Senate bill is next step toward Lake Powell pipeline

ST. GEORGE – A bill passed by the Utah Legislature could put Southern Utah one step closer to building a controversial pipeline to bring water from Lake Powell to Washington and Kane counties.

The Water Infrastructure Funding bill, which passed the Utah Legislature in the 2015 General Session and was signed by Gov. Herbert Tuesday, creates a special account funded initially with $5 million from the state’s general fund and will be overseen by the Board of Water Resources.

Map of proposed Lake Powell Pipeline | Image courtesy of Washington County Water Conservancy District, St. George News | Click on image to enlarge
Map of proposed Lake Powell pipeline | Image courtesy of Washington County Water Conservancy District, St. George News | Click on image to enlarge

“What Senate Bill 281 does is sets up a water infrastructure fund that would help fund very large, expensive projects such as Bear River Development, Lake Powell pipeline and repair and replacement of federal facilities where there is no federal money available,” Eric Millis, director of the Utah Division of Water Resources, said.

Funding for the projects, including the Lake Powell pipeline, could come from taxes or bonding, said Rep. Don Ipson, a sponsor of the bill; but no bonding authority was put in the bill.

“It (money) could come from any number of sources that was raised in the state, that’s the place to accumulate it,” Ipson said. “That’s simply all it is, is a place to house the money, and the authority to have the money for those purposes.”

Upfront costs for the large projects, which range in the billions of dollars, would be mostly paid for by the state. However the counties that benefit from the projects would have to repay the money over time, Millis said.

The proposed Lake Powell pipeline consists of about 139 miles of buried 69-inch pipe, which could bring up to 86,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Washington and Kane counties. The pipeline would carry water from Utah’s share of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact.

Lake Powell pipeline status

State officials are now gathering information for submission to all of the federal agencies that would have to approve the project, Millis said.

“We are still in the environmental compliance process,” Millis said. “ We are hoping to get licenses and permits from the federal agencies sometime in early 2018.”

Permits are required from several agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Highway Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

“With that (finished), we would begin project design,” Millis said. “We would begin discussions with the Legislature about how the state might participate in helping to fund that project.”

If all goes as planned, construction could begin in 2020 and be completed in 2023, Millis said. “Right now, we’re estimating the need for the water is sometime between 2023 and 2025,” Millis said, based on the growth in Southern Utah, water availability and the water usage numbers.

The water would be pumped as needed, starting as low as 5,000-10,000 acre-feet per year. “That would ramp up over time as the population continued to grow,” Millis said.

If run at full capacity the pipeline could carry the full allocation of 86,000 acre feet of Colorado River per year, he said.

Opposition to the pipeline

While the pipeline is not a certainty, local and state officials are working towards that goal, including the Washington County Water Conservancy District, which has a web page on the project.

However, there has been much opposition expressed towards the the pipeline, and the projected need for it. Citizens for Dixie’s Future, the Utah Rivers Council and others argue the pipeline is not needed because population growth in Washington County has slowed, and  water conservation efforts have not been fully explored. In addition, some advocate for a restructuring of the way consumers are charged for water.

“This is an elaborate and risky water project in a number of ways,” Utah Rivers Council Director Zach Frankel said. “Chief among them is that residents in Washington County are about to have billions and billions of dollars of debt placed upon their backs that will last for five decades, and require draconian increases in water rates, property taxes and impact fees.”

Very few elected officials in Southern Utah are talking about the billions of dollars of debt the project will place on ratepayers, Frankel said.

“Any resident in St. George, who is worried about their property taxes and water rates better tune in to what’s happening on the Lake Powell pipeline, or they will see their water rates go up by 300, 400 or 500 percent,” Frankel said.

Frankel does not believe that the pipeline is needed, and that future water needs could be met with conservation, and other methods. He proposes phasing out the property tax for water, which encourages waste by large institutional water users such as schools, churches and parks, who aren’t paying their fair share.

These large users are paying the same rate as homeowners, who also subsidize water rates with their property taxes, Frankel said. Homeowners are, in effect, subsidizing water costs for large institutional users, which eliminates the incentive to conserve water.

Frankel uses Las Vegas as an example of what can be accomplished by implementing a different water funding structure and encouraging conservation through programs such as rebates for grass removal.

Why is Washington County not paying people to rip out their grass?” Frankel said.

Who pays?

The state estimates the pipeline will cost $1 billion dollars, Millis said, although others have estimated the cost as much higher, by the time the entire amount is paid off including interest.

At a public water forum in 2013, Mike Small, president of Citizens for Dixie’s Future, said interest on the $1 billion project would actually make it $4 billion instead.

The state would supply the majority of upfront costs, Millis said, but the money would be repaid as the water is needed and used.

“Somebody’s got to pay for it,” he said, “and that would ultimately come to the people that use the water.”

The Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act of 2006 specifies that the state would pay most of the upfront costs of the project, with Washington and Kane counties contributing, Millis said.

Any money contributed by the state would need to be repaid over time through the purchase of water by the two counties’ water conservancy districts.

The repayment period as written in the bill can be up to 50 years, Millis said, but the counties would only pay for the water as it is required, until the debt is paid off.

What would happen if the population estimates don’t come true, and Southern Utah never needed the full amount of the water?

“Those are good questions that we don’t have answers to, at this point,” Millis said. “We will look at a reasonable demand curve for the project, and base a repayment program around that, to get it to stay in the 50-year period.”

Public input

Millis said a preliminary licensing proposal will be issued by the state this summer, and it will be a public document that agencies and the public can comment on.

In January of 2016, the division plans to submit a formal licensing application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and that’s when the National Environmental Policy Act process begins. NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. Public input is part of the NEPA process, Millis said.


Related posts

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, LLC, 2015, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • BIG GUY April 3, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Count me as one of those opposed to the pipeline. We live in the desert southwest, an area that can’t support everyone who might want to live here. Who benefits from the pipeline: developers, contractors and landowners. Who pays for it: buyers of new homes…and those of us already here. Bad deal.

    • mesaman April 3, 2015 at 8:57 pm

      I will stand with you and your position on the Powell proposal. I’m not really interested in seeing my grandchildren and great grandchildren saddled with the unrealistic burden of paying it off. I think the WCCSD might have created this to insure their future employment.

    • Chris April 4, 2015 at 10:48 am

      Agreed. The current residents are being asked to foot the bill for more development that will inevitably degrade our standard of living. Every locale, no matter where it is, has some factor that ultimately limits its population growth.

  • fun bag April 3, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Pretty sure “the lard’s church” has already endorsed the pipe, so we should all be for it.

    • AnotherReader April 4, 2015 at 9:41 pm

      Pretty much the only Lard around here is what spews from your fat bag. I’m sure it is also a pretty good description of you.

  • Free Parking April 4, 2015 at 12:16 am

    The pipeline is coming.!

  • SteveSGU April 4, 2015 at 6:50 am

    How do we stop this ridiculous project?

    “Upfront costs for the large projects, which range in the billions of dollars, would be mostly paid for by the state. However the counties that benefit from the projects would have to repay the money over time.”

    Well, Washington County certainly won’t benefit from developing a megacity with a huge cost burden. The people who would benefit are the greedy developers. Let them pay this billion dollars back!

    And this population growth is not about having a home and a job for your children; the more growth we allow, the more we will bring in the wrong kind of people, which will cheapen the sense of community that we have always had here.

  • wilbur April 4, 2015 at 9:25 am

    hint: YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE on this pipeline

    (it’s in the bag for the golf course developer boys)

  • beacon April 4, 2015 at 10:28 am

    SB 281 may have set up a funding mechanism for water projects but $5 million is as mere drop in the bucket when the state water buffaloes are purporting an overall infrastructure need of $32 billion! If we have two projects (Bear River and Lake Powell Pipeline) that will be around $8 billion total, that leaves about $24 billion in existing infrastructure that will be short changed! The bill lists the two big projects first, so how much money do you think would ever be available for the existing needs? Seems like this is just a way to keep money flowing for those whose jobs depend on “planning” for these projects. The water district and state fail to acknowledge how far our water will take us for future growth, during which time we can see if the pipeline is even a truly viable project and the effects of climate change and the drought are truly known. Even if, as purported, the state would pick up the initial cost of the pipeline and cover our unneeded debt while waiting for our repayment, why is that a good idea? There are so many other truly necessary demands for money in our state: education, drug rehabilitation (to hold down incarceration costs), health care, transportation, to name a few. We are water wasters. That’s the long and short of it. We have by the state’s own reports between 124,000-135,000 acre feet (af = 326,000 gallons!) of water with current sources and planned projects without the pipeline. Some desert cities support over half a million people and more on less than that amount of water. The audit of the state’s figures should be out soon. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. The need for the pipeline is based on usage of 339 gallons per person per day (gppd) and a 2060 population of around 860,000. We’re down to 279 gpcd (still very high) and population projection of 580,000. Is the need still there and worth indebting our county and state? Some changes will be needed to how people landscape their yards (more trees, less lawn!) as we grow, but what price are people are willing to pay for having their children and grandchildren (always the excuses used for everything!) live here? Do they love their grass more than they love them? This is a bad project that needs to stop. Over $27 million has already been spent on studies. Let’s cut bait as they say and give thanks to those legislators, Republican and Democrats, who voted against SB281!

  • Free Parking April 4, 2015 at 10:59 am

    The pipeline is on the way. The right people in the right places want it. And you can’t stop it

  • fun bag April 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    This pipe is the LORD’S will. THE LORD’s pipe will be completed. amen

  • ladybugavenger April 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Make marijuana legal, tax the …. Out of it and pay for the pipe line 😉 no need for taxpayers to be taxed anymore….problem solved.

  • beacon April 4, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    It’s so sad that so many people give up so easily and are not even willing to stay engaged in fighting to stop themselves and their families from being taxed for such a frivolous project. Other things equally as big have been stopped but it required people who were willing to take a stand, make their voices heard and not just roll over. Perhaps the people who stand to gain with this project are trying to convince others that it’s a done deal for their own benefit and to convince others to give up the fight.

    • BIG GUY April 5, 2015 at 5:17 am

      I agree. From what I understand, our Washington County commissioners do not intend to put this to a public vote. They believe they know what’s good for us…or at least what’s good for the folks who contributed to their campaigns to get them elected.

  • smackdowntay April 6, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Hopefully by 2025 Lake Powell will have reached dead-pool , is drained, the Colorado river flows freely and the dam will be scheduled to come down. Making the Lake Powell Pipeline futile and worthless.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.