficient use of the resource.

Due to the completion of Jordanelle Reservoir, such an operating agreement was negotiated last year for the Provo River system and was brought about with the assistance of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Utah. This important agreement provides for the coordinated use of Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs to maximize the storage and delivery of water and to provide adequate protection of stream flows for fishery purposes.

In the Omnibus Property Rights Act, the definition of “property” and “private property” includes “the right to use and receive water”. A prior appropriation water right is not private property in the same manner as a riparian water right. The difference between the nature of riparian and prior appropriation water rights is important as you consider requiring federal, state and local governments to provide compensation for actions taken which reduce the value of such rights.

We believe the bill could be strengthened to provide some differentiation between riparian and prior appropriation water rights. I am certain that the authors of the draft legislation did not intend to create a new federal cause of action for every disgruntled water right holder any time his use of water is in some legitimate way altered such as in the examples I have provided above.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »