Gov. Scott Matheson, returning from Washington the other day, expressed confidence the Central Utah Project will meet President Carter’s criteria for continued federal funding. But he added: “The burden of proof is on each state to establish the validity of its projects.” The President, in his revised budget for fiscal ’78, is requesting that Congress delete $32 million for the Bonneville Unit of the CUP along with funds for 1B other water projects across the country. Utahns are seeking to save the CUP funds. The Interior Department has scheduled a hearing March 25 on the Carter proposal as it would affect the Bonneville Unit. The President’s proposal stirred a hornet’s nest of protest, particularly in states with projects marked for deletion. Utah’s governor, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the state’s congressional delegation are four-square for getting the funds restored, of course. But there will be strong opposition. For example, the Audubon Society, apparently without individual evaluation of each of the 19 projects, has urged environmentalists to support the deletion of funding proposed by the Carter Administration. A news dispatch quoted an article in the society’s newsletter as urging; “Please get in touch with your senators and congressmen and urged them to support him (Carter) stronglyn.” Naturally the Central Utah Project must stand on its merits. But shouldn’t there be some continuity, administration to administration, so that a vital water project like this one can be funded from year to year without having to “prove itself” over and over? Congress approved the CUP way back in 1956 as part of the Colorado, River Storage Project Act. Work started about 11 years ago. Millions of dollars have been spent on the various units to date. Some units are finished or well advanced. Yet a new federal administration wants to cut off the funds for the Bonneville Unit and once again the projects merits must be proved! One sometimes-forgotten aspect is that the CUP is not a federal handout. About 93 per cent of the money for construction will be paid back. Utahns in counties which will benefit by the project voted overhwelmingly in good faith for the repayment contract. Yet this project has been delayed and delayed by inadequate funding during the Vietnam War years and setback about four years because of the environmental movement, including preparation at midproject of an environmental impact report, and then a lawsuit by environmentalists after the report had been fought through the Interior Department. Meantime, the cost has skyrocketed and projections now indicate the final price of the project will more than double early calculations. Even this will take some doing, with the job only 20 to 25 per cent complete instead of 75 per cent where it would have been without the delays. The Herald strongly recommends that Congress and the Administration do something to provide the project continuity mentioned above. Furthermore, we think a plan of recourse should be established for the protection of the people who must pay – protection against spiraling costs caused both by funding delays and the delays attributed to environmentalists. On the latter point, we feel opposing groups who take action to stop an established project should be required to assume a liability for financial loss incurred. Why should the project sponsors have to assume all the responsibility for inflated prices resulting from -delays caused by someone else?