Members of a House standing committee were so pumped up Wednesday about a project to deliver Lake Powell water to southern Utah that it flowed through without a ripple of dissent.
SB27, which would designate the Lake Powell Pipeline as a state project, passed the Senate a week ago. It is now forwarded to the full House with the committee's unanimous backing.
Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, said the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act, "contrary to what some are saying, does not appropriate any money" to build the project. Instead, it authorizes the State Board of Water Resources to take it on as a state project, getting involved in preconstruction and construction aspects.
The idea for the pipeline, with its pumping stations, reservoir and other facilities, originated in Washington County "because of the tremendous growth that is taking place" there, he said. Growth has also attracted interest from the Kane County and Central Iron County water-conservancy districts as well.
"There's no indication that growth is going to slow down," he added.
According to Hatch, the project is supported by everyone from environmentalists to government officials.
Construction can't begin until 70 percent of the projected water supplies are under contract, and the costs will be repaid by water users, he said.
Ronald Thompson, manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District, said 13,000 people lived in the area in 1970, and today it's 130,000.
State projections, which he said have been conservative in the past, as well as the county's own figure "show that we need this pipeline producing water by 2020."
The pipeline would follow a road right-of-way, and part of the route would be in Arizona. This complicates the picture because Arizona is among the Lower Colorado River Basin states, while Utah is in the Upper Basin, and water rights are divided by basin.
The project is supported by a resolution from the Upper Basin states, Thompson said. "We're working on the Lower Basin states right now to get the same support. We've had meetings with all the stakeholders, including those in Arizona, discussing that."
The bill invites Arizona to participate, he added, "as long as they could put some of their water in this project." Utah's use of the water would come out of the state's allocation of the Colorado River's flow.
Thompson emphasized that besides the pipeline, water conservation is important to the area.
Rep. Patrick Painter, R-Nephi, emphasized that the project's costs are to be repaid, and Thompson agreed. "This isn't a handout, but it is basically a co-sign on a loan that the state is helping out with," Painter said.
"The water community's definitely in support of this," said former senator Fred Finlinson, now of the Utah Water Coalition. If Utah's allocation of Colorado River water isn't used, it will go elsewhere, such as to meet U.S. treaty obligations with Mexico or for what he termed California's "overuse" of water. Rep. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, called the measure "very visionary and well thought-out," adding, "I see no downside to this bill whatsoever."
SB27 won the committee's unanimous recommendation.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com