The Right to Own Property

JOHN J. FLYNN,

Hugh B. Brown Professor of Law.
WILLIAM J. LOCKHART,

Professor of Law.

DELL AND JO ANN H. WALKER,
Orem, UT, June 28, 1995.

Senator ORRIN G. HATCH,

Russell Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR HATCH: We as property owners have several concerns concerning the taking of our properly on the shore of Utah Lake.

When the property was appraised it was not appraised for the purpose for which it was to be used. It was appraised as farm ground and wet lands, we feel it should have been appraised as "campground for the Utah Lake State Park".

In 1973 the state park bought acreage from our family for the expansion of the park. This pasture appraised at $4000 per acre. This property was not to be used for pasture or farming, but for the expansion of the state park. The property the appraisors are comparing this with was put up for sale by owners and used to farm or pasture.

Less than a year ago property on harbor drive road, 1/4 mile east of the dike sold for $7,500 per acre for 18 acres to a real estate developer. This properly was listed less than two months before it was sold.

Another concern we have is; should Provo City be able to purchase this property in exchange for other property needed for the expansion of the airport when this property is not being used for the expansion at all but used as recreation parking for trailers?

This property has been cwned by our family for over 60 years. It is gradually being taken from us by either the city or the state. Back in the early 40's the city bought property from our family for the boat harbor and city park, which was later sold to the state. Then in 1972 the state of Utah parks and recreation purchased the family home and approximately 4 acres for the improvement and expansion of the state park, which adjoins the property now in condemnation.

The first appraised offer that was made to us was a flat $14,000 for 40.8 acres by Provo City. Our refusal caused it to go into condemnation. The appraisal on our property averaged out to be $340 per acre.

The last appraisal was $58,000. Three-thousand dollars was for 8.5 acres and $1000 was for the remaining 32.3 acres, which is being called wet lands. Actually, no one can tell us why this 32.3 acres was considered as wet lands. This information seems to have come from the engineers who are working on the airport expansion. This property is basically the very same on all the property along the lake front. We never knew it was classified as wet lands before this time. We feel this is a very unfair appraisal. The property all around us is being sold for much more.

We appreciate the interest you are taking in the Horton and Edwards property for additional camp grounds and future boat docks for the state park, which is being traded for property on the south side of the river for the expansion of the airport. We are indeed sorry we are unable to attend this hearing. Thank you for everything you are doing.

Sincerely,

THE HORTON FAMILY,
LOIS JEAN H. SHURTLEFF,

JO ANN H. WALKER,

F. ARNOLD HORTON.

Written Testimony of Benjamin Slough

area individuals or.

"The Omnibus Property Rights Act uE 1995"

Dear Senator Hatch,

July 6, 1995

We in the Benjamin slough area are very concerned about property rights and the takings of property which exist. We feel that The Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995" will be one of the things that will help to relieve property omers of some of the problems we are faced with.

Our situation is a little different than many being addressed, in that it is not the actual taking of property but restricting how and to what extent some of the property in this area can be used. Our problem comes from not being allowed to maintain the Benjamin Slough as the flow of drainage water from a large portion of southern Utah County, brings sediment that settles in this slough causing it to restrict the flow of water more and more over the years. This needs to be maintained on a yearly basis where needed, to keep the flows moving out of the area. We are seeing these flows. increase as development in the areas about us take place and also as more water comes into the valley it increases the amount of water to be drained out of the area also. The increased water comes from the added population, which is drilling more water wells and increasing the amount of ground water in the area. And drainage from other sources such as irrigation of upstream land, the unconsumed water from hotseholds which enters the water table through field drains and much of the area above us being covered with buildings and pavemant.

All of these items combined are very critical to the existence of those of us who farm, ranch, and reside in the Benjamin Slough area. In some past years approximately 2600 acres have been flooded with surface water, due to the fact of restricted flow of Benjamin slough. As a result of the minor maintenance allowed in 1995 this flooded acreage was reduced by 50%. Although noť flooded with water ach acreage beyond this area is detrimentally affected as water is high. Nearly every spring, water from all the entities that have water, drain into the Benjamin Slough, which include a great number. of different sources. Some of these sources are mountain runoff, surface runoff from storms, underground drains, water discharged from city sewer plants and numerous others. These all combined are the cause of great grief and economic loss to many people, as well as the health threat posed because of backed up septic tanks and stagnant water which creates a breeding area for mosquitos. Much of this could be reduced greatly if Utah County were allowed to maintain the Benjamin Slough through the removal of sediment as needed for its entire length, and thus increase the flow of water to Utah Lake.

During the week of January 15-21, 1955, Utah County was allowed by the State of Utah to remove sediment from approximately .36 of a mile section of a 1.5 mile part of the Benjamin Slough, all of which needs maintenance badly. There is also another section approximately .75 miles long directly south of this area which

maintenance badly also. We have seen thi

increase the flow 254 to 358, which makes a considerable differenDe when the Benjamin Slough flows in excess of 200 cubic feat second at high peaks. This removal of material allowed flood to move out of the area much more rapidly and into Utah Lal Although many areas will remain under water 3 months because much more sediment must be removed for the flows to they should. The increase in flow this year shows that this improved if this work is accomplished. The 2000 feet that allowed to be cleaned had many unrealistic stumbling blocks as an see from the documents included with this letter

It is due time that those who suffer economical losses, lesses of any other kind, and that the public health concerna this area be corrected. We know from experience that La something is done this problem of restricting the flow of Benjanin Slough which creates flooding, that it will do nothing worsen as it has over the years. Projects of bringing water the Utah Valley have been of great benefit to the Valley as a

well as the individuals on the Benjamin Slough on their my from this area. But this area has been wetter ever since Strawberry Project brought water into the valley and will affected in the future as other projects of this nature put water in the valley such as the Central Utah Project is doing. It is important that the area is provided adequate drainag projects and other changes taka place. We feel that the of those in these areas need to outweigh the thoughts of Andubon Society, Stone Fly Sociaty and others like these these things from taking place. They have no right to alt property right in these matters as they are currently dela the ownership of the Benjamin Slough undefined, it has be difficult to get cities, U.8. Forest Service, homeowner landowners and others contributing to the problem to responsibility for maintenance. With the commitment of Utah Com to be the responsible party, we feel the maintenance should not restricted because of these different groups. There has apposition from the above mentioned groups in connection with desire to maintain the Benjamin Slough. All that is being asked, to maintain the Benjamin Slough to the level that it can adequa handle the flows put into it, not to enlarge it from what it ms. The Army Corps restrictions on the maintenance of the Benja Slough have been to restrictive for us to accomplish proper cha maintenance. Though the wetlands bill has good intent, we beli their actions in this specific case are inappropriate. We bell passage of this bill will help to maintain private property right

Sincerely,
Benjamin Slough