Lake Powell Pipeline Financing
I've submitted a commentary to the Tribune's piece on me regarding the Lake Powell pipeline, describing how -- exactly as I stated -- the State does contribute to the pipeline. If the Trib doesn't run it by Tuesday, I'll publish it here. Since it had no qualms about broadsiding me and the pipeline project with errors (which are so easily checked in this case), I'm curious to see how interested the Trib is in getting correct facts before the public on this important issue. My guess: not very.
In the meantime, I've asked the author of the hit piece, to describe where he disagrees with the following Q&A. Anyone can participate. Here's the statute that provides the answers.
Who pays to construct the pipeline? (The State).
When is the State reimbursed? (When the District takes the water, not when the project is completed).
When will the District take the water? (In blocks, sometime between project completion and 50 years after).
During that time, who services the construction costs? (The State).
Hmm.
How much are those carrying costs? (a big chunk of change)
If the water district pays cash for each block of water it takes during the 50 years, how much will it pay in interest? ($0)
Hmm, again.
Lastly, the bill specifically references the water districts taking at least 70% of the water. If they take 70%, who would entirely cover the cost of the other 30%? (The State)
In my last post, I wrote, "I'm just disappointed that big campaigns continue to be so non-substantive. I had hoped that the Internet might change that. But, so far, I can't say that it has. It just seems to make the silliness more immediate and wide spread. I'd be pleased, if people would point me to signs suggesting otherwise." This present exchange illustrates what could happen in big campaigns, in terms of presenting verifiable evidence before voters.
My opponent and one of his backers are making claims about a real issue (financing of the Lake Powell pipeline; specifically, whether, as I say, the State will contribute "a big chunk"). I'm responding to those claims (and, as outlined, will respond with more detail, in my op-ed, to the questions I raise above). People can come here, read the competing claims, read the bill, and decide for themselves who is right.
Political disagreement is fine and dandy. That's what leads to choices, competition among those choices, and -- we hope -- progress. But, as seems to be the case in the federal arena, if those disagreements never lead to someone-is-right/someone-is-wrong conclusions, people get lost in the vapor, and they turn off.
I love that my opponent and his backers are talking about an important issue to the community, not about who I associated with years ago (juicy stuff, I assure you) or whether one of my backers is licensed to practice his trade, etc. That gives each of us the opportunity to present our case and challenge the other's case. Sticking to facts, gives the public the opportunity to follow the debate and come to some conclusions.
On this one, I happen to believe that my opponent simply doesn't understand the complexities of the financing plan for the pipeline. We'll see how people answer my questions above, and we'll see how people react to the op-ed I've written. Because we're dealing with actual statutory language on an actual issue, specific answers do exist.
UPDATE: The Tribune is going to run the op ed this Sunday. I'll link to it then.
In the meantime, I've asked the author of the hit piece, to describe where he disagrees with the following Q&A. Anyone can participate. Here's the statute that provides the answers.
Who pays to construct the pipeline? (The State).
When is the State reimbursed? (When the District takes the water, not when the project is completed).
When will the District take the water? (In blocks, sometime between project completion and 50 years after).
During that time, who services the construction costs? (The State).
Hmm.
How much are those carrying costs? (a big chunk of change)
If the water district pays cash for each block of water it takes during the 50 years, how much will it pay in interest? ($0)
Hmm, again.
Lastly, the bill specifically references the water districts taking at least 70% of the water. If they take 70%, who would entirely cover the cost of the other 30%? (The State)
In my last post, I wrote, "I'm just disappointed that big campaigns continue to be so non-substantive. I had hoped that the Internet might change that. But, so far, I can't say that it has. It just seems to make the silliness more immediate and wide spread. I'd be pleased, if people would point me to signs suggesting otherwise." This present exchange illustrates what could happen in big campaigns, in terms of presenting verifiable evidence before voters.
My opponent and one of his backers are making claims about a real issue (financing of the Lake Powell pipeline; specifically, whether, as I say, the State will contribute "a big chunk"). I'm responding to those claims (and, as outlined, will respond with more detail, in my op-ed, to the questions I raise above). People can come here, read the competing claims, read the bill, and decide for themselves who is right.
Political disagreement is fine and dandy. That's what leads to choices, competition among those choices, and -- we hope -- progress. But, as seems to be the case in the federal arena, if those disagreements never lead to someone-is-right/someone-is-wrong conclusions, people get lost in the vapor, and they turn off.
I love that my opponent and his backers are talking about an important issue to the community, not about who I associated with years ago (juicy stuff, I assure you) or whether one of my backers is licensed to practice his trade, etc. That gives each of us the opportunity to present our case and challenge the other's case. Sticking to facts, gives the public the opportunity to follow the debate and come to some conclusions.
On this one, I happen to believe that my opponent simply doesn't understand the complexities of the financing plan for the pipeline. We'll see how people answer my questions above, and we'll see how people react to the op-ed I've written. Because we're dealing with actual statutory language on an actual issue, specific answers do exist.
UPDATE: The Tribune is going to run the op ed this Sunday. I'll link to it then.
posted by steve u. at 10/17/2008
Subscribe
6 Comments:
Hey Hughes where is my $50,000.00
The committee said it is ok now so I want mine in 10's and 20's. You can deliver it to the speakers office. He has $300,000.00 to bribe other legislators and I want mine. I won't be asking twice. Get my drift. No I wont shake you down for it, but if I did the committee says that is ok also.
Change,
I think your post is the kind of stunts that Urk is complaining about.
The committee didn't say that giving $50,000 was OK. Ultimately, the committee said that accusers need to present evidence. Just hearsay or unsubstantiated claims don't cut it.
The committee's verdict: we're still innocent until proven guilty, even if you are a conservative voucher-loving Republican.
I look forward to your piece. I am currently writing a note for my law school's journal on this topic. Specifically, my note addresses the costs, both financial and environmental, associated with the pipeline. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Hopefully you can clear some of it up. Please don't add to it! This is a very tough issue and not as clear cut as I once thought.
Best wishes on setting a sound water and environmental policy for the people of Washington County.
Sincerely,
Chayce Clark
Hey, Chayce!
Good to hear from you! Maybe you've already done this, but we need to get you some meetings with the people designing, financing, and planning the project. It is fascinating and, yes, extremely complex.
I helped arrange a meeting with those people and candidates, so that we'd at least be using accurate information. The 2 candidates banging hardest against the project canceled on us. Too bad. It would have been nice to sit around a table and work toward common facts to guide the discussion.
I would like to have Steve post the exact location in the pipeline bill that supports his explanation of what the state pays for the pipeline. Because I've looked at the bill closely and don't see anything that supports Steve's assertions that the state will pay as he says. Quoting "chapter and verse" might help to clarify.
A quick walk through the statute:
Pre-construction and construction costs are defined in section 103. (The water districts have to pay these back to the State).
Section 202 specifies that 70% of the project's water has to contracted to the Districts, for construction to start. (But, note section 401 below; that doesn't mean that the districts have to take all of that when the pipeline is completed).
Section 401 specifies that the State will pick up costs associated with recreation and fish and wildlife.
Section 402(1) is a key provision. It says that water delivery schedules will be determined by contract. (Delivery date is the date that interest begins to run for the districts). Section 402(4) specifies that interest will run on "unpaid balances." If a district pays for each block of water when it takes it, there won't be unpaid balances; therefore, there won't be interest paid by the districts.
403(1) describes how the price of the water will be determined, and reiterates that interest will run during the repayment times specified in 402.
Section 404 describes how repayment moneys will be utilized (largely for operation and maintenance and repairs of the pipeline and to fund other projects).
Section 405 specifies that title to the project could be transferred to the prescribing districts, once all reimbursable costs are paid back.
The statute is pretty complex. But, since it is patterned after previous projects, it is pretty straight forward for the state water people.
<< Home