Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dam Safety And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board commits additional $4M to Provo River Water Users; applicants cite Great Salt Lake grant condition
Summary
The Board committed an additional $4 million bond to the Provo River Water Users Association to complete outlet inspection and bypass works at Deer Creek Dam; the association said a separate legislative grant of $4 million carries conditions to deliver water to the Great Salt Lake and legal and water‑rights issues remain under review.
The Provo River Water Users Association requested final funding to complete outlet access and a bypass pipeline at Deer Creek Dam. Division staff recommended the board commit an additional 4% of project cost up to $4,000,000 as a separate bond, repaid at 1% interest over 35 years with annual payments of roughly $141,000, and the board approved the motion.
Tom (Division presenter) explained the association operates Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir and that earlier work included a bored bypass pipeline that will allow inspection and retrofit of the upper outlet pipeline. The association had bonded previously for a larger authorization; the board previously authorized a $65,000,000 bond and the association closed the first bond and drew funds for construction to date. The association had an $11,000,000 funding gap; $7,000,000 was provided by the Division of Drinking Water and the association sought $4,000,000 to close the package.
Jeff Budge, general manager for the association, told the board that the state legislature later approved a separate $4,000,000 grant in the final hours of the session, but that money contains a condition: the association must enter into an agreement to provide a specified volume of water to the Great Salt Lake. Budge said entering into that agreement could trigger federal review, NEPA processes and endangered‑species obligations because much of the association’s water is tied to Bureau of Reclamation rights. He said attorneys advised caution and that securing the legislative grant could be an uphill legal process; the association plans to pursue the agreement but cannot guarantee it. He emphasized the association’s fiduciary duty to pay contractor bills and the practical need for additional committed bond funds while negotiations about the Grant condition proceed.
Board members discussed the request and the potential optics of pursuing board funds after legislative action. The board passed the staff recommendation after discussion; at least one board member registered a no vote and another an abstention while the chair concluded the motion carried based on majority support.
