Slide 16, WCWCD water supply-demand balance Spreadsheet column U, "estimated demand in GPCD": unexplained.

Slide 17, Consumption: GPCD (column E) unexplained

Slides 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52: same problem

Slide 29: "Price elasticity assumptions have been integrated into the WCWCD’s supply-demand estimates since 2016". I've seen no evidence of that.

Slide 37: spreadsheet column E, "assumed GPCD", unexplained

Slide 38, 39, 40: same

Slide 41: no underlying spreadsheet. Current dollars? Cost of pipeline netted out?

Slide 63, "What is the revenue generating capacity of WCWCD considering price elasticity and conservation?": spreadsheet column E, "GPCD before system loss", unexplained

Slide 65, "What is the revenue generating capacity of WCWCD considering price elasticity and conservation?": neither columns D nor E explained.

Slides 67, 68: no underlying spreadsheet. "Adjusted GPCD" completely unexplained.

Slide 70: column E, "total equivalent residential connections," unexplained.

Slide 84: Debt paid by State of Utah, cumulative $2 billion in undiscounted dollars, repaid in 15 years.

Slide 85: On left, debt paid by State of Utah, cumulative $2 billion in undiscounted dollars, repaid before 2035. On right, debt paid by WCWCD, cumulative $2 billion in undiscounted dollars, the majority repaid after 2035. This suggests that the discounted value of WCWCD repayments is less than the discounted value of State payments (so there's a permanent State subsidy for the pipeline); further calculation described on my web page confirms this. The District is not calculating the present value of either payment stream, instead willy-nilly adding dollars of different years together.

Slides 86, 87, 88: same.

Slides 89, 90: underlying spreadsheet column K, "debt service (principal and interest)", unexplained. This seems to be only on the WCWCD debt.

Slide 91, "Would Washington County Have Sufficient Funds to Make the Required Payments?": spreadsheet column F, "incremental water rates", unexplained.

Slide 92: same

Slides 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109: We used the wholesale price of water, since the WCWCD is a wholesaler. (Confirmed on Slide 101.) (Note how easy it is for the District to follow our logic. But when we try to follow their logic, it's impossible because they have not provided enough details.)

Slide 113: "This, in turn, reduces total water demanded from 16.2 billion to 6.2 billion, resulting in a 61.5-percent decrease in per capita water use in Washington County. Because this reduction in water use would be impractical to achieve, the professors conclude that the Lake Powell Pipeline is infeasible." No we don't. It would be feasible. It's just that no one would want to buy any water from the pipeline, so the pipeline would never be used.

Slide 114: Our January 2017 analysis of the difference between the wholesale & retail demand curves is at http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~lozada/Research/Wholesale_Retail_7.pdf

Slide 115, "Using the correct price of water in Washington County, the total water demanded, as estimated by the professors, generates approximately $38.5 million per year as compared to $7.2 million." Yes but most of that does not belong to the WCWCD so it's completely irrelevant.

Slide 122, "Assumes Ample Water Exists: “Washington County has ample water to serve future populations without participation in the Lake Powell Pipeline." We did not assume this, we concluded it.

"Assumes an Accelerated Timeline for the LPP Project Model assumes that the residents of Washington County begin paying for the cost of the Lake Powell Pipeline in 2015, the year before the analysis was completed"

An initial repayment-free number of years can be entered in cell N10 of our tabs "first scenario" and "second scenario." In "second scenario" N10 is already set to 10 years. We used 2015 because that was after our analysis was begun; little would change by updating all the dates. (See also Slide 123.)

"Ignores the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act; Assumes a straight-line amortization (mortgage) approach to repayment of the pipeline"

In our spreadsheet is straight-line amortization is used to calculate what is owed ("Scenario" tabs' Column M) but not what is paid, so "Scenario" tabs' Columns R, T, and V show frequent deficits.

Slide 125: The figures come from Column K of tabs "first scenario" and "second scenario" of our spreadsheet, as the document the District excerpted explicitly states two sentences after the excerpt. The figures differ from theirs because, as just pointed out, we do not use straight-line amortization.