Last year, it was all about roads versus education at the Legislature. This year there could be a third contender for money and attention: water.

A series of bills that would essentially pull the trigger on the massive Lake Powell pipeline and Bear River water projects - current estimated price tag: $700 million - will be presented to lawmakers during the upcoming session, which begins Monday. The proposed legislation is primarily designed to provide seed money for the two projects, which are still years, even decades away from actual construction.

"If we don't start developing these water resources, it's going to be a limiting factor on our growth, and I think the Legislature recognizes that," said Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton. "This is going to be one of the big issues of this session, without any question. These projects need to happen and they will happen."

Adams, author of the Bear River Development Act, and other proponents argue that, given the state's future growth projections, the time has arrived to begin planning, doing environmental assessments and making property and right-of-way purchases for what they call inevitable water demand. Such a forward-looking approach, they predict, will save taxpayers millions of dollars over the long term.

''This is a good time to do this, mainly because of the lead time that will be needed for these projects,'' said Tage Flint, general manager of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. ''It's really about preserving our options for the future.''

But fiscal conservatives have balked at the proposed funding sources - one bill seeks to lift the cap on the share of sales tax devoted to water projects; another calls for a portion of future budget surpluses be steered in that direction.

And environmentalists, who have opposed the Bear River project mainly because of its potential negative effects on the Great Salt Lake's ecosystem, also question the wisdom of spending state dollars to develop water they say may never be needed. The state's projections forecast water surpluses in Salt Lake County as late as 2050.

"They're trying to get a commitment for a long list of big investments, the kinds of things that will make it hard to turn the ship around later," said Merritt Frey, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council.

The Lake Powell project will create a 127-mile pipeline that will connect Lake Powell and the Colorado River with the new Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George. Washington, Iron and Kane counties will all tap into the new water source. Southern Utah water officials hope to start construction by 2015, with the pipeline operational by 2020.

Further down the line is the Bear River project, which calls for a dam and reservoir near Portage that will connect with Willard Bay and users in Box Elder, Cache, Weber, Davis and Salt Lake counties. Northern Utah water officials have targeted 2030 as a tentative completion date, though that could be extended even further, depending on future population growth and water needs in northern Utah.

Larry Anderson, director of the Utah Division of Water Resources, says most of the initial funding these bills produce would be funneled to the Powell pipeline, which most agree is needed sooner rather than later.

"Then, in another 10 years, we'll re-evaluate when the Bear River project will be needed," he added. "I think there's a misperception that we're going to move right in and start doing things with Bear River. It's 30 years off. Maybe you look at [property] ownership and rights of ways, but that's about it."

Regardless of the timing, some fiscal conservatives are troubled by using earmarked state money to fund projects that will serve residents in specific geographic areas. Both the Powell and Bear River bills call for users to eventually repay the state for planning and construction costs. But Mike Jerman, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, says tapping into the general fund still flies in the face of how water projects are usually paid for.

"Philosophically, we believe they should be funded through user fees," he said. "User fees are still a form of taxation, but when something is as underpriced as water is in Utah, the result is overconsumption. Right now, the incentive to conserve is not as high as it could be."

Those aspects of the Powell and Bear River bills also concern Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville. Waddoups is not thrilled with the funding proposals. "I'm not sure if I want to take a lot of money out of the surplus and put it into a revolving fund, but I don't know if there's a better way to do it either," he said. But he is even less enthused given the other issues the Legislature will face this session.

"I still see transportation needs as more immediate and water needs more down the road," Waddoups said.

Project backers, such as Adams, say they are open to funding alternatives. And they concede that the state can do a better job of conserving its current water supply - even though Utah's consumption is down 17 percent in the past decade. But they also say that future water needs, combined with the fact that federal dollars are no longer available, make it vital that these projects be started soon.

"We've lived off those federal dollars in the past," said Adams, citing the Central Utah Project and other previous water development efforts. "But those federal monies aren't there any more. We need to step up and say we want to continue to drink. It would not be wise to cut that off."

jbaird@sltrib.com