|
|
The Lake Powell Pipeline Key questions
How expensive would the pipeline be?
· Though described as a $500 million project in the media, the 2006 Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) Capital Facilities Plan indicates that the pipeline would cost at least 1.2 billion dollars. This includes 685 million dollars for construction and at least 600 million more for financing. Utah’s Division of Water Resources indicates that this number will soon be officially increased to account for recent significant increases in concrete and steel prices.
· According to the WCWCD, the pipeline would be funded “through a balance of local taxes, fees and water rate” increases.
· An impact fee of at least $4,781 is currently applied to new lots in Washington County to pay for the pipeline and other water projects, with annual 5% fee increases scheduled to reach $25,942 in 2041—a 441% increase.
· An additional monthly surcharge that also increases 5% annually on residential water bills was levied by the WCWCD in 2006 against all residents of cities that have signed on to the WCWCD water pooling agreement. The surcharge can increase at any time to cover a shortfall in impact fees. The agreement can be viewed at http://wcwcd.state.ut.us.
· Under the current plan, the pipeline will be paid for by every family or business person who buys a building constructed after 2006 in cities that have joined the water pooling agreements. This includes growing young families or businesses that “upsize,” empty nesters who “downsize” and children of existing residents and newcomers.
· The decline in building permit approvals through the first six months of 2007 shows a 50% decrease in Washington County compared to same period 2006. Such cyclical declines are expected but threaten to increase the cost of project financing by jeopardizing the State’s ability to maintain high bond ratings.
· In 2006, Utah’s Legislature passed the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act that authorizes the Board of Water Resources to build the Lake Powell Pipeline under state auspices. If the project is approved, the State would issue bonds that would be repaid by the participating water districts.
· In March 2007, the State Board of Water Resources hired MWH Global, Inc. to complete a $5.6 million engineering and financial feasibility to address numerous expensive challenges such as , environmental studies and government permits. This study is expected to be completed by September 2008. The results of study will be given to the Bureau of Land Management for their Environmental Impact Study on the pipeline.
· The WCWCD estimates that 10 years of preparation work is needed before the 3-year long construction project that supporters hope will begin in 2018.
· Rights of way for the pipeline still need to be secured across Federal and State land (including a portion of Arizona). This process will create additional expenses for the project. · If built, the 158-mile long pipeline would stretch from Lake Powell to Cedar City through Kanab and Hurricane (Sand Hollow Reservoir). It would be 5.5 feet in diameter for 120 miles to Sand Hollow Reservoir in Hurricane and 2.5 feet in diameter for 38 miles (uphill) to Cedar City. Though they admit that numerous factors will affect their plans, project proponents hope that hydropower created by hydro plants on the 158 mile section will offset most of the pipeline’s operating costs.
· The pipeline would transport 70,000 acre-feet of water to Washington County, 10,000 acre feet to Kane County and 20,000 acre feet to Iron County.
· No such water project has ever been attempted without federal subsidy. County officials acknowledge that no significant federal funds will be used for this project.
Would the pipeline cause sprawl?
· The pipeline could support a buildout population in Washington County of up to 900,000, depending on efficiency improvements.
· The pipeline alone could support an additional 400,000 to 600,000 residents in all of southern Utah beyond the 607,000 that can be supported by Washington County’s local water supplies. This would push the region’s population over the one million mark.
· To fund the pipeline, Water District officials are banking on consistently high average annual population increases for at least 40 years. These new residents would be necessary to fund the project.
· In essence, if we build it, they MUST come.
Would the pipeline be reliable?
· The pipeline would be vulnerable to two major unpredictable forces: Colorado River water politics and climate change.
· 130 years of Colorado River data show a strong downward trend in water flows; experts predict that current drought conditions will continue and become more severe.
· The drought-prone Colorado River is being forced to support increasingly more than the river’s current 30 million users. Government officials foresee legal battles over Colorado River water as supplies get stretched.
· In extreme drought, the Colorado River Compact requires Utah and other Upper Basin states to deliver water to California and other Lower Basin states first. This could cause the pipeline to be dry even when water is in Lake Powell.
· Colorado River water officials acknowledge that Utah will have approximately 25 percent less water to develop than has been anticipated since the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922.
· Any of these situations—or a combination—could cause the pipeline to be useless, underutilized or at least a major financial liability.
· The new MWH Global study will not address any issues related to future water availability in Lake Powell. Project proponents are assuming that water will be available.
· Water quality experts have expressed concern because undesirable toxic chemical concentrations increase as Lake Powell reservoir level falls. This creates concern about the safety of Lake Powell as a drinking water source and the increased cost of water treatment?
· Ute and Navajo Indian tribes have reserved rights to major portions of Colorado River water that predate current water use agreements. As these water right claims are resolved, less water will be available for the pipeline, potentially creating a situation where the pipeline would run dry.
· Any of these situations—or a combination—could cause the pipeline to be useless, underutilized or at least a major financial liability for us.
Is the pipeline necessary?
· According to WCWCD Capital Facilities Plan, annual per capita water consumption in 2005 was 342.8 gallons per capita per day (gcpd). The WCWCD study assumes that this extraordinary water use rate will continue indefinitely. By making this assumption, the study falsely inflates the need for the pipeline. Other communities in the west use much less water. For example, Tucson uses 177 gcpd, and Albuquerque uses 174 gcpd.
· While water officials indicate that water conservation is “the most readily available, least expensive and environmentally-sound source of water,” the pipeline project is consistently prioritized financially, politically and culturally ahead of conservation efforts. This suggests that local water officials are not truly committed to developing water through efficiency first.
· Over time, the full cost of water has been wrapped into property tax, sales tax, impact fees and water rates. This hides the true cost of water and creates the appearance of inexpensive water. This leads to the over-watering of lawns. This inefficient water use creates the impression that we our water supplies are insufficient for future growth.
· This inexpensive water paradigm has created an increase in water demand that is much greater than similar communities in the southwest.
· Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) studies show that local water sources can supply up to 144,000 acre-feet of water by the year 2035 through agricultural water conversion and wastewater reuse. One acre-foot supplies one year of water for between 4 and 6 people, depending on efficiency of use.
· The City of Tucson has 128,000 acre feet developed and supports a population of 639,000. Used at this rate, Washington County’s local water supplies could support a population greater than 738,000 without the pipeline. At a more moderate efficiency rate, this local water could support the population of 607,000 that is predicted for Washington County in 2050 with room to breathe.
· As we consider investments in expensive new water projects for future growth, it is crucial that we address our inefficient practices first. Otherwise local taxpayers will be obligated to water projects we don’t need and create an unstable economy through unnecessarily inflated costs of living.
· Since Water Districts earn crucial revenue by selling water, they experience an inherent disincentive to reduce water deliveries resulting from serious water conservation.
· All three counties have established moderate water conservation goals that, if met, would still necessitate the pipeline’s construction. The WCWCD recently announced that it is reaching its target of 25% water conservation over the last seven years and is preparing to go another 25%. This first conservation target was reached without noticeable changes in local lifestyles.
· During the severe drought of 2003 to 2005, the residents of southern Nevada were able to reduce their water consumption by 45,000 acre feet. In 2004, Washington County water use was 45,000 acre feet.
Our Vision
· Southern Utah is blessed with major sources of local water that can support a population of at least 607,000. We should plan for growth that respects our natural land and water limits.
· Local water sources will deliver southern Utah’s future affordably and reliably while avoiding dependence on the unreliable Colorado River.
· The quality of life enjoyed by Utah’s citizens will be maintained by utilizing “the most readily available, least expensive and environmentally-sound source of water,” water conservation.
· Addressing southern Utah’s increasing water demands while protecting its affordability and unique culture is a key challenge to Utah’s leaders. The pipeline would compromise the area’s tradition of living within our means and being stewards of our precious land and water.
· Once a rural place dominated by irrigated agriculture, southern Utah is now poised to transition into the 21st Century with more efficient water management. This new efficiency reflects a fiscal and cultural evolution of the inexpensive water mindset that make our communities better, more affordable places for our children and grandchildren.
For more information please contact Citizens for Dixie’s Future:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
|
