Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City Master Plan

New treatment and conveyance systems necessary to meet water demand to 2025.

November 19, 1998

Nick P. Sefakis, General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City met with the Public Utilities Advisory Committee at their monthly meeting on November 19, 1998 to brief them on the District’s Mater Plan.

Mr. Sefakis said that the District had been studying the matter for about 2 years, involving all of the interested parties within Salt Lake County, including Salt Lake City, Sandy City, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District and others. The District hired a consortium of engineering consultants to develop the Master Plan and they have done an outstanding job in completing the plan.  There have been numerous meetings with his staff and the consultants on the plan, and the Board of Directors has been briefed at their monthly Board meetings.

The Plan has been presented to the Sandy City Council and the Salt Lake City Council.

The business community was presented the plan through the Rotary Club.

The Metropolitan Water District Board of Director at their November 17, 1998 board meeting decided to adopt the “Finished Water” option.  This final option was a result of studying 22 different alternatives, and consists of building a new water treatment plan at the point of the mountain in the Draper City area. The plant capacity will be 35 to 70 million gallons per day depending on the need of the time. 

Mr. Sefakis told the Advisory Committee, “We’ve had interest expressed by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, that they could possibly participate; we’re working in close concert with the Provo River Water Users Association and there could be federal funds available to help build the plant.  We’re proceeding very carefully, and the timing is such that the plant could be available by 2005.”

The Plan calls for a new water conveyance system within the valley connecting the new plant with the District’s Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. This aqueduct will service both Salt Lake City and Sand City, and others.

“The cost estimate $172 million,” said Mr. Sefakis. He continued, “What it means, as we move forward is we’ll have to increase water rates. The first increase is $85 to $105 per acre-foot of treated water, starting about February next year.”

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Sefakis summarized, that the Metropolitan Water District Board opted for the “Finished Water” option; he acknowledges Salt Lake City’s concern, and the District is moving forward in a careful manner.  However water rates and taxes will need to be increased to finance the plan.

Committee member Pieter Vander Have asked Mr. Sefakis about the federal funding and what was the process?

Mr. Sefakis said that they have been working with the Central Utah Project in conjunction with the piping of the Provo Reservoir Canal and in doing so, if Central can be brought into the picture, which is a real possibility, there could be funds -- like $35 to $40 million available through CUPCA funds to help with the project. He added, “There is no guarantees, but there are trade-offs involved.  There are conservation measures that will happen if we pipe the canal. This will provide water for environmental purposes, which they sorely need.”

Committee Member Vander Have followed up with a question about bonding.

Mr. Sefakis responded by saying, “There will be bonding, perhaps every other year. So there will be increased water rates.  The current tax rate is 0.000289 and the District’s maximum rate is 0.0005, so we’re considerable below where we could be.” He followed, “…it will be a combination of taxes, water rates and federal funds to finance the project.”

Committee Member Mark Bauer asked about the Central Utah Project.  He said, “In all the presentations we’ve heard about the Central Utah Project, it has been indicated that that water would not be for Salt Lake City; but it sounds now by the location of the plant and getting them involved in the whole process, in some manner, has the thinking changed that Central Utah Project water returned (SFN System) will be made available to Salt Lake City?

Mr. Jeff Niermeyer, said “that the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City petitioned for Central Utah Project water in the late 1980s, and this water will be delivered beginning in the year 2005, in 5,000 acre-feet increments over the following 4 years. You are referring to the water that was part of the Spanish Fork Nephi (SFN) that was going to Juab County.  This project has been officially put on hold. They are re-evaluating it and rather any of this water is re-diverted north has not yet be decided.  But the water that is being planned for here is part of the current supply in the Provo River Project, but there is not capacity to deliver it to the Salt Lake valley.  But this water has always been intended for the Metropolitan Water District and for the water from the Central Utah Project that has been petitioned for.”

Committee Member Bauer, asked “will the construction that is being contemplated for bringing additional water into the new plant be sufficiently large to accommodate some of that Central Utah Project water, if CUP is changed and some of the (SFN) water becomes available (to Salt Lake City)?

Mr. Niermeyer indicated that the new plant site is large enough to have expanded treatment facilities, and that the Provo River Water Users Association is asking potential users to petition for capacity in the Provo Reservoir Canal in order to properly size the pipe (box culvert).

Mike Collins, consultant with Bowen & Collins Engineers, said that it appears that certain agencies are petitioning for capacity in the Provo Reservoir Canal.

Committee Member Bauer, said “Very interesting, we’ve had such a monumental change (in the Central Utah Project).”

Mr. Sefakis, added that they have been meeting with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.  He didn’t know what was going to happen with the SFN, but the Central Utah Water Conservancy District has been included in the planning process, and if they joined in the new treatment plant they could deliver water from the new plant to the Alpine-Lehi area in Utah County.  He concluded by saying, “We can all save some money if we work conjunctively.”

Mr.LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. brought attention to a copy of a letter dated November 17, 1998 sent to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City’s Board of Directors, signed by Mayor Deedee Corradini and Councilperson Bryce Jolley.  He indicated that the main problem is how does the City pass its share of the costs onto its customers?  “Based on the water purchases and tax assessment Salt Lake City will pay about 70 percent of the Master Plan’s cost and Sandy City the remaining 30 percent. One problem is that our customers in the county who make up about 1/3 of our service area do not pay taxes to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City.  So only City taxpayers will pay.” Rates are set in the county based on a formula as if we were under the Public Service Commission, we’re not, but we use the same metrology of setting rates based on a rate of return on the assets that serve county customers.

Mr. Jim Lewis said “We cannot use the assets owned by Metro in the calculation of county rates. We can only used those assets owned by Salt Lake City. There is a limit on what we can charge county customers, and City customers will pay any kind of a large increase.”

Mr. Hooton noted that the City is in a real dilemma. The City is currently dealing with its capital improvements program, and now is looking at a potential several hundred million-dollar expenditure for the Metropolitan Master Plan, and based on the discussion today, most of the Metro costs will be borne by City customers. Referring to the letter, Mr. Hooton said that this is the issue that is concerning the Administration and City Council. The letter asks for time to fold the Metro costs into the Department’s Capital Improvements Program to see what the impact is on rates and the already approved City Council CIP. This will be further developed during the budgeting process.

Mr. Sefakis, said that Metropolitan did its master plan after both Salt Lake City and Sandy City completed their master plans. He understands the problems, and he plans to move forward in a careful manner.

Committee Member Vander Have said that this issue lends itself into a discussion that the Advisory Committee had several months ago regarding the relationship between the rates of City and County customers.  At that time, the committee asked for an analysis on the rate structure.

Mr. Lewis said that this will be part of a water rate study needed to verify the rates. He did note that the proposed Metro water rate increase from $85 to $105 will cost an additional $800,000 in next year’s budget.  The increase for the remainder of this year has been budgeted for.

Mr. Hooton indicated his support of the master plan. “We need a plan for the future, we need to bring additional water into the valley if we’re going to have additional water, because the aqueducts are running full during the summer months, but one of the things we did do was to look at conservation and the decision was made several years ago to have a peaking rate to defer what is now being planned by Metro.  So now with the Metro Master Plan, the two seem to be in conflict with each other. We told our customers that if we reduce summer peak demand we could defer capital expenditures needed for growth. But because of timing, and everything else, we need to move forward with the new facilities.  “I was just wondering that we may have to look at the peaking rates because if all of the proposed increases go on the summer peaking rate, then water is going to be so expensive that no one can afford to water their lawn.”

Mr. Sefakis noted the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District charges $247 per acre-foot for wholesale water, compared to $85 charged by Metropolitan Water District. He attributes this to the wisdom of the City’s forefathers who subscribed to the Provo River Project, and we are living off their decision of the 1940s. “Comparing rates in the west, we still are very low. This doesn’t help the tax payers who are going to get their taxes increased and their water rates increased, but looking at the average home, such as my home, its about $20 per year increase in taxes.  We’re going to have to pay for the growth that we’re experiencing – is what it amounts to.”