the lake powell pipeline - utah.gov · noel’s reported lpp conflicts of interest? do other...

1

Submission 1County: WashingtonAge: 50-64

I strongly oppose the Lake Powell Pipeline because it would be excessively expensive and risky. I concur with the university economic professors’ analysis documenting these exorbitant costs. It would also be unfair for all Utah taxpayers to subsidize this project when the residents of Washington and Kane Counties would likely be unable to pay back this massive “loan” of state funds. The proponents are clearly biased and (in addition to Rep. Mike Noel) may have financial or other conflicts of interest. There are better and less expensive alternatives through water conservation, storm water capture/aquifer recharge, and reclamation projects. These alternatives have already been successfully implemented in other cities in the southwest. Why do local officials profess the need to spend billions on a speculative pipeline while continually approving major new developments that include lakes, golf courses, and grassy parks? We live in the Mojave desert, but they act like we are in New England. I believe that requiring xeriscape for new developments, and providing an incentive program to convert existing lawns to xeriscape, would be a much cheaper and more reliable way to save water and eliminate the need for the pipeline. Thank you for visiting Saint George this week to obtain local public input, and thank you for considering my comments.

Submission 2County: WashingtonAge: 65+

Please oppose the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP). According to credible university professors, it would be too costly and likely cripple the local water districts with enormous debt. According to credible climate experts, there is a greater probability of prolonged drought periods in the West that would reduce Colorado River flows and increase evaporation losses in Lake Powell. Utah’s Colorado River LPP water rights are junior to others with more senior rights, so LPP water may be reduced or unavailable during severe shortages. There is also the legal uncertainty of whether Utah can properly use a Colorado River Compact upper basin water allocation to serve a lower basin purpose. The potential for protracted litigation on this and other relevant legal issues looms large.

Should Utah invest billions on a speculative high-risk pipeline that may never be built or that if built may not have enough water to reliably fill it? Over $30,000,000 has already been spent on LPP related studies, and yet the Utah FERC application was incomplete and the project is on hold due to a jurisdictional dispute. How much more public money will be spent and will those spending the money be held accountable for their sloth and mistakes? Will there be an arms-length investigation of the serious allegations relating to Rep. Mike Noel’s reported LPP conflicts of interest? Do other elected and appointed officials pushing

THE LAKE POWELL PIPELINEOnline Comments

2

the LPP have similar potential conflicts of interest? Why have Washington and Kane county officials ignored proven water conservation alternatives? Is it because those alternatives won’t put enough money in the pockets of their friends in the construction and consulting businesses? Why is the per capita water usage rate so wasteful in Washington County compared to other counties and cities in the desert Southwest? Why are local officials always approving new housing tracts without desert landscaping? Why can’t more storm water be retained to recharge aquifers?

Please carefully consider the above and other questions before reaching your conclusions. Thank you for your consideration.

Submission 3County: Washington Age: 50-64

If the pipeline was constructed, the area would continue to overgrow the resource as Southwestern Utah does not know how to conserve water. I’ve watched streets get watered. Developments with “lakes” are being planned. Lawns and golf courses are covered with lush green grass. We would be saddled with a huge debt and would still run out of water. There is no shame in realizing that we live in a desert and water should be a precious resource. Until that happens, I would not support this development.


In a time of climate change’s potential disasterious affect on snow and rainfall levels in the American West I think it is foolhardy and unconscious of us to promote this pipeline. If we placed the amount of money necessary into conservation and reclamation we would have more than enough water for the coming decades including moderate growth projections. But I fear that the powers pushing the ridiculous boondoggle are more interested in rapid accelerated growth to the point of turning Washington County into a mini Vegas with its congestion, crime, pollution and poor family values. If we look at the money of this lobby I am sure it is developers and others with loads of cash already.

In others words this project is for a greedy few and not for the people, never mind that environmentally and economically it is disasterious. Thank you


I am against the pipeline because it is only necessary if we want to grow beyond what is sustainable. Modest growth coupled with conservation, recycling and more desert scaping will enable our county to grow beautifully and organically. Pipeling is Californication. And another thing; where’s the water coming from in the coming years?

3


The water level at lake Powell and Mead are at 50%. Washington County is one of the least efficient water users in the U.S. Why build a pipeline when you can slow the growth and limit the growth to a point that is sustainable? Please protect the people of southern Utah rather than serve those who don’t live here and those that will solely gain monetary wise because of this project!


Why should St. George become as large as other metropolitan cities in Utah? Real estate & developers are the only ones wanting this project. If it happens, they should pay for it. I think a petition and funds could be raised from citizens in Wa & Kane counties to fight this in court. The cost of this pipeline will be in the billions so we can explode the desert with unwanted population? Our roads are already congested. Do we want our air to be the same? NO to this pipe dream.


This project seems to encourage unlimited growth. Lake Powell and the Colorado River is already an unreliable, and over allocated water source. It is fiscally irresponsible; pursued by unelected individuals who have an ulterior motive. What is the cost of a gallon of water from this pipeline? Who will be paying for this pipeline? Having been a resident of Bullfrog Basin, Lake Powell, I am opposed to this boondoggle.


At Thursday’s meeting, a few suited listeners appeared to be bored with commenters--an inappropriate attitude. Also, without specific costs per person, none of us can make an informed decision. Pitting fear of restricted opportunities for future generations against fear of unrestricted cost is grossly irresponsible of leadership and board members. Be fair and honest about the state’s willingness to share the burden it might impose on southern residents. As Glen Canyon Dam ages and silts over and drought reduces Lake Powell, be smart about the cost/benefit ratio both now and into the future. Until we have all the necessary facts, gentlemen, I have to vote NO.


4

As the only 2017 candidate for St George City Council that did not and does not support the $2.4 BILLION LAKE POWELL PIPELINE we have to ask one very important question, why do us Utahns use more water per capita than anywhere else in the US? How can we actually use twice as much as those living in Phoenix! Please support and promote more water conservation education, programs, rebates, etc., as well as alternative water solutions such as the recent approval of the 2019 $10 million arsenic treatment plant near Gunlock, with that money coming from the water services budget. We applaud that decision while one current St George city councilman loves to joke about the “Aresenic Water”, it will truly be a viable resource for WashCo. How about a small $ per sq ft rebate for homeowners as well as business owners for installing low or no supplemental water Xeriscape landscaping? Are all of the multiple hotels and commercial buildings currently under construction being charged the $60,350 - 1.5‚Ä≥ meter or $97,132 - 2‚Ä≥ meter WCWCD Impact fees or are those being subsidized? We are now (or once again) the fastest growing area in the US and there is no better time than now to educate our citizens about the importance of Water Conservation and it being a part of life when living in this magnificent desert before restrictions become mandatory. Part of the “Dixie Spirit” should be always being smart about saving and using water.

Submission 11County: Iron, but owns property in Washington CountyAge: 65+

I have several questions and concerns about the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Project.

First, it is unclear what the expected cost of this project will be. Specifically, does the expected cost include the cost of interest on the money which would be borrowed over approximately 40 years?

Second, it appears all property owners in Washington County will be on the hook to pay for this proposed project, yet many communities in the county will receive no water from the pipeline. The towns of Enterprise, Pine Valley, Central, Brookside, Dammeron, Diamond Valley, Veyo, Gunlock, Toquerville, Virgin, Rockville, and Springdale are some examples of places which will not directly benefit. Is it fair and reasonable to charge these residents the same rate as residents who will receive water from this proposed project if it is eventually build?

And third, let’s face facts, the Colorado River is already over-allocated. We apparently are in a time where most forecasts predict the climate is getting hotter and drier. And the populations of downstream users, such as Nevada, Arizona, California, and Mexico, which are heavily dependent upon the Colorado River, and which are much more populated and politically powerful than is Washington County, Utah, will likely oppose removal of the estimated 77 million gallons per day of water from Lake Powell. What will be the anticipated cost of litigation, delays, and other legal fees by Washington County over a period of several years to fight and win against the downstream users. Should not these anticipated legal costs be included in the cost estimates of this proposed pipeline project?

Submission 12County: Utah

5

Age: 65+

I am against the Pipeline Diversion. This project would leave Utahs in debt. It isn’t fiscally responsible and would further dry up the Colorado River. It’s heartbreaking that this famous river no longer reaches the ocean. Diverting water to Washington and Kane Counties would reward the population there that has no regard for conserving water. They use more than twice the amount of water compared to the national average per person. It’s time to say stop to population growth in areas that can’t sustain the growth. Use some common sense. The cost is too high and the necessity is not warranted.

Submission 13County: xAge 65+

Another stupid water scheme by developers to screw taxpayers to enrich their own pockets. Inflated projections to support an unneeded project and transfer the costs to non-users. It’s a desert, with the limits of living in a desert. John Wesley Powell understood that over a hundred years ago. Let Mike Noel pay for it!


I attended your Thursday night meeting at Dixie High School in Saint George and read the article in the Spectrum newspaper. Despite your Thursday agenda item, there was no update on the status of the LPP. Instead, the meeting started with a one-sided, boring sales pitch for the LPP. Judging from the public speakers that followed, and the applause levels, the audience appeared to be roughly equally divided between LPP supporters and opponents. The supporters want the public to pay for the LPP and the opponents are afraid of how the costs may adversely affect them. You said that this would be a fair, objective review. While you got diverse public input Thursday night, you apparently only received technical input from the LPP proponents and their hired consultants on Friday. Are you going to meet later with the university economics professors that raised compelling questions about the LPP exorbitant costs and debt repayment impacts? The authors of the 2015 LPP audit? The environmental NGO authors of the conservation alternative proffered for the LPP FERC DEIS? Water officials in other western cities with impressive water conservation and management programs? If you indeed consult with a more balanced and diverse range of technical experts and LPP critics in the weeks ahead, then that would demonstrate fairness and objectivity. You would be walking your talk from Thursday night. I hope that is what happens. I am sick and tired of the LPP proponents here in Washington County using my property tax dollars to push biased propaganda and to lobby for more state LPP funding. I appreciate your work and wish you success in reaching objective findings.


6

I have lived in St. George, Utah for the past 16 years. I am strongly opposed to the request by the Utah Board of Water Resources to build the Lake Powell Pipeline on the Colorado River! Currently Washington County, Utah is a beautiful and pristine place to live. However, the County officials and the local St. George officials are determined to ruin our community by building the county up to a population of around 300,000 people (or more), or roughly twice (or quadruple) as many as currently live here.

Supposedly, this 140-mile pipeline will carry up to 77 million gallons per day from Lake Powell through a buried 69-inch pipe to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George. The state water managers have spent more than 10 years and more than $30 million on studies, yet they still can’t put an accurate price tag on this Lake Powell Pipeline project.The Utah Board of Water Resources has not even provided the citizens with how we will pay for this Lake Powell Pipeline folly. The cost estimate to build it is between $1.1 billion and $1.8 billion. This debt will leave generations trying to pay for it, and I can bet I’ll spend the rest of my life paying for it!

Then, there is no guarantee that there will even be enough water available to fill the 140-mile pipeline. We have experienced at least a decade of lower water levels in Lake Powell and why should we think that, after they build a $1 to $2 billion pipeline, we will ever see a drop more of water in Washington County?

USA Today reported that as of Thursday, February 2, 2018, 38.4% of the continental U.S. is in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor and that the amount of snow on the ground is also far below average across the Colorado River Basin, where a 17-year run of mostly dry years has left reservoirs at alarmingly low levels.

Instead of spending ONE to TWO BILLION dollars to build a pipeline that may not even be able to pump any water, we should first stop wasting water and start conserving it. Our community uses more water per capita than both Las Vegas, Nevada and Tucson, Arizona, which are also desert communities.

Personally, I don’t want the financial responsibility because I don’t believe that this pie-in-the-sky idea will even work. I also don’t want to spend my family’s inheritance on the increased water rates and property taxes imposed to pay for a pipeline that may cost as much as TWO BILLION dollars to build. I also don’t want to see my beautiful, safe little desert community turned into Las Vegas because some land developers want to pave paradise and put in a parking lot.

Below, are excerpts from articles in the St. George, Utah Spectrum newspaper that summarizes this pipeline debacle very well: Analysis: Utah needs to subsidize 72 percent of Lake Powell Pipeline costDavid DeMille, [email protected] Published 2:00 p.m. MT Sept. 20, 2016Two economists from the University of Utah [Gabriel Lozada and Gail Blattenberger] argue it is wrought with faulty calculations and ignores basic economic tenets, underestimating the costs of the pipeline in several important ways, according to a letter they authored addressed to Gov. Gary Herbert and other state leaders.

The authors argue the WCWCD [Washington County Water Conservancy District] model doesn’t include any payments from the district to reimburse the state for the interest it would have to pay on bonds, it relies on an outdated cost estimate for the project ($969 million,), and it omits the costs of operation and maintenance, which are projected to vary between

7

$23 million and $63 million every year.

In their own independent analysis, the economists have previously argued that Washington and Kane counties would struggle to fund the project on their own.

In the most recent analysis, released last fall, the authors estimate that, in order to pay for the project, local water districts would need to increase rates as much as 678 percent along with similar hikes in property tax rates and impact fees ‚Äî prices so high that they could keep anyone from moving in and render the pipeline useless.

Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, said the state should be taking the university analysis more seriously rather than leaning on district and state proponents, saying he doesn’t believe lawmakers who would be charged with funding the project have been told how difficult it would be for the counties to fully repay the rest of the state.No one would ever ask a bank for a loan while intending to repay just 28 percent of the debt, unless they’re a scam artist, he said. Yet that’s exactly what water lobbyists convinced the Legislature to do.

Dry winter spells bleak forecast for Lake PowellDavid DeMille, The Spectrum Published 10:59 a.m. MT Feb. 8, 2018 | Updated 5:33 p.m. MT Feb. 8, 2018

Lake Powell, the second-largest reservoir in the U.S., is expected to collect less than half its normal supply of spring runoff this year because of dry weather across the southwestern U.S.The reservoir, which straddles the Utah-Arizona border, is forecasted to receive 47 percent of its average inflow because there is so little snow in the mountains that feed it this year, Greg Smith, a hydrologist with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, told reporters on Wednesday.

At this point there is only a 10 percent change that enough snow will fall the rest of the winter and spring to get back to average, marking the seventh-worst forecast for the reservoir in the past 54 years, Smith said.

Things are looking pretty grim‚ for the river and the various tributaries that feed it, Smith said.

The Colorado River has for years been overdrawn, sucked dry before it reaches its delta in Mexico. By 2060 it is forecast to fall well short of supplying the demands put on it by the growing demand, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

A study published last year by the University of Arizona and Colorado State University indicated that climate change could cut the river’s supplies by as much as one-third by the end of the century.

At the same time, water officials in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are all proposing to take more water out of the river.

Below, is an excerpt from an article in yesterday’s St. George News online newspaper recapping a public comment meeting Thursday night held by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget.

8

Fiscal impacts of Lake Powell Pipeline considered by state board as it hears public concernWritten by Mori Kessler March 23, 2018

Part of determining what the overall picture may look like is knowing what the actual cost of the pipeline will be.

Until we get numbers, and until we get them independently prepared, there really isn’t a reason to move forward with this project, St. George resident and former Utah legislator Bill Hickman said. We’ve got to know what it cost, and it’s got to be accurate and honest.

Preliminary cost estimates place the 140-mile Lake Powell Pipeline at between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion.

Opponents of the project said they believed the true cost of the project was much higher and could prove a crippling burden for Washington County residents.

The state must provide financing for the pipeline subject to cost, Dean said. However, paying back that financing, with interest, will be the water users.Ways currently proposed to help pay for the pipeline include increases to county water rates, impact fees and property taxes.Economists from four major Utah universities released a study claiming water rates could jump well over 500 percent and impact fees would go over 130 percent. Property tax rates would also see significant hikes.

A woman who said she lives on a fixed income became emotional over potentially not being able to afford increases.I’m really sure I’m going to lose my home, she said.The current population of over 160,000 is projected to grow to around 500,000 by 2060, according to a report from University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute.

I moved from Denver to St. George to escape the traffic, pollution and crime. If the greedy developers have their way, the population explosion in Washington County will replace the majestic Red Rock vistas with tens of thousands of rooftops, in addition to bringing in traffic, pollution and crime. If I had wanted to live in a town with 500,000 people, I would have moved to Las Vegas instead of St. George.

The only way these people are going to cease this crazy idea is if the Governor denies this project. Please, stop their madness! They will RUIN this beautiful place. Is that the legacy you want to leave?

Elaine Tyler957 Gardenia CircleSt. George, Utah [email protected]

Submission 16County: Washington Age: 65+

9

Washington county may need more water, but the pipeline from Lake Powell is not the answer. The expense of this project is overwhelming when you consider anticipated cost overruns and financing. To turn Washington County into another Las Vegas is what may occur if we encourage so many new residents. They would not have jobs and the social structure of southern Utah would collapse trying to support so many. Growth is inevitable (everywhere) but to encourage it here in Washington County at such a rate (as the projections show) is counter productive to the reason that most people have moved here.

The resources of the Colorado river and Lake Powell are already stretched. To suck more water from either might be catastrophic. Lake Powell has only managed to obtain full pool once in its history - it may never reach that again even if this pipeline is not built.According to the charts shown by John Fredell in St George recently, even with the pipeline the available water would run out in 2035. Mr Fredell is not William Mullholand, and should not be championing this project.

In closing, the costs for this project are unsustainable by the people of Utah. Do not burden us with them.


I believe that considering a plant to have potable and non- potable water should be part if any water resource plan. Of course, conservation must be included. Taking 77 million gallons per day from Lake Powell will last how long. Please look at a comprehensive plan not just one pipeline. Jackie Ortelli

Submission 18County: GrandAge: 30-49

I am writing to draw your attention to major discrepancies between credible predictions for streamflow in the Colorado River basin and the water rights on paper that Utah Division of Water Resources holds for the Lake Powell Pipeline.

It is widely accepted in the scientific community that increased temperature and evaporation will increase drought severity and increase aridification in the Colorado River basin in the near future. For example, we encourage you to read The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future by Udall and Overpeck. This 2016 study lays out a strong prediction, based on conservative data, that Colorado River streamflow at Lee’s Ferry will likely decrease by 20-30% by mid-century. The baseline is data from 1906-1999, which averaged 15.2 million acre-feet per year. In the drought since 1999, streamflows have been reduced by 19%. In response to pending shortage declarations, the upper and lower basin states are belatedly preparing drought contingency planning documents. In 32 more years, the heyday of the potential Lake Powell Pipeline, the basin could be dealing with sustained 20% reduction in streamflow.

The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledges climate change, they even think we should plan

10

on it. In the 2012 executive summary of the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study, they openly admit, climate change may put water users and resources relying on the river at risk of prolonged water shortages in the future.They go on to analyze current climate predictions and come up with a median expected decrease in Colorado River flow of 8.7% by 2060 (this number is very low compared to other studies that suggest a conservative estimate could be closer to 20%, but we’ll go with it since it’s the number they officially recognize).

What does a 8.7% decrease in total river flow look like for Utahns? As you know, the loss is not distributed equally according to the Colorado River Compact and the Law of the River. A 8.7% decrease in river flow at Lee’s Ferry would leave 13,695,000 afy in the Colorado River Basin to divvy up. The upper basin in obligated to release 8,250,000 afy from Lake Powell (7,500,000 afy for the Lower Basin, and 750,000 afy for half of the obligation to Mexico). From the remaining 5,445,000 allocated for use in the Upper Basin, 50,000 goes to Arizona and the rest gets divided based on percentage. Utah is entitled to 23% of the remainder or 1,240,850. According to the Utah Division of Water Rights, we already deplete 1,007,500 acre-feet per year with current projects.

This is a problem because right now, the State and the Division of Water Resources are busy trying to develop at least 345,000 acre feet per year for new users, 112,040 more acre feet per year than we are likely to have by 2060. The State of Utah has outstanding obligations to settle the federal water rights claims of two major tribes, the Northern Ute and Navajo. Agreements are still unratified with these tribes, but it seems likely that parties might agree on 105,000 and 81,500 respectively. These water rights would have older priority dating than the water rights for the Lake Powell Pipeline.

Lake Powell Pipeline will be among the first to lose out when water shortage occurs. It is not likely that the pipeline will see the full water allotment for more than a few measly years, definitely not long enough to pay back the cost of constructing it.

Taking all of this into account, these water rights transfers are not in the public interest. It is important to recognize that this $1.8 Billion pipeline project would still have to be paid for by the taxpayers and water users of Utah, even if it wasn’t able to serve anyone or generate the expected revenue.

When considering the economic feasibility of this project, you should take sound science into account and participate in smart planning. We have a lot to contend with in these changing times, let’s not waste your time and our money on pipe dreams that couldn’t possibly pan out.

Thank you for your consideration,Sarah Stock, Program DirectorLiving Rivers


There isn’t any extra water in the Colorado River system. Even the Bureau of Reclamation,

11

known for promoting water development for many decades, has admitted this and begun to re-focus their efforts in recent years. The financial implications are that you can’t sell water when the supply is dubious and will only get less available through time.

Submission 20County: GrandAge: 65+

I have often seen figures showing the daily per person water usage in St. George is twice what it is in Tucson and some other SW communities. Why spend all that money on a pipeline when a change of water use habits would be more effective, especially considering predictions of extended drought?


It appears that Mike Noel’s conflict of interest should be of great importance to the State before moving forward. Most of the monies that may have been allocated for this incredibly ill-conceived project will likely be needed for legal fees. The pipeline project is clearly a very bad and costly idea, indeed, and state tax-payers should not be forced to pay one cent for the nefarious planning and greed of developers in southwest Utah.

Submission 22County: GrandAge: 65+

Why are we even looking at economic implications of this project when there has been no study to determine if the water even exists? This is another waste of tax payer money for the benefit of a few. What role did Mike Noel have in this entire issue. Does he or his family benefit directly?

Submission 23County: xAge: 18-29

The economic implications of the Lake Powell Pipeline are disastrous. The predicted decreasing levels of the Colorado River mean that this project will not provide nearly enough revenue to offset the massive costs. It will be a huge misuse of taxpayer money.

Submission 24County: xAge: 65+

I oppose the Lake Powell Pipeline project. The cost is too high, the infrastructure & available Colorado R flow are vulnerable extreme rainfall events & drought. Careful,

12

ongoing conversations are needed about water use & planning. Utah should not export water in the form of hay. What water we assign to agricultural water should feed local humans. Water used for irrigation should be metered.

Submission 25County: WashingtonAge: x

Three reasons why the Lake Powell Pipeline project should be cancelled

The LPP proposal suffers from three major flaws, any one of which would justify discontinuing the project.

First, the Pipeline is not needed, because (I) the population forecast by GOPB is overblown and unreliable since it ignores the limits to growth in Washington County, (II) the County has not exploited its potential for conservation, and (III) local waters plus a competent water conservation program would fill the needs of the County for the foreseeable future.

Second, the Pipeline would not be a reliable source of water, because (I) according to hydrologists the Colorado River is already the most over allocated water system in the world, (II) the Law of the River makes the Upper Basin allocations (including Utah’s) the last priority on the River in the event of a drought (the so-called Upper-Basin squeeze), and (III) the Colorado aquifer is being depleted at a rate of more than a cubic mile of water per year, and when it runs dry, the Colorado River system will never be reliable again.

Third, the Pipeline is not known to be affordable, because (I) the cost is not known; (II) the cost is not fixed, so in effect it is unlimited; and therefore (III) the cost of the Pipeline is like a blank check that the taxpayers of Washington County are being asked to pay.

Any project that is not needed, not reliable, and not known to be affordable deserves to be cancelled.

Jack Worlton225 N. Valley View Dr., #23, St. George, UT 8477Jack’s cell: 801-608-2727

Submission 26County: WashingtonAge: x

Dear Executive Water Finance Board members:

As a long-time Washington County resident, I was pleased and grateful to learn that you will be visiting Saint George this Thursday and Friday to conduct meetings relating to the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP).

At your LPP meetings this week, and in your subsequent deliberations, please thoroughly address the following key questions:

13

1) What is the full LPP financing plan, including how repayment would occur and at what interest rate, and how would Washington and Kane county residents realistically cover these repayments without excessive increases in water rates, impact fees, or property taxes?

2) Have likely cheaper and more reliable LPP alternatives (including water conservation, water reclamation, storm water capture, and xeriscape ordinances or incentives) been fully and objectively evaluated?

3) Given the likelihood of more prolonged droughts in the West due to climate change, and the reality that Colorado River water is already over allocated, what is the level of risk if the LPP is constructed but there is not sufficient future water to fill it?

4) How accurate and reliable is the data used to forecast future water demands in Washington and Kane counties, and are these forecasts appropriate in light of what other western cities have already accomplished in terms of reasonable water conservation programs and reduced per capita water usage rates?

5) In light of the recent news that Representative Mike Noel reportedly had alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest relating to the LPP, should the LPP spur line in Kane County be more closely evaluated to determine whether it is actually needed and would serve a broad public interest, and have other leading LPP proponents filed accurate and complete disclosures of any financial, property ownership, or investment conflicts that they may have?

6) If past is prologue, and since over thirty million public dollars have already been spent on LPP related studies and the Utah submittal of an incomplete LPP application to FERC, has the public received good value for this spending thus far and, if not, what should be done to change this pattern going forward?

7) Given the current stay on Utah’s LPP application with FERC over a pending jurisdictional dispute, was it a mistake for Utah to have successfully pushed for FERC to be the LPP NEPA lead agency when the Bureau of Reclamation or Bureau of Land Management would have been more appropriate choices?

In addition to addressing these questions, please review my LPP LTE published in the Saint George News last month, at this web link:

Letter to the Editor: Aren’t we just a bunch of bullying bullfrogs gambling our way to the Lake Powell Pipeline

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2018/02/11/letter-to-the-editor-arent-we-just-a-bunch-of-bullying-bullfrogs-gambling-our-way-to-the-lake-powell-pipeline/#.WrE0aWrwaUk

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard Spotts

14

255 North 2790 EastSaint George UT [email protected]

Submission 27County: Washington Age: x

I have lived in St. George, Utah for the past 16 years. I am strongly opposed to the request by the Utah Board of Water Resources to build the Lake Powell Pipeline on the Colorado River! Currently Washington County, Utah is a beautiful and pristine place to live. However, the County officials and the local St. George officials are determined to ruin our community by building the county up to a population of around 300,000 people (or more), or roughly twice (or quadruple) as many as currently live here.

Supposedly, this 140-mile pipeline will carry up to 77 million gallons per day from Lake Powell through a buried 69-inch pipe to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George. The state water managers have spent more than 10 years and more than $30 million on studies, yet they still can’t put an accurate price tag on this Lake Powell Pipeline project.

The Utah Board of Water Resources has not even provided the citizens with how we will pay for this Lake Powell Pipeline folly. The cost estimate to build it is between $1.1 billion and $1.8 billion. This debt will leave generations trying to pay for it, and I can bet I’ll spend the rest of my life paying for it!

Then, there is no guarantee that there will even be enough water available to fill the 140-mile pipeline. We have experienced at least a decade of lower water levels in Lake Powell and why should we think that, after they build a $1 to $2 billion pipeline, we will ever see a drop more of water in Washington County?

USA Today reported that as of Thursday, February 2, 2018, 38.4% of the continental U.S. is in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor and that the amount of snow on the ground is also far below average across the Colorado River Basin, where a 17-year run of mostly dry years has left reservoirs at alarmingly low levels.

Instead of spending ONE to TWO BILLION dollars to build a pipeline that may not even be able to pump any water, we should first stop wasting water and start conserving it. Our community uses more water per capita than both Las Vegas, Nevada and Tucson, Arizona, which are also desert communities.

Personally, I don’t want the financial responsibility because I don;t believe that this pie-in-the-sky idea will even work. I also don’t want to spend my family’s inheritance on the increased water rates and property taxes imposed to pay for a pipeline that may cost as much as TWO BILLION dollars to build. I also don’t want to see my beautiful, safe little desert community turned into Las Vegas because some land developers want to pave paradise and put in a parking lot.

Below, are excerpts from articles in the St. George, Utah Spectrum newspaper that summarizes this pipeline debacle very well:

15

Analysis: Utah needs to subsidize 72 percent of Lake Powell Pipeline cost

David DeMille, [email protected] Published 2:00 p.m. MT Sept. 20, 2016

Two economists from the University of Utah [Gabriel Lozada and Gail Blattenberger] argue it is wrought with faulty calculations and ignores basic economic tenets, underestimating the costs of the pipeline in several important ways, according to a letter they authored addressed to Gov. Gary Herbert and other state leaders.

The authors argue the WCWCD [Washington County Water Conservancy District] model doesn’t include any payments from the district to reimburse the state for the interest it would have to pay on bonds, it relies on an outdated cost estimate for the project ($969 million,), and it omits the costs of operation and maintenance, which are projected to vary between $23 million and $63 million every year.

In their own independent analysis, the economists have previously argued that Washington and Kane counties would struggle to fund the project on their own.

In the most recent analysis, released last fall, the authors estimate that, in order to pay for the project, local water districts would need to increase rates as much as 678 percent along with similar hikes in property tax rates and impact fees ‚ prices so high that they could keep anyone from moving in and render the pipeline useless.

Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, said the state should be taking the university analysis more seriously rather than leaning on district and state proponents, saying he doesn’t believe lawmakers who would be charged with funding the project have been told how difficult it would be for the counties to fully repay the rest of the state.

No one would ever ask a bank for a loan while intending to repay just 28 percent of the debt, unless they‚ are a scam artist, he said. Yet, that is exactly what water lobbyists convinced the Legislature to do.

Dry winter spells bleak forecast for Lake PowellDavid DeMille, The Spectrum Published 10:59 a.m. MT Feb. 8, 2018 | Updated 5:33 p.m. MT Feb. 8, 2018

Lake Powell, the second-largest reservoir in the U.S., is expected to collect less than half its normal supply of spring runoff this year because of dry weather across the southwestern U.S.

The reservoir, which straddles the Utah-Arizona border, is forecasted to receive 47 percent of its average inflow because there is so little snow in the mountains that feed it this year, Greg Smith, a hydrologist with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, told reporters on Wednesday.

At this point there is only a 10 percent change that enough snow will fall the rest of the winter and spring to get back to average, marking the seventh-worst forecast for the reservoir in the past 54 years, Smith said.

Things are looking pretty grim for the river and the various tributaries that feed it, Smith said.

16

The Colorado River has for years been overdrawn, sucked dry before it reaches its delta in Mexico. By 2060 it is forecast to fall well short of supplying the demands put on it by the growing demand, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

A study published last year by the University of Arizona and Colorado State University indicated that climate change could cut the river’s supplies by as much as one-third by the end of the century.

At the same time, water officials in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are all proposing to take more water out of the river.

Below, is an excerpt from an article in yesterday’s St. George News online newspaper recapping a public comment meeting Thursday night held by the Governor;s Office of Management and Budget.

Fiscal impacts of Lake Powell Pipeline considered by state board as it hears public concernWritten by Mori Kessler March 23, 2018

Part of determining what the overall picture may look like is knowing what the actual cost of the pipeline will be.

Until we get numbers, and until we get them independently prepared, there really isn’t a reason to move forward with this project, St. George resident and former Utah legislator Bill Hickman said. We’ve got to know what it cost, and it’s got to be accurate and honest.

Preliminary cost estimates place the 140-mile Lake Powell Pipeline at between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion.

Opponents of the project said they believed the true cost of the project was much higher and could prove a crippling burden for Washington County residents.

The state must provide financing for the pipeline subject to cost, Dean said. However, paying back that financing, with interest, will be the water users.

Ways currently proposed to help pay for the pipeline include increases to county water rates, impact fees and property taxes.

Economists from four major Utah universities released a study claiming water rates could jump well over 500 percent and impact fees would go over 130 percent. Property tax rates would also see significant hikes.

A woman who said she lives on a fixed income became emotional over potentially not being able to afford increases.

I’m really sure I’m going to lose my home, she said.

‚Ä¶ The current population of over 160,000 is projected to grow to around 500,000 by 2060, according to a report from University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute.

I moved from Denver to St. George to escape the traffic, pollution and crime. If the greedy

17

developers have their way, the population explosion in Washington County will replace the majestic Red Rock vistas with tens of thousands of rooftops, in addition to bringing in traffic, pollution and crime. If I had wanted to live in a town with 500,000 people, I would have moved to Las Vegas instead of St. George.

The only way these people are going to cease this crazy idea is if the Governor denies this project. Please, stop their madness! They will RUIN this beautiful place. Is that the legacy you want to leave?

Elaine Tyler957 Gardenia CircleSt. George, Utah [email protected]


According to a Western States water agreement we must share LP resources with other states (see The Guardian article link below). How do we know that there will be sufficient water remaining in Lake Powell by the time the LPP has been completed? Southern Utah is not the only entity that has an eye on Lake Powell. Read the article in Tuesday’s Guardian newspaper about Phoenix and their lack-of-water problem. Besides Lake Powell, Arizona is toying with the idea of building a pipeline from the Great Lakes to Phoenix (you have to think larger S. Utah LPP). Read this article and see our same problem on a much larger scale. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/phoenix-least-sustainable-city-survive-water?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=268197&subid=15563635&CMP=GT_US_collection


The greedy idiots who thought this up deserve to go to jail. Yeah, let’s build a pipeline across the desert to a lake that is quickly disappearing and have taxpapers fund it. By the time the pipeline gets built, there won’t be any water in the lake. And, if there happens to be some water left, residents won’t be able to afford to purchase the piped water to their homes. How about conservation people?


Have we not learned anything from Las Vegas and Lake Mead? I am fairly confident Brigham Young never envisioned millions of people living in the desert, due to the lack of WATER! You would think we would have the same common sense now. If we would stop trying to get the area to grow so much, (and take great delight in it), maybe that would slow things down a little bit. As one who lived for a time in overcrowded (and bankrupt) SoCal,

18

can we not avoid putting ourselves on the same track? I find the two hours at DHS verses six at SUWCD, very interesting. Sounds like the rats have seized the lab - again. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!


I oppose this pipeline. It will turn St. George area to urban sprawl and lower the quality of life. It will also damage the environment. How much does this project cost? How will it be funded? Who made this proposal? Who will pay for it?


Instead of running a pipeline from lake Powell to Washington county , how about running a pipeline from Provo to St George via I15. Run the pipes along the I15 interstate so its always accessible for repairs. Instead of using one large 24” or larger pipe to transfer the water do it with 2 12” pipes running parallel with each another . You could also tap different sources along the way.


It’s my opinion that there is much to be done on the side of water conservation that may cost $10s of million before spending $1.5 billion on a pipe line. 1) Zero water landscape required - Financial incentives to remove existing lawns. 2) 100% reclaimed water on golf courses. 3) Low flow shower heads and low flow toilets required. 4) Water tanks instead of (or in addition to) lake storage.....save millions of gallons from evaporation. These simple options could save a big percentage of fresh water.


I am opposed to the pipeline. I am a long term resident.


I am a long time resident of Washington County. I oppose the pipeline project. It will undoubtedly enrich the pockets of a few people and impoverish the rest of the populace through taxes and higher costs. In a few years the county will be right back where it is now,

19

wanting more water for more people. Taxes, cost of living, crime, congestion, pollution will all have increased. The political leaders will pronounce the wonderful world that has resulted, while the populace will wonder what place they are talking about. There are other alternatives than this boom and bust. But, I also know that money talks. And, after all, that is what this project is all about.


It will work...but only for a little while....Water’s getting scarcer all the time.....Best be thinking about another way.....soon.


When you were in Saint George for two days of meetings you only heard technical presentations by LPP supporters and their paid consultants. This was neither fair or balanced. How can you purport to conduct an objective investigation if your technical data is one-sided and from biased sources? You need to spend an equal amount of your time hearing technical presentations from those who question or oppose the LPP. I believe that the LPP would be too expensive and that there are cheaper and more reliable alternatives to meet future water needs. You need to consider the risks and costs of each alternative, and not solely focus on the LPP. Please strive to be as objective and fair as possible. Thank you.


The project sounds like a waste of taxpayer money and an environmental affront to the land that it proposes to traverse. More effort should be put into conservation and restriction of water-intensive development (e.g., golf courses and water parks) before trying to siphon water from an already over-allocated source


This project should not proceed until an economic analysis and unbiased objective analysis of all alternatives are priced out completely, documenting completely all underlying assumptions on growth, projected usage with more aggressive conservation goals, secondary water usage savings and all plant and reservoir infrastructure improvements required to handle the added water processing capacity. Also one alternative not priced out is the non pipeline alternative of recharging existing aquifers. That alternative need to be spelled out and not dispelled as it has been to date by the Pipeline Proponents. Also

20

with the pipeline alternatives need to include the cost of expanding the capacity of the Washington and Kane County waterworks infrastructures and or reservoirs that will be required to handle the added processing capacity necessitated by a pipeline.Finally list and prioritize the probability of all risks and benefits of each alternative for adding water capacity including the risk and implications under the pipeline alternative of the Colorado River being unable to provide water with another 40 to 60 drop in the level of Lake Powell which has already been experienced over the last 10 years or so. Thank you


The fact this is an anonymous survey eliminates credibility; however, I feel it’s important to express my opinion. Without this project, there is no future for southern Utah. The economic impact in terms of annual gross domestic product, jobs and return to the government treasury will be greater than the cost of the project. There is nothing more important in this state or to the economy than a reliable supply of water. The economy and future generations depend on it.


Dear Committee, thank you for your time effort and energy to consider the economic impacts of the LPP on Washington County. As a County Commissioner, one of my main responsibilities is the welfare of Washington County’s residents. Internal growth is a huge driver of our population growth. Creating jobs and opportunity for our young (there are more than 33 thousand children enrolled in K-12 in the WCSD). Water anchors the future and opportunity these young children will either have or not have. I am not advocating for the future of retirees who may choose to live here - and may want to see Washington County trapped in suspended animation because they like our community exactly how it is when they purchased their piece of heaven. I am advocating for the children of our families who will drive two thirds of the population growth of Washington County. Please don’t force us to export our children because we’re too selfish to pay for and import the life blood of our community, water! Respectfully submitted by Dean J. Cox, Washington County Commission


My name is Jack Taylor the Public Services Director for Santa Clara City. I have managed the water, sewer, streets and power departments for the city over the last 25 years. I strongly support the Lake Powell Pipeline Project. I’ve seen droughts here in Washington County that has pushed us to the very limits. I know the lakes and wells we have, will not keep up with the demand and new growth were having in the County. It all comes down to risk and how much risk are we willing to take. I’m not willing to take the risk and i also want my children to live here and there children. We need it! Lets provide water for our prosperity like the generations did before we came to Washington County.

21


St George is the fastest growing Metro areas in the USA. More than 2/3 of that growth is natural (babies born here) and not move-ins. If I want my Children and Grandchildren to stay we must expand our water sources from our sole source we have now!


I moved to Washington County when I was 10 years old and the population was less then 40k. I have seen massive growth that I have been thankful for so that I could raise my family here too. I have 3 boys who I would like to have the opportunity to raise their families here too. There needs to be more growth for that to be possible. The pipeline not only allows that growth but insures that they won’t be priced out do to a insufficient supply. Please continue to support the necessities of Washington County and support the pipeline!


I view the LPP as a 100 percent necessary to accommodate growth and to provide a more secure and stable water supply. It is amazing how far we have been able to stretch the Virgin River, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Virgin is about tapped out. Southern Utah is a desirable place to live and we are not going to be able to shut the door--therefore, I believe we should do everything we can to prepare for future generations. I believe that in the fear future we will view the LPP as an amazing feat of engineering that improves the quality of life in Southern Utah and because the cost is spread across such a broad base of properties and water users it will not seem like a burden. This is essentially what has happened with the Quail Creek project and the Sand Hollow project. It is hard to imagine where we would be right now without these two water developments. We live in the West. Water is life. We should not shy away from this amazing project!


I am strongly in favor of the future of this pipeline. This area will continue to grow and we will need this infrastructure as soon as possible. I’m tired of listening to older people objecting to something they won’t be around for. This is my future for me and my posterity, lets plan accordingly.


22

Existing residents should NOT be required to fund the pipeline in any fashion. The growth industries such as developers, builders, lenders, etc., will reap tremendous benefits on the backs of residents that generally speaking do not want expansive growth, and already have their water resources.


My opinion is that the current water supplies are not sustainable and probably the only feasible way to remedy that is to tap into the current water rights already in place from Lake Powell. I support the Pipeline project. (Del S. Wetenkamp)


The population will continue to grow (with or without the pipeline). Water resources should be developed to adequately serve the growth. The pipeline will be needed and it will not be cheaper in the future to build.Rob Reid


Utah should use it’s Colorado River water.Lake Powell is “one of the most firm water supplies in Utah’s allocation of the Upper Colorado River Basin,” according to Kent Jones, P.E., State Engineer, Utah Division of Water Rights. Indeed, Colorado River flows have always been adequate to meet obligations established by the Law of the River.


Additional water supplies are necessary to meet the demands of future generations. We’re fortunate to live in a state that plans for its future generations – we’re all recipients of our forefather’s efforts and have the same obligation to those who come after us.


We can no longer afford to rely on a single water source of variable quality and quantity.

23

Our local communities are 100 percent dependent on water from the Virgin River Basin, which has experienced drought conditions 12 out of the past 20 years.


We can no longer afford to rely on a single water source of variable quality and quantity. Our local communities are 100 percent dependent on water from the Virgin River Basin, which has experienced drought conditions 12 out of the past 20 years.


Water is critical to sustaining the economy and creating jobs. We need additional water supplies and storage to protect against future droughts. A safe, reliable water supply is critical to public health, water quality, fire protection and the environment.


The LPP complements conservation efforts. Washington County has reduced its water use more than 30 percent in the last 15 years – one of the highest reductions in the state – and is working toward additional reductions.


The LPP allows Washington Co. to use five percent of Utah’s Colorado River Compact allocation of 1.71 million acre feet. The state is currently using approximately 1 million acre feet, leaving a surplus available for development. Utah’s water supply in Lake Powell is one of the most secure in the state.


Nearly six million visitors are welcomed in Washington Co. annually. The LPP supports tourism, generating significant state revenues and jobs.

24


Legislation to develop the LPP passed with 96 out of 97 votes from state senators and representatives; rights to develop the water have been secured, but need to be acted upon now.


Utah is the fastest growing state in the union and has the highest birth rate, lowest death rate and youngest population in the country. We have to plan for the future, that’s what the Lake Powell Pipeline is about.


Washington County is on track to have a 229% increase in citizens by 2065, we must plan for the future. The Lake Powell Pipeline does just that.


Southern Utah cannot afford to continue to bank its future on one water source, we must diversify and plan for the future. The Lake Powell Pipeline is critical to our long-term water security.


Most of Southern Utah depends exclusive on a single river basin to supply water. What happens if that fails? Only 20% this year. The Lake Powell Pipeline gives us increased water reliability.


Utah has experienced 12 years of drought in the last two decades. It’s not a matter of “if” anymore, it’s a matter of when. The Lake Powell Pipeline helps protect us against future

25

droughts.


I am an elected official in Washington County and have studied the Lake Powell Pipeline project extensively including the alternatives to it. I have come to the conclusion that failing to build the LPP will effectively flip the off switch on growth and development in Washington County within the next few years. The alternatives I’ve studied are based on flawed data and/or unrealistic projections. Those that are possible are far more cost prohibitive and therefore unfeasible. It’s troubling that so much misinformation and speculation concerning the project has been put out there by those who oppose it. I have found the WCWCD data to be reasonable and accurate. It is backed by carefully prepared studies by industry experts. WCWCD is not agenda driven but rather provides information solely solely for the purpose of proper planning. I’m convinced that without LPP water we will ultimately face an epic economic crisis when growth related business begins shutting down impacting about 25% of our workforce with all other business being seriously impacted. The opportunity for new business and industry will shrink in the face of an inadequate water supply. Alarmist as it may sound I believe this scenario to be likely and have no doubt it would be devastating to the region. Thank you.

Submission 65County: Washington

The Southern Utah Home Builders Association is in support of the Lake Powell Pipeline Project and the best option that has come forth to date. We are in support of developing new water sources to ensure sufficient water supplies for existing and future development in Washington County. Water is vital to sustain continued growth so our children and grandchildren will have sufficient housing available. Water is key to a strong and growing economy. As proposed, seventy five percent of the LPP cost will be paid with impact fees. We are concerned over burdening the building industry with excessive impact fees which affects housing affordability in our area. Not only future residents can benefit from LPP, but existing residents can benefit from an additional water resource to not rely solely on the Virgin River. As we are in support of the Lake Powell Pipeline, consideration should be given to not overburden future and current residents. Thank you.

Submission 66County: San Juan Age: 30-49

To continue the growth and livelihood of the Southern Utah Area, water needs to be available to sustain life.This pipeline project will allow for the needed water to keep Southern Utah vibrant and active!

26


Simply put, the risk of not securing water for our state out weighs the potential burden of economic impact of the debt across Utah. It is critical that we leave options open for the citizens to use available water (by making it available) rather than have my children and grand children ask why we didn’t invest in their future or secure their security.

Water like land is a limited commodity that should controlled and utilized to create a strong and growing economy in Southern Utah. I am in support of developing new water sources to ensure sufficient water supplies for existing and future development in Washington County.

the lake powell pipeline - utah.gov · noel’s reported lpp conflicts of interest? do other...

Documents