Classifieds Business Directory Jobs Real Estate Autos Legal Notices ePubs Subscribe Archives
Today is October 5, 2015
home newssports feature opinion fyi society obits multimedia

Front Page » October 1, 2009 » Carbon County News » Matheson sends Gooseberry letter
Published 2,195 days ago

Matheson sends Gooseberry letter

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

Sun Advocate publisher

Utah Second District Congressman Jim Matheson sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stating in no uncertain terms that he feels that the proposed Gooseberry Dam would be an undesirable project to build under the present plans that Sanpete County and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) have for the project.

"In the late 1990's, the expected cost of the dam was between $60-80 million," wrote Matheson. "At this time, it is not clear how much the project will truly cost. Additionally, the construction of this new dam at Gooseberry will adversely affect the water users in neighboring Carbon County, which is in my congressional district."

In the letter, Matheson went on to say that the proposed dam site was located on a known active earthquake fault and that its construction could also have "negative effects on one of the premier trout fishing streams in Utah."

The Gooseberry controversy has been somewhat quiet for a couple of years. But the election of Jason Chaffetz last year and his subsequent visit to the site of the proposed dam this past summer have relit the controversy. In a statement at the time of his visit to the dam site before the Sanpete officials who were present, he said, "We're going to fight to make this happen. Any hurdle they (opponents) put up for us we'll get over it."

At the time, as reported by the Sanpete Messenger, Chaffetz also said that Matheson owed him one.

"I've supported some of his projects outside of the district, so I hope he reciprocates," he stated.

Some residents in the water community around Carbon County wondered if that statement was true, but Matheson put a squash on that belief with his letter.

"The users of Sanpete County deserve access to their water, but I believe it is important to evaluate alternatives that are much less costly and may have fewer negative effects on the two counties, Sanpete and Carbon," he stated. "It's my understanding that a number of viable alternatives exist."

Matheson also pointed out that the Bureau of Reclamation has recommended that work on a supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (that was started because of a record of decision from a previous EIS had been rescinded by a court) that was begun in 1998, be recommenced.

"Given that so many stakeholders in Utah are interested in this project, I ask that you give careful consideration to all sides before moving forward with this project," Matheson concluded.

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

Top of Page

Carbon County News  
October 1, 2009
Recent Local News
Quick Links
Subscribe via RSS
Related Articles  
Related Stories

Best viewed with Firefox
Get Firefox

© Sun Advocate, 2000-2013. All rights reserved. All material found on this website, unless otherwise specified, is copyright and may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission from the publisher of the Sun Advocate.
Legal Notices & Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Advertising Info    FAQ    Contact Us
  RSS Feeds    News on Your Site    Staff Information    Submitting Content    About Us