By Claire Carlson for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for the Utah News Connection for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

From one side of the city limits sign, a groundwater pipeline proposal in a sparsely populated Utah county looks like a crucial investment in economic expansion for a growing metropolis.

From the other, less crowded side of the road, the project appears to be a water grab that will turn rural areas into sacrifice zones for the sake of urban growth.

The proposal, called the Pine Valley Water Supply Project, would pump billions of gallons of water from rural Beaver County in western Utah and send it 70 miles southeast to Cedar City.

The city's need for water comes after years of overuse of the aquifers in Cedar Valley. Water from the aquifers is being overdrawn by an estimated 7,000 acre-feet of water per year, according to a hydrologic survey conducted by the local water district. Acre-feet of water refers to the number of acres of land that would be covered with one foot of water in a year.

To remedy this problem, Cedar City is looking to rural Utah for solutions.

The Central Iron County Water Conservancy District (CICWCD) has its eyes on two valleys in Beaver County: Pine Valley and its neighbor, Wah Wah Valley. The water district owns water rights in both valleys for 15,000 and 11,275 acre-feet of water, respectively.

In the project's first phase, 15 production wells 500 to 1,000 feet deep would be drilled in the south end of Pine Valley and the groundwater would be transported by a 70-mile long underground pipeline to Iron County, where Cedar City is located. The entire project would be powered by a solar field constructed in Pine Valley, where the CICWCD already owns land.

No proposal or permit applications to pump the 11,275 acre-feet of water in Wah Wah Valley have yet been submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, but the valley remains a central part of the CICWCD's future plans for pumping.

Opponents of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project say it will drain water from an area already facing historically dry conditions as climate change exacerbates drought in the West. Mark Wintch, a fifth-generation rancher who lives in Wah Wah Valley, fears his ranch would be rendered inoperable if the project were to go into effect.

"By [the CICWCD's] own admissions, they have estimated that there will be a 14 to 15% drawdown on my spring [from the Pine Valley project]," Wintch said. The spring is the sole source of water for Wintch's ranch, where he raises approximately 1,200 head of cattle. "If the spring's depleted, then I'll lose crops, I'll lose power, I'll lose everything, and that's just in the one single phase.

"For the Wah Wah phase, the Hamlin Valley phase - when they put those phases on then it may dry up my spring altogether," Wintch said.

Members of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah are also concerned about drying springs in their homeland.

The tribe's Indian Peaks Band had a reservation in Pine Valley until the 1950s, when President Eisenhower passed a law that terminated federal funding to Utah Paiute Indians. This dissolved the reservation of the Indian Peaks Band and reservations of the four other Paiute bands in the state. The Indian Peaks Band was relocated to Cedar City.

Funding to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah was eventually restored under the Nixon administration, but in the process of termination and restoration, the Indian Peaks Band lost approximately 10,000 acres of land in Beaver County to the state of Utah, according to vice-chair and chairperson of the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Tamra Borchardt-Slayton.

"The way reservations are first set up is that they're federal property set aside on behalf of a specific tribe, and water sources are also placed under that specific tribe or band," Borchardt-Slayton said. "When Indian Peak was sold, we still retained our mineral and our subsurface rights, including our water rights."

The water rights in the Pine Valley area, where Indian Peak - the Indian Peaks Band's namesake - is located, still belong to the band, according to Borchardt-Slayton. "That's where we enter the water fight," she said.

Members of the Indian Peaks Band are not the only ones concerned the Pine Valley Water Supply Project would infringe on tribal water rights. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation have identified themselves as senior water rights holders in Beaver County, according to the Pine Valley project's draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

The Cedar Band of the Utah Paiute Tribe fears the project could draw down water in the aquifer their reservation relies on. The path of the pipeline moves through archaeological sites of value to the Paiute Indian Tribe, which the Cedar and Kanosh Band also cited as a concern in the DEIS.

"[The project] will siphon away water resources that are interwoven with our ancestral land, our culture, our religion, and our existence as native people," read the official statement from the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah in response to the proposal.

How Much Water Is There, Really?

The repeated concern voiced by stakeholders is that the CICWCD wants to pump more water from Pine Valley than its aquifers can sustain.

In an independent report commissioned by the environmental organization Great Basin Water Network, the proposed pumping of 15,000 acre-feet of water per year is shown to take more water from Pine Valley than the amount that could be recharged (11,000 acre-feet per year, according to the report). The report cites the most recent United States Geological Survey data from the area.

If the project were to take more water than the recharge amount, the valley would be at a deficit, unable to replace the water pumped to Cedar City.

Researchers also found that groundwater-fed springs in Nevada and Utah, including ones in Snake Valley (neighbor to Pine Valley), Great Basin National Park, and Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge could see less water due to the Pine Valley project.

Since the independent report was published, the CICWCD hired a hydrology team to determine whether there is enough water in the basin to support the Pine Valley project's 15,000 acre-feet of water.

"We've added some test wells and done some pumping because as we started going through the environmental process, the Bureau of Land Management wanted to know more specifically what's going on out there," said Paul Monroe, general manager of the CICWCD. The most recent hydrologic survey conducted found that 18,000 acre-feet of water is available in the Pine Valley basin, according to Monroe.

"[Great Basin Water Network] claims [the water] isn't there, but they're using older and outdated science to make those claims just to pick and choose what reports they use to try and make our project not look feasible," Monroe said.

Conservationists have also cited concerns about the wildlife impacts of the project.

According to the draft EIS, a portion of the proposed project area overlaps habitat and mating grounds of the near-threatened greater-sage grouse. The entirety of the proposed project area overlaps one of three state recovery zones for Utah prairie dogs, which is an endangered species. And lastly, the least chub - a small fish native to Utah that only has seven wild populations left in the state - could also see habitat loss if the project dries up springs it relies on.

"This pipeline is an existential threat to the least chub," said Krista Kemppinen, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press release. "The state has worked valiantly to secure a future for the least chub, but only the Endangered Species Act can save this unique Utah fish from the Pine Valley water grab." The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning to get the fish protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Monroe said the water district is very aware of the environmental concerns and has mitigation strategies built into the project if the groundwater supply is affected from pumping.

"If it looks like we are negatively impacting that aquifer, and it's not responding the way that we anticipate, then there are triggers and impacts that take place that would have us reduce our pumping," Monroe said. "There are lots of things that are in place to ensure that there are no negative impacts to other water users in the valley and in the basin, and a lot of them have signed on to participate with that."

Project critics are not as convinced of the efficacy of these triggers.

"We've not seen a monitoring and mitigation management proposal from anyone that makes us comfortable, and we are skeptical that it can be done," said Steve Erickson, an activist and board member of Great Basin Water Network. "We went around and around for years with this with the Las Vegas project - the Southern Nevada groundwater development project. And in the end, a monitoring and mitigation management plan that could hold up to scrutiny and hold up the legal analysis was unenforceable."

The Southern Nevada groundwater development project would have pumped groundwater from valleys in eastern Nevada to Las Vegas. After three decades of legal battles with environmental groups, tribal leaders, and rural water rights holders, the Southern Nevada Water Authority gave up the project.

With the Pine Valley Water Supply Project, the outcome for rural areas may go differently since the CICWCD already owns water rights in Pine and Wah Wah Valley.

"I think all over the state of Utah, this is going to be something that happens as these larger cities grow," said rancher Mark Wintch. "They're going to kill their rural counties or their rural towns within their counties because they're going to hand them in by taking all of their natural resources."

Claire Carlson wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

National Rivers Month comes to an end this week and conservation groups said it is a reminder more action is needed to protect Idaho's rivers.

The state is home to more than 107,000 miles of river, providing drinking water, hydropower, tourism and recreational opportunities like rafting and angling.

Stephen Pfieffer, conservation associate for Idaho Rivers United, said only a small portion of the state's river miles have the strongest type of federal protections.

"Only 1% of the rivers here in Idaho are protected via Wild and Scenic River designations," Pfieffer pointed out. "There's a lot of opportunities to give more stretches of river, that people like to recreate on or might rely on, protections that they deserve."

Idaho is home to two of the eight rivers originally protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968: the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. About 890 miles of river in Idaho are protected under the designation today.

The Snake River also flows through Idaho. The Biden administration has been studying four dams on the lower part of the Snake River in eastern Washington and their effect on fish populations migrating to and from Idaho. Last week, the administration announced the Columbia Basin Task Force to further examine the impact of those dams. Pfieffer said salmon and steelhead numbers are dwindling because of the dams.

"It all boils down to the fact that our wild salmon and steelhead don't have much time," Pfieffer emphasized. "But if we take these actions now we can get them to a place where populations can stabilize, and are in fact recovering, in the event of dam removal."

Supporters of the dams said they provide hydropower to the region, as well as enabling other uses for the river, like barging and irrigation.

Pfieffer added National Rivers Month is not only about threats to rivers, it is about enjoying what they offer.

"Idaho has so many amazing stretches of river and there might be an amazing stretch right in your backyard that's just waiting to be explored," Pfieffer observed.


get more stories like this via email

A New York City bill is a catch-22 for removing lead pipes. The so-called "Rotten Apple Bill" makes city property owners remove their home's lead service lines and threatens financial penalties if they fail to comply.

Up to 41% of water service lines have or may have lead in them.

Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded the bill's intent but argued there are better ways to address lead service lines. She said problems can arise when property owners organize line replacement work.

"You might be digging up the street six, seven, eight different times for example," Baron pointed out. "It's also confusing. It makes it difficult to get the proper health safeguards in place, and it's not cost-effective."

Baron contended an effective program requires a mandate for lead pipe removal with the city conducting the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace pipes. But she noted if New York City passes the buck to homeowners, they run the risk of being ineligible for the large pot of money. State dollars have been set aside for this purpose but they do not match federal funds.

Other concerns are the health hazards of removing lead pipes. Disturbing a lead pipe can dislodge little bits of lead and further contaminate the area. Baron noted creating a centralized program ensures a home's pipes are flushed properly and the water is filtered for six months. She stressed the bill's penalties could harm the wrong people.

"It would be a $1,000 fine if you don't get that pipe out," Baron emphasized. "We're concerned that either some landlords might choose to take that fine as the cost of doing business, or other families that couldn't afford the pipe replacement won't be able to afford that $1,000 either."

The push comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule, which is expected to give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA's new rule could take effect in 2027.


get more stories like this via email

A Michigan nonprofit dedicated to keeping oil out of the Great Lakes is celebrating a major victory.

A federal Appellate Court has ruled that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 lawsuit against Canadian oil company Enbridge belongs back in state court.

Nessel's lawsuit aims to shut down part of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac over concerns of a potential oil spill.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discovered that Enbridge moved the case from state court to federal court more than two years past the deadline for changing jurisdictions.

Sean McBrearty is campaign coordinator for the group Oil and Water Don't Mix, and the Michigan director for Clean Water Action. He said the appellate court's ruling is justified, because Nessel sued Enbridge under the State Public Trust Doctrine and the State Environmental Policy Act.

"Essentially what the doctrine says is that the waters and bottom lands of the state are owned by the people," said McBrearty, "and it's the duty of the state government to care for them in perpetuity."

In response, Enbridge issued a statement that says in part that they are disappointed in the Appellate court's decision, and they believe "the case should remain in federal court given the clear and substantial questions of federal law raised by the attorney general's complaint."

Line 5 transports petroleum products from northwestern Wisconsin through Michigan into Ontario, threading through the Straits of Mackinac.

McBrearty underscored that his organization's concerns about the pipeline and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill are rooted in scientific evidence.

"We have a now 71-year-old pipeline, that was made to last 50 years," said McBrearty, "running every day through what scientists call the most dangerous spot in the Great Lakes for an oil spill."

Enbridge maintains that Line 5's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The case will return to Michigan's 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County.