Loading...
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