Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumFinancial Tweak After Revision After Update, But Billion+$ Powell Pipeline Still Stalled
EDIT
Washington County is currently one of the fastest-growing communities in the nation. In recent decades, its been discovered by Californians looking for a warm climate with a lower cost of living, and northern Utahns seeking affordable land with milder winters. The quiet desert town of St. George is now a bustling retirement community with a thriving tourism industry. That rapid growth has become Utahs justification for building a pipeline to provide water, despite a nationwide drop in water use in the last decade, suggesting that a growing population wont necessarily need more, and Lozadas anticipation that local residents wont pay.
Before the population explosion, state leaders envisioned the Lake Powell Pipeline as a way to use Utahs share of the Colorado River to spur economic development in Washington County. Abundant water, they hoped, would attract exciting new economic opportunities that would inspire local youth to build lifelong careers at home in the rural West. But by now, its clear that the pipeline is no longer needed to achieve that vision; Washington County began transforming in the 1980s and 90s.
Amid the growth of the budding county, the Utah Legislature agreed in 2006 to build the Lake Powell Pipeline with certain conditions. According to the terms of the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act, the state will pay for the construction of the pipeline, but only if the recipients of the water, Kane and Washington counties water conservancy districts, enter into a contract to purchase it. According to the state statute, the water will be sold at a price that enables the state to reclaim the costs associated with designing and building the pipeline, with interest, over 50 years. According to David Clark, the now-retired state legislator who originally introduced the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act, the law was designed to emulate the way the Bureau of Reclamation financed large water projects in the past. But since federal dollars are harder to come by today, the act assumed that the state would play the role of the federal government. The act does not, however, Clark said, authorize a state subsidy for the project.
EDIT
Critics like Lozada say that Thompsons figures dont take into account numerous complicating factors, such as the fact that the water district is also on the hook for the states development and permitting expenses, which have already cost Utah tens of millions of dollars and will likely cost even more, given a recent federal ruling that will subject the pipeline to additional government scrutiny. Nor does it take into account interest rates, or the possibility that local growth and demand for water could slow if costs soar. If growth slows, the water districts projected revenues will fall, potentially trapping the county in a negative feedback loop that could make it impossible for it to repay the debt. Then Utahs taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
EDIT
https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.18/water-the-precarious-plan-for-the-lake-powell-pipeline