JOIN your neighbors and oppose the Logan River Watershed Project
PLEASE submit YOUR comments in opposition to the Logan River Watershed Project
by emailing Ammon.Boswell@USDA.gov by June 22 at 5 pm.
https://tinyurl.com/LetterLRWP
EMAIL: EMAIL :::EMAIL:::EMAIL::::EMAIL
Come down, grab a slice of pizza, and make your voice heard!
This might take a little as 10 minutes.
Consider this advice in your comments:
HOW TO CHALLENGE A DEIS OF A PL-566:
Challenging a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL 566) generally relies on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The legal mechanism to challenge the DEIS is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows citizens to sue federal agencies for decisions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The most common legal arguments used to challenge an NRCS-managed PL 566 DEIS include the following core claims:
1. Inadequate Range of Alternatives (this one is huge with Logan River Watershed Project-leasing excess water right to Great Salt Lake solves a lot of the irrigatioh problem, far cheaper options were not even considered!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
NEPA requires federal agencies to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including a "no action" alternative. [1]
• Basis: The DEIS artificially limits its alternatives or fails to include environmentally preferable options.
• Basis: The agency fails to rigorously evaluate a wide enough variety of structural and non-structural alternatives (e.g., green infrastructure versus building concrete dams).
2. Failure to Take a "Hard Look" at Environmental Impacts
The core purpose of the DEIS is to disclose environmental consequences.
• Basis: The DEIS fails to analyze the indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed watershed modifications (e.g., how water diversions or flood control structures affect downstream flow, wetlands, or floodplains). [1]
• Basis: Insufficient analysis of impacts on threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat, which can also trigger violations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). [1, 2, 3]
3. Faulty or Outdated Data
Agencies must use the best available science and accurate data.
• Basis: The economic or environmental models used to justify the project are outdated, flawed, or based on incorrect assumptions (e.g., using historical precipitation and flooding data instead of climate-adjusted data). [1, 2]
• Basis: The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) required for PL 566 projects is arbitrary, inflated, or fails to properly monetize environmental damages.
4. Flawed or Excluded Public Participation
NEPA dictates that agencies foster public participation and incorporate public input into their environmental review processes. [1, 2]
• Basis: The agency failed to adequately notify the public, provide a sufficient comment period, or respond to substantive comments raised during the scoping phase.
• Basis: The DEIS omits critical data that the public needs to provide meaningful feedback.
5. Non-Compliance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-83-566)
Beyond NEPA, the project must comply with its own governing statute.
• Basis: The proposed works of improvement exceed the maximum permitted size (e.g., the watershed exceeds 250,000 acres for a single flood control structure).
• Basis: The project sponsors lack the necessary legal authority under state law to operate and maintain the structural improvements. [1, 2, 3]
Practical Steps to Challenge
Before filing a lawsuit under the APA, you must exhaust your administrative remedies by submitting thorough, detailed, and data-backed comments on the DEIS during the official public comment period. To learn more about eligible project sponsors and the exact requirements for a PL 566 Watershed Plan, review the guidelines provided by the USDA Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations Program. [1, 2, 3]
Or this advice:To successfully challenge a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a project under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566), ...you must rely on federal environmental and administrative laws. The primary mechanism is challenging the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) compliance with these statutes. [1, 2]Challengers typically base their lawsuits or administrative objections on the following primary legal pillars: 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The NRCS is required to follow NEPA when planning and implementing PL-566 projects. Common grounds for challenging a DEIS under NEPA include: [1, 2] • Inadequate ange of Alternatives: Failing to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including a "no-action alternative" and environmentally preferable alternatives. [1] • Failure to Disclose Cumulative Impacts: Not fully analyzing or understating the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project (such as impacts to water quality, sensitive fish/wildlife habitat, or stream flows). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] • Lack of Best Available Science: Relying on flawed data, outdated hydrology, or failing to quantify the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. [1] 2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Under the APA, courts can set aside federal agency actions that are deemed "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] • Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions: If the DEIS ignores critical evidence, fails to consider important factors regarding the watershed, or reaches conclusions not supported by the administrative record. • Procedural Violations: Suing the NRCS for failing to follow its own regulations or for failing to provide the legally mandated public comment and scoping periods. [1, 2] 3. Endangered Species Act (ESA) If the PL-566 project area overlaps with the habitat of threatened or endangered species, the NRCS must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service. • Failure to Consult: Moving forward without completing the formal Section 7 consultation process. • Jeopardy and Adverse Modification: The DEIS failing to adequately mitigate or recognize how dam construction, channelization, or agricultural water diversions will destroy designated critical habitat or "take" a listed species. 4. Other Federal Mandates Depending on the specific watershed, challengers frequently review the DEIS for compliance with: • Clean Water Act (CWA): Failing to address state water quality standards or violating Section 404 requirements for dredging and filling wetlands. [1, 2, 3] • National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): Failing to properly consult with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) regarding culturally sensitive sites. [1, 2, 3] How to Proceed If you are currently evaluating a specific PL-566 project, it is highly recommended to: 1. Submit Formal Comments: Make sure your concerns are on the record during the public comment period for the DEIS, as this preserves your "standing" to file a legal challenge later. 2. Gather Specialized Reviewers: Have biologists, hydrologists, or environmental economists review the document to pinpoint flaws in the agency's data.
 |
| More info can be found at this link: CLICK HERE |
 |
| PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL OPPOSING the Logan River Watershed Project. to |
Ammon.boswell@usda.gov
Check below for dozens of suggested topics to consider in your email comments to Ammon.boswell@usda.gov.
You could select any number of topics, expand on them, and have more impacts if you add your personal experiences and insights. Comments tie back to this video.
Watch this 30 minute video about the impacts of the LRWP if you want to get some ideas for your comments. Double speed is 15 minutes long.
Be assured that there are MANY FAR LESS COSTLY WAYS to secure and protect water rights, to improve outdated canals, to reduce stormwater flooding in North Logan, to restore and manage our water infrastructure to improve our quality of life, and to reduce the river-flooding risk to a small handful of homes in Sumac neighborhood. (Arrow artist)
The LRWP IS a TERRIBLE way to achieve those goals.
(There is a lot more information available if you want to expand your comments. CLICK here.)
COMMENTS TO CONSIDER:
Explain your experience with the Little Logan River and how you would be upset if there was no water during extreme drought (~25% of time in recent past). Your family may have used the river-side parks and Logan High School's access to the river for decades. How did the river shape your experience? Some sponsors of the project appear to be unaware of this public health risk!
You could discuss and object to the shocking ENORMOUS EXPENSE of the project in your comments to Ammon.boswell@usda.gov.
Watch the video around minute 22:15 and also minute 8:45.
FIND more information for your comments in the 30 minute-long-video of a talk by Dr. Susanne Jänecke. It is embedded below.
You could discuss the DAMAGE that Cache Valley would suffer if the Little Logan River had zero water flowing in it. Mud, algae, loss of family recreation (about minute 8) and health effects are discussed after minute 6.
Are you tired of the Island area being a constant construction zone? Are you tired of the less wealthy parts of town being subjected to unwanted and expensive infrastructure projects? Are you ok with years and years of construction to protect water rights and damage our rivers and parks?
DEIS claims this:
"During construction, minimal particulate and diesel emissions from heavy equipment operations would result in a temporary, negligible adverse effect to air quality. " |
Please comment on that issue, the disruption, the unacknowledged air pollution, diesel fumes, and GSL-dust-related toxins arising from this plan. See some about the issue below and around 8 minute.
You could recommend better alternatives like leasing the unused water to the Great Salt Lake. See minute 18:18.
???????????????????????????????????
Discuss your concern that a mere trickle of river water during future droughts would degrade your experience along the river corridor at Logan High, in River Hollow, Merlin Olsen, Fairgrounds, or other public spaces. Check out the video at about 11:15.
Do you use the river as a therapy pool at Logan High? Do your classmates at Logan High value the Logan river in its current condition? PLEASE HELP GET THEM activated too.
Please tell Ammon.Boswell@USDA.gov how you would hate to see the river be dry, a trickle and perhaps plagued by algae. That likelihood is exposed at about 11 minutes.
Do you live along a rebuilt water feature with limited or zero water, algal scum, weeds, and/or trash, stagnant water, new-mosquitoe-breading-grounds in the water, please inform Ammon.Boswell@USDA.gov how you would be upset to see more of THAT in our community. Explain possible impacts to your neighborhood.
Do you find it worthwhile to trade pressurized irrigation for about 30% of city properties for the MASSIVE expense, a construction zone over many years, loss of healthy levels of river water flowing through the heart of our community, and other disruptions?
???????????????????????????????????
Some current canals will be piped but most may be converted into open dry ditches. Are you worried that your property values might fall if there is no longer an open canal in your area? Are you concerned that large trees will die?
???????????????????????????????????
Are you a water user who cannot afford the expense of installing a new irrigation system? Farmers would need to install central pivots or water wheels to fully benefit from the pressured system. Explain your situation. Homeowners could continue to flood irrigate (maybe??) but the benefit of upgrading to a pressurized system is not available unless shareholders invest in an expensive irrigation system. That expense is not disclosed to users.
???????????????????????????????????
Do you feel that your voice has been overlooked and denigrated by the years long process? Please explain to Ammon.Boswell@USDA.gov that the public meetings did not meet your needs. See minute 15.
???????????????????????????????????
Are you feeling heard? Tell Ammon.Boswell@USDA.gov about this situation. Please lobby your local lawmakers and board members of the Cache Water District to scrap this project.
???????????????????????????????????
You could explain that the federally protected Little Logan River is in danger from this project because sponsors would "lower the crest of the Crockett structure". See minutes 15 and following.
???????????????????????????????????
Are you concerned that the enormous dying shade trees along canals and the Island area could injure our neighbors and cause property damage? Are you concerned that you would be responsible for the removal fee? Removal costs can run into the thousands for large trees.
???????????????????????????????????
Are your families regular users of our parks, our High School river access, the Fairgrounds? Please discuss how vital the health Little Logan River is to your well being. Find out why the project does not guarantee healthy levels of river water flowing through our parks, past the High School and into the Fairgrounds. INSTEAD bone dry conditions are likely at least 1/4 summers, with a "trickle" flowing there during drought. Check out the information after minute 11.
???????????????????????????????????
Are you concerned that the project is abandoning spikes and dangerous metal in the landscape?
 |
| Example of the antiquated features in the irrigation system which are sadly also impaling hazard for kids. Infrastructure like this will be abandoned in our community. Grates, valves, gates, pipes, manholes covers and more are found along the canals. |
???????????????????????????????????
You could explain that protecting the river, our health, well being, and public spaces requires the current diversion points between the Little Logan River and true canals to be maintained. View the first few minutes of the video.
???????????????????????????????????
Please urge sponsors to lease the unused water right to the Great Salt Lake. Find out why at about 18:18 minutes into the video talk.
The State of Utah has declared a drought emergency and made it possible for water rights holders to protect their water right AND lease water to the Great Salt Lake until it is needed in their community. That would result in a quicker funding stream, far less disruption of our cities, would protect the water right, and retain amenities along the Little Logan River for our communities. Check 18:45 for insights into the dire state of the Great Salt Lake.
???????????????????????????????????
OR discuss how your family budget cannot accord this extra ongoing expense. Realize that 130 million dollars come directly from our local wallets. All the federal tax money is ours too and you and we could all identify other worth ways of spending such a huge amount of money.
 |
We don't have money to BURN?!?!?!? ArtistDo you think that our tax moneys should be used, without our vote, on this unwanted and damaging project? At a lifetime cost of $410 MILLION dollars, the sponsors are taxing everyone in order to provide a benefit to a small number of individuals, a few particular kinds of businesses, sectors of our economy that provides less than 10% of the tax revenue of Cache Valley while expecting everyone else to lose money, their health, and our healthy river system. See video after 22 minutes. Be assured that there are MANY far less costly solutions to secure water rights, to the outdated canals, the stormwater flooding in North Logan, and a small handful of homes in Sumac neighborhood with a river-flooding risk.
Agriculture in ALL of Cache Valley represents ~ 8 % of state total. See the data in the DEIS. ???????????????????????????????????
Our communities cannot afford this luxury project that also destroys our Little Logan River's hundreds of amenities!
|
???????????????????????????????????
We could purchase about 1000 average homes in Logan with the amount of same money being sought by the sponsors of the LRWP. WE ARE NOT OK WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is a map of what ~1000 homes might look like.
1000 homes make up about 30 Logan city blocks.
Such astounding expense can only be justified if there are also enormous benefits of the LRWP
???????????????????????????????????
INSTEAD the project brings mostly un-acknowledged, and un-assessed, and un-logged harms to our community, state and region. Recall that authors of the DEIS did not assess negative impacts to recreation and the environment along the Little Logan River because "it is beyond the scope of the project". Why was it beyond their scope? Only rivers were assessed and the Little Logan River is falsely being treated like a manmade canal with limited protections in the DEIS.
???????????????????????????????????
The operational cost of the Project are estimated to be almost 2 million dollars each year. Many projects funding by the federal program Pl-566 has TOTAL budgets of about 2 million dollars. See about 22 minutes in the video for more information.
We were unable to identify a single funded project under the PL-566 program with an installation expense that was even close to the $310 million being requested by the LRWP.
TALK Slides are here.
Summary description of the LRWP:
The LRWP asks for enormous subsidy from taxpayers to
“protect unused and unneeded water right”
MORE.
That produces little-used, often over-watered turf.
The Great Salt Lake needs this water desperately.
The project will diminish summer water in the Little Logan River in a dozen public
green spaces to zero or a trickle,
