By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Some at the scoping meeting held to explain the proposed East Juab Water Efficiency Project, Phase 2, filled out public scoping comment submittal forms and other dictated their responses.
Sarah Sutherland, NEPA Compliance Coordinator, and Mark Breitenbach, P.E., Project Manager Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System for the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, were on hand to answer questions and, in the case of Sutherland, to manage the scoping comments.
Sutherland typed into the computer system the comment of Richard Paxman, Nephi, a former city council member.
In addition to ranchers and water users, concerned citizens and members of the Salt Creek Foundation all showed up at the meeting during the hours between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
“The proposed action is needed to conjunctively use local surface and groundwater supplies more efficiently,” said Breitenbach.
The proposed action is intended to achieve the following purposes which will address the underlying need for the project to:
•Complete the EJWEP to make the system more water efficient;
•Increase on-farm water use efficiency;
•Reduce irrigation water shortages by reducing distribution or conveyance system losses;
•Restore well pumping capacity to the full existing water right;
•Provide a minimum of 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure to allow all water users to convert existing flood irrigation methods to sprinkler irrigation;
•Recharge local surface water supplies to augment the yield of the local ground water basin.
Based on an environmental analysis, the responsible officials for CUWCD and DOI will decide if DOI and CUWCD should assist the East Juab Water Conservancy District in funding and constructing phase 2 of the EJWEP.
The EA will describe the affected environment (baseline conditions) of resources of the human environment that would be impacted by construction and operation of the proposed Alternatives, as well as the continuation of existing conditions expected under the No Action Alternative.
It will also document the environmental consequences for the quality of the human environment. Baseline conditions are the existing physical conditions of the impacted resources in the impact area of influence. The human environment will be defined in the EA as will all of the environmental resources, including among others the socioeconomic conditions, occurring in the impact area of influence.
“Some of the aspects of the proposed project being considered include rehabilitation of several existing wells, possible development of additional wells, and development of additional distribution booster pump capacity,” said Breitenbach.
Other considerations are construction of a bypass pipeline to reduce seepage loss and installation of perforated infiltration pipelines to facilitate recharge of water to the groundwater basin.
“The purpose of the scoping document and the associated public open house is to present the scope of the proposed Federal action and to obtain comments to determine the significant issues or concerns to be addressed in the EA,” said Breitenbach.
The scoping process will assist in the determination of the range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered in the EA.
The EA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA to determine whether the Proposed Action would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
“I’m opposed to any taxpayer money being spent for any irrigation project in the Nephi area without the restoration of a fishery in Salt Creek as it runs through town,” said Paxman.
In his comments, Paxman related the amount of money that taxpayers had put into the CUP.
Juab taxpayers, he said, have put in $53,301 in tax money paid to CUP.
One of the projects he thought was important was enhancing the fishery aspect of Salt Creek.
He quoted from a document which talked of construction of an equalization reservior. In addition, the water from Salt Creek would not be diverted into the Salt Creek Pipeline when the flow in the creek was less that 16 cfs to avoid an adverse effect on fishing.
Comments of residents of the area can be sent to Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 355 W. University Parkway, Orem, Utah, 84058.
On the official form it states: “The following comments, which identify my issues, concerns, and/or information, are provided for the Joint Lead Agencies (Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Department of the Interior) to consider in the planning process.”
The name and address of all those submitting comments must also be included.
Comments can also be sent to Sutherland at sarah@cuwcd.com or to Breitenbach at mark@cuwcd.com.
Sutherland may also be contacted at 801-226-7147.
