- Governor Herbert hears concerns of Snake Valley residents; will make final decision by April
|
GOVERNOR HERBERT SPEAKS TO WEST DESERT CITIZENS • Governor Gary Herbert traveled to Eskdale and Trout Creek to hear directly the concerns area citizens. Cecil Garland of Callao told the governor "You should never put into jeopardy anything you wish to protect." "Signing the agreement was putting the arid region's water into jeopardy. I would rather go down fighting," said Garland.
By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
A challenge was issued to Governor Gary Herbert by one local resident of Snake Valley at a meeting called by the governor of the state to discuss the proposed agreement between Nevada and Utah.
He would make a decision by the first of April, said Herbert, on whether or not an agreement between Utah and Nevada concerning the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) proposed pipeline should be signed.
Two meetings were held, one in Eskdale and the other in Trout Creek.
Trout Creek, in Juab County, is located at the north end of Snake Valley. Millard County Commissioners attended as did Juab County Commissioners, Chad Winn, chairman, Byron Woodland, commissioner, and Rick Carlton, commissioner, the second for Juab County Commissioners in one month.
Commissioners convened the first monthly commission meeting at the high school there to gain public input to pass on to the governor. Following that meeting, Herbert determined that he would, likewise, meet with the people of the area to discuss the proposed agreement.
"You should never put into jeopardy anything you wish to protect," said Cecil Garland, who has ranched in the Callao area for more than 30 years.
Signing the agreement, he said, was putting the arid region's water into jeopardy.
"I would rather go down fighting," said Garland.
The Governor traveled Utah's West Desert Wednesday to gain opinions from residents there on what should be done.
Herbert told those assembled that he was still trying to determine just what to do. However, he said, the agreement, which the governor has considered for nearly four years, contains tangible protection measures.
"I have not made up my mind," he said.
Before the agreement can take affect, it must be signed by Mike Styler, Executive Director for the Utah Department of Natural Resources who is appointed by the Governor, acting under the direction of Herbert.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Herbert addressed the words of Garland.
"Either way, Cecil, we will go down fighting," he said.
Herbert thought signing the agreement did offer protections to the state and to water users on the West Desert.
Some of Herbert's points were that, one, Utah would not lose any Utah water—"not one drop."
"The second principal, is that we want to protect the water rights of the people who are here on the Utah side," he said.
His third point was that the state had the "responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and make sure whatever happens we don't have degradation of the environment."
He said, in addition, another significant point was that impacts on the economy, agriculture, ranching, farming and the quality of life were considered.
"These are the three principles we need to espouse in whatever we do," he said.
Styler, as he addressed the public at the meeting, presented two colored sheets concerning the agreement. One was red, for stop (no agreement), and the other was green for go (with the agreement).
He then discussed what would be the scenario without the Utah/Nevada agreement.
Without the agreement, said Styler, Utah will continue the current monitoring while appropriations last, and will inform Nevada of the decision to not sign.
"Utah will have no control over Nevada's next move but most likely, the state to state agreement provision will become null and void," he said.
SNWA will be free to ask the Nevada State Engineer to proceed with processing their Snake Valley applications and Utah residents' only remedy to damage from Nevada groundwater use will be private injury claims filed under Nevada laws.
"Utah's only legal remedy to groundwater impairment is an Equitable Apportionment Action before the Supreme Court which will only divide the water," he said.
With the Utah/Nevada agreement, he said, existing pre-1989 Utah and Nevada water rights are gold plated; both states agree to reduced withdrawals, by priority, if water mining begins, and any future SNWA rights granted by Nevada State Engineer are conditioned on adherence to the agreement.
Snake Valley withdrawal limitations are imposed, under the agreement.
"SNWA postpones Snake Valley applications for 10 years allowing baseline studies to continue."
Nevada agrees to enforcement of environmental protections; the agreement becomes the contract for protections, and the agreement requires Utah and Nevada participation in the joint monitoring and management of Snake Valley.
"The agreement expands the scope and time for monitoring," he said. "The agreement provides simplified mitigation process for Utah holders in addition to existing legal remedies."
"The agreement does not give Utah's consent to the pipeline nor does it give any Utah water to Nevada," said Styler.
Kathy Hill, resident of the valley, said she was still urging the governor to not sign the agreement.
"The agreement will be your legacy," she said. "It will be our lives."
Her greatest concern was, that like the Colorado River agreement, the water was over-appropriated and the science used to arrive at the numbers was more political than scientific.
Don Anderson, who sits on the Snake Valley Aquifer Advisory Council, thought the agreement did offer some protections and, though he would like it to have some triggers, said that it would take the 10 coming years of data collection to provide the needed information accumulation.
Dean Baker, who ranches with his sons on both sides of the border, said the agreement offers the best chance to stop the pipeline.
"After it is signed," said Baker, "it will do more to protect us than if we did not have one."
Both Herbert and Styler employed the simile of the agreement arming the holder by giving the signer more bullets for use.
Herbert addressed Garland by saying, if he had more bullets, he could do a better job of fighting the battle and was more assured of winning. The agreement, he said, allowed the state to be in the front in a battle and gave the wherewithal for a successful outcome.
|
