Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act after extended debate on costs and financing
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 27 to authorize rules and contracts for the Lake Powell Pipeline, with sponsors estimating costs in the hundreds of millions and urging state facilitation of financing. Members asked about conservation, storage capacity at Sand Hollow Reservoir and repayment mechanisms.
The Utah House on Feb. 1 passed Senate Bill 27, the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act, which sets out an authorization framework for the Board of Water Resources to make rules and contracts for the project and its sale structure.
"We're a growing thirsty community," Representative David Clark said while presenting the bill, stressing the pipeline’s role in meeting future water needs. Clark and others framed the bill as mirroring prior statutory structure used for the Bear River project.
On costs and financing, the sponsor provided a range rather than a single number. He said early estimates started around $350 million to $375 million and could rise; later he used "let's just pick an arbitrary number, let's say $450,000,000" when describing possible escalations tied to environmental review and litigation. Clark described a financing plan in which the state could act as a financial intermediary and subscribing water districts would repay the state with interest.
Lawmakers questioned conservation measures, storage capacity and repayment mechanics. Representative McGee and Representative Farrin pressed for clarity on costs and how bonds or repayment would be structured; Clark said Sand Hollow Reservoir has both surface and underground sandstone-aquifer storage and that financing could include revenue bonds tied to water sales once a required subscription threshold is reached.
Supporters from across affected counties emphasized regional need. Representative Bowman said the pipeline would be "our last shot at getting water" for Iron County and praised Representative Clark’s work on the project.
The House approved SB27 as amended, 71–1 with three absent. The bill will be returned to the Senate for further consideration. Sponsors signaled that financing details and environmental review timelines will be addressed in the implementation phase and noted the potential for litigation to affect schedule and cost.
