Southwest Utah’s Water Future  

Our Vision

 Citizens for Dixie’s Future (CDF) envisions a future of water stewardship that provides sufficient supplies for residents, businesses and healthy ecosystems without the $1 billion tax burden of the Lake Powell Pipeline.

 CDF’s goal is to create desert communities of the 21st century that direct growth in a sustainable way by promoting compact communities that conserve and protect our air and water and critical lands for wildlife. Instead of building large, expensive, energy intensive trans-basin water projects, we need to transform our thinking to a more sustainable vision of living within our means.

The fundamental questions surrounding the Lake Powell Pipeline (Pipeline) are

·         What will be the tax burden on residents?

·         Is it needed?

·         Will the Lake Powell be a reliable source of water in the future?

 What is the tax burden?

The Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP) is currently estimated to cost just over $1billion dollars not counting interest on bonds that could triple the cost. In addition, it doesn’t account for the cost of energy to run the LPP’s pumps. The residents of Washington, Kane and Iron County will be responsible for paying this debt, and will also have to pay to build new transmission lines and substations for the pumps and 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.

Will impact fees pay for the pipeline?

The water district maintains that impact fees on new construction will cover the cost of this project.  An impact fee of at least $4,781 is applied to new lots in Washington County to pay for the pipeline and other water projects. In 2006, when the cost estimate of the pipeline was $500 million, impact fees on individual homes were scheduled to reach $25,942 in 2041—a 441% increase. That impact fee will now have to double to pay for a billion dollar project.  This will hurt the housing market over time and take money away from other community infrastructure needs, again putting more of a tax burden on residents for other needed services. Property taxes and water rate surcharges have also been identified as additional funding sources.  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.

 It is critically important that data on population growth and water use is accurate before the state burdens taxpayers with a $1 billion water project.  Currently the need for the LPP is based on incomplete and inaccurate data on per capita use by communities and population growth. 

Read more on the importance of accurate data here...

Is it needed?

According to the LPP Water Needs Assessment Washington County has one of the highest water use rates in the nation, averaging 343 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) while other communities in the desert southwest average less than 200 gpcd. State and local water managers maintain that water consumption will remain at this high rate through 2039, thereby necessitating the additional water from the Pipeline. Yet, viable alternatives to the Pipeline exist, including a strong water conservation program. Washington County has sufficient water supplies to meet the needs of the projected population growth if the water district would count all available water supplies and we use our water resources wisely.  Currently there is little encouragement and limited incentive from the water managers to lower water use because they want to get revenue from water sales. We don’t want to become the next Las Vegas and ruin our quality of life. 

Get more facts on water use here...

Solutions 

• Water Conservation

Utah Division of Water Rights states the benefits of conservation clearly and succinctly:  “Besides the obvious advantage of decreasing water demand and allowing existing water supplies to last longer, water conservation has a variety of important benefits. Water conservation can: delay expensive capital investments to upgrade or expand existing water facilities; reduce sewage flows, delaying the need for more wastewater treatment facilities; conserve energy as less water needs to be treated, pumped and distributed to the consumer; and reduce stream diversions, enhancing water quality, environmental and recreational functions.” (DWR 2001. Utah State Water Plan: Utah’s Water Resources, Planning for the Future.May) 

·     Develop more of our local water resources

• Update building codes with plumbing and appliance standards. 
• Use pricing to reduce water demand which is more cost-effective than implementing a non-price conservation program. 
• Invest in water infrastructure efficiency.
• Use smarter land use planning by incorporating Vision Dixie principles.   Vision Dixie principles could reduce water demand. The way that we use land (the types of use and the level of intensity) relates directly to water use, water supply, and water quality. By better understanding land use changes, we will use less water and could plan to accommodate future changes successfully.

While water officials admit that water conservation is “the most readily available, least expensive and environmentally-sound source of water,” the Pipeline project is consistently prioritized ahead of conservation efforts. This suggests that local water officials are not truly committed to maximizing water efficiency first. 

Is it reliable?

Undeniably the Colorado River system is under stress and is running at a deficit. There is a growing consensus that the existing demand for water now exceeds the available Colorado River water supply. Eventually, due to climate change scientists predict a 10% reduction in flow. The Colorado River will not be able to keep up with the expanding populations that demand its water resources. In the Colorado River Basin, there are three basic sources of uncertainly: hydrology, future demands and unresolved legal disputes. 

Read more about problems with the current planning model here...

We believe the proposed pipeline project deserves a serious, community-wide examination and expert scrutiny before the state financially binds our communities to this enormous tax burden.

What’s next?

 The environmental studies for LPP continue and they will be available for public comment in December 2010.  Then The Federal Regulatory Energy Commission will use these studies to make decisions on the alternatives to the LPP for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in about 6 months. The DEIS will have a range of alternatives for the LPP. CDF, in partnership with Western Resource Advocates are working on a report that details the water conservation alternative to the LPP.