Lawmakers and water officials once again politely fenced over water supply and demand during a recent meeting of the Water Issues Task Force. The primary questions: Why were state Division of Water Resources projections showing water surpluses in Salt Lake County in 2050 left out of a report certifying the need for the projects? And should those projected surpluses be taken into account when the time comes to start paying what is expected to be a combined $790 million tab?

Relatively few people dispute the need for the Lake Powell project, a 127-mile pipeline that will connect the giant reservoir to the new Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, with a possible extension to Cedar City. The pace of growth in southwestern Utah has actually pushed the projected completion date of the pipeline up to 2015.

But the proposed Bear River Project, which will provide a new water resource for northern Utah, likely will face more scrutiny. Current population estimates show that the project, which calls for a dam and reservoir near Portage that will connect with Willard Bay and the Wasatch Front, won't be needed until 2030.

Some have questioned if it will be necessary even then, based upon Water Resources' estimates projecting a combined 2050 surplus of about 62,000 acre-feet between Salt Lake County and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy, which both serve the county's built-out east side.

But those numbers weren't in the final report of the Water Delivery Financing Task Force Report issued in September. Instead, the report, created to lay out financing options for the two projects, listed numbers from the Jordan Valley and Weber Basin water conservancy districts, which project robust population growth and are showing a combined 2050 water shortage of about 49,000 acre-feet.

"We can't be putting our heads in the sand, but concerns have been raised about the Bear River project from a number of sources," said Sen. Patrice Arent, D-Holladay. "Why was there no draft table showing Salt Lake County's [projected] excess water in the report?"

The most outspoken critic of the Bear River project, Living Rivers Executive Director Merritt Frey, says there is a simple reason for the discrepancy.

"They built this [financing] task force with people who stand to benefit from the project, and included the data of those who stand to benefit, while ignoring the data of the state agency charged with water planning," she said.

Ed Alter, chair of the water financing task force, says there was no deliberate deception in the report. Rather, the task force opted to go with numbers that included worst-case scenarios. The Salt Lake County numbers also were left out, he added, because there is no historical indication that those districts would be willing to pool their surplus supply.

"Regardless," he added, "both [sets of numbers] say this valley will be out of water in 40 years. We propose to start planning for that now."

The task force has proposed to begin paying for the early development of the projects by lifting the cap on the 1/16th of a cent sales tax that is earmarked for water projects to begin property and other right-of-way acquisitions. It has also recommended repealing an existing statute requiring that 70 percent of the project's water supply be contracted before state monies can be spent.

A Division of Water Resources official says the agency is not offended its water figures weren't used in the report. The real issue, said Deputy Director Dennis Strong, is one of timing.

"When you're looking at a project that's 30 years out, only a psychic could tell you where the growth will be," he said. "We're leaning on the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget [population] estimates, but we're not that comfortable making those kinds of decisions today. We'd rather wait 10 years. If the growth is happening somewhere besides, say, the southwest side of the Salt Lake Valley, then we can adjust our numbers."

He added: "We're eventually going to need a new water source for northern Utah, and that source is the Bear River. But that's years away. The emphasis now has got to be on the Lake Powell project. Then we'll come back later, look at the Bear River and assess what our needs are."

But Frey and other Bear River opponents believe that with conservation, the sharing of water surplus - Jordan Valley and the Metro District will soon be connected by a shared pipeline from Utah Lake - and the conversion of agricultural water to municipal use, the real need for the project is dubious, at best.

"They're trying to build a 'what-if' water system," she said. "The problem is, they want to use taxpayer dollars to do it."

jbaird@sltrib.com