| OCR Text |
Show State Has Major Investments In Water Projects Water users in "Color Country," a five-county southwestern wedge of Utah stacked against the borders of Nevada and Arizona, have been diligent users of state water conservation conser-vation and development moncv. Nearly $40 million has been spent in Beaver, Iron, Garfield, Kane and Washington counties -more than a fifth the state's total investment in water conservation and development. The $20 million Quail Creek Reservoir near Hurricane Hurri-cane is the largest of 133 water projects the state has helped finance in the five counties. Roy P. Urie, Cedar City, a member of the Utah Board of Water Resources that administers the state funds, hopes to see more water projects to match economic and population growth. Projects are developed de-veloped because water users cooperate, Urie believes. Urie was first appointed by the Governor to the Board of Water Resources in 1979 to represent the five counties designated the board's Lower Colorado River District. He was board chairman in 1985 and 1986. Important projects Urie supports include a long-standing proposal to divert water to Cedar City from the Upper Virgin River Basin. A recent Utah Division of Water Resources report has summarized information on alternatives for the proposed transbasin diversion involving Kolob Reservoir, Crystal Creek, and springs in the Upper Mill Creek and Three Creek drainages which are high tributary watersheds to the North Fork of the Virgin River. Urie noted the Board of Water Resources recently authorized financial fi-nancial assistance to construct a water treatment plant near St. George. The board is also considering consider-ing the feasibility of constructing a dam and reservoir on North Creek near Virgin. The board helps fund and administer admin-ister a weather modification program pro-gram in the Virgin River Basin. The program has operated 14 years to seed winter storms to increase the mountain snowpack. The program pro-gram has produced an estimated 10 to 15 percent annual increase costing cost-ing less than $1 an acre-foot. The state of Utah has provided small amounts of money to construct con-struct water development projects since the turn of the century, but a more determined effort was started in 1947 when the state legislature created the Revolving Construction Fund. The Cities Water Loan Fund and the Conservation and Development Devel-opment Fund were later added to the state's water development effort. Since funding began, $173 million has been invested to help construct 818 projects in all 29 counties. Another 21 projects, with a total estimated cost of $13.5 million, are currently being studied by the Utah Division of Water Resources. Utah's cost-sharing project funding fund-ing program has become increasingly in-creasingly important because of cuts in federal participation in state water conservation and development. develop-ment. Utah's water project financing financ-ing program has been favorably recognized in other western states. The Revolving Construction Fund was started with a $1 million appropriation to help finance construction con-struction of irrigation projects, wells, and rural culinary water systems. sys-tems. Projects sponsors receive financial fi-nancial help through installment purchase contracts with the Board of Water Resources, deeding water rights and constructed facilities as security. Established in 1974, the Cities Water Loan Fund helps finance construction of new culinary water projects for cities, towns, improvement im-provement districts, and special service districts. Under general terms of this fund, the board buys general obligation or revenue bonds from sponsoring entities. The Conservation and Development Develop-ment Fund was created in 1978 through the sale of $25 million in general obligation bonds to be repaid re-paid from general state tax revenues. rev-enues. Bond sales added $25 million to the fund in 1980 and $20 million in 1983. Authorizations from this fund generally help sponsors finance fi-nance larger multipurpose dams and water systems. Low-interest and long-term funding is secured by purchase agreements between the board and sponsors or through purchase pur-chase of general obligation or revenue rev-enue bonds by the board. State law requires total repayment repay-ment of board funds. When funding is repaid, water rights and other security se-curity assets are returned to project sponsors. Urie said the board's funding process can last a few months or several years, depending on the complexity of the proposed project. The board's share of the cost of construction is usually between 50 and 90 percent. Funding priority is given to emergency projects involving in-volving public health or safety. Urie said board financial assistance is now limited to approximately $6 million annually, but he urges sponsors of proposed projects to contact him about possible board funding. Sponsors that have used board funding include: Beaver County Kents Lake Reservoir Company, Minersville Reservoir and Irrigation Company, Milford, Beaver, Minersville, and Harris-Willis Irrigation Company. Garfield County Boulder Irrigation and Water Development Company, Cannonville, Escalante, Panguitch, Ticaboo Special Service District, Tropic and East Fork Irrigation Irri-gation Company, Henrieville Irrigation Irri-gation Company, and West Panguitch Irrigation Company. Kane County Ordcrville Irrigation Irriga-tion Company, Mount Carmel Special Service District, Kanab Irrigation Ir-rigation Company, Kanab, Glendale Irrigation Company, and Church Wells Special Improvement District. Dis-trict. Iron County Brian Head, Enoch, Kanarraville, Newcastle Reservoir Company, Paragonah Canal Company, Parowan, and Summit Irrigation Stock Company. Washington County Ash Creek Reservoir Company, Baker Reservoir Association, Bench Lake Irrigation Company, Central Canal and Irrigation Company, Enterprise Reservoir and Canal Company, Enterprise, Hurricane, Hurricane Canal Company, Ivins, LaVerkin, Kolob Reservoir and Storage Association, Asso-ciation, Leeds Water Company, Lower Gunlock Reservoir Corporation, Cor-poration, Pine Valley Irrigation Company, St. George, Santa Clara, Virgin, Washington, and Washington Washing-ton County Water Conservancy District. Urie urges a close watch on groundwater use in the Central Virgin Vir-gin River Basin. The number of wells for irrigation use grew from 79 at the end of 1960 to 318 through 1986. The number of wells for public water supplies increased from 12 to 48 during the same period. pe-riod. A 1987 groundwater report by the U.S. Geological Survey for the state of Utah shows water withdrawals with-drawals in 1986 from wells in the Central Virgin River area amounted to approximately 20,000 acre feet. |
