|
Southwest Utah’s Water Future Our Vision
Citizens for Dixie’s Future believes Washington County can become the desert community of the future, a community that thrives while wisely and creatively using our local water resources for the benefit of our current and future residents.
We envision a future of water stewardship that provides sufficient supplies for all local residents, visitors, businesses and a healthy ecosystem. Despite its arid setting, Southwest Utah has an abundance of water resources, at least 124,000 acre feet according to the Washington County Water Conservancy District, of which only 32% has been developed. With more efficient use,124,000 acre feet could support a community of over 520,000. To accomplish this vision we encourage: - Developing our local water sources.
- Creating an effective education program to achieve the goal of 212 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
- Creating an incentive program that rewards efficient water use.
- Developing a more efficient municipal culinary and secondary delivery system and a “use more, pay more” (tiered) pricing structure.
- Organize a fully engaged local conversation (e.g. a Vision Dixie style process) regarding water development and use.
At Issue: Cost According to the Washington County Water Conservancy District’s 2006 Capital Facilities Plan, the cost of the proposed Lake Powell pipeline project, including interest on bonds, will exceed $1.7 billion dollars. The residents of Washington, Kane and Iron County will be responsible for paying this debt, most likely without federal or state funding. This would be the largest and most expensive non-federally or state funded public works project in Utah’s history. Never has such a project been paid by such a small percentage of the state’s population. The water district maintains that impact fees on new construction will cover the cost of this project. Property taxes and water rate surcharges have also been identified as additional funding sources. However, if income from the impact fees is insufficient, all rate payers will be charged for the short fall through the water rate surcharges. This surcharge can be increased by any amount at any time without public input. We believe these fees and surcharges were established without sufficient community dialog. They were approved by the appointed (not elected) water district board. Because voters have no say over the membership of this board, the water board is insulated from the democratic process. We believe this situation is taxation without representation. Because the pipeline is already being funded with taxpayer money, we believe tax payers must have a stronger voice in the process. Reliability Undeniably the Colorado River system is under stress and is running at a deficit. Eventually, due to climate change and over allocation, it will be unable to keep up with the expanding populations that demand its water resources. The reliability of the Colorado River and Lake Powell is not being addressed by the State in their feasibility study on the pipeline. It is imperative that these issues be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement before moving ahead with a project of this scope and magnitude. Other Alternatives Currently, Washington County, Utah has some of the highest levels of system-wide water use in the nation. The Pipeline's planning documents project those levels will remain the same through 2039 with no long-term conservation savings factored into these projections. CDF believes there will be a decrease in long-term water demand as moderate water conservation measures are implemented such as increased indoor efficiency and water-wise outdoor landscaping. Our preliminary research indicates that southwest Utah's future water needs can be satisfied with expanded development of local water supplies, increased water conservation and improved efficiencies. The original reason for the Lake Powell Pipeline was to use Utah’s share from the 1922 Colorado River Compact. CDF believes there may be other beneficial uses for Utah's share such as underground aquifer storage, water banking or market sharing. These alternatives are "outside the box" thinking, but states such as Arizona are already utilyzing these more non-traditional approaches with great success. Utah has to come up with a better plan.
We believe the proposed pipeline project deserves a serious, community-wide examination and expert scrutiny before it financially binds our communities to this enormous tax burden.
|
