Midway leaders and residents urge UDOT to explain choosing Route B amid open‑space, aquifer concerns

At a Midway City Council meeting, council members and residents voted unanimously to back a community comment letter asking the Utah Department of Transportation to explain why it selected Route B for a proposed Heber Valley bypass and to provide clearer mitigation and design analysis.

The presenter, Eric, told the council the 2018 $10,000,000 open‑space bond was intended to acquire and protect farmland through conservation easements and said the prospect of Route B “is starting to create a chilling effect for those who want to participate in that bond.” He pointed to the draft environmental impact statement and said, “The draft EIS admits that route a is the LEDPA. Yet they still chose route b.”

Why it matters: residents and officials said Route B could bisect working farmland, complicate conservation easements tied to the bond and threaten recharge zones for the Northfields aquifer. Eric and several speakers pressed UDOT to disclose whether alternative configurations—at‑grade designs, roundabouts, reduced speeds or other treatments—were evaluated and to show where required mitigation would occur.

Council discussion and resident testimony focused on three concrete concerns. First, supporters said the draft EIS appears to identify Route A as the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” (LEDPA) but nonetheless advances Route B without explaining how physical structures were weighed in that decision. Second, speakers said the draft lacked clear mitigation proposals to keep displaced agricultural land in productive use or to apply the typical 2:1 mitigation ratios. Third, multiple speakers warned of potential, long‑term harm to the Northfields aquifer if canals or recharge pathways are redirected; one council member said local irrigation managers must be consulted “because they intimately understand how the aquifer works.”

Residents urged practical alternatives. Several speakers recommended that the letter present multiple map options—two or three configurations rather than a single image—to show UDOT a range of feasible approaches and to avoid creating the impression that any map is an approved plan. The presenter noted that UDOT’s traffic modelling leans heavily on vehicle travel time comparisons and contains minimal analysis of pedestrian and bicycle access.

Public comment included brief remarks from Tracy Taylor, a Midway property owner, who noted UDOT has already funded related Highway 40 projects and said the agency aims to complete its final EIS by summer; Cortland Nelson, chair of the Midway Open Space Committee, urged better coordination between municipalities on east–west connections; and Linda Middleton of Friends of Heber Valley urged inclusion of wildlife crossings and stronger aquifer protections.

A formal motion that the council support the community letter was made by a council member and seconded by another council member; the council approved the motion by voice vote. Council members said they will circulate the letter for signatures and submit it during UDOT’s comment period. The presenter and several participants urged residents to submit their own factual comments through UDOT’s website before the stated March 9 deadline.

What’s next: the council and cooperating jurisdictions will collect signatures and monitor UDOT’s written responses; council members said they will evaluate UDOT’s replies to determine whether further action or litigation is necessary. The meeting then adjourned.