slow the flow_2012[1]
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
“Slow the Flow of H2O” Evaluating A Decade of UtahWater Conservation Legislation
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. Loran Eisley
Goldberry, S.A., Summers, L.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to reservoirs and the extraction of ground water, the availability of fresh water
greatly influenced the movement of human populations within ancient Utah. Located
within the geographical boundaries of the Great Basin, Utah’s early indigenous people
lives were intricately connected to fresh water sources. While tribal boundaries were
often determined by water-ways the appropriation, or diversion of water resources was
not a major concern, as their culture, and values did not require laws for water use.
Water laws and regulations were later instigated by the Anglo-European settlers. After
arriving into the valleys that sloped westward along the Wasatch mountain-range, they
diverted water from a creek in the Salt Lake Valley for their first crops. Eventually,
Utah’s water resources were appropriated by legislation, and the simple canals
morphed into a complex system of delivery, storage systems and treatment facilities.
More recently, economics and growth have influenced the development of additional
legislation that includes water conserving ethics and regulations. This legislation was
initiated primarily to ensure the future availability, and safety of Utah’s water. Since
water conserving legislation passed in 1998, several house-bills and public outreach
programs have been adopted by water conservancy
districts, and municipalities. Their main goal has been,
“Slow the Flow of H2O.”
THE COLORADO RIVER: A LIQUID ASSET
A vital, liquid asset that has changed the landscapes of
Utah and other Western states are the waters of the Colorado
River. Critically important to seven western states, indigenous
aboriginal tribes and Mexico, it is considered to be the most regulated river in the world
(Anderson, D.L., 2002). Its head-waters originate within the peaks of the Rocky Mountain
range in Colorado and Wyoming. However, before ending its flow into the Gulf of California,
it provides water for municipalities, industry, agriculture and hydroelectric power for cities.
Five of the seven upper and lower Colorado River Basin States are among the fastest
growing in the nation. Ranked by growth they include: (1) Nevada, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado,
(4) Utah and (5) Idaho. Utah, the second driest state in the continental United States lies
within the lower and upper Colorado River Basins. In the year 2000, diversions from the
upper Colorado River totaled 953,000 acre-feet of water that was diverted at specific
tributaries throughout the state. A majority of Utah’s diversions from the Colorado occur
from the Duchene River system in the Uintah Basin. This water is then transported to
communities along the Wasatch Front through the federally funded Central Utah Water
Project (CUP).
Utah has rights to an additional 200,000 af/year of water that is calculated into its
future water budget. Within the lower Colorado River Basin, the currently unused water
is calculated to serve future populations expected to increase at a rate of 2.96% for the
next twenty years. However, growth rates for the part of the state located in the upper
basin are projected to be only 1.74% (Anderson, D.L.,2002). In 1998, recognizing that
increases in population within both upper and lower basins could equate to water
consumption in excess of supply, the state legislature passed House Bill 418. In 2004,
an amendment was passed (HB 71) that strengthened and refined certain guidelines of
the original legislation.
HOUSE BILL 418: CONSIDERING UTAH’S WATER FUTURE
Prior to the passing of House Bill 418, several communities were practicing water conservation measures that
included: universal metering, watershed protection and had adopted water conserving rates for their culinary
water supplies. H.B. 418 was written in response to the Utah Division of Water Resources, Division of Water
Rights and a Utah state government subcommittee (the Governor’s Water Conservation Team) that recognized
the importance of implementing statewide best management practices that would reduce water use, while
increasing water awareness. Moreover, the language of HB 418 preamble was one of cooperation, rather than
strongly regulatory; “…an act relating to water and irrigation; requiring water conservancy districts and water
retailers to prepare and adopt or update a water conservation plan and file it with the Division of Water
Resources; and requiring the Board of Water Resources to study the plans and make recommendations.”
Required to submit their plans by April 1, 1999, Utah’s water retailers, municipalities
and water conservancy districts serving more than 500 connections responded in
varying levels of detail. While the requirements of HB 418 were similar to those
required by Regional Drinking Water Facilities Plan initiative conducted in Utah to
meet the federally mandated 1996 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act; H.B. 418 was
comprised of ten specific measurable guidelines:
1. The installation and use of water efficient fixtures and appliances, including toilets,
shower fixtures and faucets.
2. Residential and commercial landscapes and irrigation that require less water to
maintain.
3. More water efficient industrial and commercial processes involving the use of
water.
4. Water reuse systems, both potable and not potable.
5. Distribution system leak repair.
6. Dissemination of public information regarding more efficient use of water, including
public education programs, customer water use audits, and water saving
demonstrations.
7. Water rate structures designed to encourage more efficient use of water.
8. Statutes, ordinances, codes, or regulations designed to encourage more efficient
use of water by means such as water efficient fixtures and landscapes.
9. Incentives to implement water efficient techniques, including rebates to water users
to encourage the implementation of more water efficient measures.
10. Other measures designed to conserve water.
DROUGHT CYCLES
While state models allocate for projected depletions based on historical evaporation
rates from reservoirs, the values do not include adjustments for increased temperatures
associated with global warming. The most recent drought cycle in Utah, (2000-2007)
impressed municipalities and water retailers on the necessity of having a viable drought
contingency plan. During the evaluation of the conservation plans submitted for review
from 1998-2008, the majority of the municipalities included severe drought contingency
plans as a conservation ‘Best Management Plan.’ Many municipalities had the foresight
to implement “increasing block” rate structures, concluding that they promoted
conservation, while ensuring that municipalities had adequate funds for operations and
maintenance. North Logan mayor, Val Potter observed on the interrelation between
water pricing, drought preparedness and conservation. “The drought got our attention!
Wells are drawn down, pumping costs have increased and the city is facing the expense
of developing new storage and water. We will need to conserve even after the drought.
Pricing water for conservation is our best tool.”
As the plans were evaluated for thoroughness and conservation measurability by Utah
Division of Water Resources conservation staff, additional factors were considered. (1)
municipality size and (2) the resources available for water conservation project
development. Awareness about the importance of water conservation plans varied from
progressive and detailed, to brief statements about how water conservation practices
were only necessary during times of drought. Salt Lake City, with the largest
population centers in Utah considered the definition and scope of water conservation.
“Water conservation is a set of strategies for reducing the volume of water withdrawn
from a water supply source, for reducing the loss or waste of water, for maintaining or
improving efficiency in the use of water, for increasing the recycling and reuse of
water, and for preventing the pollution of water….Every person, animal and plant which
resides within, works, or passes through our community benefits from water
conservation…” While population and the complexity of the Salt Lake City water system
contributed to the thoroughness of their conservation plan, many smaller municipalities
also included rate incentive pricing and moderately detailed water-conservation plans.
EVALUATING THE PLANS
The municipalities chosen for review spanned the entire state, from Logan City located
in the northern pan-handle of Utah, to Blanding City nestled within the red-rock
landscapes of the four-corner area in the south. Tourism, particularly in the southern
portion of the state contributes to seasonal-peak water use. Those most affected by
these seasonal fluctuations include Blanding, Moab and St. George. Many of the cities
also receive water from conservancy districts, in addition to their own developments.
As stated within H.B. 418, all water entities were responsible for submitting water
conservation plans; and while this study has focused upon municipalities their
conservancy districts are also included.
The major water conservancy districts are Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District,
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District and
Washington County Water Conservancy District. Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake and Sandy is not a conservancy district but is a major wholesale water supplier to
SLC and Sandy. There are also nineteen additional water conservancy districts located
throughout the state.
One of the primary roles of the conservancy districts is to assist their customer
agencies in reaching the conservation goals they have set. For example: Jordan Valley
Water
Conservancy
District
(JVWCD) could
never reach its
goal of twenty-
five percent
reduction in
water
deliveries by
2025 unless all
their customer
agencies were
striving to meet
an identical
Municipality
Submitted
Population
1999 2003-2007
Conservancy District
Logan 99/05 42,000 47,000 Bear River C.D.
Morgan 99/04 2,540 2,800 Weber Basin C.D.
Riverdale 99/05 8,250 8,328 Sub Roy C.D.
Centerville 99/05 15,000 17,225 Weber Basin C.D.
Salt Lake
City
99/04 313473 325,000 7 Salt Lake C.D.
West Jordan 99/09 64,200 80,812 Jordan Valley Water
C.D.
Vernal 99/05 7,700 7,714 Central Utah Project
Moab 99/06 5,200 5,200 Washington County
C.D.
Blanding 99/04 3,299 3,200 Wide Hollow C.D.
St. George 99/08 70,000 83,364 Washington County
C.D.
goal. One incentive is water-conservation grants. JVWCD provides $50,000 grants to
each of its customer cities and districts. To receive the grant a customer agencies must
illustrate quantifiable conservation measures that will facilitate the conservancy district
reaching their conservation goals. West Jordan City is a customer municipality of
JVWCD. With a similar water conserving vision to the conservancy district they have
many exceptional water conserving programs they have developed from water
conservation grants.
MEASURING CHANGE
The analysis of the water-conservation plans submitted from 1999-2009, focused upon
the implementation of the water conservation guidelines listed in both H.B. 418, and
H.B. 71. In addition, a ranking system of “Currently in Use,” and “Not in Use,” was
designated to both indoor, outdoor water conserving features. From the total number
of municipalities that were evaluated, a percentage was established for each water
conserving feature studied, and all data represents a total implementation rather than
an evaluation of each individual municipality. Data collected from the submitted plans
of H.B. 418 (1999), supplied a portrait of a statewide need to increase measureable
water conserving guidelines. From the ten suggested practices outlined within H.B.
418 only two water conserving practices; water metering for culinary water sources
and mulching programs were implemented by fifty percent of the selected cities, and
conservancy districts. In many instances the submitted water conservation plans
lacked reference to a particular guideline.
Low-flow faucets
Dual flush toilets
Low-flow showers
Indoor leak checks
Water Meter (culinary)
ET Systems
Water Reuse
Mulching
Water Efficient Landscaping
Community Conservation Group
Time/Over Watering Ordinance
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not in Use Currently in Use
Table 1: Evaluation of selected Utah municipalities interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs as submitted in their H.B. 418 water conservation plans (1999). Categorized by the rate of use, or in some instances not applicable.
Low-flow faucets
Low-flow showers
Water Meter (potable)
ET Weather Stations
Water Efficient Landscaping
Time/Watering Ordinances
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not in Use Currently in Use
Table 2: The 2004-2009 evaluation of selected Utah municipalities’ interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs, as directed by H.B. 71. Categorized by the implementation of water conserving programs outlined within the H.B.
Almost a decade later, H.B. 71 was enacted by the state. Municipalities and
conservancy districts were required to reevaluate and resubmit their water
conservation plans. Many municipalities, particularly those located within dense urban
centers began to implement landscape rebates. Furthermore, the economics of water
was considered, as several municipalities included changes in their water rate
structures. Complimentary water-audits created more partnerships between
conservancy districts and provided an environment where ‘Community Conservation
Groups’ could flourish. Additional water conservation measures, including water reuse
in the landscape, and water metering for secondary water saw an increase though it
still ranked below fifty percent.
Additional measures within H.B. 71
were included into the new plans.
Several conservancy districts now had
demonstration water conservation
landscapes for area citizens and
businesses to glean inspiration from,
and over sixty percent had
measureable results from their water
education programs. Other successful
measures included large-user water
conservation programs for industry,
municipal parks, and by-ways. West Jordan illustrated the estimated costs of water-
savings of their conservation programs, and the associated costs per acre-feet.
City of West Jordan Estimated Costs of Water Savings
of Conservation Programs
ProgramCost per Acre-Feet
of Water Savings
Commercial Landscape
Ordinance$14
ULFT Rebate Program $75
“Water Check” Audit Program $50
4th Grade Educational Program $235
RAINWATER HARVESTING: A POPULAR DIVERSION
Recent legislation has recently added another dimension to water conservation efforts,
rainwater harvesting. While the harvesting of rainwater is an ancient worldwide
practice dating back to circa 1,500 B.C. (Hicks, 2008), individuals have been unable to
practice it due to the state of Utah’s established water laws that follow the Doctrine of
Prior Appropriation. The major tenants of the law are “First in time is first in right.” and
“Use it or lose it.” During the early-anglo settlement the right to use water was simply
established by diverting the water from its primary source and then applying it for a
beneficial use.
Consequently, the prior interpretation of rainwater harvesting meant that water was
being removed from use downstream, and appeared to contradict the “First in time,
first in right,” doctrine. However, Senate Bill 128 is representative with how individuals
view water in Utah and may promote greater water stewardship. While the amount of
water that can be harvested is only 2,500 gallons in an underground container or 55
gallons in two above ground containers/parcel (lot), it may facilitate increased wise-
water use applications of non-potable water in landscape and toilet-flushing.
Particularly, when rainwater harvesting contributes positively to the equation that
describes monthly conservation practices: Supply > Demand (Kinkade-Levario, 2007).
THE ULTIMATE PARTNERSHIP: PRICING AND CONSERVATION
House Bill 418 forges a link between water rates and conservation with the statement
that, “Water conservation plans may include information regarding: (among other
things) water rate structures designed to encourage more efficient use of water.” The
latest document produced by the Utah Division of Water Resources in its State Water
Planning Program, titled The Jordan River Basin Plan, points out the major difficulty in
setting water rates for conservation in Utah. Water is cheap. The average cost per
1,000 gallons of water in the Jordan River Basin, where most of the people live is just
$1.60. The state average is $1.15 compared to the national average of $2.50 (UDWR,
2010).
A widespread custom used in setting water rates is to set the price of water at a level
where revenues equal the cost of delivery. To stay true to this cost of service principle
cities and districts avoid increasing the price of water to incentivize customers to
achieve their conservation goals. Instead, some utilities have moved into some
innovative conservation rate structures. Salt Lake City, for example adopted a seasonal
rate structure, as have five other major water suppliers in Salt Lake County. Some
suppliers have added an increasing block feature to their summer rate.
A somewhat new form of rate structure that is slowly gaining popularity sets a water
budget or allocation for each customer in the residential, commercial or other customer
classes. No water providers in Utah have implemented this as yet but one major
conservancy districts and one improvement district are taking a serious look. This
water budget rate structure combines improved education on an enhanced water bill
with tough overage charges for water used in excess of the water budget. With this one
the utility is responsible for deciding what amount of water constitutes efficient use for
each customer. The customer is responsible for using water appropriately or paying a
much higher price for the wasted water. In some cases the extra revenue from the
higher rates is used to fund conservation programs targeted toward helping those who
are using excessive amounts.
Utah’s most popular conservation rate structure is the increasing block rate with 42
percent of the drinking water systems using it. As also with the other rate structures
mentioned, a base fee ranging from $2.88 to a high of $36.00 is applied for each
customer and often no water is granted for this fee (Utah Division Water Resources,
2010) An increasing commodity charge is then set for each succeeding price block.
CONCLUSION: CONSERVATION’S BOTTOM LINE
Municipalities of all population sizes implemented many proactive and measureable
additions into their water conservation plans. Several larger municipalities had
exemplary water conservation plans that were both quantifiable and visionary. West
Jordan City is one example of successfully implementing comprehensive BMP’s. Since
H.B. 418 their per capita water use has decreased from 227 gallons per capita per day
(gpcpd) to 193 gpcpd. These values reflect a 15% decrease in use from 2000.
Moreover, the effectiveness of their water conservation programs is reflected in their
expenditures and project water savings (WJC Conservation Plan, 2009).
Evaluation of the selected plans
illustrated that conservation, education
and equitable water rate structures are a
necessary component for dynamic water
conserving plans. The magnitude of
providing adequate and quality water,
while promoting water conservation
ethics will require continued vigilance
and evaluation of the best management
practices (BMP’s) described within both
house bills. The future of Utah’s water is dependent upon commitment from the entire
spectrum of water users and a heightened recognition of our interdependency to all life
and that our actions will benefit a future that we cannot see.
REFFERENCES Anderson, D.L. (2002) The Colorado River, Utah’s Perspective, Utah Division of Water
Resources,2nd ed. State of Utah Department of Natural Resources.
http://www.water.utah.gov/Interstate/TheColoradoRiverart.pdf.]
Gleick, P.H., Chalecki, E.L. (2001) The Impacts of Climate Changes for Water Resources
of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins. Paper No. 99085
of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2000.
Hicks, B. (2008) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial
Facilities in Arlington County, Virginia. Masters Thesis. Nickolas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences. Duke University.
http://www.rainharvest.com/more/MastersProjectRainHarvest_200805.pdf
Kindade-Levario, H.( 2007.) Design for Water, Gabriola Island, British Columbia,
Canada. New Society Publishers.
Longuevergne, L. et al (2011). GRACE Hydrological estimates for small basins:
Evaluating processing approaches on the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water
Resources Research, VOL. 46, W11517.
Utah Division of Water Resources, (2010). Jordan River Basin Plan. pg.90-91.
West Jordan City 2009 Water Conservation Plan Update. (2009). Current Water
Conservation Programs. Ch. 3. pg.11-12.