Andy Keller Commented in opposition to the LRWP:My name's Andy Keller. I live with my wife, Lauren near River Hollow Park, where the North Branch of the Logan River begins its 5-mile journeys through our community. As residents of the Logan Watershed, we live along a tributary to the Bear River, a major water source for the Great Salt Lake.
We are deeply concerned about what this project fails to do.
So the north branch is the local river and for the greater public good.
The drags land acknowledges the little Logan River flows from multiple city parks, contentments to community identity, and sports, wildlife, and informal recreation.
And the DEIS document consistently refers to the Little Logan River as a canal.
It doesn't even use the word river.
A channel, a stream component, language shapes policy.
When a river is called a CANAL, it is managed as infrastructure and it is not protected as a natural waterway.
A DEIS that fails to recognize the North Branch of the Logan River as a river is woefully inadequate.
The plan should, first, always use the word river when referring to the North Branch of the Logan River or the Little Logan River.
Second: The project must treat the North Branch of the Logan River as a natural flowing stream with the same protections applying to the South Branch of the Logan River in this document and project
Third, commit to restoring year-round-flow through the full length of the North Branch of the Logan River, not merely seasonal flows.
Fourth, commission of full public interest accounting of the $308 million plan, one that values the North Branch of the Logan River as a recreational resource, a wildlife habitat, and a community treasure, not merely a balance sheet for water utilities and shareholders.
Many SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Alanna Nafziger commented in opposition to the LRWP: My name is Alanna Nafziger.
I've been in this with you guys since the beginning. It was nice to see you all.
I also have a lot of concerns about this project, and what it means for the Little Logan River, and how the river is really not being valued by the project.
I can also appreciate the work and complexity that goes into a project, like this.
And I know that you all have considerations to address.
You need experts in design and river systems, landscape architecture firms, that really know clearly how to engage communities in projects like this, and how to reach good outcomes.
Experts who know how water gets from point A to point B, whose homes will be flooded in each situation, while also keeping the amenities and value of the river in our community.
This river has been in my family for generations.
The LRWP will allow only 5 to 10 CFS flowing in the river [sometimes] while taking away the current much higher flows. The flows will be a 7th of current ones.
LRWP will take many benefits away.
And that's not something that's easily gotten back.
And so I think that there's just a lot of gaps here that could really be filled with some diversity of opinion and different sorts of knowledge.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Patrick Belmont commented in opposition to the LRWP:Howdy, I'm Patrick Belmont. I'm a water scientist, and I'm a representing Utah legislature. And I appreciate problems that this project is trying to solve, and there's a lot of hard problems out there.
I understand the desire, want to hold on to these water rights. I get it. And that's kind of a nice job.
You're good at your job. But, um, you know, there's a broader perspective to be had here as well. If you, um, know about the lake that's just on the other side of the mountains over there, it could use a lot more water.
So when I hear protecting our water rigs, what I hear is we're utilizing, and we're trying to kind of find customers, turf crafts, customers to a large extent, when we could be sending that water down the green salt lake. No, Jane, Joel, very called Ray Fall Lake, an environmental atomic bomb, right? This is a really big issue for our region.
It's a public health issue. It's an air pollution issue. It's an ecological issue.
It's an ecological economic issue. And it's part of our identity. Who are we as Northern Utah's here?
The race called Lake is a big part of our identity, and we could be doing a lot more within this project and those things we're doing to bring it back. After 3 great snowpack years, we're still going to get down, probably the historical Liverpool. I'm concerned about the cost. $300 million is a whole lot of money with several $1000000 in ongoing funding.
And again, for what? This is, to a large extent, protecting turf grass. And I get it that MCS is going to pay a lot of this.
It turns out I think the biggest point that I have to make here is we have not really had a conversation about conserving water, which is one of the cheapest ways to finding new water.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Susanne Janecke commented in opposition to the LRWP:
Hi, I'm Susanne Janecke.
I'm a retired geoscience professor.I want to tell you a little bit about the great expense of this project. About 12 years ago, a similar sized area had a big irrigation project done that cost 14 times less money. So this is 14 times more expensive for a slightly larger footprint, but not that much bigger. It is shocking how expensive this is. I will date myself.
It feels like this is a Cadillac project, and I think we need to have a Volkswagen. This is just crazy expensive. In addition, everybody is being asked to pay for it.
We taxpayers are being asked to pay a massive amount of money, but also, once you dig into the 2,803 page long DEIS document, you will discover that every household in the 3 cities will be expected to pay $84 extra a year, whereas some of the water users, who are only 30% of the households, apparently, will be paying a little bit more, but get really, really cheap water, and most of us will have to subsidize them. I don't really think that's right.
This is a very, very, very expensive project.
There are good things being done here, but it's just way too complicated. I think this project is a little bit like the Cinderella story. So we have 2 rivers in our community on the north side, North Branch on the north edge of Logan’s Island and the South Branch of the Logan River on the south side. They are roughly equal originally.
And one of them is like Cinderella. She is treated like a canal. She is an indentured servant and almost a slave. She would go from having 85 cubic feet per second of river water, yet during drought times, dropping down to 3 cubic feet per second. 3 cfs isn't really even enough for the little kids to go tubing in our river.
Due to our ongoing mega-drought, the water flows would be dialed down that much. I have done experiments. I can tell you that the little kids cannot float when there's 3 cubic feet per second……..
CORRECTION- DURING EXTREME DROUGHT ZERO WATER WILL FLOW IN THE LITTLE LOGAN RIVER. SEE PG. XXXXALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Gail Hansen commented in opposition to the LRWP:My name's Gail Hansen, and I am the daughter of a man who proved a lot of water rights of the Colorado River. And, um, It seems like we only value things if we can extract cash from them. And I am the beneficiary of my dad's hard work to prove a lot of water rights.
After I came up here to go to school, had my 1st child, he hauled a 5 foot long banana squash from Kanab to Logan for me to have to feed my family that he had grown down there with the water right that he was proving, right?
I didn't need that much banana squash. Just really didn't.
I have been exhorted to replenish the earth.
I have been exhorted to beautify and give variety to the earth.
I hope that we can do that, and I think that this most preferred plan,
I think what Suzanne said about Cinderella and the Logan River, is important to consider. 85 cubits per second.
That's fun. And beautiful. And it lightens the soul.
…..
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE.
Thank you.. |
Heath Worley commented in opposition to the LRWP:Hello, my name is Heath Worley. You're more of one of the agricultural, Simon.
I do have a parcels of land that we do use irrigation water from. I've been to quite a few of these meetings, and I've tried immensely, and I'm the one who said, this is gonna happen. And it's definitely gonna happen.
There's not all input. I'm trying to get them to give an assessment how much how much each water share is going to cost, anything they'll do. The prices keep on going up, but there's no assessment.
There's no price overdue. The other thing is, I know they're concerned about water leaving this region, but in my mind, isn't a closed system, an easier way for Sony down south to tap into that water? It wouldn't take much for a contractor.
Some people's already a pipeline to us to, Sardine Canyon, it has nothing in it. Come over here and tap into the water, they're gonna say, we're gonna protect them. They also said they weren't gonna, when the water district was formed, they also said they weren't gonna know the rates.
If you noticed on your assessment, the rates were doubled this year. So, but from the agricultural side, but this is a family farm that could be put out of business, because I won't be able to afford water rights from what they're telling me. You know, they, but they haven't given a rate, but they say it's gonna go up a lot.
I can't buy it, you can go up a lot. I think there's a lot of people out there who feel the same way, because all, we will be, we will be burdened. The water right holders will be burdened, or the water shareholders will be burdened with the income of this.
There's maintenance in the system, that we've got to hire somebody full time to do that. There's oversight. But now we've got to hire somebody else to do this.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Clay Essig commented in opposition to the LRWP:My name, my name's Clay Essig. I have the extreme blessing of living on the North Branch of the Logan River, which is its true legal name, regardless of the fact that they're constantly trying to degrade it to a canal or anything else.
I have the extreme pleasure of hearing children scream with the light as they're tubing their river hollow park. I see big siblings helping their little siblings float down the river, teaching them how. And I see so many people that just come all year long and gaze at the river to try to find some peace in this really messed up world where it's all about, let's make more money.
Let's profit off of everything God has given us to the benefit of a very few. I find this project troubling because it never addressed or seriously considered any win-win solutions, which is letting all the water flow down the north branch of the Logan River and then pumping it there. Yes, they're added cost to that.
But how much is it worth to have 1000s of citizens interacting with nature at 14 different city parks and public areas that go along the north pranks of the Logan River? Furthermore, I want to point out, seepage is not a waste. Seepage refills are aquifers and refills like wells.
Yes, it's gobbling that the city needs to deal with, but it is essential to nature. We are taking so much out of nature that we need to put back. I'm also troubled that there has been no survey of public interest of how many people can afford to pay for this system.
There is no mention of how much it will actually cost within the latest project. The last project said. It would be $30 to $70 per person.
This time there is another scenario added in to the DEIS. And who knows? And it says this is just a scenario, and it's not determining the actual final cost.
.....CLAY was cut off.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Unnamed concerned citizen commented in opposition to the LRWP:Unnamed concerned citizen: No, no, no. I, um, you probably won't be excited or clap to me, but I have four comments. It'd be nice to see a low cost tertiary option. $300 million and $280 million are about the same cost.
What would you do for 50 million, or 25 million? Uh, 30 of a million dollars, a lot of money? And then I'd like to see more public benefits, but public dollars being invested.
So, contingent on opening wall, canal access roads to trails. At 600 east and 400 north, there's a blockage there right now, there's a legal dispute. Last time I checked, at 1000 north, and 1900 north, and 1000 east.
There's a blockage right there. We need to get some benefits back from this infrastructure, not just tiny little bits and trails, you know, around the crocket diversion. I'd also like to say use the word conservation, but you should really use the word additional use.
I see conservation is water that stays on the system and gets the grays on, like, additional use and low water use means more shareholders will use the water, but there's not public benefit getting back into the gray salt lake. So, I think a lot of people, at least some people will be willing to concede, some of this, if we knew that it was providing a long term help would benefit within the Gray Salt Lake watershed. And lastly, it would be nice to see on the backside seeing some conservation requirements for users and ag users.
There's not any discussion of how can we, we can deliver the water more efficiently, but how can they use it more efficiently?
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Sponsors: Thank you. Okay, just in the interest of time, we'll need to include these final three speakers right here.
Go ahead, proceed. We want to leave as much time to answer a lot of these questions out, how we'll lobby while we still have daylight. |
Naomi Landry commented in opposition to the LRWP:Okay, my name's Naomi Landry.
My comment's probably not gonna be super long. I'm a mother of three young kids. And I know, and it sounds like there's a lot of really good things about this project that will help.
And it sounds like also, there is a lot of things about this project that could continue to create a sterile world for my kids to live in. When I was young, I was going through creeks and rivers and little canals that were just everywhere, and they continue to be removed and consolidated, and these green public wild spaces are stripped away from our communities. And part of what I've loved about Cash County is that that is not as much the case here as it is in a lot of other places in Utah.
You can still go find little wonders. And a lot of that is because of the little open river and these wonderful parks that we have here. And so I think that there really needs to be a balance between the human experience that we have here and the ultimate efficiency that could be possibly achieved and extracting every single drop that we could possibly extract, and in addition to what other people have said about the great salt link.
We really have an obligation to future generations of Utahs, to prioritize water going back to the Great Lake, as we continue to suck it dry like vampires. We are ruining the future for my grandchildren and for my great grandchildren. And I think that that's something we really need to address.
We need to be thinking 150 years down the line, not just 50 years down the line.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Are we supposed to say our names? Yeah, that one, yes, please.
Cindy Chill commented in opposition to the LRWP:Okay, I'm Cindy Chill. I represent Robert and Samuel, who both would be here. I imagine that just like the people sitting in this group, we're a small sampling of a lot of concerned citizens, I would wonder about the big picture on the hydro cycle personally.
I'm wondering, what happens when we start capping the water, and we start piping it out in the places where it naturally flowed and infiltrated in its natural system, and how that's really going to impact the Great Salt Lake, more than piping would impact the Great, or rather, how piping is the solution, rather than natural infiltration, and the natural vegetation that already occurs. And my husband, that is concerned about the natural vibration roots of the animals that were historically along those waterways of the natural Logan River, you mentioned and said that you were preserving the little bear. That's not, or little Logan, that's not 100% true.
You have traded, chosen to treat the part that goes through the little river hollow, and I'm trying to think of the other name, and I never remember it quite, but that you're treating those as if they're canals, and you're putting those into pipes, and they are not pipes. They are part of the historic system, and so we need to get that corrected. There are, there's more to the system than is, uh, than is fairly represented on these alternative, preferred proposals.
And I just want to bring that to the attention. The other thing my husband points out, as long as well as that concern that others have expressed about it going through the heart of the city, is that, I'm sorry, I'm representing his voice as well, the conflict of interest with the Logan City, that revenue from water usage. Thanks, Cindy. of interest.
I'd rather make money. We just got to be fair to...
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE. |
Jim Evans commented in opposition to the LRWP:My name is Jim Evans. from North Logan, Utah, four points.
One, this program really requires incentivization of people to do, pressurize irrigation. That's in the document. It's in the fine printing, Appendix E, page 1370 something.
Why are the incentives to get people to do pressurizing irrigations, not clearly laid out?
Two, I want to introduce for the record the Janecke tubing index that Susanne did not get to mention.
5 to 10 CFS is what kids need to go tubing in the Little Logan River, ~10 to 15 CFS is what teenagers need, and relatively modestly weighted adults need about 15 to 20 CFS.
Third point is that in drought, what are we going to be doing?
We're talking about when there's water available.
This is going to be here in the little Logan River, what's going to be managed for the Logan River, and the scenarios for how the drone is going to be managed is not clear. The final point I'd like to make is that in the fighting Appendix E, there is actually a bit of a discussion about leasing water to the Great Salt Lake, on that current lease prices, using the estimates that you all have put together, that could be something along the order of $60 to $100 million over the 50 year project lifespan.
These things, as we've heard from other speakers tonight, are all things that need to be put together, right? Water is a fluid, and you know what that means from an accountable perspective, very well. You all are experts on that.
This treats the system as a fluid that is connected. Thank you. |
Jo Leary commented in opposition to the LRWP:And Jim said he'd share his time with me.
I have 27 seconds. Um, I live on the island, and I love trails, but there is a claim in the document that there isn't a way to get from Second East to Sixth East, and there's a sidewalk, and I'm on all the time. Also, there already is a bridge from the Sumac area to River Hill Park, and I don't see a reason to spend a whole lot of extra money to do things that already exist.
|
Tom Alward commented in opposition to the LRWP:Tom Alvord. I'm a resident here, Logan.
Live right on the canal, um, over by the fairgrounds, and I'm an amateur governor, farmer trying to win some stuff, but this is deeply concerning to me. I understand that we have my own system, needs to be updated, sure. Need to conserve water, that's massively important.
But if we can engineer our way into some huge project like this, and play God, does it mean that it's right? Um, I think we have a massive responsibility to look out for our future. And this feels a little slimy to me.
Like, what are you not telling us? What is this really for? Okay?
We're building this huge project for people that aren't here yet? All this growth that we're talking about? Utah is obsessed with construction and growth.
We live in the desert. Maybe it's time we start to limit people that can move here or maybe we should grow smarter instead of just more money all the time, right? Like, any way possible.
Um, If there's anything I'm, I'm, I live in Utah, it's, you know, you don't want these groceries. Um, in your neighborhood, we're taking them out. You don't want this huge data center, too bad, again.
You don't want the ice detention center. Well, too bad. So it's like, where's the public, you know, these are just billionaires and rich people, not listening to the community.
And any house community. It's been it's been proven that a strong community comes, uh, That, excuse me, a strong economy comes from community. really, really bustling and strong economies is because people gather around the place. There's water, there's recreation, there's like people want to be there. definitely.
ALL SPEAKERs were CUT OFF, often mid-sentence, AT 2 MINUTES USING A PRE-PROGRAMMED MICROPHONE.
Thanks, Tom. |
Sponsors wrapped up the meeting Take a minute. All right, Officer.
You're good to go. Okay, hey, we really appreciate everybody that's attended tonight, and those of you that have came come up, and given us your oral comments. Again, we need those written down.
So, as you leave tonight, please pick up a combine card, you can always email us through U.S. postal now, or those are the different ways that you can submit comments. So we'll go ahead and conclude our meeting now. Thanks so much for coming, and we'll see you out in the lobby here, answer as many questions as we can..
I should be able to get them on the recording. |
Updated
