WSP10052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WESTERN RESOURCES WRAP-UP Series XXX, No. 20 Date: 5-14-92 CUP agreement--model in effi of water; how it was done, ps. ~/ ..,1 _.'~ , -.J~L:'fl. ". ~v ~> ~...... . 1 '":l' (,.... < MJCf/VEU v ,;I.' ." 18 19 j CIA I 92 - From: Helene C. Monberg ~ .vCe 123 sixth Street Southeast . Washington, D.C., 20003 Area Code 202-546-1350-1 , . . Washington--"I was astonished" when supporters of the Central Utah Project (CUP) and environmentalists in November 1990 "came to me and told me they had worked out an agreement on efficient use of water in CUP," Daniel P. (Dan) Beard, staff director of the House Interior Committee, told Western Resources Wrap-up (WRW) on April 30 about the CUP water agreement that has cleared both House and Senate. Two years earlier, Beard had told CUp's supporters no reclama- tion project legislation would get thru the House Interior Committee unless it had water efficiency built into it and it was generally ac- ceptable to Chairman George Miller, D-Calif.. of the House Interior Committee (HIC), to Rep. Wayne Owens, D-Utah, and to the environmen- talists. Chairman Bill Bradley, D-N.J., of the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee backed the Miller stand in this regard. J. Stevens (Steve) Lanich, staff water specialist on the House Water and Power Subcommittee, and others have called the CUP sections in the new reclamation water bill (HR 429) that passed the House last year and .the Senate on April 10, "a model in water efficiency" for Western water projects. Lanich told a water briefing on May 4, "The CUP provisions in the bill have the most progressive water use and efficiency language ever considered." (See last week's WRW.) This is an account of how the CUP agreement, a precedent-setter for the west, was hammered out. There are several aspects unusual about it. There has been a minimum of grandstanding about the agree- ment among CUP's supporters, including the politicians. As utah is the second most arid state in the union, their goal is for Utah to use carefully its share of Colorado River Basin water to assure a stable future for the state. WRW has talked recently to several close- ly involved in putting the agreement together. They provided needed information but preferred not to be quoted. They generally deferred to Don A. Christiansen, general manager of Central Utah Water Conser- vancy District (CUWCD) of Orem, Utah. WRW talked with Christiansen at length on May 11. The agreement is built on trust. Those who want to see CUP construction completed and the environmentalists who worked on the agreement made commitments to each other, kept them, and kept the lines of communication open even when the going got rough. Each side learned the prime concerns of the other were legitimate and had to be accommodated in today's political climate, WRW was told. The legislative language is generally understandable; it isn't a lot of legal gobbledygook that few can understand. Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bu/Rec) is excluded from further involvement in CUP unless it is invited in by the Utahans, specifically by CUWCD. GOALS OF CUP SUPPORTERS; NEGOTIATIONS STARTED SLOWLY Christiansen told WRW the CUP backers went into negotiations to hammer out a new agreement for CUP with several goals in mind: the most efficient use of water for arid Utah; to work out provisions to meet needs of fish, wildlife and the environment; to get more bang for the CUP buck construction-wise, and to stretch water and $$$ for both human and wildlife needs as far as possible. (more)