facebook-pixel

Letter: Water district is raising money for a plan that is dead in the water

Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune Taxpayers can expect to foot up to 72 percent of the controversial Lake Powell Pipeline's costs, according to University of Utah economists who analyzed repayment models developed in support of the billion-dollar-plus proposal to pipe Colorado River water from Glen Canyon Dam, above, 140 miles to St. George. Officials from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) began a two-day site visit in southern Utah Tuesday, examining the 139-mile route of the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline, September 20, 2016. The public tour was so that FERC could view the pipeline's planned hydropower stations, proposed alignment and the environment the pipeline will cross.

The Washington County Water Conservancy District is increasing property taxes for 2019. Taxes buy us civilization, but sources of special district income can be opaque, and the most opaque is property tax. Unlike water use charges, it doesn’t encourage conservation and disproportionately affects the poor.

WCWCD’s budgets, philosophies and plans are not on the Utah Transparency website. It’s clear these officials want to provide as much water as anyone wants, and they hope the state of Utah will subsidize as much of the costs as possible. To make that case, the 2019 budget forecasts an impressive $200 million stockpile of, basically, cash.

The philosophy is to bill taxpayers now for a Lake Powell Pipeline project, expected to cost almost $2 billion and not built for decades, ignoring that there won’t be sufficient water in Lake Powell by then.

Capital projects benefiting future populations should be paid for by bonding, with repayment coming from those who reap the benefits. WCWCD, wanting others in the state to pay for its water and reluctant to charge real costs for water use, is playing politics by amassing property taxes to promote a project that is dead in the water. Not a good plan.

Bryan Dixon, St. George

Submit a letter to the editor