90-Day Public Comment Period for Proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Underway

90-Day Public Comment Period for
Proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Underway

By Lisa Rutherford

The 90-day public comment period for the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP) project ends September 8. A key focus of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) —driven and clearly “written” by the state and our water district—is a perceived need for a second, or extra, source of water, i.e., the Colorado River.

LPP proponents argue that our current source, the Virgin River basin—which is a significant watershed—is insufficient and faces climate change challenges.  So LPP proponents say we should pay $2B or more (not including interest on state bonds) to provide a 15-year ‘reserve’ buffer.

I liken the proponents’ thinking to my harboring a fear that perhaps my home is not reliable because I’m in an area of the county more prone to earthquakes, so I should buy a second home that’s more reliable “just in case.” Is that wise use of my money when my current home serves my needs, will last a long time when maintained well, and the chance of an earthquake is remote? My “extra house” money could be used for other real and more immediate needs. Similarly, our local water resources are robust and used wisely will allow much growth in our county while saving money for more critical needs—county and statewide.

Unnecessary, expensive, and risky ‘extra’ water

The cost to secure this extra potential water from a river, already challenged, is significant. With the Colorado River predicted to have even less water than it does now, our money might buy an empty pipeline.  Old-time Utahns, remember those Bangerter pumps?

Demand is questionable. The project’s planning window has been, and I believe still is, 2010-2060. Future water demand has been factored on a 2060 population and high water usage per person. Still, ever since the county’s population projection for 2060 plummeted, from over 860,000 to under 500,000, the state and district have been scrambling to figure out how to justify a multi-billion dollar pipeline; in a county that uses over 300 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). So, now they’re saying it’s a water “reliability” issue and must have a 15-year planning window to drive up the demanded number to provide a reserve buffer—using a 2075 population projection. But that buffer which they say would require 184, 000 acre-feet of water annually would keep our use at 240 GPCD by their new fangled calculation! Once we get to that usage in 2045, we will never get any better according to the DEIS but will remain using 240 GPCD until 2075. That’s still a high usage compared to other desert communities that are satisfied with their supply of water and are willing to manage that supply to meet their needs while still growing. The national average ranges from 136 to 179 GPCD which many southwest communities have already met or exceeded, while our county’s thirst goes unquenched!

This effort to secure a second source of water from the unreliable Colorado River is a considerable cost to this entire state and a double whammy to our county. Our county’s citizens would repay the cost of the pipeline and water provided according to current law. Still, it would leave other state needs unmet because state money would be dedicated to this unworthy project for decades. Money that could have gone to education, transportation, and more would not help those essential needs, and all Utahns would suffer.

It’s particularly annoying that Washington County residents would not only pay through increased property taxes, water rates, and impact fees; but would also have less state money available for schools, roads, and more—all for a second unnecessary and unreliable source of water.

As citizens prepare to comment on this unnecessary, costly, and risky project, I hope you will keep these thoughts in mind. How much are we willing to overextend our state and county for a second source of water that may not even exist?

During this critical time, please go to https://conserveswu.org/ to learn more and how to comment by September 8.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor