Just before the 60-day public comment period for the Heber Valley bypass ended on Monday, the Wasatch County Council sent its letter to the Utah Department of Transportation rejecting Alternative B for the Heber Valley bypass, which cuts through the North Fields between Potters Lane and 900 North instead of keeping traffic on U.S. 40 between those two roads.
The letter drafted by Wasatch County Councilor Erik Rowland asks that Alternative B be shifted east as close to U.S. 40 as possible to avoid bisecting existing farmlands, complicating open space bonds and potentially threatening the water quality of the underlying Heber Valley aquifer, which belongs to the most protected aquifer class in Utah.
The letter was signed with the support of the Midway City Council, which unanimously agreed to sign the letter during an emergency meeting on Friday with support from public commenters, all of whom spoke in favor of the signing.
That’s in stark contrast to Rowland’s presentation to the Heber City Council about the same subject last week. The letter drew a wide array of opinions from city councilors, staff and public commenters, which led the City Council to decide to allow elected representatives to sign the letter as individuals rather than a governing body.
Heber City Mayor Heidi Franco and City Councilors Yvonne Barney, Aaron Cheatwood and Morgan Murdock signed the letter, citing the same concerns that Rowland had listed.
Murdock was undecided as of the council meeting last Tuesday but ultimately decided to sign it because he agreed with the letter’s goal “to ensure that the final corridor selection is legally durable, environmentally responsible and reflective of the values of the community it will serve.”
City Councilors Sid Ostergaard and Mike Johnston were the only elected representatives in the county who did not sign the letter, saying that they did not share the Wasatch County Council’s environmental concerns and believed Alternative B to be the best long-term traffic solution.
The pair, along with many Heber City residents who spoke against the letter, argued that presenting another potential route would delay the new highway, which was discussed locally for decades before it became an official project in 2019.
The Midway City Council sang a different tune.
“If doing the right thing causes a delay, it is what it is,” said Midway City Councilor Andy Garland. “Once that aquifer is disrupted and changed, yeah, you can have water there. It might not be drinkable. The ripple effect of what they’re proposing doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Rowland said that the purpose of the letter is not to delay the project but to identify missing analyses in UDOT’s draft environmental impact statement, ask follow-up questions and present potential solutions — which, he pointed out, is exactly the kind of public comment UDOT has asked for, rather than one that simply criticizes the project.
Rowland pointed to recent litigation by conservation groups against the Northern Corridor highway in Washington County as an example of how UDOT “can use feedback.”
A federal judge ordered last week that UDOT halt construction on the highway, which would cut through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area. The area serves as the habitat for some Mojave desert tortoises, classified as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
“We don’t want to delay this, but if the solution that’s currently on the table is going to result in years and years of litigation because of oversight and things that they’ve missed, why can’t we point that out? And that’s what this letter is designed to do, is say, ‘Hey, there might be some mistakes. Take a look at this, and let’s work together,” Rowland said.
He later clarified that Wasatch County, Midway and Heber City have no intention of filing a lawsuit against UDOT but that litigation could arise from private groups, organizations or property owners.
Midway City Councilor JC Simonsen pointed out that environmental protections will be the “trump card” in any potential litigation that results from the project — a good reason to emphasize groundwater protection as the letter’s primary concern.
UDOT has promised to answer all substantive public comments in its final draft environmental impact statement, which will also include UDOT’s final route choice. UDOT plans to publish that statement in the late summer.
Rowland said how UDOT responds to the letter’s concerns will inform the next actions Wasatch County takes.
“If they seem responsive, if they’re listening and say, ‘Hey, good point. We’ll consider this,’ or if it’s dismissed, we’ll kind of start to know what we need to do next,” he said.
Midway city councilors hope the letter will sway UDOT’s final decision.
“I’ve been saying it for a year to people who would listen,” Simonsen said. “Our best bet, I think, at getting influence to UDOT is to band together.”
UDOT Communications Manager Wyatt Woolley confirmed receipt of the letter on Monday and said that the UDOT had met with the Wasatch County and Heber City leaders about the letter before it had been submitted.
“All comments are considered as part of the process and are evaluated based on the issues raised, not on who submitted them,” he said.
The letter was one of over 300 comments received over the 90 days. UDOT Project Manager Craig Hancock will share an exact tally of the number of comments and common themes during the Wasatch County Council’s work meeting at 4 p.m. Wednesday.