Utah’s Water Resources: Planning for the Future

“Effectively meeting Utah's water needs involves more than providing adequate water supplies and delivery systems. Issues such as water quality and the environment must also be considered.”

November 13, 2000

The State Board of Water Resources has completed a draft "Utah State Water Plan” (Plan), under the theme of "Planning For The Future."  During October 2000, the document was made available to the public and a series of statewide public hearings scheduled during November to take public comments. On November 9, 2000 a hearing was held for the Salt Lake and Tooele District.  "The plan is not a regulatory document, but rather, a planning document," said director Larry Anderson of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) to the assembled audience. In fact, Anderson pointed out that DWR has no regulatory authority.

It appears that the drafters took care to make the document reader friendly. According to DWR, the goal of the Plan is to make sense of the issues and provide a clear vision of the state’s future water needs without needless technical water jargon and regulatory citations.

Todd Stonely, DWR engineer, the primary drafter of the Plan, gave an overhead presentation touching on the major points of the Plan. He said that the purposes of the Plan were 1) educate the public on the complicated issues of water in the state and 2) help water managers plan for the future.

The Plan seems to give more emphasis to environment, water quality and recreational  issues than the current Plan, and yet left room for additional water development. It is estimated that there is 887,000 acre-feet of water to be developed within the state; most of this in the Colorado River with 507,000 acre-feet and Bear River with 250,000 acre-feet. The 120-mile Lake Powell pipeline delivers 60,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water to Washington County in southern Utah and 10,000 acre-feet to Kane and Garfield Counties. The Plan cites the 1991 Bear River Development Act that directs DWR to develop the surface waters of the Bear River and its tributaries.  The act allocates 220,000 acre-feet of water to users along the Wasatch Front and Cache County.  In the short run the Bear River would be developed by using Willard Bay, connected by a new pipeline or canal from the Bear River where the river crosses I-15 near Honeyville. Water treatment and a conveyance system would deliver water from Willard Bay to the Wasatch Front. Placing a dam on the Bear River is deferred until the Bear River Water Conservancy District and Cache County water users need the water.

Utah is the second driest state in the union with a statewide average of 13 inches of precipitation annually. Nevada is the driest with 9 inches. Likewise the two states rank first and second in the highest per capita use of water. The Division of Water Resources has determined the total per capita water use in Utah is approximately 320 gpcd, lower than that of Nevada, but higher than the western states' average of 245 gpcd and national average of 179 gpcd. According to the Plan, 67 percent of this use is attributed to residential water use of which 67 percent is used for outdoor watering (including secondary water use).

The Plan is specific in setting a water conservation goal of reducing per capita consumption by 12.5  percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2050, reducing water demand by 405,000 acre-feet by the later date. "In the future… the demands for water imposed by a growing population will exceed presently developed supplies available for municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes. This will accelerate the trend toward water conservation in Utah," states the Plan.   It encourages conservation measures now, rather than when it becomes a crisis. According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, the state's population is expected to reach 4 million in 2020, nearly doubling the current population. Recommended conservation measures include, 1) incentive pricing, 2) outdoor watering guidelines and ordinances, 3) landscape guidelines and ordinances, 4) commercial and residential water audits, 5) retrofit, rebate and incentive programs, 6) leak detection and repair programs and 7) public education programs.

A chapter is devoted to water quality, environmental, social and recreational issues. Noting philosophical changes in the benefits of water development, the Plan notes, "About the middle of the 20th century, the federal government and state government began to recognize the need to monitor and control the growing problems of water pollution." The Plan cautions that the gains made in water quality will be further challenged in the future as the state continues to grow. Emphases are made towards preserving and restoring riparian and flood plain corridors. "Water managers and planners in Utah need to become familiar with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations required by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act and be active participants in their development and implementation," exhorts the Plan.  Stating that the future requires cooperation and compromise, the Plan reads, "It is important to recognize that growth will create a need for future water development in Utah." Continuing, "Whether good or bad, changes to the environment will occur. It is the responsibility of water managers and planners to mitigate the impacts of water resources developments to preserve the integrity of the environment as much as possible."

It was the environmental issues that produced most of the public comments. Paul Dremann, Trout Unlimited, said that he appreciated the environmental protection language in the Plan, but was disappointed that there was no enforcement language. He further questioned the absence of language dealing with agriculture water usage. Noting that 80 percent of the state's water use is devoted to agriculture, he said, "...there was not enough time spent on agriculture water and stream flows."  He urged the state to set policies to deal with stream flows and water quality. Larry Anderson responded by saying agriculture water use was not going to increase into the future and that the focus is on M&I water as the population continues to grow. "We believe that agriculture water use and development has peaked out. The emphasis to develop new water is population growth, if population projections are correct (increasing from 2.2 million today to 5 million in 2050)," said Anderson. Actually, farmland will decrease according to Anderson. "You see the farmlands decreasing as new homes are built in Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties." However, Anderson believes that agriculture land will remain the same in the Bear River Basin. Anderson further argued that agricultural water efficiency has gone up and believes that this has put more water into the streams. "In Utah farmers are not allowed to increase their acreage with saved water from efficiencies," said Anderson. Dremann disputed this, noting that the savings under state water law goes to the next in priority, thus it does not remain for instream flows.

Lynn de Freitas, President, Friends of Great Salt Lake, was disappointed that the Great Salt Lake was not mentioned. She urged that the state make a commitment to protecting the lake. "Fifty percent of the state's wetlands are around the Great Salt Lake ecosystem," said de Freitas. She further encouraged the state to talk more about comprehensive watershed planning.  Larry Anderson said that the Department of Natural Resources had done the "Great Salt Lake Planning Project," but perhaps the Great Salt Lake should have more attention in the Plan.

Zach Frankel, Rivers Council, complained that "Nothing they (Rivers Council) have been saying has been taken into account [in the Plan ]." He claimed that the state is still looking at supply and not changing demand. "Reduce today's demand, then project the need for new water," said Frankel. "Then the projections are much different (lower)."  He referenced page 25, "The contention that M&I water demand will out distance water supply is not true." A question arose regarding the state requirement that water purveyors prepare conservation plans. Larry Anderson said that 60 percent of those required preparing a plan have done so. Frankel suggested making this fact known without embarrassing those who have not yet complied. Frankel claimed that increasing water rates 50 percent would result in a 25 percent reduction in water consumption.  He further questioned the cost effectiveness of developing the Bear River. He said that in the last cost-benefit analysis, a 100-year period was used to make it effective.  "I believe that the cost will be $1 billion," said Frankel.

Utah Open Lands executive director Wendy Fisher urged the state to establish regulations to protect watersheds. "Land preservation is important," said Fisher, noting “...dams and pipelines should be regulated to protect the land.” She referred to Box Elder County where the land is prime farmland and should be protected.

Public hearings are scheduled throughout the state. Anderson encouraged public comments. He was asked to include the public comments as part of the final Plan.

For an online version of the Plan and other State Water Plan information, the address is: www.nr.state.ut.us/wtrresc/waterplan/.

PS. Contained in the Report on p.29 Table 9, is a table of water prices of various western cities. The chart indicates that Salt Lake City's rate is $0.87 per 1,000 gallons. This is not correct. The data is noted values taken from Utah Division of Water Resources, Survey of Community Drinking Water Systems, 2000, Appendix 7. 1-6. However, this does not correspond to Salt Lake City's water rates. Salt Lake City uses a "peaking rate" structure.  The summer rate during the months of June, July, August and September is $1.08 per 1,000 gallons, and during the remaining non-irrigation months $0.735.  This error has been reflected in news accounts (Deseret News, November 10, 2000) and could lead to confusion in regards to Salt Lake City's retail water customers.