On a spring day in 2006, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and a handful of elected officials gathered in Cedar City. Two months previous, that year’s legislative session resulted in State Bill 257, designating the Lake Powell Pipeline an official state project. Instead of signing the bill into law from his office in Salt Lake City, Gov. Huntsman traveled to Iron County — one of the southwestern Utah communities expected to benefit from the project — to hold a modest ceremony.
“This is a remarkable occasion, I hope you realize that,” Huntsman said, as reported by the Deseret News. “The chances are quite good that when my great-great-great-grandfathers were first sitting around talking, it was about water, and we’re still talking about it today.”
It’s likely that Huntsman and the other attendees didn’t expect to still be talking about the Lake Powell Pipeline today, too. 15 years since the state of Utah originally took it on as a project, construction has yet to begin, and it continues to be a publicized — and polarizing — subject.
Original estimates of the project’s scope and need have evolved, but the pipeline’s proponents continue to emphasize its necessity. Ronald Thompsan, manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy, estimated in 2006 that “we need this pipeline producing water by 2020,” based on the figures available at the time. A year after that date, it’s still a matter of debate.
If it wasn’t controversial, water would already be pumping out of Lake Powell and toward St. George. But at the current pace, Gov. Huntsman might joke today that his great-great-great-grandchildren — if water is still available — will still be talking about it.
What is the pipeline?
Relatively few state-led projects are as widely known, yet so little understood, as the Lake Powell Pipeline. It’s been discussed for long enough to garner an aura of familiarity with many Utahns, but few know the project’s details, or how it would affect them, or why proponents say it’s necessary.
The project consists of installing a 69-inch pipeline along over 140 miles, underground, from the Page, AZ area to Washington County, UT. Water would flow uphill, assisted by five pump stations, from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir, near St. George. The projected cost is between $1.1 billion and $1.9 billion.
Also included in the project is the construction of several hydroelectric facilities, which would help provide energy to operate the pumps. The water would be used by Utahns throughout Washington County. Kane County, due east of Washington, recently pulled out of the project, noting that its residents have no need of the water. County leaders continue to support the project.
During the summer of 2020, the Bureau of Reclamation issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement to highlight the needs of the receiving area, the role of the pipeline in fulfilling those needs, and the projected impact upon the environment (including the long-term impacts on wildlife and water supply). Shortly thereafter, a comment period was opened, during which the public could review and weigh in on the draft EIS.
In September, representatives from each of Utah’s neighboring states in the Colorado River Basin (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming) wrote a joint letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, requesting a pause on the EIS until those six states and Utah reach a “consensus regarding outstanding legal and operational concerns.”
Proponents of the pipeline reviewed that letter and additional comments received from the public, and they agreed to revisit those concerns and produce a supplemental EIS. It is expected that the updated EIS will be completed in about a year.
The argument for the pipeline
Supporters of the pipeline point to an apparent need for and an entitlement to water. As the population of Washington County continues to grow, they say a diversified water source is necessary. At present, the only water source is the Virgin River Basin, which is reaching its full development potential.
Utah has a claim to more water from the Colorado River, pipeline proponents argue. The 1922 Colorado River Compact divided the Colorado River Basin into an “upper basin” (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico) and “lower basin” (Arizona, California and Nevada). Each basin was apportioned 7,500,000 acre-feet of water from the river annually.
It wasn’t until 26 years later that Utah was assigned a specific portion of that water. The 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact allotted 23% of the 7.5 million annual acre-feet to Utah — a total that has yet to be fully developed. The lower basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — have fully developed their allocations, as they were assigned specific portions by way of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act.
Proponents of the pipeline look to Utah’s water usage — around 1 million acre-feet annually — in comparison to its allotment (23% of 7.5 million, or 1.725 million). The 83,000 acre-feet that the pipeline is expected to pump into Washington County yearly is only a fraction of Utah’s full allocation. “And it’s only 0.6% of Colorado River’s natural flow over the last 30 years, according to the Bureau of Reclamation,” adds Karry Rathje, communications manager for the Washington County Water Conservancy District.
If Washington County is expected to grow as population estimates suggest, the pipeline is a necessity, not an option, its supporters say. Models from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah predict the county population to nearly triple by 2065, growing from 177,000 to over 500,000. Such population growth is not sustainable without access to more water.
While the pipeline’s critics cite conservation as the real solution to Washington County’s water shortage, pipeline supporters note the stringent measures already being enforced.
“We believe very strongly in conservation,” said Zach Renstrom, general manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District. “We’ve reduced our per-person water use by 30% in the last 20 years. But when you look at our conservation goals — which are some of the most aggressive in the state of Utah — and our rapid growth, you get to a point where you can’t conserve your way out of a problem. We need an additional water source.”
The argument against the pipeline
Opponents to the pipeline point to Washington County’s conservation efforts as extremely underwhelming — and not nearly at the level of other desert communities.
“When I say that St. George is a water waster, one of the things that I’m saying is that they need to get in touch with reality, and they need to get in touch with where they live on earth,” said Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network. “That’s one of the driest and most arid places in the country.”
Roerink points to the Las Vegas Pipeline — one he views as a “sibling project,” of sorts, to the Lake Powell Pipeline — as a cautionary tale for Utah. After three decades of debate, plans for the 300-mile pipeline that would have pumped water from Ely to Las Vega were scrapped. Instead, the Southern Nevada Water Authority turned to conservation as the solution to its water shortage.
Las Vegas, too, faces a growing population (last year, it was ranked America’s second-fastest-growing urban area). “But they’re doubling down on conservation,” Roerink explained. “They’re saying, ‘you know, we are going to rip up every blade of grass in Southern Nevada.’”
Many calculations pit Washington County among the nation’s highest per-capita water consumers. A common calculation, gallons per capita per day, shows Washington County residents at double their counterparts in Tucson, Phoenix or Las Vegas. Proponents of the pipeline and other southwest Utah leaders challenge these statistics, noting inconsistent calculation methods and inaccurate representations. But Roerink argues that much more can be done in Washington County to cut back on water consumption.
“Any way you do the math, other cities are coming out on top (in comparison to St. George),” he said. “A massive part of the problem for Southwest Utah is the fact that they’re intransigent, they’re dragging their feet to the idea that they have to rip up their lawns. … Green lawns, for decades, have been a status symbol throughout all of American society. But that status symbol doesn’t doesn’t recognize the constraints of the American West.”
How is conservation encouraged and regulated? Rebates for turf removal and desert landscape are one option, as are aggressive messaging campaigns or watering schedules to spark productive habits. But in the end, how property taxes are structured — and how residential water users track their water usage and payments — could be a decisive factor.
“How do you change someone’s behavior?” Roerink asked. “You hit them where it hurts — in the wallet.”
The fight continues
In the coming year, Renstrom and his colleagues at the Washington County Water Conservancy District will prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to submit for review. In the meantime, they’ll need to balance the concerns of neighboring states and tackle the many legal hurdles accompanying such a gargantuan task.
Whether the pipeline will become a reality is anyone’s guess. Washington County residents say it’s necessary; critics say it’s a waste. Nonetheless, as the population of southwestern Utah continues to balloon, a solution — be it extreme conservation or another water source — will become more and more necessary.
