CHAPTER V - CANAL COMPANY INTERVIEWS

“Life is no brief candle for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.”                                                                                              George Bernard Shaw  

            This chapter reports the attitudes and concerns of canal company officials regarding public access and use of their rights-of-way.  The source of information is six survey interviews conducted with canal company officials in northern Utah.  The interviews were conducted in an open-ended format, enabling the officials to thoroughly express their concerns.  The purpose of the open-ended interviews was to obtain as naturalistic a response as possible.  The goal was to gauge general sentiments and to determine the major concerns and issues revolving around the development of recreational canal trails.  The opinions expressed by each of these individuals does not necessarily reflect the official canal company policies.  It is not the intent of this paper to address the ultimate validity of each individuals concerns but rather to attempt to gain insight into attitudes on a number of issues..      

INTERVIEW SURVEYS

There are a number of advantages to having a questionnaire administered by an interviewer as opposed to the respondent filling out a questionnaire.  First of all, the response rates attained in interview surveys are much higher than in mail surveys.  Completion rates are usually at least eighty to eighty five percent  (Babbie, 1992). Respondents are more reluctant to say no to someone who is asking to sit down with them for a few minutes than they are to toss a mail questionnaire into the trash.  Because the interviewer can probe for answers the respondents are less likely to say “don’t know” or “no answer”.  Interviewers can also help clarify questions that may be misinterpreted or misunderstood, thereby obtaining relevant responses.  Most importantly though, the interviewer can observe the reactions to certain questions and ask additional questions in order to help the respondent clarify their reaction, giving the survey an additional level of validity and depth.

Although there are a number of advantages to using the interview survey, there are a number of procedures that must be followed to obtain successful results.  The interviewer’s presence should not affect the respondent’s perception of a question or the answer that is given.  He or she should be a neutral medium through which the questions and answers are transmitted.  Under no circumstances should the interviewer communicate through word or gesture a bias concerning the topic of the interview.  The appearance and demeanor should be that of the people being interviewed.  The interviewer should have a confident familiarity with the questionnaire:  Questions should be read exactly and precisely   (Babbie, 1992).

INTERVIEW DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY

            The canal company data contained in this chapter was collected through the use of interview surveys.  The survey instrument is composed of seven sections including a preliminary information section (data collected before the interview) and 39 questions.  The average length of each interview was approximately one hour long and was tape recorded for later use of transcribing the information. (See Appendix B for transcripts).   Given the length of the interview an attempt was made to keep the respondent’s burden to a minimum.  Questions 20-23 were taken from a feasibility study conducted by the Grand Junction Urban Trails Committee  (The Grand Junction Urban Trails Committee, 1996).

Survey Pre-Test

Prior to setting up the interviews, a survey pre-test was conducted on two individuals.  After completing the questionnaire, the participants were interviewed to weed out problems with the overall layout, bias or ambiguity in the questions themselves or how they were asked, (confusing questions, repeated questions, etc).  It was also noted how much time it took to complete the interview.  As a result of the pre-survey several questions were either removed or modified.  

Interview Population 

The interview population consisted of six individuals in high ranking positions within canal companies who are either dealing with or have dealt with issues of public use of their canal corridors.  All six individuals represent irrigation canals which divert from some of the major systems along the Wasatch Front.  The goal was to interview canal officials who are in the midst of negotiations to develop a public recreational canal trail on their canal corridor.  The individuals were eventually found through word of mouth and referrals after extensive phone conversations with key individuals. 

Setting up the Interview

Setting up the interview with these individuals was not difficult.  The reason for the 100% response rate was due to the fact that they were very receptive to the idea of discussing a topic that is in the forefront of their minds.  Because the issue of opening their canals to public use is of concern to them and to the company as a whole, some strong opinions were voiced.  

Preliminary information was obtained before the interview.  This information included name, title and technical information about the canal.  Two of the six participants asked for the questionnaire in advance of the interview and were granted it.  In retrospect, given the higher levels of enthusiasm and preparedness of these two participants, it would have been beneficial to send the questionnaire to all of the participants in advance.  The reasoning behind not doing it was to keep the respondent burden to a minimum, especially with the length of the interview. 

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

Listed here are the six individuals who were interviewed.  For more detailed information about the respective canals see Appendix B.

·                    Name: Terel Grimley

Title/ Titles:          President of Utah Water Users Association

                              President of North Ogden Irrigation Company

General Manager of Pineview Water Systems (Ogden R. W. U. A., South Ogden Cons. Dist., and Weber/ Box Elder Cons. Dist.)

Administers to what canals?       

Ogden-Brigham Canal

South Ogden Highline Canal 

North Ogden Irrigation Canal.

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

Ogden-Brigham Canal, South Ogden Highline Canal and North Ogden Irrigation Canal.

·                    Name: Floyd Baham

Title/ Titles: General Manager of Davis-Weber Counties Canal Company            

Administers to what canals? 

Manages the Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

A section through Clearfield and Layton which is about 6 miles long.

·                    Name: Ed Vidmare

Title/ Titles: Chief facilities management group (Chief of O and M), Bureau of Reclamation           

Administers to what canals? 

Thirty Five Canals Throughout the State of Utah.

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

Provo Reservoir Canal (Murdock Canal) ­ Provo River

Ogden- Brigham Canal (Highline) ­ Ogden River

Steinaker Service Canal ­ Vernal ­ Uintah County (Existing Trail)

·                    Name: Jonathan Clegg

Title/ Titles: Assistant superintendent of Provo River Water Users Assoc. (PRWUA)       

Administers to what canals? 

Weber-Provo Diversion Canal (Conveyance from Weber to Provo R.)

Provo Reservoir Canal (Murdock Canal)

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

Murdock Canal

·                    Name:  Peter Kung

Title/ Titles:          President of Crockett Avenue Distribution System        

Secretary Treasure of Logan River Water Users Association

                              On board of directors for Logan N.W. Field Canal

Administers to what canals? 

All seventeen canals in the Logan River Water Users Association, 10 of which are members of Crockett Avenue.

Logan N.W. Field Irrigation Company.

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

Logan, Hyde Park and Smithfield Canal

Logan Northern Canal has been proposed

·                    Name:  Jess Harris

Title/ Titles:          President of Logan Northern Irrigation Company

Administers to what canals? 

Logan And Northern Irrigation Canal

Which of these are being considered for trail development by others?

Logan And Northern Irrigation Canal

            The following is a summary of the six respondents answers and is broken down by each question.  The questions are bolded as they appear on the actual questionnaire.  In some cases these are followed directly by small text that was used in the interviews to help the interviewer offer more focused questions above and beyond the main question..  These are followed by brief summaries of the six respondents answers and then by quotes which were selected based on their ability to summarize the most prevalent attitudes of the group as a whole.   When various points were made in response to a questions, they are broken out into separate summaries followed by selected quotes.

Current Use By The Public

1-      Do you know if any canals are currently being used for recreation? If so, what are the existing uses you know of?

The responses to this question ranged from no use at all to a couple of developed canal trails that are being use extensively by the public.  These two trails are the South Ogden Highline Canal, which runs through the Ogden City Golf Course and is piped and covered, and the Steinaker Service Canal in Vernal City which is open.   In terms of existing informal uses of their canals, there are numerous uses that range from active to passive recreation.

·                    Covers a broad range of the spectrum.  A lot of walkers, a lot of joggers, people with dogs, horseback, tubing, kayaking, fishing, motorized vehicles, four wheelers, motorcycles.

·                    Yes they are all used. All seventeen….Swimming, fishing, tubing…you name it.  Everyone overlooks that it is a swamp cooler.  These canals act like one...so, people sit and dangle their feet in the water.

There are also varying levels of tolerance between the respondents regarding informal use of the canals.  The following quotes give an idea of the range of general attitudes.

·                    The Ogden Brigham canal is basically an informal use but there are a lot of people who use it to walk and jog on. There are some areas that children walk along the maintenance road going to and from school and parks but its an informal use in undeveloped areas. 

·                    There is no such thing as informal use. They either use or they don’t and if they use it, its illegal.

·                    I would suspect that any canal with a maintenance road is used for recreation.  Our canals are definitely used for recreation and all of it is unauthorized.

·                    There is a lot of walking and hiking and that sort of thing.  And we haven’t discouraged it.

2-     Do you allow public use/ access? If not, what signing and notice efforts do you have in place to warn recreation users not to use the canal banks?

All of the respondents stated that technically they do not allow public access  although,  since the public “informally” uses it anyway, they mitigate through the use of signing and education.  Here again, the range of policies and attitudes toward informal use are illustrated. 

·                    We don’t allow any public access on the canal and we have put up no trespassing signs along the canal.  That doesn’t mean everybody obeys that but that’s what we’ve got there.

·                    We obviously do not and we try to keep every possible point of public access posted.

·                    We do.  We don’t encourage it though.  Wherever we think its dangerous we have a sign that says: be careful, danger.  And that is to cover us.  The biggest fear we have is people messing with the water works.  So, we put signs up saying: messing with the works or turning it on or off unauthorized is against the law and we quote the law and those are on all the head gates through town.

·                    We as a board have just left it open.  If they hike we don’t have any objection to that.  We have signs that say enter at your own risk for our own protection.

3-      How aggressively are these efforts enforced?

The enforcement efforts ranged from issuing trespass tickets to anyone found on the canal to completely fencing off potential entry-ways to posting caution signage. For the most part trespassers are encountered by the ditch riders performing routine maintenance.  There is no patrolling of the canal by the local law enforcement, but the ditch rider takes on the added burden of educating the public and notifying local authorities of trespassers.  Usually this only occurs when the trespasser has gotten out of hand or is unruly.

·                    If we catch anybody on there we’ll run them off.  If we catch anybody on there more than once we will call the police.  They could be issued citations….We have put gates up along the canal where it comes off the road, but we have done that for our own benefit to keep people from traveling along the canal with a vehicle.

·                    We mainly try to educate the people that they are trespassing, that it is government property.  Mainly through education in order to maintain the legal liability you have to issue a few trespass tickets now and then.

·                    We will quite often tell people who are out there on the canal that we have got a job to do and its not to keep people off the canal, its maintenance and operation and so we struggle with that.

·                    During the irrigation season we have a water master that goes through and will talk to children about being careful, not being on the spillway, not pulling diversion boards.  The other thing we do is we lock things in place.  We lock canals open or lock them closed just to keep out tampering.  So, we are into enforcement.  If you listen to us and pay attention to the signs and listen to verbal instructions, fine.  If you start fighting back then we will bust them.

4-      Do you have any concerns regarding these existing uses?

A majority of the respondents expressed concerns regarding the potential for a lawsuit against their company and for the health safety and welfare of the public.  This is a theme that runs throughout the interview.  While there is a definite fear of litigation there is also a genuine concern for the safety of anyone using the canal (legally or not) and for the general misunderstanding of the potentially serious dangers associated with the use of open canals for recreational purposes, especially in lined canals with fast moving water.  There was also a concern of the effect on the quality of the water and on operation and maintenance.

·                    Well we just feel that any kind of recreational use along one of our canals, as long as its an open canal is just incompatible with what we are doing.  The three main concerns we have identified are liability, safety of the public, water quality and impact to our operation and maintenance procedures.

·                    No, if they are in reason. If they don’t tamper with or erode the banks or throw garbage in, no I have no problem with it. 

Liability And Injury

5-      To the best of your knowledge, have there ever been any liability or injury claims lodged against your canal company or other entities or individuals associated with the canal?  If so, what?

Aside from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) which is protected by the Federal Governmental Immunity Act, not one of the respondents was aware of ever having to pay liability or injury claims.  The cases that did come up were dismissed and settled out of court.

·                    Yes,  We did have one in Pleasentview in our Ogden- Brigham Canal and it was two 17 and 18 year old boys that were tubing down our canal down a drop chute… one of them flipped over and hit his head and he did drown.  There was a lawsuit and the lawsuit was dismissed because he was trespassing.

6-      What existing risk management do you have in place?

Aside from the B.O.R. all the respondents stated that they carry insurance.  They also do a lot of signing and gating at access roads, placement of warning signs at dangerous locations and installing public safety devices which involves among other things, covering or screening dangerous structures such as drop chutes. Educating the general public of the dangers associated with canals is another risk management strategy.. 

·                    We do the signing.  Signing is hard because signs are shot or removed just about as fast as we can put them up.  Theres the education, there is the minimal enforcement if you will…in specific identified areas we will install public safety devices because you know they are going to get there just do the best you can to try to keep them out of the really harmful places. 

·                    Obviously we have insurance and we do our best… to keep people off of the canal.  We are contemplating doing some better education of the local community and citizens about the reasons why we want people off the canal.  Sometimes people stop and we explain to them and you can see the light go on and hopefully they will be a lot more cooperative in the future.

7-      How do you feel about piping or covering canals as a solution to liability or to increase efficiency of water conveyance?  Have such discussions taken place concerning the canal your company administers too?

All the respondents expressed a high degree of interest in piping their canals.  The only things holding them back is the availability/ securing of funding and the man power to take on such an expensive and time consuming project. 

·                    Yes, we’ve done a lot of piping when money is available or we were able to get either state or federal money, low interest loans.

·                    …we had a study done a few years ago about piping the entire canal and they figured it would cost about ten million dollars.  We would love to be able to pipe the canal, but financially as a company we can’t do it.

·                    Every one is in favor of it, the biggest obstacle is cost.  Its an expensive proposition.  For our twenty three miles of Provo river canal it would be roughly about 70-80 million dollars.

·                    The other problem with piping is access, we would have to put in new head gates, new arrangements for cleaning it out. Its cost prohibitive.

In terms of funding opportunities, a couple of respondents pointed out some opportunities.  They ranged from utilizing state and federal monies to sharing the cost with utility companies (gas, power, AT&T, etc.) who may be interested in utilizing the corridor to improve and enhance their system of delivery.

·                    They have the means to create the funding.  They can create an assessment. There is a bunch of things they can do, the state’s got money, Central Utah’s got a lot of money through our  conservation incentive programs.  So, the money is out there its just a matter of locating it.

According to half of the respondents, water quality, water conservation, ease of maintenance, and improved conveyance are just as much if not more of a reason for this interest in piping than liability is.

·                    I can’t say It’s not for liability, but that’s  a secondary benefit we get from piping the canal is that it will open up the corridor for recreational use.  The main issue is to increase water quality and also to increase conveyance capacity.

·                    Yes we are very anxious to pipe our canal, not to accommodate a trail, that could be an outcome but our main focus would be addressing the other issues.  The reduction of liability, water quality issues and there are some advantages to saving water that occurs.

·                    And if we put that trail in there, and it was covered up, other than us going in for maintenance they [the city] can have the whole canal as far as I’m concerned. I’d just give it to them.

There were also responses that pointed to the social and environmental reasons for keeping the canals open. 

·                    The other canals…and a lot of the smaller ones are dirt lined canals are very slow moving and they add a lot to the atmosphere of the neighborhoods.  

·                    Yes we have…the water resource people in the state… say a substantial proportion of water leaks through the bottom of our canal and recharges the aquifer in the center of the valley. The other thing is we are worried about losing the tree cover.  At first they thought the trees were essentially suckers taking on water, now they realize that the evapotranspiration probably lowers the temperature in town by so many degrees and provides refuge for wildlife.  So we don’t want to lose the associated riparian benefits.

8-      Are you aware of a city’s or county’s ability to shield canal companies from liability by way of indemnification or inclusion under their respective insurance? 

A typical maintenance agreement entered into would state that: The city or agency “ holds harmless company from any and all liability arising out of the construction, maintenance and operation of such landscaping, walkways and parking facilities.”     

            The majority of the respondents indicated an awareness of the ability of their respective cities to indemnify them.  One respondent indicated no awareness of this, but mentioned having thought of inclusion under the city’s insurance in order to cut the premium down.  There was a general feeling of skepticism from each of the respondents, not in terms of an indemnification clause’s ability to shield liability, but its inability to mitigate for the inevitability of suit in general,  with the associated cost and time commitments.

·                    We are aware of that but from a legal standpoint you will literally never be able to take them out of the picture.  You can write indemnification clauses and all that kind of stuff but when push comes to shove and somebody gets a really good lawyer…they are out the window.  They are going to come after the owner;  they are going to come after the operator.

·                    I’ve been told by some people from one of the cities that they can do that but I have remained skeptical.

            One respondent mentioned that Utah courts now hold that due to the sizable burden of requiring irrigation companies to mitigate for attractive nuisance via expensive piping or other efforts, they are released from liability.  The outcome of this is that the courts now require fences to be installed by developers that build along irrigation canals in order to protect the residents.  According to this respondent, if the access easements are used by the city for recreation the irrigation company is released from liability.

9-     Are you aware of Utah’s recreational use statutes? If so, how much do you know about it?

The responses here were split in half in terms of having heard of this statute but the majority only had a superficial understanding of it.

·                    The city has talked about it with us, but I’m no attorney so I don’t know all the legal ramifications.

·                    No, I don’t know anything about those.  I haven’t heard it called that but I have heard about some of those statutes.

(See Chapter III and Appendix C for a description of recreational use statutes)

10-   Do you feel the liability risks associated with recreational use of canals are higher or lower or equal to the risks associated with other recreational facilities?

Four of the respondents indicated that they feel liability risks would be higher due to the risk associated with unsupervised children in denser residential areas falling in and getting pulled into a siphon or drowning in the fast moving current of a larger, concrete lined canal

·                    I think the liability risks are greater along an open canal…You are not getting out of a concrete lined canal without a ladder structure you are not coming out on your own because its fairly swift, you have low structures, bridges, culverts, siphons..  The ______  canal is a pretty good sized canal, 400 second feet.

·                    I would say they are higher on the canal.  On our canal there are some hydraulic structures that are extremely dangerous we have about four siphons. And once you get in the current of a siphon there is nothing you can do it just sucks you right in.  Some areas of the ______ canal are swift moving.

Two of the respondents felt that the liability risks would be equal, based on setting and location.

·                    In a rural setting and it’s a trail along a canal provided for horseback riding, mountain biking, jogging, things like that, I would think its about the same because your having more mature individuals use it rather than smaller children accessing it.

·                    I would think the same. 

11-   Do you think some of your liability concerns can be addressed given proper design, construction and maintenance of a trail along any of your canals? Which concerns?

Half of the responses indicated that yes, some if not all of their concerns can be addressed through proper design and one respondent mentioned that they can be handled through agreements with the city.

·                    Yes, I think so.  I think a part of that would be an educational part to educate people to proper conduct.  I think that in combination with the proper design and construction and also the proper attitude, yes…, and I see that around Boulder, they have signs that tell you what to do with your dog and be considerate.

Two of the respondents indicated that none of their concerns could be addressed unless the canal was piped.

·                    I would say no, the only thing that is going to placate our concerns is getting it in a pipe.

Legal Information

Questions 12-17 directly pertain to the canal sections that are being considered for development.  Therefore, they are formatted differently than the rest of the questions.

12-   To the best of your knowledge, what is the existing adjacent land use by percentage?

Adjacent lands were typically private residential or agricultural properties which, with one exception, granted easements to the canal companies.

·                    Ogden-Brigham Canal                   

25-30%  Residential                                             

70-75%  Agriculture                                             

             ---   Business  

·        North Ogden Irrigation Canal 

60-65% Residential

35-40%  Agricultural

2%         Business   

·                    Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company

90-95 % Residential along the section in question and 50-60 % along the whole length.

10-15% Agricultural along the whole length

10-15% Business along the whole length

the rest is open space used by Hill Airforce Base.

·                    Provo Reservoir Canal (Murdock)

50 % Residential

50  % Agricultural

5    % Business

·                    Crockett Avenue Distribution System (Cache Valley)         

60  % Residential

30   % Agricultural

10   % Business    

·                    Logan And Northern Irrigation Canal

40 % Residential

60     % Agricultural

13-  What are the existing ownership standings along the length of the canal/ canals?

In terms of public vs. private.

·                    Ogden-Brigham Canal                   

100%   Public

0%       Private

-Ogden-Brigham Canal, 100% is owned by the United States of America.  The Ogden River Water Users bought it and deeded it to the U.S.A. as collateral for the project so it’s in the name of the U.S.A. 

·                    North Ogden Irrigation Canal

0%   Public

100%    Private

-The North Ogden Canal is 100% easement the irrigation company does not own any of it. Its just an easement.

·                    Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company

-100% Privately owned by the company along the length in question.