Utah’s 2019 Regional Conservation Plan Draft lacks vision for sustainable future
Over a year ago, the Utah Division of Water Resources began the process of developing regional water conservation goals for our state. The process included a survey, eight open houses, and interviews with “key” stakeholders to gather information from the public, landscape professionals, and leaders. Earlier this year, the first draft plan was created but not officially released. Apparently, they went back to the drawing board and have finally come up with this latest draft, “Regional Conservation Goals Draft,” now out for public comment until Sept. 25.
The draft plan was released Sept. 7 for comment. You would think that after having over a year to develop this complex plan the DWRe would have given the public more than a couple of weeks to review, digest, and comment. But there you go. That’s what our tax dollars buy us!
The geneses of the plan were a 2015 state water audit and the “Recommended State Water Strategy.” The draft plan divides the state into nine regions. Our region, the “Lower Colorado River South,” includes both Washington County and Kane County. The regional goals are meant to consider the various climates, populations, and water practices in various regions of the state.
Deciding what our water conservation goals will be as we plan for the next several decades is incredibly important. That cannot be emphasized enough! If our goals are too low, we will continue to waste water, a precious resource, resulting in the need to get more at great distance and at great cost via the proposed multi-billion dollar Lake Powell Pipeline.
Although public surveys and open houses were held, the central process for developing this document was a closed process with the majority of those involved being water agency people. Trout Unlimited, Audubon Society, and Friends of Great Salt Lake are the only conservation organizations listed on the 39-member list of those involved in the project. By far the majority of those on the list are statewide water district employees. Our own local conservation organization, Conserve Southwest Utah, on whose board I serve, was not included and not even invited to participate — although our 2,000 members and all other Washington County citizens will be expected to live with the results and repay the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline costs. I have to add that although I’m on CSU’s board, I am not writing to formally express CSU’s concerns about the plan. This analysis and the concerns generally are my own.
The 178-page document focuses on municipal and industrial water. Included in M&I water is residential, commercial, institutional (school, parks, etc.), and industrial water but excluded are agriculture, mining, aquaculture, and power generation. Nearly 100 pages of the 178-page document are filled with appendix materials. The plan is a bit of a slog to work through, but here’s my 30,000-foot analysis, which may provide some details readers can use for their own comments. Still, I recommend that interested citizens take a look at the plan themselves. For those who don’t want to wade through even my analysis, here are the key points:
—The water conservation goals for 2030 and projections for 2040 and 2065 are anemic and would require that we build the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline at great cost.
—Scenarios developed to come up with conservation goals appear skewed.
—Water conservation methods suggested seem to cost too much and provide too little benefit.
—The planning process was closed and comprised mainly water district personnel.
Now let me explain the plan in greater detail. As stated, the goals for 2030 and goal projections for 2040 and 2065 are extremely weak. Projections for 2040 and 2065 will be revisited in 2030 but not changed before then. In spite of the weak goals, the plan’s preface states:
“The 2030 water conservation goals in this report will require significant effort, increased attention, participation and funding from the legislature, state agencies, municipal water retailers, local elected officials, wholesale public water suppliers and citizens of Utah.”
It seems as if the DWRe is trying to color readers’ perceptions before they even read the report so that once they get to the anemic goals they will perhaps think that we can’t do any better and that it’s not worth trying. But we can and must do better! Other desert communities already have done much better. Where is that busy, industrious, beehive spirit Utahns like to promote?
The plan also states that “prompt action on water conservation will bring the most benefit.” So, two warnings are offered: it will be difficult but we’d best get on with it.
The 2030 reduction goal is based on 2015 baseline gallons per capita per day (gpcd) usage. For example, Washington County, which ranks among the worst in water use in the country, currently uses a little over 300 gpcd. The 2015 baseline usage for the Lower Colorado River South region (Washington and Kane counties) is 305 gpcd.
The 2030 statewide reduction goals (reduction from 2015 to 2030) range from a low of 11 percent for Salt Lake (already an area of low-end water use in Utah: 210 gpcd) to 20 percent for four regions (two of which used 400 gpcd and 333 gpcd in 2015). The 2030 goal for Washington County’s region (Lower Colorado River South) is 262 gpcd — a 14 percent reduction from 2015.
The Lower Colorado River South region 2030 goal of 262 gpcd amounts to about 0.1 percent per year (14 percent total from 2015 to 2030). Other desert communities have had conservation achievements far in excess of this, and they still are thriving communities. The 2065 projected goal for our region (237 gpcd) amounts to a 0.4 percent reduction from our 2015 305gpcd usage over 50 years. We can do better, and if we do better, we won’t need the Lake Powell Pipeline for many decades, if ever.
The draft plan wants us to focus on the 2030 goal but the time frame for the Lake Powell Pipeline is around 2060 so we need to be thinking beyond 2030 when it comes to our conservation efforts.
Even the proposed paltry conservation efforts will cost the state $1.4 billion by 2030 but that “number is based on estimated capital costs only and does not reflect any potential cost savings or on-ledger offsets associated with conservation.” Is it really fair to look at the capital costs only with no regard to real “benefit” costs?
How these recommended goals will be achieved specifically is not included in the plan, and the plan is clear that it is not a “comprehensive strategy plan.” The plan does state that the “goals require the state and its municipalities to increase water pricing, establish and enforce water use ordinances, encourage broader adoption of existing water technology, as well as secure additional funding to reach the target water use levels.”
Some key recommendations in the plan include reducing new lot sizes and other land use changes to encourage reduced water use, reductions in grass, secondary meters and smart controllers for outside, increased water pricing with increasing tiers, education, policies that require accountability for efficient water use, conservation plans by water producers that define local goals, practices, pricing, and accountability.
The plan offers some residential conservation policy suggestions but adds that their implementation will depend on the cost of water — higher cost, quicker adoption. Outdoor water, which is a bigger problem than indoor water, still faces challenges. If lot sizes decrease and landscaping improves, that will help, along with education about poor water practices. Unmetered “secondary” (untreated) water connections use about 50 percent more water than metered. Adding secondary meters holds great potential, but with lawmakers balking in the 2019 legislature at mandating secondary meters, this will remain a large area of concern and shows leaders’ unwillingness to tackle big issues. However, with irrigation efficiency currently at 63 percent, those using secondary water can still help by improving watering methods.
Again, the pursuit of aggressive water-rate increases by policymakers and education programs could help accelerate efficiency, but will that happen?
The plan emphasizes that how we landscape has a lot to do with how effective conservation efforts will be. Eliminating or minimizing traditional cool-season turf grasses and changing sprinkling systems to drip irrigation can save significant amounts of water. We can save even more by using native and climate-adapted landscape plants. So there is much under our own control. Even with these suggestions, the plan scenarios for our water future show little change in our region for existing homes — even though people are converting — and not much real change for new development, possibly an indication of developers’ and leaders’ lack of appetite to adopt and enforce limitations on grass.
The plan acknowledges that an issue of concern for many water suppliers is climate change, which has potential to affect irrigation needs. This makes it even more critical that homeowners and others choose native and climate-adapted landscape plants and little or no grass to ensure our consumption continues to decrease.
Although the focus of the plan is residential water use, commercial, institutional, and industrial water use are considered in the plan with most emphasis on institutional use — where the plan authors see most opportunity for water savings due to outside grass and watering techniques. They assert that little water savings is anticipated in the commercial and industrial area, which seems a flaw in the plan. Commercial and industrial businesses also landscape. Shouldn’t the potential savings in landscaping for then also be considered? Also, as leaders make decisions for new businesses in communities, consideration of the type of business and their water needs must be considered if our water future is so important.
A comprehensive strategy for the funding, development, use, or management of Utah’s water resources is not part of this draft conservation goal plan. So how do these proposed goals for 2030, 2040, and 2065 tie into our own water supply without the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline? We must be sure that our goal for water use is not greater than our water supply or we will have created a scenario where we must have the Lake Powell Pipeline.
The plan admits that “In some areas, there may not be any other significant new sources. Consequently, conservation must occur in order to meet Utah’s growing population in the long term, regardless of any future water developed. With limited viable limited water resources, it is prudent for the residents of the state to implement some practices now in order to stretch the available remaining water supply to meet future demands.” This is particularly important for our quickly growing area where we can rely on and benefit from our local resources for many decades to come if our conservation practices are conceived, implemented, managed, and enforced well.
Unfortunately, actual regional supplies were not considered by the draft plan writers, and perhaps the heavy hand of our local district that wants the Lake Powell Pipeline is the reason. Without the Lake Powell Pipeline, the water district says that it can provide 100,000 acre feet — over 32 billion gallons — of water! That amount would support over 500,000 people using 175-180 gpcd — well within what other areas are using now.
But 175-180 gpcd is not a goal this plan sets. The goals the plan has set will require that we build the Lake Powell Pipeline! That’s where you can see the heavy hand of our local water district in the goals set for our region. Even under the most aggressive conservation policy options suggested in the plan, our region’s proposed goals for 2030, 2040, and 2065 respectively would be 246, 232, and 222. However, at least the 2065 goal of 222 gpcd would get us close to where we need to be.
Per the plan, “Per-capita use is computed according to the permanent population (excluding tourist and commuter populations).” The state and our district emphasize this because they can use that to justify how second homes and visitors drive up our M&I usage number. But other areas such as Phoenix and Las Vegas also have large numbers of second homes and visitors using their water while using less water than we do. Phoenix uses 111 gpcd, and Las Vegas uses 203 gpcd.
I am willing to admit that you can’t compare two areas in absolute terms because of differences in climate, elevation, etc. But I think it’s still fair to compare us to other desert communities generally, and we don’t compare very well when it comes to water use.
The plan asserts that “water development and water conservation should be considered in parallel.” I do not disagree, and our water district has project plans on the books without the Lake Powell Pipeline for securing water. A parallel path does not mean that the Lake Powell Pipeline should be on the parallel path at this time. We can do much to secure our water future before building a risky, expensive pipeline from an over-allocated river that may not be able to provide the water.
The plan also notes that “Utah’s existing water infrastructure is aging, requiring significant investments to replace it.” This is something that many people don’t consider, but is critical. Should we be investing huge amounts of money in new, unneeded infrastructure over conservation, which can be done incrementally, when we already have aging infrastructure that needs money for repair?
Suggested water conservation practices include an extensive list and include:
—Targeting high residential and commercial water users.
—Implementing business water-efficiency management plans.
—Increasing stakeholder coordination.
I don’t know exactly how many of the suggested conservation practices are currently being done in our county. But a cursory review reveals that many are. I also don’t know how successful they’ve been. If our current use of 303 gpcd versus the 2015 baseline number (305 gpcd) is any indication, perhaps the measures have not been very effective and we need to look at other options.
I’m fairly certain that the three suggestions bulleted above have not been implemented. Our district water manager mentioned several years ago that a small percentage of water users are driving up our consumption. Have those users been identified? Have they been counseled? What about increasing stakeholder involvement and coordination? As noted, the members of the plan team are mostly water district members. When our own water district held its Community Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee meetings in 2013, most committee members were handpicked citizens who supported the Lake Powell Pipeline. With many citizens questioning the Lake Powell Pipeline at this point, stakeholder involvement and coordination needs to be expanded.
As mentioned earlier, a public survey was included in the study, as were eight open houses attended by approximately 100 people. The online survey, which collected 1,655 responses from a total Utah population of about 3,000,000, ran during September and October 2018. This does not seem like a lot of public input compared to the amount of water district input to the plan as revealed on the stakeholder list. Of the 1,655 who answered the online survey, most were in age groups 29–39, 40–50, and 60+. Respondents were divided fairly equally between those age groups. Most had single-family homes. The majority were on lots of 0.25 acre or less. The survey results reveal that not all 1,655 answered all questions. It’s clear from the survey results that most did not know how much water they use, but the survey question was very poorly worded, and many did not even answer it. Nearly 70 percent felt that water conservation is very important for sustainability, but about 40 percent felt their community did not really support water conservation. A little over 50 percent said they were willing to change their landscape to add more water-wise plants and features. The survey questions seemed to require a certain level of understanding about water use that many citizens would not have at this point.
Fortunately, the plan states that “it is recognized that this is not the final step in goal setting.” The model provided is a tool in that process. So at this point, we are fortunately not locked into these anemic goals that do not serve the future of our county or our state well. The report states in the “Implementation” section:
“The pursuit of the regional M&I water conservation goals will be an endeavor of immense magnitude. All levels of society — not just water suppliers — must engage over extended time periods. Since changing water use behavior, policies, and technologies will become more difficult and expensive with time, prompt action on water conservation will bring the most benefit.”
This seems like another attempt to scare citizens about conservation. If conservation is so scary, how have other places been so successful in their efforts? Surely we are made of the right stuff to get this done.
For this plan to succeed even with its anemic conservation goals, “State, county, and local leaders should establish policies which require accountability for efficient water use.” To date, I have witnessed no willingness on the part of leaders to deal with accountability.
Also needed is an adequate focus on water use by commercial, institutional, and industrial entities. Will our businesses and business-friendly leaders be willing to do this? That’s an interesting question, because as I was writing this opinion piece, I received an email about the “Save 2% for Utah” campaign started by 50 Utah businesses that are asking Gov. Herbert to adopt a sensible water conservation goal of 2 percent per year for 25 years, rather than the current goal of 1 percent per year. The current 1 percent per year goal is now being reduced to 0.5 percent per year for the next 50 years by this draft conservation goal plan. Apparently, many businesses are willing to get on board for a better water future. I hope others do, too.
Basically, all water users are essential to conservation and extending the life of our water resources. I’ve provided my thoughts on the state’s plan. There’s a lot more in the plan than what I’ve covered here. I suggest that readers take a look at the plan and submit their own comments. Or, if readers don’t want to review the bulky plan but think that water is precious and conservation important, then tell the state that!
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “Utah’s 2019 Regional Conservation Plan Draft lacks vision for sustainable future”
Water conservation and the Lake Powell Pipeline: A conundrum
Public comment sought for newly established regional water conservation goals
Quagga mussels in Lake Powell pose threat to our water supply
