Lake Powell Pipeline Financing
After disagreeing on the campaign trail about financing for the proposed Lake Powell pipeline, my opponent and I spoke last week with the head of the State’s water resources division, Dennis Strong. Mr. Strong confirmed that my description of the Lake Powell pipeline financing, as contained in the attached op ed, is correct.
My opponent has graciously agreed to help get out the truth on this point for the remainder of the campaign. He'll continue to oppose further water planning, for other reasons, but I'm grateful that he'll help dispell the incorrect facts that have been thrown around regarding the financial burden to the people of Washington County. In order for the public to meaningfully participate in the planning process, it is important to tether the discussion to facts and reality.
It’s nice that the give-and-take of a campaign served to clarify an important aspect of the proposed pipeline project.
My opponent has graciously agreed to help get out the truth on this point for the remainder of the campaign. He'll continue to oppose further water planning, for other reasons, but I'm grateful that he'll help dispell the incorrect facts that have been thrown around regarding the financial burden to the people of Washington County. In order for the public to meaningfully participate in the planning process, it is important to tether the discussion to facts and reality.
It’s nice that the give-and-take of a campaign served to clarify an important aspect of the proposed pipeline project.
posted by steve u. at 10/26/2008
Subscribe
7 Comments:
Steve,
My understanding is that the Washington County Water Conservancy District (“WCWCD”) has developed a Water Availability Charge to pay for its share of acre feet. This charge will take the form of an impact fee that will be assessed to new growth.
My understanding of your article is that Washington County residents will only be on the hook for costs associated with the “water they take” and not until they take it. Is this correct?
If this is accurate am I correct in assuming that if new water comes to a development via the Pipeline the property owners in the development will be assessed the Water Availability Charge to pay for their connection? Thus paying for the pipeline exclusively through new development?
I was under the impression that the state would fund initial preconstruction costs out of the general fund and the construction would be funded through the issuance of state bonds. Once these bonds are issued the individual water conservancy districts will have to begin repaying both interest and principal. This led me to believe that if there are “peeks and valleys” in local growth, the impact fees could fall short and there could be a need to use some other funding mechanism to smooth out the economic cycles. (Most logically through the use of property taxes.) Am I way off here?
One last question. (Okay maybe two)
Given the state’s current bonding situation (for roads in Utah County) are we legitimately going to be able to bond the Pipeline without hurting our rating? Is this a concern given the state’s current economic climate?
Thank you, I appreciate your candor.
Chayce Clark
Steve--
I came across this correction in the paper this morning. Looks like the media is back up to it's stellar reporting. That's a small correction, don't you think?
"Correction: Art Lipson election disclosure
Published: October 31, 2008
Art Lipson donated $435,650 ($246,875 in 2008) to the Utah Democratic Party over the 2007-08 election cycle, according to disclosure forms filed with the Lieutenant Governor's Office. A Deseret News review of the Elections Office Web site showed only $30,000."
Chayce,
Most water development is paid for by user fees. User fees, rather than property taxes, would by the catch all, if projections were way off. To avoid that, the WCWCD has instituted the impact fees, as you mention.
The part that it looks like you might be missing is the Water Development Surcharge. Each hook up (on an Equivalent Residential Unit basis) is charged $1.75/month. That money builds as the backstop, realizing that -- as you say and as we are experiencing -- building tends to run in cycles.
Tell me the deadline you are working under. After the election, I want to put together a video to address many of the things I'm hearing on the campaign trail. I'd love to have your piece when I put that together.
Thanks.
I just received a bunch of info from the WCWCD that looks like it will answer most of my questions.
I was unaware of the surcharge fund that is built up to smooth out the peaks and valleys. (Probably a good bit of info to have.)
I am shooting for spring publication. This is my first scholarly article and I had no idea about the amount of research involved for publication. (I have been all over the state and part of another.) I believe that I will have a high quality piece that will stand up to rigorous scrutiny by the end of fall semester. (Just in time for the session.) Hopefully by then, I can be the one answering questions instead of the one asking them.
Using you, in part, as point of reference, my research has led me to the following-
It appears that the crux of issue surrounding the pipeline centers on the certainty of growth. Namely, is the pipeline going lead to more unfettered growth and subsequently, damaging sprawl? Or, is similar growth going to come anyway, and without proper water planning, would this lead to an economic apocalypse for the county?
Is this an apt paraphrasing of what you are seeing and hearing?
Thanks for your input.
Tangential Comment-
I genuinely love Washington County. It is home, my roots run deep there and that makes this issue very difficult. On the one hand, it is hard to see the rural areas that I played in as a child, paved over for another strip mall. And on the other, I would love to raise my family their when I finish law school and with some of the anti-growth policies that I have heard this election cycle, this will never happen. So like so many before me have said- I would like to stress balance to those in positions of leadership. Please be pragmatic in your approach to governance and not ideological. Steve, you usually are, and your abilities would serve Washington County well in the Senate.
Best of Luck on Tuesday,
Chayce Clark
Chayce,
I've been inactive on the blog (trying to catch up w/ things after the election), and just now saw your last comment. I think your questions do frame the issue appropriately. Water development doesn't encourage the growth; rather, it provides for the growth that will occur. A significant element missing in this debate is the native-born population increase. Simple birth rates down here suggest that the no-growth crowd isn't being realisitc. Factor in folks like you who have ties to the area and want to move here or move back here, and growth is going to happen.
We need to plan for the growth, and -- as much as possible -- control it and not let it control us. We can do a better job of this and need to do a better job, to protect the wonderful things that make us love the area in the first place. A you mention, we need to find the right balance. But, cutting off the water development planning process -- in order to force certain planning options through scarcity -- is not the way to go. I'd rather walk to the planning table than be forced to crawl to there.
Thanks Steve.
BTW, should be there not their in my last post. I hate that and my OCD requires that I type a correction.
Oh yeah, congratulations!
I am so tired of people not placing proper punctuation in their comments on obscure blogs. It just drives me crazy. Come now people- people like me spend all day and night sitting on my bench in South Ogden just waiting for someone to say "to" instead of "too."
It is a sign of GROSS imbecility.
<< Home