Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reuse Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board briefed on $1.39 billion Washington County water reuse plan; staff recommends up to $195 million authorization
Summary
Staff presented a feasibility report for a multi‑phase Washington County Water Conservancy District reuse program with a $1.39 billion total cost estimate and recommended the Board authorize up to $195 million from the state'restricted WIRA/CND funds for phase 1 irrigation infrastructure.
Tom Cox, a staff presenter, told the Utah Board of Water Resources at its briefing meeting that the Washington County Water Conservancy District is proposing a multi‑phase water reuse program with an overall cost estimate of about $1,390,000,000.
The plan pairs reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation with improved drinking water supplies by exchanging lower‑quality sources and treated reuse water. Cox said phase 1 would include roughly 60 miles of pipeline, three reservoirs and other storage, and improvements to existing reclamation facilities; phase 2 would add an advanced water purification plant (21 million gallons per day), Warner Valley reservoir (up to 55,000 acre‑feet) and additional pipelines. Cox said construction has already begun on some elements and other components would be built as demand warrants through the 2030s–2040s.
Staff recommended the board authorize providing up to 47.2% of phase 1 costs, capped at $195,000,000 to be funded from the Water Infrastructure Restricted Account (WIRA) funds that were transferred into the Conservation and Development (CND) fund. Shalane DeBernardi read statutory language the board must follow (see authorities below) and explained that, under current rules, repayments on Colorado River drainage loans funded from the CND will be routed back to the WIRA account.
Board members questioned interest rate, repayment period and an applicant request to structure the state funds as a revolving "line of credit" that could be drawn, repaid and drawn again. Staff said the recommendation for initial authorization is a bond at 1% interest over 30 years (annual payment example shown in the feasibility materials) but acknowledged the board can set different terms at committal of funds. Bond counsel identified legal and logistical challenges to a truly revolving structure, including statutory limits on bond repayment terms and the need to define drawing conditions. Staff said detailed bond structuring and all required approvals would occur before any funds are committed.
The board'level discussion emphasized three constraints: legislative direction that created the WIRA/CND funding bucket and statutory restrictions attached to those funds; the board'affordability guideline (noted by staff as $60.25 per connection per month) that influences loan terms; and the legislature'mandated routing of repayments back to the WIRA account. Board members asked staff to prepare scenarios for alternate repayment lengths (35 and 40 years) and lower interest (0.5%) for comparison at a future meeting.
No formal authorization vote to commit funds occurred during the briefing; staff characterized the item as an authorization to begin the bond process and to permit multiple closings or phased bonds as projects are designed, bid and reach construction readiness. Staff also confirmed the board would not disburse funds for any component until that component met the division'and statutory requirements (final plans, bids, permits, easements, revenue proof).
Ending: Staff said they will return to the board for committal of funds with the legal and financial details worked out; board members asked the district to be prepared to explain the line‑of‑credit request and to provide the affordability analyses that underlie the recommended terms.
