The critics of this project are the current residents of Washington County who will pay thru the nose for this project. When finished, this project will cost well over a billion but probably under 2 billion. Current residents water use fees and property taxes will sky rocket in order to pay for this project. Future growth may help with impact fees, but the real money is with the current residents. Time to move on to the "next" paradise.

Critics of this project are anyone who's done the math and realizes that it would cost less to bring in truckloads of Perrier to pour on St George's golf courses than it would to build and operate the pipeline.

Proponents are relatives of contractors who expect to get a piece of the tax pie.

Interesting that the state water people are enthusiastic about this project, yet the legislature (in the authorization bill) specifically prohibited any state tax funds going toward construction - repayment of the loans would be the sole responsibility of the participating counties (Washington, Kane and possibly Iron). At the best available bond rates, it's about $1500 per household per year for 50 years. More if the construction estimates are too low, as they almost always are in government projects.

I still wonder why, in the "most conservative" state, this is a public project. Shouldn't this problem be solved by private enterprise? Why do we need a huge public works project if this idea is financially realistic? (Answer: either we don't or it isn't.)

What a total waste of money. A two billion dollar project to tap a water source that is drying up when they are still building new golf courses in Southern Utah?

Better take a look at the ulterior motives of those that are in favor of this project... like developers in position of influence.

This project should have been started at least 35 years ago. Water is the life blood of a desert state, the rapid development of Washington County is simply a symptom of the need for U.S. citizens to "migrate" away from georgraphic areas which no longer are financially viable.

Let's take a practical look at the waters of Lake Powell and the Colorado River in general. Unless we quit breeding we'll need more and more water irrepspective of how many new citizens emigrate into our State. Water Availability boils down to who has the political clout in Washinngton D.C. to enact new laws that mandate who "gets" the water. California and Arizona have more than 100 elected officials in the Federal System, Utah has 5.
?? Where does our water go ?? 'Nuff Said!

Who has a working crystal ball and who knows what Mother Nature in terms of snow pack and storms will offer in the decades ahead? And better yet, where are all the fiscal conservatives that strive to save taxpayers money rather than ramp up tax obligations every year. Those that support a pipeline will view the event through a lens of future bountiful water and meager net economic costs. And they all have a lens that simply looks at SW Utah's future growth.

View the whole Colorado Plateau Region; and the water users that benefit from the water sources in that region. Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, California and Utah. Utah builds the pipeline and the next "day" the other State's trump Utah and build new water delivery stystems.

S Cal and other parts of the country are developing (costly) desalinazation operations in an effort to buttress water resources.

The Desert areas of the West. Phoenix, Vegas and now St. George. The hottest, driest and yet some of the highest water users (per capita) in the country.

Prudent planners should look at conservation - in the energy and water resource arenas. If not, things could get grim; $ and water wise.