Hooooton hears a Who.  A land owner is land owner, no matter how small.  Who is entitled to some water for their canyon land.

The real story at Alta, Utah is how the town was played by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to believe spending $500,000 in legal fees to stop open records, and building permits on recorded lots would save the watershed.  50% of Little Cottonwood Creek runs to waste.

While Little Cottonwood Creek water is 3 times cleaner than Provo River water, Provo River water once treated, costs less and is tastier.  This means ultra pure watershed is not a significant water quality factor.

Further, Salt Lake City Public Utilities provides at least 4 times the “surplus” water it “provides” Alta to Snowbird.

SLC “provides” 1 million gallons per day (enough for 2,500 houses), plus 28,000 gallons (enough for 70 shouses), plus  80 million for snowmaking (enough for 545 houses), plus unlimited  10 million gallon boosters (enough for 68 houses) of additional “surplus” water  for more snowmaking.

Snowbird and Alta are in the same watershed area.  Snowbird has not paid $500,000 in legal fees to hide records, or deny recorded lots water, or wasted time, money, and energy on kicking Alta land owners off their lands.

Snowbird Special Service District No. 3: “Hello, Salt Lake City Public Utilities.  This is Snowbird No. 3.  We need another 10 million gallons of water.  We’ve shot through the 80 million gallons already.”

SLC: “No problem.  Go ahead and take another 10 million gallons.  We’ll bill you $4,603.33.  Thx.”

Dr. Kevin Tolton: “Hello, Salt Lake City Public Utilities.  This is Dr. Kevin Tolton.  I need another 350 gallon for my recorded lot in Alta.  You dissolved my water company providing water to my recorded lot.  The 50 gallons a day I get from you is not enough for a building permit.”

SLC: “NO WATER FOR YOU.  We sued you and asked Sandy to sue you.  Because of litigation we can’t talk to you.  Stay out of the canyons.  Click.”

It’s the same Little Cottonwood Canyon.  It’s the same watershed.  It’s the same land.  Who is deciding whose land gets millions of gallons of water and who gets sued by Salt Lake City?  SLC Council says its not in charge.  SLC employees who initiate the lawsuits say they can’t bind the city.  Who is the person authorizing all the Salt Lake City water lawsuits and why?

The real Alta residents have been played by a town taken over by non-Alta residents promoted by Salt Lake City Public Utilities in the shadows.  Unlimited Salt Lake City”surplus” water for Snowbird.  Very limited water for Alta and endless water lawsuits.

Who  is the former assistant Alta Administrator who now works in the  Salt Lake City Public Utility Special Operations inside the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Director’s Office?

It is a long standing  allegation that for years Alta’s elections have been rigged and corrupt.  The allegation is that people that don’t live in Alta, drive 8 miles up Little Cottonwood Canyon to illegally vote.

It is alleged that Mayor Tomas J. Pollard lives with this wife, and children in Sandy, Utah from which he commutes to his job at the Rustler Lodge in Alta and returns home at night to Sandy.  Allegedly, he claims to occasionally sleep at the lodge.

Alta’s Mayor appoints the members of Alta’s Planning Commission which controls building and zoning.  Alta’s Mayor has appointed 7 of 7 Alta Planning Commission seats to non-Alta residents all appear to be Salt Lake City residents or associates of Salt Lake City.

Why would a real Alta resident acting as Mayor of Alta appoint 7 of 7 Alta Planning Commission seats to non-Alta residents all associated with Salt Lake City Public Utilities?

If Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker appointed 7 of 7 Salt Lake City Planning Commission seats to non-Salt Lake City residents, he would be removed from office.

It is alleged that  Alta Councilman Steve Gilman lives in Cottonwood Heights with his family and uses the ski area address for voter registration.  Allegedly, Steve Gilman is head of ski patrol at Alta and claims he occasionally sleeps in his office.

Can anyone sleep in their office, use their office for voter registration, and hold elected office where one works?  How did we get to this?

How could an Alta land owner have any expectation of a fair planning and zoning process in Alta, Utah where an alleged non-Alta resident is Mayor who appointed 7 of 7 Alta Planning Commission seats to non-Alta residents, where the Town Clerk is a non-resident who approves non-residents for town elected position (candidacy) and arbitrates election disputes , where all law enforcement parties are non-residents, and the variance board  has a non-Alta resident member?

Alta Land Owners pay property taxes to non-residents who take away their property rights.

Why would the manager of a lodge want to be Alta’s Mayor who appoints Alta Planning Commission seats to perpetuate no growth in Atla, and partner with Salt Lake City Public Utilities’ no growth extreme canyon land policies?

Why is Alta’s Town Clerk a non-Alta resident?

Why is Alta’s assistant Town Clerk a non-Alta resident?

Why is the  Alta’s Town Marshal a  non-Alta residents?

Why are all 3 Alta Deputy Marshals non-Alta residents?

Why is the Town Administrator a non-Alta resident?

Alta residents complaint the Mayor and some Council members are non-Alta residents.

7 of 7 Alta Planning Commission members are non-Alta residents.

How does a resort town come to have 89% voter registration?

$577,993 total annual salaries plus $200,000 in benefits to 21 Alta employees most non-Alta residents.

Not only are elected officials not qualified to hold office under Utah Election Laws, but also the voters themselves are often times legally barred from voting but allowed to vote.

One drive up the canyon and one day a year in Alta does not an Alta resident make.

How does Salt Lake City Public Utilities control Alta, but stuffing the boards with their “people.”

The November 2, 2010 Alta,  Utah Poll Book and Registration book cross checked against the 2010 US Census will provide a window into who should and should not be voting in Alta, Utah.

The only way off the 2010 Alta, Utah Registration records is to re-register in one’s proper precinct.

Snowbird gets enough water (1 million gallons per pay) for 2,500 houses plus 80 million gallons for snow making (That’s equal to water for 548 houses) plus unlimited 10 million gallons (That’s equal to water for 662 houses.) call rights.  All this water is so-called Salt Lake City “surplus” water.

Water equal to 3,048 houses for Snowbird.  Water equal to 662 houses for Alta.  Same watershed canyon.  Same water source.  Same land.  What’s the story?  Snowbird is too big for SLC to muscle.  Alta is too small and run by non-residents.

In other words, Alta gets about as much water as Snowbird uses for Snowmaking under a Salt Lake City “surplus” water contract.

The town of Alta, Utah is Salt Lake City Public Utilities puppet town.  SLC allows Snowbird effectively any amount of water for unlimited growth.  SLC on the other hand says no growth for Alta and enforces it with a water “surplus” water contract.  Both Snowbird and Alta are in the same watershed.  Because Alta is weak, SLC has taken over Alta’s Planning Commission, Alta’s Variance Board, and town council.  It is extremely odd that SLC, the example of governmental transparency and rectitude, deny Alta residents a free and open government.

It appears Alta Utah has a VOTER FRAUD problem.  In the last 2009 election, 306 registered voters were certified by Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen on October 19, 2009.  Alta has a population of 369 of which only 347 are 18 years of age or older.  In 2009, Alta had 306 Registered Voters out of 347 possible. This means in 2009 Alta had a registered voter rate of 86%.  That is high.  In 2008, Alta had 217 Registered Voters (62% registered voter rate).

Where did the increase of 89 registered voters (26% increase) come from in just one election cycle and why?

According to the 2000 US census, 70.7% of the 242 total housing unites were for “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.”  “Occupied housing units 67,”  “Vacant housing units 171,” with “Average household size of owner-occupied units 2.17,” and “renter-occupied units of 2.04″ US Census 2000.

Alta is really not a town, but just a quirky business run by non-residents.  Taxes pay for the lifestyle government workers.  In the month of January 2008, $17,307.96 was paid to New York Times to  promote Alta recreational facilities.  On one hand tax dollars are used to increase traffic, and increase visitors.  On the other hand tax dollars are used against land owners in Alta from using their land.  The land owners don’t run Alta.  The residents don’t run Alta.  Alta seems to be run like a private club where non-residents are elected to office, where non-residents appoint Planning Commission seats to more non-residents.  It appears to be very peculiar affair.  Who benefits?  Who does not benefit?

In FY 2007/2008, Alta’s Visitors Bureau spent $205,204.80 to bring tourists to Alta.   Alta spends hundreds of thousands keeping land owners out of Alta.  This  is not a town, but a business.

Alta has a good write up on SkiTown.com.  Alta is an old ski location since 1938.

Alta seems more like a mini-eco park run by a special town government with a mind set against the property owners and for the tourist dollars.  Alta is very odd. Environmentalim is the new capitalism for tourist dollars.  One gets the sense that Little Cottonwood Canyon is a $250 million dollar business operated loosely by a fake town run by the “approved” few.   Alta is not a town.

Food (restaurants)

6.85% Sales Tax including transportation tax + 1.5%-Resort Communities Tax + 1.00%-Tourism Tax = 9.35% tax on meals.

Room:

6.85%-Sales Tax including transportation tax +  1.50%-Resort Communities Sales Tax +4.75 Transient Room Tax and Tourism Tax - 13.10% tax on rooms

All Other Sales

6.85%-Sales Tax including transportation tax + 1.50% Resort Communities Sales Tax = 8.35% tax on Other Sales

The beautiful Town of Alta with a population of 370, a slice of the Swiss Alps in Utah, is intentionally over the Salt Lake City water barrel.  Alta, one of Utah’s richest per capita towns with average home prices over $1 million obtains its water supply from a heavily subsidized terminable “surplus” SLC water contract for $52 per acre-foot.

How could a million dollar home or any home have a terminable water source and comply with State water requirements for occupancy?

Why does such a rich town need such deeply discounted water  ($0.16 per 1,000 gallons) unlike the $205 per acre-foot rate ($0.63 per 1,000 gallons) charged Wasatch County’s JSSD, the $812 per acre-foot rate charged the U of U, and the $1,108 per acre-foot  ($3.40 per 1,000 gallons) charged Olympus High School?

Basically, the University of Utah is charged 12 times what Alta is charge for water.  Both the University of Utah and Alta are Salt Lake City water customers.  The U of U pays up to $812 per acre-foot plus a franchise fee which can run an additional $47.  Alta is charged a flat rate of $52 per acre-foot by Salt Lake City.

The 2008/2009 $1,560,238 in General Alta Town Revenues puts the revenue collected/generated per town capita at $4,216.86. Alta is Number 1 in city revenue per capita in Utah. Over Alta’s 232 houses, that’s $6,725.16 in Town revenue per house.

According to City-data.com:”Housing density: 57 houses/condos per square mile”  “Houses:232 (61 occupied: 35 owner occupied, 26 renter occupied).”  This makes a rental rate of 43%.

Alta is no poor town needing foundation donations and subsidized water.  From  an estimated 500,000 visitors a year, Alta collects $900,000 in Sales and Use Taxes, or about $2 per head per year.  If Alta is making 1% of the action, then there must be $100 million in action in Alta.  Adding Snowbird’s action, Little Cottonwood Canyon could be a $200 million bonanza for Salt Lake County and Utah, yet a lot owner can’t have a cabin.  This is simply amazing.

Alta generates $1,560,238 in revenue for 370 residents by skiers and sightseers which impact the watershed.  Town employees who directly benefit are philosophically against Alta Land owners who wish to use their private property in manner the employees and the SLC water monopoly don’t see fit.

$196,508 in Alta employees salaries and wages plus an additional $90,000 for employee benefits appears to be all against Alta land owners.  Very odd.

Out of 2.7 million people in Utah, all 7 Alta Planning Commission members holding 5 year seats have a connection to SLC water department.  What are the odds of that?

Precisely how has Alta’s Planning Commission come to be packed with SLC water people?  Who made the phone calls?  Who took the phone calls?  Who and how are the strings pulled?

The current Alta Planning Commission members (5 year terms with indefinite rollover) are the following:

• Jan Striefel is a current SLC Public Utility Advisory Committee member (Salt Lake City resident)
• Joan Degiorgio is an ex-SLC Public Utility Advisory Committee member (Salt Lake City resident)
• John Nepstand is a Salt Lake City resident
• Prescott Muir is a Salt Lake City resident
• Alan (Skip) Branch is a Board Member on Rocky’s High Road for Human Rights/Education Project
• Lee Kapalowski is Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake & Sandy’s secretary (water lawyer)
• Rob Noye is a Sandy City resident

Q: Where does Alta’s Planning Commission meet?

A: Bambara Restaurant at 202 South Main Salt Lake City, Utah.  Market Street Grill in Cottonwood Heights, Utah. The New Yorker

Planning Commission members who are all non-Alta residents, non-land owners in Alta, and not business owners in Alta are paid for their services.  Plus, Alta picks up their lunch or dinner tab often on Alta’s Credit Card funded by property tax dollars.

Hence, the many lawsuits, the excessive legal costs, lengthy GRAMA disputes.  It appears that the non-land owning employees control the land in Alta.  So much for private property rights in Alta.  So-called “watershed protection” is the tool of choice by the non-land owners to control the true land owner property.

No one argues watershed protection is not important. Valley watershed and Canyon watershed are equally important and should be protected.  Why the great emphasis on canyon watershed tributary to Little Cottonwood Creek?  The watershed “protector” have de-watered 1.5 miles of Little Cottonwood Creek.

Wouldn’t buying out blocks of houses in Salt Lake City, and re-vegetating with green parks protect valley watershed?

Alta collects $261,950 in annual property taxes used to pay non-land owning employees who appear bent against landowners “inappropriate” use of their property like Marv Melville, Mark Haik, Kevin Tolton, etc..

Everyone is well intentioned, of course; however, the means do not justify the ends.

It is alleged that  Marvin Melville (lot owner denied a building permit) was cited for a Class C misdemeanor by the Town Marshall for breaking a non-existent ordinance.  Marvin Melvlle and Mark Haik (Alta Land Owners) in Docket No. 3530 were “SUMMONED to appear before Judge Clinton E. Balmforth at the time and place show below: Date October 23, 2008 Time: 6:00 Pm Place TOWN OF ALTA JUSTICE COURT Alta Community Center Alta, Utah  84092.”

Why does SLC water dept. give Alta such a low rate of $0.16 per 1,000 gallons ($52 per acre-foot)?  SLC charges the U of U $812 per acre-foot, and Granite School District approximately $1,108 per acre-foot.  What does it real cost Alta in terms of self determination? Why does SLC Water Department effectively control Alta’s Planning Commission?  Is it healthy for Utah for SLC water dept. to exert extra territorial control over other towns, cities, and counties using public water rights?

The median household income for Salt Lake City is $42,258 versus $59,701 for Alta’s median household income.  The mean cost of detached Alta house is $1.15 Million.  The median cost of an Alta house is $700,000.  The median cost of a Salt Lake City house is $200,000.

Why are rich people in Alta with million dollar houses getting deeply discounted water from SLC water dept. while SLC residents with $200,000 houses pay really high water rates and really high water district taxes?

Trite phrases like “sustainability,” and “striking a balance” are meaningless where household incomes of $42,258 are subsidizing million dollar houses and affluent lifestyles in Alta, Utah.  The wealthy should subsidize the less wealthy, not the working poor subsidizing the rich.  The SLC’s water policies are not sustainable nor make any sense.

SLC sells water to Alta for $9,000.  Alta turns around and re-sales it for $119,000.

Alta does not appear to be adverse to their cut of the action of $900,000 in sales and use taxes.  It is doubtful if the $900,000 increased to $1.8 million that Alta would be adverse to that.

Which raises the question posed by Melville, Haik, Tolton and others: Why is one type of development which increases sales use fees sanctioned, and the rights of lots owners like theirs obstructed with funds skiers and sightseers?  Tourists are in.  Land owners are out.  Alta employees are self-serving and do not represent land owner interests.

Alta and Salt Lake County Service Area #3-Snowbird requested a variance on the amount of Antimony in the drinking water supply.

“Keith Hanson, representing both the Town of Alta and Salt Lake County Service Area #3-Snowbird, mentioned the Town of Alta and the Salt Lake County Service Area #3-Snowbird are currently blending their water from a source that meets the Antimony standards in an effort to reduce the Antimony levels in the two systems.”

“Myron Bateman moved the Board grant a Variance for Antimony to the Town of Alta and to the Salt Lake County Service Area #3-Snowbird for a period of two years with the provision that each utility prepare an annual report to staff describing any research, testing, blending options, or literature reviews conducted during the 24 months time period. Ron seconded.  CARRIED (Unanimous)

Ken Basset asked if the Board could receive a copy of the Town of Alta and Salt Lake County Service Area #3-Snowbird’s annual report.

Ken Bousfield mentioned he would provide copies to the Board.” (Drinking Water Board Packet May 11, 2006 Dugway Proving Ground, Utah)

It appears the statutory construction of Utah Code 10-8-14 under County Water Systems, Inc. v Salt Lake City 3 Utah 2d 46, 278 P.2d 285 (1954) prohibits Salt Lake City’s 20.4 million dollars annual general water sales business operating in Salt Lake County & Wasatch County.

“A statute allowing a city to sell its surplus water outside its boundaries does not allow the acquisition of water solely for resale outside the city, nor to construct, own or manage facilities and equipment for the distribution of water outside the city limits as a general business.”  Utah Water Law: Case Briefs Edited by Kendrick J. Hafen 2005 page 139.

“The Town of Alta, population 396, is an incorporated municipality in the upper reaches of Little Cottonwood Canyon that includes the Albion Basin.  Within its boundaries, Alta exercises land use jurisdiction by maintaining planning and zoning controls, public safety standards, and an enforcement apparatus.  It uses Salt Lake City water through a surplus water contract.  Alta has displayed concern over watershed impacts in Little Cottonwood Canyon.  Existing standards and measures developed by Salt Lake City for watershed protection are applicable in the Town of Alta.” page 27 Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan ‘98 Final Draft March, 1999

“The prohibition against alienating city water rights (except by exchange) prevents Salt Lake City from selling or leasing its water rights to public or private water users in the Wasatch Canyons.  However, since Salt Lake City boundaries do not include most of the canyon areas, serving water to canyon users is accomplished through sale of “surplus” city waters by a revocable contract.

Salt Lake City owns all or the largest percentage of water rights in each of the Wasatch Canyons, from City Creek on the north to Little Cottonwood Creek on the south, except Red Butte Creek.  Since Salt Lake City (and in some cases other municipalities) water rights cannot be alienated, the Utah Constitution effectively prohibits development in the Wasatch Canyons without contracting for Salt Lake City “surplus” water.  A state statute recognizes this practice, authorizing cities to “sell and deliver the surplus product or service capacity of any such works, not required by the cityor its inhabitants, to others beyond the limits of the city” (Utah Code Ann., 10-18-14).  In this manner Salt Lake City has been able to respond to the intense demand for use of its water in the canyons.” page 24-25 Salt Lake City  Management Plan ‘98 Final Draft March, 1999

These statements presents some interesting legal questions regarding SLC water department immunity from Utah State anti-trust and anti-competition statutes, regarding temporary “surplus” water’s inability to meet permanent State water source requirements to occupy a building as well as fire protection from a terminable water source. Utah State requirement for water is 400 gallons per day per home for inside use from a permanent & perpetual source.

1-Can terminable “surplus” water contracts  meet the permanent & perpetual state water standard for public culinary demand and fire protection?

2-Is there such a thing as permanent “surplus” water under Utah Code Ann., 73-1-3?  It appears that permanent “surplus” water reverting to the Public may prevent a double taxation upon the public.

3-How does the Utah Constitution “effectively prohibits development in the Wasatch Canyons without contracting for Salt Lake City “surplus” water”?

4-Salt Lake City came to “owns all or the largest percentage of water rights in each of the Wasatch Canyons” by design, by hoarding, by purchasing, by appropriating, and by exchange water contracts.

5-If Salt Lake City’s inhabitants never need the “surplus”water it is has been selling for decades and was sold for about 20.4 million dollars in FY2006/2007 more or less, then were the representations made in applications to appropriate to the Division of Water Rights used to obtain these “surplus” waters based on “future need” of SLC inhabitants may be inaccurate.

6-How does one reconcile the prohibition of a city selling and leasing its water with the surplus sales statute? It appears U.C.A. 10-8-14 was only intended for temporary, incidental, and terminable “surplus” water sales, not an annual 20.4 million dollar general water sales business in two counties. State statutes can not overturn the State’s Constitution.  Clearly it seems that Salt Lake City’s “surplus” sales contracts are outside of the law and constitute a double charge upon the public.

7-Protecting the Wasatch Canyons in Salt Lake County watershed is noble if it were actually the primary & major water shed of Salt Lake City.  According to the Governor’s web page on population growth, Salt Lake City will grow 25% by 2050 and by 2050 water conservation of 25% would be effected. It would appear that, Salt Lake City could get along with about 48,000 acre-feet of water for its internal use.  Over 90,000 acre-feet of primary source water of Salt Lake City’s water supply comes from stored facilities outside Salt Lake County. Why the pretense for “water shed protection”?  Could the answer be extra territorial building and zoning jurisdiction outside SLC corporate limits.  Could the be an example of good green policy of water shed protection being used for additional motives of profiteering and power.

8-The Town of Alta could be water right independent? Can’t Alta be trusted to look after the canyon’s environmental needs as much as Salt Lake City?

9-What actually is the motivation for Salt Lake City to control other cities and towns with  an essential Public resource like water?

10-The Town of Alta or any town or city holds the right of eminent domain. Does it or any city have condemnation rights over Salt Lake City’s “surplus” water used in their cities?