Salt Lake City Public Utilities is hydro-malicious.  SLC hoards water to create an artificial scarcity to squeeze double water dollars from Salt Lake City residents, Salt Lake Lake County “surplus” water customers, Wasatch County residents, and Summit County residents.

Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities’ big government waste and inefficiencies have double water rates for 180,000 Salt Lake City residents and 140,000 Salt Lake County residents.

Imagine the economic benefits to individuals, families, businesses, schools, churches, cities, counties and state by cutting the water bills to 320,000 Utahns in half.

Red Cross donations would no longer be needed to subsidize the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities high water rates (Salt Lake City water monopoly).

One questions the following Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities statements:

• Salt Lake City’s water costs are high because the water infrastructure is old.  Provo City’s water infrastructure is just as old, yet Provo City has water costs 1/3 of SLC.
• Salt Lake City’s water costs are high because of hilly terrain.  Orem City is hilly, yet Orem City’s water costs are 1/3 of SLC’s.  Orem’s water district tax on property is 1/8 of SLC’s.
• Salt Lake City’s water rates are high because of Provo River water treatment costs by Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.  Jordan Valley has higher water transport costs, yet Jordan Valley water rates are 1/2 of SLC’s.
• Salt Lake City’s Public Utility is engaged in good causes; therefore, kindly ignore the high water rates, inefficiencies and waste.  Provo City, Orem City, and Jordan Valley are all engaged in equally good causes, yet have 50% to 66% lower water rates.

The tired excuses of old infrastructure, hilly terrain, watershed, and conservation are not singular or unique to Salt Lake City.  Provo City, Orem City, and Jordan Valley all deal effectively with these issues, but at 1/3 or 1/2 the cost of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities.

It must be embarrassing to be so inefficient that SLC Public Utilities must resort to comparisons to California and Texas water providers to spin away the breadth and depth of the SLC Public Utilities’ inefficiencies and waste.

The greatness of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is tarnished when it hides behind litigation, lobbyists, watershed, and conservation to distract the public and confuse elected official about the mismanagement of such a vital utility.  Rates increases are endlessly demanded.  SLC is not competitive for high water costs. Customers have no choice but to shoulder the water departments waste and inefficiencies.

High water rates, high number of employees per connection, high lobby costs, and high litigation rates speak for themselves.

The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is escalating the spending of more and more time, money, and energy on water lawyers, water lobbyists, and so-called “special projects” employees to shore up water monopoly politics, work the phone, do meet and greets, and work the legislature.

All this and more to hold back the tide from the City’s precarious sand castle, a monopoly hoarding water in the desert with water demands politics cannot control.

More and more resources and personnel are required to maintain the monopoly. More and more resources are consumed and wasted for non-essential water services.

Where does the SLC Public Utility lawyer go? To lobby the Utah Legislative Water Task Force.  Where does SLC Public Utility Director go?  To lobby the Utah Legislature.  Who hires out sourced water lawyers to lobby water officials, and the Utah Legislature?    Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Director.  Who hires the Legislative lobbyists under SLC water subsidiaries like Provo River Water Users Association?  SLC Department of Public Utilities Director.

Why is Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities so focused on and so fearful of the Utah Legislature?

Because 93% of the Utah Legislature is currently non-Salt Lake City representation.  By 2050, 96% of the Utah Legislature will be Non-Salt Lake City representation. The Utah Legislature is a court of public opinion and power Salt Lake City Public Utility fears because it cannot control the legislature like it controls the City Council.

Salt Lake City Water Department employees already see as other do the end of the Salt Lake City water empire and with it the end of the Salt Lake City 7 canyon monopoly in Salt Lake County  Hence, the recent push for 25,000 new acres of Federal Wilderness.

Apparently, local politicians cannot be trusted to manage the 7 local canyon, but Washington politicians can.

The stage is already set.  The scrips are written.  The actors are acting.  The ingredients of 96% non-Salt Lake City in the Utah Legislature + a water crisis + double the water demand from growth + SLC Public Utilities’ poor monopoly behavior = the demise of the 150 year old SLC water buffalo by the stroke of the Governor’s pen.

It must be humiliating for the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities monopoly to genuflect (bend the knee) to Salt Lake County and State government on water issues when the state really  controls Utah’s water.

When the Salt Lake City water monopoly breaks, the hubris will be seen by all.  Good monopoly behavior and moderated aggression could prevent the collapse of the Salt Lake City water monopoly, but elected officials are banned from speaking to members of the public.  Private property owners are banned from using their water.  Utah browns while SLC Public Utilities’ coffers are mossy green with water dollars.

PURE OR POLLUTED:

A CLOSER LOOK AT UTAH’S

WATER MARKETS

1 acre-foot of finished water can be produced for $48 by Jordan Valley, for $62.50 by Salt Lake City, and for $62 from an underground well.

Salt Lake City Public Utilities (”non-profit’) charges up to $1,108 for an acre-foot of water.  Where are these gross profits going?

City water departments are bastions of privilege for profiteering or public service. It’s a management decision the impacts real people. Should public water resources be used for profiteering and monopoly?

$36.44 million is the estimated increased water costs to Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County customers proposed by the Salt Lake City’s Water Utility Enterprise Fund’s (SLCDOPU) 5 consecutive compounding rate increase over the next 5 years. These increases are on top of already high water rates, and higher water district tax rates of over $10 million annually.

Please help break the Salt Lake City water monopoly by calling the Governor’s Hot-line 801-538-1045 and leave this message: “Please help Utah by breaking the Salt Lake City water monopoly.”

When the telephone monopoly broke, phone rates dropped. When the electric monopoly broke and was regulated, electric rates dropped.

When the Salt Lake City water monopoly breaks, water rates will drop. Why? Because the hydraulic empire costs will go down.

SLC’s water empire is wealthy with lavish policies for exotic watershed lands, water junkets, excessive overhead, etc…  Despite massive, and excessive overhead the public utility so-called reserves are bulging during the economic crisis of 2008.  $2.2 million spent in 2008 for Lamb’s Canyon Reserve.  $3 million proposed to be spent in 2009 for more distant watershed land.  A $600,000 water study here.  $11.5 million in “Contributions & Grants” in 2008.

SLC’s water monopoly has created one of the most wealthy water utilities in Utah on the backs of the public.  Designer outsouced engineers, designer outsourced lawyers, designer outsourced lobbyists are a few of the tax dollars funded perks of monopoly.

No one argues watershed protection is not important.  Salt Lake City and Utahwater.net both support watershed protection.  The difference of opinions is how watershed is protection is achieved.

• 1.5 miles of Little Cottonwood Creek is de-watered (creek is oversold)
• 3.0 miles of Big Cottonwood Creek is de-watered (creek is oversold)
• 1.0 miles of Parley’s Creek is de-watered (creek is oversold)?
• 0.5 miles of City Creek is de-watered (creek is oversold)?

How can water stewards de-water local creeks by excessively over selling and depleting local creeks of water to maximize cash to buy distant exotic watershed protection lands?  This makes no sense.  Local watershed is destroyed to buy distant watershed.  How is a sustainable policy?

How do such high water rates that brown the University of Utah’s campus and burn the tax payer promote watershed protection?

Where is the empirical data to evaluate public cost benefits of spending $10 million for exotic and distant watershed protections lands?  How much more pure is the water per million spent?

Land trades not rate gouging the public accomplishes watershed protection without the economic trauma on the public.

Salt Lake City’s policies have been to excessively raise water rates to raise substantial and vast amounts of  monies to buy watershed protection lands.

Utahwater.net recommends lowering water rates and acquiring watershed protection lands through trading with the vast land inventories of Federal, State, County, City governments, and Conservation groups.

Where 75% of Utah is owned some form of government, rate gouging to reduce private lands and increase government lands is wrongheaded, socialistic, increases taxes, reduces tax base, etc.. The ends of watershed protection are correct, but the means of rate gouging and litigation is incorrect.

Co-operation and trading versus rate gouging and lawsuits.  It’s a management decision. Rate gouging and lawsuits will hasten the demise of the water empire.  No one minds a benign monopoly, but a unfair monopoly will always fail.

Inter-governmental trading would alleviate the need to raise extra millions of dollars that drive water rates through the roof together with the associated costs to maintain a monopoly adverse to the public good.

• U of U is impacted an extra $1 million+ per year
• Wasatch County residents are impacted and extra $400,000 per year
• Olympus High is impacted an extra $37,000 per year

The foregoing are symptoms of water monopoly and an unhealthy Utah water market.

Why can’t Cottonwood Heights with 11,000 connections buy water directly from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy for $205 per acre-foot which is the price Salt Lake City, Sandy City, Taylorsville-Bennion, JSSD all pay?

Cottonwood Heights residents and schools are charged $1,108 per acre-foot.  Now surely, it does not cost $903 per acre-foot to pipe treated water 1 mile to Cottonwood Heights.

Chlorine pollutes local watershed. The public would be better served by eliminating chlorine (gas and liquid) from water treatment. Why aren’t the millions of dollars of watershed land funds spent to replace chlorine with more healthful and environmentally friendly water treatment agents?

City water departments are bastions of privilege for profiteering or public service. It’s a mangement decision that impacts real people. SLC water dept. should recieve the following ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS:

• Highest number of employees per lowest number of connections award
• Top vexatious water user suer award
• Highest “non-profit” profit margins award
• Largest Utah public water utility operating without a water inventory award
• Highest dollar amount of Utah “surplus” water sales award
• Highest number of consecutive rate increases award

What price should the Salt Lake City water monopoly charge?

• Estimated excess water costs to Salt Lake County due to SLC water monopoly–up to $20 million per year.

• SLC water rates are up to 6 times Orem’s water rates.

• SLC’s water district tax is 8 times Orem’s water district tax.

• SLC has 1 water employee per 346 connections. Orem has 1 water employee per 833 connections.

• Circular Oversight–The Director supervises an employee who provides Public Utility Department oversight as a member of the Public Utility Advisory Committee. (Employees providing City government oversight for the Employer is conflicted and not effective.)

• SLC residents pay over $10 million in water district taxes on top of high water rates.

• SLC water cronies pack Alta Planning Commission and Variance Board.

• Alta, Utah is controlled by the SLC Water Department.

• SLC water dept. bans Alta Hot Tub request.

• Active Alta Voter Fraud case–Allegations of stuffing the ballot box.

• Alleged Alta Mayor who appoints Alta Planning Commission members is a Sandy City resident where he lives with his wife and children.

• Alta lifted the 13 year ban on residents serving on Planning Commission on July 12, 2008–Planning Commission still packed with water cronies.

• 1.5 miles of Little Cottonwood Creek de-watered.

• Alleged Cecret Lake water in Alta, Utah sold for snowmaking without approved change application (illegal) and without a meter.

• SLC’s $53 Million water department won’t produce a water inventory.

• 140,000 Salt Lake County residents with no voice, no choice, no elected oversight protection .

• SLC’s Utilities Department censors historical public records that don’t support current positions.

• Disavows SLC water dept.’s own documents in court which don’t support their current legal position.

• False statements made to Salt Lake County Sheriff Department and published to State Water Officials to prejudice an application pending before the State Engineer. The so-called “retraction” letter not likewise published sent to all parties to whom false statements were circulated.

• SLC’s water dept. is Utah’s top suing and protesting water user.

• Classifies Developer Fees ($ millions) as “contributions donated.”

• SLC’s water district has an active water application to build a 410′ dam in Big Cottonwood Canyon.

• SLC’s water district has an active water applicaton to build a 370′ dam in Little Cottonwood Canyon.

• SLC has active water applications to build 20 hydro-electric dams in Salt Lake County.

• SLC owns mine dump sites in the canyons apparently polluting the watershed.

• SLC water dept. opposes sewer extension to stop leaky septic tanks in Alta while spending $1 million a year for watershed patrol to tickets dogs.

• SLC controls MWD Salt Lake & Sandy, and Deer Creek (PRWUA) which opposed improvements to the Clean Water Act.

• SLC’s MWD Salt Lake & Sandy’s Deer Creek (PRWUA) told the Federal government of its need for title to bond for public water improvements, and hired lobbyists to change state law to bond without title.

• Pretends the $20.4 million in “surplus” water are sold outside SLC corporate boundaries under Utah Code 10-8-14 which authorizes temporary incidental water sales are temporary while in Public Utility Advisory Committee says the there permanent: “so these customers can be assured that the City will not terminate their water service.”

• In Public, claims SLC makes no profit on $20.4 million in “surplus” water sales. A SLC Public Utility Advisory Committee member asks, “Where does the extra $1.8 million go?”

• Over built water infra-structure for 400,000 to 800,000 people. SLC’s population will max out around 200,000.  SLC can never use the water rights it claims to own or control.

• Exaggerates water service populations by using “overlapping” theory.

• Understates water supplies by using “drought” theory.

• Skews probability theory to apply to other water users rights.

• Claims water ran through a ditch in 1997 which SLC plugged with cement in 1976.

• Claims snowmaking is non-consumptive and a good water storage method in the Cottonwoods while claiming spring high water flows are un-usable.

• Claims snowmaking is a non-consumptive use despite science to the contrary.

• Claims to spend tens of thousands of dollars for non-consumptive snowmaking capturable stored water.

• SLC will not be Utah’s largest city in 20 years.

• Tells the Council one thing. Tells the Public another.

• Controls the beautiful Town of Alta, Utah with hoarded water rights.

• Controls to some degree 4 Ski Resorts (Snowbird, Alta Ski Lifts, Brighton, Solitude) in Salt Lake County, Utah with water rights.

• Tells the Council in 1988 the fair value of 1 acre-foot of Utah Lake water is $164. Tells (buy paying) the Public in 1996 the fair value of 1 acre-foot of Utah Lake/Big Cottonwood Creek water is $10.

• Tells the Court one thing. Tells the Public another. Tells the Court the City does not compete for exchange contract irrigation shares while having a written policy to actively buy shares, has a 2008 water share buying budget, and had a standing offer to buy shares.

• Tells Congress one thing. Tells the Utah Legislature another.

• Uses “short sizing” to sell water by a publicly easily misunderstood unit of 100 cf instead of the standard, understandable 1,000 gallon unit. (Short sizing a Retailer’s gimmick of selling “Less for More.”) How many of Utah’s 243 towns and cities sell water by the 100 CF (748 gallons) instead of 1,000 gallon units?

• Uses watershed protection funds to buy canyon land closed to the Public, then open the land into Public for picnicking, hiking, and mountain biking to “protect and improve water quality.”

• It is unclear whether “customers” are Noticed of proposed Rate Increases and Public Hearing dates on Utility Bills in a timely manner if at all.

• SLC’s Water Dept. de-waters an Alta approved and recorded subdivision by taking over Little Cottonwood Water Company providing water to the subdivision enabling the lots to be recorded, dissolves the water company and source of water for the lot owners, then offers to buy up the dry lots for 10 cents on the dollar directly or indirectly through a “charitable foundation.”

• Paid the City Utility Director a salary higher than the Governor’s salary.

• Used water monopoly litigation to deprive an estimated 250,000 irrigation shareholders their 90 year old right to directly file water transfer applications. (Artificial restriction on trade.)

• SLC’s Water Dept. banned 2002 Winter Olympic events in Salt Lake County Canyons and forced the events onto Summit County and Wasatch County watershed which was still a Salt Lake City drinking water source.

• Opposed the Ski-Interconnect which could make Utah a Ski Capitol of the world, improve the economy, decrease road congestions, etc. to “protect the watershed” which is not the primary source of SLC’s drinking water.

• Packs the SLC Public Utility Advisory Committee with employee(s) and water cronies.

• Hired the court appointed Creek Commissioners overseeing water distribution in canyon creeks.

• Offers the State free land and water to relocate the capitol, the SLC’s water dept. sues the State to renege on providing free water. Later, provides the Capitol with a “water conservation” plan and touts its water stewardship.

• Sues 2,400 Utah Lake water users in one case only to later declare approx. 2/3 of the water “surplus” and sell the water via an exchange with its alter ego, MWD Salt Lake City.

• Used its alter ego, MWD Salt Lake City to file for 36,189.75 acre-feet of free State deep well water on Salt Lake County’s east side, only to later declare a portion of the “future need” water “surplus” and sell it.

• Used its Water District’s water subsidiary Deer Creek (PRWUA) to sue Payson city a second time over an approved 5,000 acre-feet approved sewer effluent re-use application while proposing to re-use 5,000 acre-feet of sewer effluent themselves.

• Got $500,000 of free State money for the City’s water district by using water cronies on the Board of Water Resources.

• Opposes water transfers up the canyons, but transfers water up the canyons themselves.

• Charges storm drain fees to take rain water off property through expensive storm drain piping to the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake, yet opposes Rain Barrel water recycling.

• Why would a Non-Profit, GREEN, Water Conserving “slow the flow” water department oppose Rain Barrel water recycling? There is no “profit,” so its not about money. Then what is it about?

• Will there be RAIN BARREL meters, patrolmen, and permits fees?

• SLC employee(s) acting as director(s) on City water subsidiaries have monthly meetings with other employees from other cities. The minutes of these meeting are not open to the Public. There is no Public oversight of Public Employee actions controlling millions of dollars derived from the public.

• SLC employee(s) acting as director(s) on City hire legislative lobbyists. The lobby contracts are not open to the Public. There is no Public oversight of Public employee actions.  The public has no access to lobbyists contracts controlled by public employees.

The SLC City Council is not effective regulator of the SLC water department. Why? Because the City Council nevers says, “No” to the water department, and the utility department lacks the transparency for laymen oversight.

City Councils also are in the revenue business. There is an inherent conflict between having low no profit rates and picking up a few extra bucks for generally cash strapped cities with a penchant for spending someone else’s money for a perceived “public good.”  $10 extra dollars per bill brings the City an extra $10 million.

By and large city councils don’t make good public utility regulators and at best offer weak governance. This seems to be the case with the problems and lack of effective oversight of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department.

Because Salt Lake City water monopoly has no competition, how are Big-Government waste, inefficiencies, and fat kept in check while maintaining quality water, good service, and good employment compensation and environment?

The Public Utility Advisory Committee members are selected by the SLC Public Utilities Department. PUAC members can be employees of the SLC Public Utilities Department.

How could the SLC’s Public Utility Advisory Committee provide critical, oversight of the SLC Public Utilities Department when the “regulators” are hand picked by the public utility department?

The proof of no check and balances ovr the past decades is in the pudding–

Salt Lake City: $1.14 to $3.28 per 1,000 gallons, 1 employee per 346 connections with a water district tax 733% higher than Orem City. Orem City: $0.55 per 1,000 gallons with 1 employee per 833 connections. Big-Government waste, inefficiency and monopoly drive water rates through the roof not just for Salt Lake City but any public water utility.

Monopolies are like lumbering elephants. It is difficult to turn them into competitive race horses.

Monopolies can exploit the public by charging what the market will bear or provide an essential service with the highest efficiency and lowest cost. It’s a managment decision.

$1.00 more per bill can generate an extra $1 million in a year. $10.00 more per bill can generate an extra $10 million in a year. Cash strapped cities often turn to essential services to skim revenue from the public. This is why all first class cities should be regulated by the PSC.

This temptation is too great for even with oversight. The water department appears to recommend 5 rate increases generating an additional $36.44 million dollars over the next 5 years–“The sale of water accounts for about 90% of this funds revenue. The 2007-08 budget includes a 4% rate increase with proposed rate increases of 5% next year and 4% for three years thereafter.” Fiscal Year 2007-08 Capital and Operating Budget (SLC) SLCDOPU’s 2007 Annual Report: Water Sales $53,818,321. If the above compounding 5 proposed rate increases are applied to the 2007 water sales figure of $53,818,321, then approximately how much more will SLCDOPU collect from customers?

The compounded estimated amount of $36.44 million in additional water billings is below.

• 1st Rate increase of $2.15 million in 2008 (4% x $53,818,321 = $2,152,733)
• 2nd Rate increase of $2.8 million in 2009 (5% x $55,971,054 =$2,798,553)
• 3rd Rate Increase of $2.35 million in 2010 (4% x $58,769,607 = $2,350,784)
• 4th Rate Increase of $2.44 million in 2011 (4% x $61,120,391 = $2,444,816)
• 5th Rate Increase of $2.54 million in 2012 (4% x $63,565,207 = $2,542,608)

MWD Salt Lake City & Sandy has pending water applications proposing to build a 370 feet high earth and rock dam on Big Cottonwood Creek to impound 60,000 acre-feet of water, and build a 410 feet high earth and rock dam on Little Cottonwood Creek to impound 50,000 acre-feet of water. In 2003, the City’s MWD updated the title to these applications.

Honestly, is the City’s water district going to build these dams? If not, would the water department make the public record transparent by withdrawing these water applications? Or are these “applications” held for monopoly purposes?

Salt Lake City has approved & pending water applications proposing approximately 20 hydro-electric power plants in the canyons & valleys requiring 1 million acre-feet of water. (The hydroelectric plant locations are located on page 14 of this website.)

Salt Lake City incorporated in January 5, 1851 now covering 111 square miles is truly a great and wonderful city with 15.2 Billion Dollars of assessed and estimate actual value of taxable property and a 2007 population of 178,858; however, it would not tolerate Holladay, Millcreek, Murray, Cottonwood Heights, Alta, North Salt Lake or South Salt Lake to operate a general water sales business within Salt Lake City’s corporate limits? Not for one minute. Not for one drop. Then how could the fair and great city of Salt Lake City think these other cities and canyons want to be under Salt Lake City’s water thumb? Salt Lake City’s water department is a good water department with many fine features: some of the finest water flow records in the state, great water quality and purification practices, superb redundant water delivery systems with redundant water rights, up to date modern billing systems & accounting methodologies with low billing errors, forward thinking on environmenal issues and impact, fine personel training programs, community/volunteer outreach, classroom programs, household hazardous waste information, pollution prevention programs, an A+ storm drain water program, outstanding low per capita water use, etc..

The issue is not the fine principles, and the truly fine personnel of the Salt Lake City water department, but the how the means and the ends relate.

Using “Salt Lake City’s watershed management muscle to deny them [recorded lot owners in Atla] water” is not a proper function of government.

It appears the culture of the Salt Lake City water department is one of monopoly charge what the market will bear instead of a providing a true public service.

This culture of “control” is evident when contrasted with the culture of the Orem City’s water department. Orem City’s culture is to provide the most possible service at the lowest possible price with the most possible efficiencies.

SLC is Utah’s largest city. Orem is Utah’s 6th larges city, yet Orem does not have a legion of lawyers, lobbists, committee members of various and asundry water boards. Why? Orem is not interested in controlling water outside its city limits. Orem is not a member of the Colordo River Association like SLC, nor does Orem have an anti-private propery canyon policy which consumes vast amounts of public time, money, and energy.

You won’t find Orem trying to control Sundance with a “surplus” water sales contract like SLC controls Snowbird, Solitude, Brighton, and Alta.

You won’t find Orem selling water for “snowmaking” on one hand and denying water to canyon property owners.

Why? Because the focus and mission of the water department is one one of highest service, highest efficiencies, lowest cost, and maximum public benefit.

You wont’ find Orem residents sitting on the Planning Commission of Heber, Utah like SLC residents pack the seats of the Town of Alta, Utah Planning Commission.

Salt Lake City’s water department is truly a great water company in many technical aspects. It should not be growing such a fine 20.4 million dollar water company outside its corporate limits using municipal privileges and protections afforded only to cities. Using statutory municipal privileges and protections for market advantage against other cities and water users is a misuse of municipal privilege no matter how noble or valid a department’s goals are.

Do the venerable ends of watershed protection and green policies justify the means of monopoly, profiteering, hoarding and wasting water? Is the adage: “The means do not justify the ends” applicable? Is it controlling building and zoning to protect watershed, or “protecting watershed” for building and zoning power?

Time, market pressures, and increased public awareness will eventually end the era of a the great Salt Lake City water company operating outside SLC corporate limits. It appears the SLC city water monopoly will fail eventually from its own success and excesses.

A city expanding a limitless water company operating outside its corporate limits model is a socially and legally flawed water department model, is not good public policy, and is not modeled on American societal norms of free market principles. Where is the counter balance for the public good? Trapped cities or privates water suppliers can not even compete with a city water monopoly operating outside its corporate limits. Competition is the bedrock of a market society for the Public’s welfare.

It is natural for any business enterprise to seek expansion; however, it is not in the public’s interest for any city water department not just Salt Lake City’s water department providing an essential service like water to expand into other existing or future cities’s water service areas using municipal privileges and protections for market advantage.

Utah’s Constitution prohibits such expansions for the health, safety, and public welfare. Every city is entitled to autonomy over its water connections, water supplies, and rates.

Salt Lake City enjoys the economic benefits and increased influence of having the Salt Lake Airport, Temple Square with 2.5 million annual visitors, the international headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, University of Utah with approximately 29,000 full and part-time students, the U of U medical school, University Hospital, the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, the Utah Museum of Natural History, Utah Rice-Eccles Stadium, Westminster College of SLC, Salt Lake Community College, LDS Business College, the Hoogle Zoo, Energy Solutions Arena, the Utah Jazz, the Salt Palace Convention Center with 100,000 square feet of meeting space, Franklin Covey Field & AAA Stingers baseball, Utah Symphony, Hansen Planetarium, Winter Olympics, Primary Children’s Hospital, the Huntsman Cancer Institute, the Marriot Hotels, the Grand America Hotels, the John W. Gallivan Utah Center, Salt Lake Federal Reserve Building, Matheson Court Center, the State Capitol, Symphony Hall, Salt Lake Art Center, Capitol Theater, and First Class city status, etc..

Truly, Salt Lake City is a great and fair city. Isn’t that enough? Must the SLC water department also monopolize Utah’s water for more profits and more extra territorial power outside SLC corporate limits?

Salt Lake City induced the State to relocate the territorial Capitol to Salt Lake City with promises of free land and water. After enjoying the economic benefit and increased access to the halls of State power, Salt Lake City’s water department sued Utah to break its free water agreement and lost. (Salt Lake City v. State 22 Utah 2d 37 1968)

In Salt Lake City v. Anderson et al (106 Utah 350 1944), the SLC sued 2,400 water users of Utah Lake water. Later, 25,000 acre-feet of Utah Lake water which was a portion of the disputed water was traded to the City’s MWD and sold for 4.1 million dollars in 1988. Was it real “future need” or profiting using municipal privilege and protections for market advantage?

Salt Lake City annually sells approximately 30 million dollars worth of water inside its corporate limits. SLC’s annual general water sales business also sells approximately 20 million dollars worth of water outside its corporate limits in Salt Lake County, $414,000 worth of water outside its corporate limits in Wastach County, and has indirectly sold thru its alter ego, MWD Salt Lake City, about 34,237.95 acre-feet of actual water rights as part of 12.35 million dollar water transactions.

There is no other city water department in Utah operating a great water company outside their corporate limits with a quasi independent water district, effective control over Deer Creek (LeRoy Hooton, Jr. is VP of PRWUA), great influence over Utah Lake, engaging Utah County legislative lobbists, paying the Salt Lake County Sheriff Department $150,000 per year, the US Forest Service $37,000 per year, etc. except Salt Lake City.

What has Salt Lake City gained? What has the Public lost?

Utah’s Constitutions prohibits cities from directly or indirectly selling water rights or alienating water. Salt Lake City Public Utility Advisory Committee minutes indicate the temporary “surplus” sales business is really permanent. Does this mean a city can buy up or appropriate all the water in the canyons, use exchange contracts to gain control of the canyons, use its water district to file applications for 110,000 acre-feet of “unappropriated water” at the same time claiming there is no water to appropriate for “anyone,” only to claim the constitution is a permanent barrier against all other users ever getting the water thereby creating an effective monopoly requiring any potential user to deal with SLC?

It appears that this is not a proper purpose and use of municipal protection and privilege. It is one thing to have a public grant of power to protect and thereby control.

It is another thing to to use that grant of power to protect for market advantage and extra-territorial control and muscle. Utah Supreme Court’s ruling in County Water Systems, Inc. v Salt Lake City 3 Utah 2d 46, 278 P.2d (1954) “STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION–10-8-14 A statute allowing a city to sell surplus water outside it boundaries does not allow the acquisition of water soley for resale outside the city, nor to construct, own or manage facilities and equipment for the distribution of water outside the city limits as a general business.” Utah Wter Law Case Briefs Edited by Kendrick J. Hafen 2005 page 139.

Salt Lake City water department charges the Town of Alta 16 cents per 1,000 gallons, Jordanelle Special Service District 63 cents per 1,000 gallons for raw water, and a school in Cottonwood Heights up to $3.28 per 1,000 gallons for treated water.

“It’s [SLC's general outside corporate limits water sales business] just like a monopoly,” [CPA, Salt Lake City Public Utility Finance Administrator James M.] Lewis said. Lewis said the benefit would be for public relations with county customers who have no representation on the City Council or with the Public Utilities Advisory Panel, which recommend the rate restructuring. And without representation, those county customers might feel they are getting a raw deal if higher rates are approved. “Water fee may soar in county,” Deseret News March 21, 2003.

In FY 2006/2007 Salt Lake City sold $19,948,939.39 worth of water to non-Salt Lake City residents residing in Salt Lake County, and $427,404.64 worth of water to Wastach County residents by leasing water to the Jordanelle Special Service District.

When asked how much profit Salt Lake City made on its 20 million worth of water sales, the GRAMA response was “Please note that Salt Lake City Public Utilities is a not for profit organization and has no record as described above.”

Friday, August 17, 2007, the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities states: “SLC water system is totally supported by water rates. No city property taxes are used for water system.” The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office reported that in 2006, it charged $5,316,779 in Metro-Salt Lake & Sandy tax against Salt Lake City properties. The Metro-Salt Lake & Sandy mill rate is .00035 which is set by a board of 7 of which 5 board are appointed by the Salt Lake City Council, yet SLC water utility claims it does not control the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.

Salt Lake City receives CUP water that is purchased by its water subsidiary Metro-Salt Lake & Sandy which have contracts to purchase 28,600 acre-feet of CUP water from the Provo River System. There is a property tax associated with this water with a mill rate of .000302 on Salt Lake City property. It is estimated that Salt Lake City property paid 4.7 million dollars in this CUP water tax in 2006. If Salt Lake City water rates carried all the costs associated with the city’s water system, then there would be no need for an additional 10 million dollars of MWD and CUP water taxes collected from SLC properties, because the water department water revenue would cover this 10 million dollars.

Metro-Salt Lake & Sandy also receive state aid in the form of grants. MWD Salt Lake & Sandy received a $500,000 cash grant from the Division of Water Resources. These funds are state tax dollars subsidizing waters sold for a profit (a 8%-10% return on equity) to Salt Lake County residents.

Salt Lake City’s subsidiary MWD Salt Lake sold 9,237.95 acre-feet of an application to appropriate 50 cfs (36,189.75 acre-feet filed in 1954) to Sandy City as part of an $8,250,000 combined water transaction. MWD Salt Lake City got this water essentially free from the State and sold it for money to Sandy City.

“Mr. A. C. Melville, attorney, [for Sandy City] stated that he objects to the application on the grounds that it is for purposes of monopoly and speculation.” It appears Mr. Melville was correct. Utah’s renown water expert and attorney, Edward Wilbur “Ed” Clyde, “the guiding force behind the $2 billion Central Utah Project,” selected as the Utah State Bar’s “Lawyer of the Year 1985,” and appointed Special Assistant Utah Attorney General stated: “5. That it is entirely speculative whether Salt Lake City will ever grow to the point where it can or will use the waters which it and Metropolitan Water District [Salt Lake City] have already appropriated and acquired . . . and that any attempt to appropriate more water can only be for the purpose of monopolizing the water supplies, and is speculative as to future water need or the existence of a future beneficial use.” August 13, 1954

It appears, Utah’s renown water expert and lawyer with vision, foresight and integrity was correct.Today it appears that SLC’s $20.4 million general water sales business contravening Utah Supreme Court ruling, and 34,237.95 acre-feet of indirect water right sales contravening Utah’s Constitution bears out Edward W. Clyde’s astute legal analysis in 1954.

On or about January 16, 2007, the official SLC Public Utility web site reported in the Donut Falls article a customer service population of 400,000. Salt Lake City Public Utility Department reported to the Division of Water Rights on or about July 2007 a customer service population of 319,186. Salt Lake City 2006 population was 178,858 according to State officials. It appears Salt Lake City provides water to more people outside city limits using SLC’s Donut numbers.

Prior to the 2007 Salt Lake City purchase of Donut Falls using watershed protection funds, the falls were closed to the public. How does flooding closed land with picnickers, and hikers protect watershed?

Is it fair to ask SLC water “customers” to pay high water rates to subsidize the purchase of Hiking Parks for non-residents under the guise of watershed protection? How does flooding once closed land with picnickers improve water quality?

Is this a water department function or parks and recreation function? It seems if private parties want to use their lands in the canyons, watershed is used to close them down. If Salt Lake City wants to use lands in the canyons, watershed protection funds are used to buy the land and open the land up for use by Salt Lake City. Watershed is not the issue.

The issue is who controls the canyon lands and which users are “allowed” to use the land.

In July 10, 2007 in a letter to Representative Steve Clark, the SLC Public Utility stated it pumped an average of about 15% of its water supply from wells. It appears in the past eight year average reported by SLC to DWR of less than 5% from its 26 large City wells. Salt Lake City’s water department is on of the finest water record sources in the state.

To illustrate how fine, SLC water department tracked its top 100 users for 12 years to determine a 5% meter under reporting average on its medium to large meters. Yet, when asked for a water inventory within 10,000 acre-feet, the GRAMA response was “No Record.”

SLC water meters are audited. SLC water rights are not audited.

Salt Lake City sells water for $1.14 to $3.28 per 1,000 gallons, has 2.8 employees per 1,000 connections, and a .00035 MWD property water tax which is 733% higher than Orem’s versus Orem City which sells water for 55 cents per 1,000 gallons, has 1.2 employees per 1,000 connections, and a .000042 MWD property water tax.

‘Having approved water rate increases in each of his first five years on the council, Councilman Dave Buhler asked if there would ever be a year when public utilities wouldn’t be asking for increases. “No, not for the next eight years,” Lewis [Salt Lake City Public Utility Financial Director] said. “S.L. water rates to keep rising” Deseret News April 14, 2004. “This seems like is penalizing families. We had such a discussion about how we could keep families and attract families to our city . . .,” [Salt Lake City] councilman Dave Buhler said.

Councilman Eric Jergensen said he knew of a family of nine that didn’t water its lawn last summer and instead let the grass brown out. The neighbors of that family of nine were a married couple with no children who laid new sod and therefore had to water outside extensively. However, each month in the summer the family of nine’s bill was larger than the couple’s bill, Jergensen said. “Water rate plan anti-family?” Deseret News Feb. 7, 2003.

UTAHWATER.NET CHALLENGES TO SALT LAKE CITY TO POST A COMPLETE & TRANSPARENT WATER INVENTORY ON THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITY WEBSITE, AND TO RETURN THE PUBLIC’S “SURPLUS” WATER BACK TO THE STATE FOR RE-APPROPRIATION TO COUNTIES LIKE UTAH COUNTY, WASTACH COUNTY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, AND TO CITIES LIKE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, HOLLADAY, MURRAY, MILLCREEK, TOWN OF ALTA, BLUFFDALE, DRAPER, LEHI, SARATOGA SPRINGS, ETC..

In order to sell water outside city limits, the city must classify the water as un-needed temporary”surplus.” Why must “surplus” water be incidental and temporary? Because, there is no such thing as permanent “surplus” water. Yet, the Director of SLC Public Utilities wanted to assure “surplus” water “customers” that “the City will not terminate there water service.” (Page 33 exhibit 21) If water is permanently “surplus,” then under the doctrine of beneficial use (73-1-3) that water had automatically reverted to the State for re-appropriation to other users. It would appear, that it is illegal for water classified as “surplus” or “surplus sales contracts” to be used to meet permanent and perpetual state water requirements of building permits, city connections, and fire protection. How can a “surplus” water connection be turned of when it is used to meet the legal requirements of a permanent water source?

Salt Lake City water department is a multi-million dollar general “surplus” water sales business for profit and influence with 31,200 outside city connections with a “customer” base in Cottonwood Heights, Murray, Holiday, Salt Lake County with rates 35% higher than SLC city rates, and water sales serving Heber City, Park City, Summit and Wasatch County area. It appears:

• Salt Lake City banks water rights for non-water rigtht purposes to protect its customer base, for “profit,” and to control planning and zoning outside City corporate limits. These “customers” are disenfranchised rate payers with no elected voice in Salt Lake City government and no choice who pay 35% higher rates than SLC residents. SL County water rates are approximately 176% to 496% higher than Orem City water rates.
• Salt Lake City Water Department’s estimated 2.5 million acre-feet of water involvement with Utah’s water rights have increased water rates inside and outside SLC city limits. The City does not own an estimated 2.5 million acre-feet of water, but its corporate fingers have touched public water records in the millions of acre-feet while still owning 600,000 to 700,000 acre-feet of water claims and water shares directly or indirectly while in 2005 Salt Lake City incity use was approximately 47,500 acre-feet.
• Salt Lake City Water Department sends out approximately 1 million bills annually. $1.00 extra non-water fee per water bill could capture an extra 1 Million Dollars in revenue. $10.67 extra on outside city connections per bill would capture an extra 4 Million Dollars in revenue. For the Public good or to get the Public’s goods?
• SLC water dept uses municipal privilege and protection to gain an unfair advantage in Utah’s water markets for profits and political capital, and may be adversely impacting the state’s water markets in the process.

Surely every city in Utah wants to grow a 20 to 100 million dollars general water sales business outside their corporate limits with free state water and subsidized money; however, it is not good public policy and prohibited by Utah’s Constitution which establishes all cities as water equals. Every city must stay in their own water box or the public water distribution system can become out of wack, because city water departments are not regulated by the Public Service Commission. It appears that Salt Lake City claims a constitutional carve out against the prohibition for a city to sell water for its City’s 20.4 million dollar general water sales business outside SLC corporate limits.

Publicly, SLC water department claims the “surplus” sales water is temporary as it must to quality for the exemption to the constitution provided by UCA 10-8-14.

Privately, SLC wants to assure “surplus” water customers that the water is permanent.

If this is good legal doctrine which most likely is not, then an equal and corresponding municipal immunity carve out against anti-trust claims would also exist. One carve out is naturally counterbalanced by another carve out for the health, safe, and public welfare.