Whose pipeline is it anyway? Scrutiny increases on cities and water

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    July 26, 2018 3:46 p.m.

    Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the country with about 60,000 new people/year. That's a new city every year. More than half of that is immigration. We cannot make the same mistake California did and keep our water supply constant while the state grows. Utah has plenty of water, but we have an uneven water supply. We need to capture the overabundance that normally causes flooding and release it during the dryer times.

    We also need to build more water delivery infrastructure. Of course all of that costs money. So how do we pay for it? One approach would be to charge impact fees for people moving to Utah. This would be a onetime fee to directly fund the infrastructure that is needed as a direct result of growth. This would also include other things like roads, schools, etc.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    July 26, 2018 8:37 a.m.

    This is an attack on Salt Lake City, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Misseleer71 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2018 8:21 a.m.

    If a water line is owned by a city then that city is accountable for maintenance or repairs ever if it crosses other cities boundaries. Oneing city collects fees and taxes on thier pipeline then it is accountable to fix a water leak in another city and required only a notice to access and repair the line on any of its length.

  • Makid Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2018 8:11 a.m.

    If the Cities don't like the arrangement, let them find water elsewhere.

    SLC by Utah law owns water and watershed for a large area. Because the water wasn't being used by SLC, it was authorized to sell it as surplus to various cities.

    As the article stated, SLC has told Sandy that their surplus water contract is ending and Sandy now must find water from another source. This is due to development of the new Prison and the Inland Port.

    The only City that SLC should keep a contract with is Alta. The rest, it should give a 1 year notice that the Surplus water contract is ending.

    SLC has a current population of just over 200K and it will be over 210K come the 2020 census. What has helped other areas keep their water contracts from SLC is the higher density of SLC. With the planned residential construction growth in SLC, it may hit 250K by 2030 if not sooner.

    As other cities have been refusing to support high density development, they should be prepared to face higher water bills as they are forced to find water from other sources.

  • ute alumni Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2018 7:39 a.m.

    With no reservoirs under construction it’s too late Utah. Jordanelle took over 50 years from first announced to completion.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    July 21, 2018 11:51 p.m.

    Why should Millcreek and Cottonwood Heights resident pay $500,000 a year in watershed protection fees used by Salt Lake City to buy Salt Lake City land in the canyon.

    Why can't Millcreek and Cottonwood Heights buy land in the canyon in their name with their own $500,000?

    Why can't Millcreek, Cottonwood Heights, Alta, Park City keep the water profits Salt Lake City makes off them as "surplus" water customers?

    How can Salt Lake City tell their residents SLC is short on water while selling billions of gallons of water for hundreds of thousands of dollars as "surplus" to Pack City and the Heber Valley?

    Wall to wall cities ended Salt Lake City grand plan to provide water to 2 million people, because SLC has a population of 190,000. So it's time to let cities like Millcreek and Cottonwood Heights become water independent.

    Salt Lake City will say they'll fix the water lines. Again, there is no free lunch and not only will Millcreek and Cottonwood Heights pay for their new pipes but the profit up charge to SLC.

  • Strider303 American Fork, UT
    July 21, 2018 6:54 p.m.

    This is a very complex and important topic. I think there must be open, on record, discussions with public input. The input must not be the sometimes phony “public input” session minutes or hours before a vote by the legislature.

    State wide, presentations, with advance notice to the public held in acceptable venues, with the acceptance and response to submitted comments is what I see as appropriate. At party conventions and at other venues, candidates and incumbents need to be queried as to their knowledge of the issue and their positions. I am not in favor of a small legislative cabal writing a bill and foisting it upon the legislature and the state. This is not time for an “imperfect bill” rushed through at the eleventh hour to satisfy some ego(s).

    I also suggest all new developments be required to submit water usage projections and the source of water to be used before permits are granted.