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

Salt Lake City has 8 of 11 board seats on Provo River Water Users Association (”PRWUA”) by virtue of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy owning 61.7% of  the Provo River Water Users Association stock.

Salt Lake City has 5 of 7 boards seats on Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.

The President of PRWUA is Mike Wilson, the general manager of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.  The Vice President of PRWUA is LeRoy Hooton, Jr., the ex-director of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, and SLC water employee of 50 years.

The current director of Salt Lake City Public Utilities is Jeffery Niermeyer, who is also a PRWUA director.  The current attorney for PRWUA is the former Salt Lake City senior attorney, Chris Bramhall.

Salt Lake City’s claim that it does not control Provo River Water Users Association is contradictory. If one tells other members of Provo River Water Users that Salt Lake City claims it does not control PRWUA, then they laugh.

Provo River Water Users Association is a $1 Billion Water Company with organizational Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS): 07298253CHB.  A DUNS number is required to file for federal grants (free taxpayer money).

Salt Lake City’s Metropolitan Water District’s subsidiary Provo River Water Users has paid approximately $240,000 for lobby work to Dutko Worldwide over the past 3 years.

Is PRWUA a private water company or a public water company?  How does PRWUA have $2 million in proceeds from Series 2002 Bonds (municpal bonds)?  PRWUA’s tax returns are public and subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

PRWUA claims its annual financial report is private and not subject to governmental records acts.

The board is comprised of public employees, or former board members of governmental water districts, yet PRWUA claims it is not subject to governmental records acts like Utah’s GRAMA laws.

We have a $1 Billion water company receiving federal grants, and state monies operated by cities with city employees with no public access to records.  When PRWUA wants government money it puts on the public water supplier hat.  When PRWUA wants non-transparency, it puts on the private water supplier hat.

This is a very odd way to operate a federally funded dam (the Deer Creek Reservoir in Provo Canyon, Utah) supplying public water operated by public employees.

A financial entry appears on PRWUA’s History of Master Plan Finances 2008 for  “Lobby Services $252,575.”

Here we have public employees directing lobbyist services at governmental legislative bodies, but the public can not see the lobby contracts or work product details.

PRWUA is also a lobby arm for Salt Lake City water politics.  This is in addition to Legislative Executive Consulting (Cap Ferry). In 2008, PRWUA hired lobby firm, Craig A. Peterson Consulting (Former Utah County State Senator).  Both firms appear to be paid approximately $18,000 per year.

“Craig Peterson thanked Mr. Bramhall [former (2007) SLC senior lawyer] for his efforts on House Bill 51.  He also thanked Dennis Strong [Director of Utah's Board of Water Resources]  for his outstanding support and help with Senate Bill 170.” (April 24, 2008)

In addition to paid political lobbyists, PRWUA may have a Public Relations firm.

How could PRWUA not be subject to GRAMA?  Public employees operating a $1 Billion Water Company which derives at least 73% of its revenue from public water rate payers.

Wouldn’t a $1 Billion water subsidiary of $500 Million public water district subsidiary of a $500 Million public water utility be public?

Why is transparency such a problem for Salt Lake City’s water enterprise?  On top of this aversion to public scrutiny, PRWUA goes into “closed sessions.” How could the operation of a public non-profit water corporation require so many closed sessions?

It appears Salt Lake City controls PRWUA by controlling Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake & Sandy which owns 61,700 of the 100,000 shares of Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA).  PRWUA controls Deer Creek.  Is it a fair statement to say that Salt Lake City corporation controls PRWUA by controlling of MWD Salt Lake & Sandy corporation’s  61.7% ownership stake in PRWUA.

Given the foregoing, it could be fairly argued that Salt Lake City Water Department is effectively suing Payson City (Civil No. 040400271) again over an approved water application in the Utah and Salt Lake Drainage Basin.

Isn’t it convenient for Salt Lake City’s water department to have so many different faces that it can sue, lobby, and protest water users without publicly revealing itself?

After retiring as the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Director in 2008, LeRoy Hooton, Jr., became the Vice President of PRWUA in 2008 apparently representing Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Wasatch County shareholders who replaced Harley Gilman of Utah County. The current President of PRWUA is Mike Wilson, also the current general manager of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.

The 11 member PRWUA Board of Directors are the following:

• Mike Wilson-President (Mike is the current MWD Salt Lake & Sandy general manager.)
• LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr.-Vice President (LeRoy is a re-tired Salt Lake City Public Utilities Director.)
• Jeff Niermeyer-Director (Jeff is the current Salt Lake City Public Utilities Director.)
• Genevieve Atwood-Director (Genevieve is a former Board Member MWD Salt Lake & Sandy, and adjunct U of U geography professor.)
• Tom Godfrey-Director (Tom is a Board Member of MWD Salt Lake & Sandy.)
• Don Milne-Director (Don is a Board Member of MWD Salt Lake & Sandy.)
• Shane Pace-Director (Shane is the current Sandy City Public Utilities Director.)
• Lon Richardson, Jr.-Director (Lon is a former chairman of MWD Salt Lake & Sandy.)
• Richard Bay-Director (Richard is Jordan Valley Water Conservation District’s General Manager.)
• Merril Bingham-Director (Merril is Provo City’s Public Utilties Director.)
• Bruce Chestnut-Director (Bruce is Orem City’s Public Utilities Director.)

General Counsel: Chris Bramhall (Chris Bramhall was a Salt Lake City Senior lawyer in 2007.)

Sandy is a very small fish at MWD Salt Lake & Sandy.   Sandy has a preferred right to purchase 7,940 acre-feet of water.  It is a fair statement to say Salt Lake City effectively controls PRWUA, or Deer Creek.  If PRWUA candidly responded to who controls PRWUA, the answer would be Salt Lake City.

Salt Lake City owns 2,488.75 shares  of the 10,000 shares of East Jordan Irrigation Company which is about 24.89% of the EJIC stock. Is it a fair statment to say that Salt Lake City controls East Jordan Irrigation Company?  The East Jordan board authorized East Jordan Irrigation Company to sue Payson City over an approved change application converting Payson City’s 38.5 EJIC stock (186.34 acre-feet of water) to municipal wells in Payson City’s service area.

This resulted in the infamous East Jordan v. Payson case which gutted 90 year old irrigation shareholders’ rights state wide resulting in the loss of millions of dollars of public and private property rights.  How could pumping 186.34 acre-feet of well water 60 miles from SLC impair SLC’s water rights?  Payson City was entitled to use 186.4 acre-feet from Utah Lake.  Whether by pumping directly from Utah lake or pumping from Payson City wells, there is no difference on demand on prior rights in the Utah Lake and Jordan River drainage. SLC’s employees acting as East Jordan Irrigation Company board members have approved numerous similar applications.  There has been no change in hydrology.  Why was Payson City sued?

This case was about maintaining control of water along the Wasatch Front.  Today, irrigation shareholders must get an irrigation boards approval to transfer water.  Boards are often controlled by large shareholders who don’t want to see water transfer in a free market manner.

It appears Salt Lake City intends to reuse 5,000 acre-feet of sewer effluent water in the Utah & Salt Lake Drainage Basin according to public announcements to conserve water.

Payson City’s sewer effluent reuse application NS003 was approved for 4,531.96 acre-feet in the Utah & Salt Lake Drainage Basin.

It appears Salt Lake City was the driver behind the East Jordan (SLC), Provo River Water Users (SLC), Salt Lake City (SLC) v. Payson City, and State Engineer (860 P.2d 310 1993) case.

The East Jordan v. Payson case appeared to be about controlling water movement between Salt Lake County and Utah County, and controlling what a shareholder could file or not file at the Division of Water Rights.

It appears  Salt Lake City is again the driver behind the current Provo River Water Users Association v. Payson City case (Civil No. 040400271).  How could Payson impair PRWUA’s water rights if Payson only used the amount of water authorized by the State Engineer?

This lawsuit is not about impairment of water.  This lawsuit is about who controls water along the Wasatch Front, and who’s got water “muscle,” a word used by SLC in their own memo.  If Payson can more fully use its water rights, then other cities in Utah County will get the same idea.

Beating down Payson with lots of legal fees, time delays, hassle, etc. sends a clear message to other Utah County, and Wasatch County cities–Don’t think about filing re-use applications.  You’ll only get lawsuits and no water.

The chronic misuse of courts and lawyers to maintain monopoly sends a loud and clear message to the Wasatch Front water market and the State Engineer–water in the Wasatch Front will be dictated by the SLC water department.

For decades, SLC has been on a quest for water for 400,000 people; however, SLC’s current population of 180,000 is only estimated to reach 225,000 by 2050.

Wall to wall cities have reduced SLC future foot print to a very small size never to reach 400,000.  Well, what does an aggressive city water department do in a weakly governed state?  Bend, change, ignor the rules, and cry impairment  to maintain the hoarded water.

SLC water department must keep its “surplus” customers or lose its water power.  Customers are the justification to maintain water for future need.  Less customers = less water demand = less money = less control = less power = less prestige.

Cities have turned into for profit corporations.  Employees get bonuses based on how much money the city can take in, then seek to hide the bonuses from the public.  Even for profit corporations have public records for shareholders.

Why do cities seek to hide their work product behind confidential agreements, so-called “privileged”documents, and “closed sessions”?

This is why one gets overstated water demand populations by “overlapping,” and understated water supplies to hide hoarding.

The legal bills, the lobbyists, the lawsuits, the PR stories, ad nauseam to protect a customer and power base outside SLC corporate boundaries are for what purpose?  What non-sense. What waste and misuse of the public trust and public water.

What has SLC gained but a few measly dollars wasted on big government and inefficiencies?  What has the public lost?

The philosophical underpinnings of Salt Lake City water policy seem to be monetary gain and extra territorial control outside its jurisdiction.  There appears to be a desire to control 31,231 non-city water “customers” in other cities, to control affairs and zoning outside its city limits, to control canyon activity, to control the level of Utah Lake, to control boards of influence.  If one looks through the prism of “control,” then significant perspective and understanding of Salt Lake City’s water practices and policies can be achieved.

There was a dispute between the CUP and Provo River Water Users Association (Salt Lake City) over the Federal Murdock Canal easement  over who “controls” the easement.  This dispute appears to have been resolved.

The following are members of PRWUA:

• MWD of Salt Lake & Sandy–61,700 shares (Controlled by Salt Lake City)
• Provo Reservoir Water Users–16,000 shares (Controlled by Jordan Valley Water Conservation District)
• MWD of Provo–8,000 shares
• Provo Bench Canal–2,000 shares (Controlled by Orem?)
• MWD of Orem–2,254 shares
• Dixon Irrigation–300 shares (Owned by Orem City)
• Lindon MWD–200 shares
• Highland Conservation District–5,010 shares (Controlled by Highland City)
• Lehi City Corporation–500 shares
• American Fork MWD–500 shares
• Plesasant Grove City–300 shares
• Pleasant Grove Irrigation–1,011 (Controlled by Pleasant Grove City)
• South Kamas Irrigation Company–500 shares
• Washington Irrigation–500 shares
• Beaver & Shingle Creek Irrigation–900 shares
• Misc. private parties–325 shares

Total: 100,000 shares

Review the foregoing membership of PRWUA controlled by public employees.  How could PRWUA’s records not be public?

“It is estimated that nearly 1 million people receive at least a portion of their drinking water supply from Deer Creek Reservoir.”  Summary of River Basin and Reservoir conditions as of April 15, 2004 (Governor Walker).

“All features of the Deer Creek Diversion are operated and maintained by the Provo River Water Users Association. The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City operates and maintains the aqueduct system.” BOR 2008 website

There seems to be an ongoing effort to also control by assuming management of BOR functions.  The same work is done, but the money comes from PRWUA.  With the money comes the influence of PRWUA into BOR functions.

PRWUA has a  Community Relations Committee and lobbyists. “Mr. Denos reported that the water forfeiture bill, House Bill 51, passed and was signed by the Governor. He reported that Senate Bill 238 which protects against aquatic nuisance species passed as well.  Mr. Denos also reported passage of Senate Bill 170 which modified the Board of Water Resources (BWR) statute to allow BWR to fund projects like the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project without the requirements to take title to the assets.” (April 24, 2004)

PRWUA told the federal government of its need to have title to obtain a loan which is one of reasons given for the federal government to transfer title to federal water assets, the green pipe, and easements to PRWUA.

H.R. 3391 Provo River Project Transfer Act October 30, 2004 enacted by the U.S. Congress transferred title of federal water assets to PRWUA.  Nothing changed regarding these “water assets” except the party controlling them.

It’s about control.  Why would such a small city like Salt Lake City with just 180,000 people need control of so many public water assets?

Obtaining title to federal water assets in the West is quite a feat.