Best option for cities is simply provide water for it's citizens only.
Those living in the county, in order to escape higher property taxes, can look
elsewhere including purchasing water from a private source with tanker truck
delivery. That has been my source of water for the last 18 years. Person
choice follows personal freedom.
What blows my mind is Cities Like Bluffdale, Lehi, Eagle Mountain sell Utah
water to corporations like Facebook, NSA, & Intel Flash at pennies on the
dollar then increase the rates for Utah citizens.
Are people seriously complaining that it's been 100 years since the Utah
constitution's rules regarding water were amended, and that changing times
call for changing approaches to governance?Meanwhile, we're set
to nominate a new Supreme Court justice who believes that the "original
intent" of a bunch of white men two hundred years ago is perfectly adequate
for the problems of today's society.
Very interesting article. In the Middle East, the biggest fights are over water
and religion, and water is life/death in the desert. Guess Utah will get to
that point as well, and we will have to rethink that perpetual green lawn...we
live in the mountains here and special assessments, taxes, and high water costs
are common. Of course, fire danger is a big concern as well. Wish the HOA
would allow natural vegetation with clearings for fire buffers, and not require
grass and deer-magnet plants.
They need to quit building on land that doesn't have infrastructure and
water to support the development. Water is a finite and precious resource that
needs to be carefully used and monitored. There are actually towns in some
states that do not have clean water or anymore water to support their water
Good article, and fair representation of what went on. The 2 big issues seemed
to me to be that 1) they seem to think it had never happened that water was
turned off, but three years ago was a drought year, and both Town of Alta and
Brighton Water District were put on 30 or 60 day notice of imminent shutoff by
SLCWU; and 2) that the constitution's presumed solution to the non
representation problem was to annex, which worked in 1880 but now there are
major cities being served by SLC Water (for example) and they can hardly
"annex" to SLC. The other, really seriously wrong thing is that water,
pricing, and availability to an enormous number of people in the county is
controlled and priced by a smaller number of city residents, who are the
electors of the city council which sets the rules. I think the intent of the
founders was the opposite. It seems inequitable to me and is the explanation of
the feelings of Boston Tea Party, as headlined. The good news is that a
committee of thr legislature is working on a constitutional amendment, and they
sounded like they had a good grasp of the problem. This isn't just a
problem in SLCO, it is something that needs fixing for the State.
This issue will be more and more important as city "leaders" pay
virtually no attention whatsoever to availability of water.Heretofore, people have paid very little attention to who they elect to their
local water boards. That time has passed.It WILL be increasingly
important to understand the how/why of local water boards.Ultimately, the issue will be water for "new growth", or keeping rates
(relatively)low for existing homeowners and farmers.