04/17/1984 - Minutes hot 2 d t984
.
CITY RECpRDEI
Minutes
Public Utilities Advisory Committee
Meeting of April 17, 1984 ' pARnt,,
at Room 211, City and County Building MAY 2 2 1
984
Informal Meeting with Mayor and City Council Meiners
T Y Rt�U�Q�R
Committee members present were Genevieve Atwood, Howard Dunn, Emanuel Floor,
Roger Boyer and Jack Bonnett. Also present were Ray Montgomery and Wally
Miller of the city attorney's office; Paul Barber of the Mayor's office; Leigh
von der Esch of the city council office; Eldon Laird of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District; Nick Sefakis of the Metropolitan Water District; Brian
Wilkinson of the Salt Lake Tribune; Glen Warchol of the Deseret News and
Charlie Wilson.
Council members present were Alice Shearer, Sidney Fonnesbeck, Edward Parker,
Grant Mabey, Ron Whitehead, Ione Davis and Earl Hardwick. Mayor Ted L. Wilson
was also present. Staff members present were LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr., Ray Ahlander,
Tim Doxey, Wendell Evensen and Jackie Gillen.
Vice Chairman Howard Dunn brought the meeting to order at 5:15. He introduced
Eldon Laird and Charlie Wilson.
Mr. Laird gave an overview of the Central Utah Project. He showed a chart
which illustrated construction underway, completed and future projects. He
said the main concern in building the project is the delay. Over the years
we have lost eight or nine years caused by the delay of the project and the
price of the project has gone up. The price tag now is about $2.5 billion, and
of that amount $1.5 billion is involved in the power system. Reimbursement
costs will come through the power and federal funding. The original cost of the
project was $365 million. The early projects were constructed in the eastern
basin before starting the Bonneville Unit which will be the last to complete.
The Starvation Reservoir was built to satisfy agricultural interests in the
eastern portion of the state. The status of construction for the Strawberry
Aqueduct M & I water is about 89 percent completed. A large site caning fran the
tunnel is yet to be completed. Reach 4 is under construction, and will be
finished in about 12 months. Seventy-thousand acre feet will be for Salt Lake
County. The Bureau of Reclamation has a breakdown. Our cost will be approximately
$136 per acre foot.
Jordanelle will be a major factor in flood control. We are looking at a $354
million cost to build the Jordanelle Reservoir. We are scheduled to proceed
with the Jordanelle Dam and construction to begin in 1985, and end in 1992.
-2-
Geological investigations have taken place on the dam site. Three individual
outside opinions and the Bureau of Reclamation studies have declared it a safe
site to build and construct the reservoir. Two major issues are 1) water
rights on the Provo River (certification of appropriation) and 2) to determine
whether or not an election is needed for the Jordanelle Dam. There's a $140.3
million ceiling on the M & I project.
Mayor Wilson asked about building a tunnel (Walsburg Tunnel) from Strawberry
Reservoir to Deer Creek. Mr. Laird said that this involves a portion of the
project to be eliminated because of the agricultural aspect. In eliminating
the agriculture, about $500 million will have to be transferred and then picked
up by Salt Lake County M & I water users.
Mr. Ray Montgomery asked the reason for the Central Utah Project. Mr. Laird
said that water flows in the Uintah basin and into the Green River, then into
the Colorado River. We are developing a means to collect the water before it
gets to the Colorado. The preliminary portion of the project was to collect
Utah's share of the water before it leaves the state. There was a clause in
the Colorado Storage Act that if you didn't make an attempt to develop the
water after a period of time you would lose it. Until 1975 we would have lost
our share. Over the years this will be very beneficial to the development of
the state. The interesting thing is that the average Salt Lake County property
owner pays $25 per year towards the CUP. In the 40-year period each property
owner will pay only $1300 through taxes. Looking at the cost this way, it
doesn't look so expensive.
Mr. Lunn introduced Mr. Charles Wilson.
Mr. Wilson said that he has seen the water situation in both extremes. He has
seen Utah Lake at 12 feet below compromise. Today the motors are elevated
two feet to stay above the water in the pump house. This area has a very wide
variation of rainfall.
In 1965 a contract was entered into with the federal government to construct
the CUP. Ever since the project was started something has delayed us. After
the contract was the EPA's Environmental Impact Statement. We had to pull up
and make an environmental report. This cost several hundred thousand dollars.
Then we had a law suit on Rainbow Bridge and other lawsuits. There were a lot
of delays. Then the Teton Dam went out which required additional safety costing
$6 million. After solving the problems with environmental statements and
lawsuits President Carter came in and the hit list came out. We had one problem
after another, including inflation.
When the project was first started the Jordan Aqueduct became the planned method
of delivering water to the city's westside. Early on we were very careful to
plan the Capitol Hills (Victory Road Reservoir) Reservoir so that it was the
proper elevation.
We are going in the right direction with the Jordan Valley Plant with Salt
Lake County's tax money. Some city departments have projects as large as some
of the counties in the state. There's no way the project could have boon built
without Salt Lake County.
-.-
Vice Chairman Dunn introduced Manny Floor.
Mr. Floor said that thirty years ago we were working to obtain our rights on
the Colorado River and finally the Upper Colorado compact was passed by Congress
in 1955. He said that he was involved in the project working for the newspaper
agency which was producing the information to state our case. So, about thirty
years ago the Upper Colorado River battle was on, but we still haven't seen any
water delivered to salt Lake County. Twenty years ago the CUP was launched to
capture our share of the Colorado River water, but despite our efforts we have
not been as successful as Arizona and New Mexico in developing those rights,
and there are many along the Colorado River who would love to see us not develop
our rights. Even today there are many who are trying to block us from doing
what we want to do.
Utah has a very strange phenomenon. For years it has been said that we are a
state of great natural resources--and we are. But our natural resources have
almost always been out of reach. The water is too far away; the oil shale and
the tar sands never seem to be in the right price range, because of the very
intensive capital requirements; the coal is expensive to get out of the ground
and basic industries are subject to international influences especially in the
steel and copper markets. The truth of the matter is the future of our state
is not really in natural resources--it is the human resources. It is the
well-educated population, the bright minds, the articulate people—much of this
resource lives along the Wasatch Front and, therefore, it is necessary to bring
the water fran the east to the west. So, if we are going to have the kind of
growth we say we want, we simply have to have the water. So, we will have to
fight the battle all over again and bring to completion what we started 30
years ago. And there are those who stand up and say that the CUP is a mistake,
or the Jordanelle is wrong, but the truth of the matter is that most of the
project is completed and it is necessary to complete the linkage.
When you talk about water costs, and think about it, we made some mistakes with
our water. We probably should have insisted years ago that the southeastern and
southwestern parts of the county annex to the city before they got any water.
However, we gave them the surplus water and we told them that we might have to
take it away. We are sure lucky we have the Metropolitan Water District and
that they did build the Deer Creek Project. I don't know what we would be
doing today without it. Other communities simply take the bull by the horns
and build their project. Denver has gone ahead and built its dams and I look
at other cities and I simply have to say that we have to have the water resources
available. And at $136 per acre foot we are getting water at 1988, 1989, 1990,
1992 rates that would be incredibly low compared to any other alternatives available
to us. If we drill wells the pumping costs become very tremendous. Fortunately
because of the perseverance and attitude of certain people the fact that we are
going to be able to use the Jordan Aqueduct system long before Jordanelle is
built and getting the water to the west side of the valley is extremely
important. We are still finding the problem that the valley growth potential
exceeds, beyond all measure, the water availability; that that additional 20,000
acre feet of water is critical. That is why we (the Public Utilities Advisory
Committee) are so pleased that the City Council decided to sign the Memorandum
of Understanding. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine all the issues,
but you know it is sort of like the installment payment plan. Thirty years ago
-4-
we decided to buy something and 20 years ago we started paying for it. We have
paid about 65 percent of the costs, but now to walk away without the delivery
of what we have paid for seems like almost an incredible type of solution. I
think that what we have to do as a city and the Public Utilities Advisory Committee
is to cooperate with all the agencies to get this thing finished. That is why
the Advisory Committee supports the CUP.
So, I guess the bottom line from my point of view is perfectly clear--that 30
years ago I was helping the legislation through Congress and now, 30 years
later I am at the other end trying to get the water. I can remember the victory
that the city and the state felt when Dave Evans came running down the hall of
the newspaper agency showing the banner headlines in the newspapers of Salt
Lake City telling us that we had finally won the battle. We got the water!
So, it is very important to solve the technical problems—that we never lose
site of the objective which was to get our share of the Colorado River water in
Utah for agricultural uses, power development and ultimately municipal water
supply. We should never lose sight that we need water and if the human resources
are going to be developed along the Wasatch Front we are going to need that
water. So, someone said the West was won and lost with water and I think that
is very true in our state. The ability to develop, the ability to meet our
opportunities and the ability to meet the needs of our people are all wrapped
up in this issue. It may sound grandiose--but it is.
So I encourage the council to study this issue and never forget the history,
perspective and the reasons that we are dealing with this issue and the $136
per acre foot. We can afford this water and there are no options better that I
know of that. will give us the long-range solutions to flood control, agricultural,
power development and municipal water needs.
Vice Chairman Dunn said that we are happy to be working on this project with
LeRoy and his staff.
Mr. Hooton said that he supported the comments made by Mr. Floor and Mr. Wilson.
He described the area-wide water study. He showed a chart which illustrated
the water supply and demand through the year 2000. We are tied to the county.
In 1981 we were a phone call away from taking the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy
District off line, because we had distribution problems.
He showed the population demand supply. In 1980 the entire county had developed
185,000 acre feet of water with a demand of 174,700 acre feet. Projections
indicate that by the mid-1980's deficits would occur if additional water was
not developed. Since then we have 36,000 more people in Salt Lake County and
10,000 more residential houses. The demand has gone up to 184,000 acre feet.
The county has developed a Bell Canyon irrigation system that developed 6500
acre feet, which is the only new water developed in Salt Lake County since the
study. If we had not had three years of wet years we would have had water
shortages. It will catch us when it gets warm.
He then showed a Salt Lake City water resources and demand chart, in 1981 which
showed that there were only 12,384 acre feet remaining. There are the same
-5-
conditions today with more people than in 1981, which requires withdrawing
water from Salt Lake County District and others. The only way the city can
continue to grow is to withdraw surplus water from other districts. In the
long run additional water supply from the CUP will be required in order to meet
our future needs.
Water-short and flood-year cycles can be expected, but we must plan to meet the
city's long-term water needs far beyond the remainder of this century.
(See attached figures for detail information on Area-Wide Water Study and Salt
Lake City Resources and Demand, 1981. )
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Figure 1
Projected Water Budget
for Salt Lake County
with Existing Supplies
Year Population' Demand (AF) 2 Supply (AF) Deficit (AF)
1980 621 ,000 174, 700 185, 000
19823 657, 000 184, 080 185, 000
1985 707,000 199 , 000 185, 000 14, 000
1990 793,000 223, 000 185,000 38, 000
1995 848, 000 239, 000 185, 000 54, 000
2000 904, 000 254, 000 185, 000 69, 000
'Summarized from Salt Lake County Water Quality & Pollution
Control Report , July 1, 1980 , Economic & Domographic Futures :
1980-2000. Odd years are straight-line interpolation.
2Assumes demand per capita remains constant at 1980 level.
3Estimated 1982 population, Utah Economic and Business Review
Figure 2
Salt Lake City Water Resources and Demand
(Acre Feet )
Salt Lake City Water Rights:
1. Ground water (average annual yield ) 15, 000
2. Surface supplies (average yield) 55, 000
Metropolitan Water District
of Salt Lake City:
1. Deer Creek Reservoir 61 ,70U
2. Extra Allotment ( 1981 ) 5, 300
137 , O00
Water Demand 1981 (Use) :
1. Salt Lake City Sources 67, 955
2. Metropolitan Water District
of Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City 22, 045
Salt Lake County Water
Conservancy District 11,059
Central Utah Water
Conservancy District 9, 904
Others 13, 643
124, 600
Surplus in 1981 12, 394
Future demand for Salt Lake City (only)
Pitometer Report ( 1976)
Total demand by year (1990)
1985 124, 717 + 1111
- 22,3232
1990 142, 198 - 5,0001
- 39, 6062
'Assumes Salt Lake City will use all water available from
Metropolitan Water District , withdrawing 34, 606 A.F. from
other agencies.
2Assumes other agencies are sold Metropolitan Water District
water at 1980 levels.
39: 16