Questions and Answers
Don't see the answer to your question? Ask Lin!
Q: We would like to have a sign to put on our property. How do we get one?
- Vivian Cropper
A: Thanks for your support. If you email WinWithLin08@gmail.com, we will make arrangements to get you a sign. Thanks!
Q: You are, I believe, a strong advocate of solar power. You may even have suggested a major project, although I didn't spot mention of it on a skim through your website. I recall the term "1000 megawatt", though.
I don't think that's practical. What is practical, at Washington County scale is a 750 kilowatt plant sited at West Black Mesa. At the very least, county funds are sufficient to commission a first-order design which could answer the question "is such a plant practical?"
Are you interested in hearing more?
Thanks.
- A.C. DeBlanc, P.E.
A: I`m always interested in helpful new information. Thanks for your offer. Please email me at WinWithLin08@gmail.com.
I believe a solar plant in the 500 megawatt scale or larger is practical for Washington County. Last month, I visited Nevada Solar One near Boulder City, Nevada. Having read about it for months, I was extremely excited to see it for real. Many people have suggested that my idea of a major solar plant in Washington County is unrealistic.
To them I reply that putting a man on the moon seemed foolishly unrealistic when John F Kennedy challenged America to do so within a decade. Certainly there are technical, financial and political challenges to face and overcome. But I believe in capitalism, engineering and the power of our communities, not to mention the sun.
One of my favorite sayings is "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." I believe in the future of Washington County and I bet you do to. So let`s roll up our sleeves and make great things happen. All this equation needs is for you to elect me.
Q: How do you differ from Alan Gardner on the Washington County Lands Bill?
- Art Porter
A: As proposed, the Lands Bill goes against my belief in free market capitalism. We have 225,000 acres of private land in Washington County that has not been developed yet. Only 25,000 acres of private ground are currently developed in the County. The bill would have flooded the market with an additional 25,000 acres of land currently owned by the federal government. Gardner seems fine with this but I feel this is an inappropriate interference in the markets that would cause current private land owners to lose value to the federal government.
I also object to the clause that would allow proceeds from the land sale to pay for the Lake Powell Pipeline. I specifically told Alan Gardner and Bennett`s staff that my second biggest objection to the bill would go away if they removed the 4 words from the bill that would provide funding for the Pipeline. Alan`s response was that "we`ve already compromised enough and we`re not going to compromise any more."
I applaud Bennett`s staff for attempting to solve the protracted Wilderness debate with this bill. It took courage to even attempt. But Wilderness is not my issue. Quality of life in the expanding urban environment is my issue. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) has long been the dominant voice in Wilderness issues. Bennett apparently wasn`t willing to strike the balance in the bill that SUWA needed to support it and vice versa.
Because I paid attention to the dialogue between Bennett and SUWA as the bill developed, I know that both sides made a genuine attempt to create a solution. But when Alan Gardner and the County Commission chose to not remove the Pipeline funding from the bill, it created an imbalance that could not be overcome.
Let me also say that I have been critical of SUWA in the past for some of the tactics they have used which caused the Wilderness debate to become more inflamed than was useful or necessary. I always encourage all participants in a controversial dialogue to use language and tactics that move towards solution rather than discord. That is my way and my record over the last decade shows how this is the case.
Q: In the October Independent, you stated it would cost taxpayers $3 Billion dollars for the pipeline. Would you enlighten us, please, as we have been continuously told it would be approximately $1 Billion.
Thank you on behalf of many of us.
- T. Sampson
A: The current $1.064 billion price tag is only for construction costs. Proponents plan on issuing up to 60 years of revenue bonds to pay for the project. Interest on these bonds will add another $2 billion to the project cost. Rep. Steve Urquhart recently suggested that Washington County won`t be responsible for the interest cost.
However, I`ve carefully reviewed the Lake Powell Pipeline Authorization Act of 2006 and find numerous references of how the State will recoup interest costs from the Water District(s). There is no reference of the State covering interest costs.
|
