Canal regulation tricky issue

After six coal miners and three rescuers perished in two separate collapses at Crandall Canyon Mine nearly two years ago, there was tremendous outcry from the public to institute a state mining inspection program to dovetail the efforts of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.

After many months of emotional debate and discussion, the state established the Office of Coal Mine Safety. It is essentially a one-man shop. The director monitors mine safety and acts as a state liaison to MSHA. The office gives the state a role in accident prevention and effective responses to coal mine accidents. It is not a full-fledged state regulatory agency as some had envisioned.

Now, in the wake of a canal failure and associated mudslide in Logan that resulted in the deaths of a mother and two children, there is a new movement to establish canal regulation on the state level. Presently, canal inspection and maintenance is the purview of canal owners themselves, although state statute gives the state water engineer authority to inspect ditches and to bring action in district court against owners who do not comply with orders to make the conveyances safer.

This is a complicated public policy issue. If state lawmakers believe this is a legitimate role of state government, the regulating agency will need significant resources to do a responsible job. Utah has some 5,300 miles of canals. That would require a significantly larger job for state regulators than dam inspection, which involves three engineers, at least two geologists and support staff.

Beyond financial resources, lawmakers would have to give the state Division of Water Resources broader authority, through legislation, to regulate canals and define regulators' duties and responsibilities. That, too, would require a significant expenditure of public resources for the needed professional services to write the regulation.

Another option would be to require canal owners to put up some sort of bond in the event of failure or to require certain levels of insurance. State lawmakers also could authorize the state Division of Water Resources to develop minimum standards for canals but require canal owners to conduct inspections that would be filed with the state. Or, canal companies could be assessed fees to pay for state inspections.

Historically, many canals in the West were constructed to deliver water for agricultural or industrial purposes. When these canals were constructed, they were mostly in rural areas where canal failures primarily impacted the conveyance of needed water and the canals themselves. People weren't hurt.