The Lake Powell Pipeline, Part II: Why the pipeline is necessary

This is the second part in a series examining the issue of the Lake Powell Pipeline. Read part one here.

Washington County is growing. The cities of St. George and Washington City are expanding at a rate that is one of the fastest in the country. Growing pains are part of the equation, and one of the biggest issues for the cities of southern Utah is water.

St. George and the municipalities surrounding it are very “thirsty,” consuming water at a rate higher than the national average. This level of consumption is unsustainable with the current growth unless more water is made available.

There’s no silver bullet, there’s no magic wand. We really wish there was. We have to do all of these things, with conservation being number one on the list. We won’t meet the demand of the double population without that multifaceted approach. — Joshua Palmer

For the leadership of Washington County, the answer is simple: The Lake Powell Pipeline must be built.

County Commissioner Alan Gardner says that with expected growth, the Lake Powell Pipeline is the only reasonable option. All other options are too expensive.

“We just have to have the water. We’re paying to conserve water. It is considerably more per acre foot,” Gardner said. “Conservation is very important to us. We need to keep conserving, but the Lake Powell Pipeline was cheaper water than what we’re paying. We can only conserve to a certain point. We can’t come close to conserving for the amount of water we’re going to need for the future.”

Gardner says that since the 1960s, the population of Washington County has roughly doubled every decade, and that trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

“I anticipate we are going to see similar growth,” Gardner said. “The state is projecting us by 2050 to be up around 400,000. I don’t know that we’ll get that high. As people continue to live here, we’re going to need the water.”

Gardner said that his ancestors were among the original settlers of the area, and he hopes that his family will have the option of continuing to reside here.

“It’s been an important place for our family to live, and I hope that my grand kids—most of them, they’re all here in the area—if they chose to live here, they would have that opportunity.”

Joshua Palmer, public information officer for the Utah Division of Water Resources, says that the Lake Powell Pipeline, while necessary, is not a magic bullet but part of a much larger, multi-layered approach to water problems in Washington County.

“Utah in general, and Washington County specifically, are experiencing significant growth,” Palmer said. “Eighty percent of this growth comes from our children and grandchildren. Our kids don’t bring water with them when they’re born. We’re looking at the doubling of the population [of St. George] by 2060 and even more significant than that in Washington County. It requires a multifaceted solution.”

Palmer says that conservation is one layer of the multi-faceted approach.

“We have to conserve more,” Palmer said. “It’s everybody’s responsibility to make water-wise decisions. That is number one on the list. Second, we have to take advantage of agricultural to municipal water transfers on a free market basis. We respect and value the agricultural community. They’re such an important part of the state’s way of life and economy. This can’t be something that we mandate. It is an important part of the solution. Third, we have to take advantage and make the best use of the water allocation we have to further meet the population demands.”

Palmer emphasized that there were no quick fixes or easy solutions to the water issues the County is facing.

“There’s no silver bullet; there’s no magic wand,” he said. “We really wish there was. We have to do all of these things, with conservation being number one on the list. We won’t meet the demand of the double population without that multifaceted approach.”

We’re not developing a water supply for the next ten years. We’re really developing a water supply for the 30-40 years beyond that. — Ron Thompson

According to 2013 figures from the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD), residents of Washington County use approximately 144 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), with 63 GPCD of that going to indoor use and 81 GPCD for outdoor use. According to the United States Geological Survey, figures for the average water use in the United States vary but are estimated between 80 – 100 GPCD. This places residents of Washington County ahead of the national average. Despite that, according to the WCWCD, the County has decreased its water use by 26 percent between 2000 and 2010.

However, Palmer also says that when it comes to comparing water usage, it is important to take into consideration that not all water usage numbers are created equally.

“We need to compare apples to apples,” Palmer said. “A lot of the Eastern United States might not be running their sprinklers as much. That is because they are getting a whole lot more precipitation. Precipitation, especially in the warmer months, really does make a difference. We do need to conserve more, and that’s a really big part of the solution.”

The WCWCD states that total renewable water available for the district is approximately 30,000 acre feet. Those water supplies come from a combination of surface and ground sources. Surface sources are direct diversions, for example, a creek diverted to flow into a reservoir. Ground sources are supplies of water such as springs and wells. All of Washington County’s water comes from the Virgin River watershed.

The Utah Division of Water Resources states that when the Lake Powell Pipeline is fully developed, it will supply 82,000 acre feet per year to Washington County. Combined with current resources, this should supply over 110,000 acre feet of water to the County. For comparison, Albuquerque, a city of over 500,000—roughly comparable to the population growth estimates for Washington County in 35 years—uses approximately 98,000 acre feet per year. The GPCD for Albuquerque is 148, slightly higher than Washington County residents. The city’s stated goal is to reduce per person daily use down to 135 gallons by 2024.

Ron Thompson, general manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District, says that when considering the Lake Powell Pipeline, it is important to examine its historical context.

“In the 1970s, we were a community of 13,000 people,” Thompson said. “Today we’re about 150-160,000. We get 5.5 million tourists here every year. We’re one of the fastest growing areas, in fact outstripping the state growth by two or three times. Top ten in terms of county growth in the country. When you put that in context and you look at the state models of the governor’s office planning a budget projecting a population over half a million people here, our job is to provide water for whatever that forecast is.”

Thompson also said that the added constraints of conservation issues make finding enough water to satisfy the future needs of the County a more difficult proposition.

“When we look at our water resources of the Virgin River, it’s just not going to support all of that, particularly when you put on top of that all the environmental issues that we deal with in this river system.”

According to Thompson, the worries about the project being too expensive are largely overblown.

“You’re talking about a billion dollar project,” he said. “When we built Quail Creek [Reservoir] it was a $30 million project on a $100 million tax base, and we’re looking at [with the pipeline] a billion dollar project on a $15 billion tax base. I think this economy is so much stronger now comparatively to what it was in the early 1980s, that while it is expensive, it’s not something we can’t economically handle.”

Both Thompson and Palmer agree that attaching any price tag to the Lake Powell Pipeline is premature since much study and analysis remains.

“One thing that is very important is that we are very early in the process,” Palmer said. “Multiple, different alternatives will be evaluated in an environmental process. The final cost will be dependent on which alternative is selected at the end of the process. We feel that it is a little bit premature just to say ‘it’s just going to cost this.’ We know that estimates have been thrown out there before, but there’s still much of that that depends on the process. We feel like it’s important to trust the process.”

Thompson echoed that sentiment. He said that the recent report cited in Part I of this series by 21 economists criticizing the plan was flawed in its analysis.

“When I compare their cost estimates with what we’re building things for in southern Utah, if anything they’re overestimating slightly the cost,” Thompson said. “There’s just assumptions in there we don’t agree on.”

Thompson pointed out that the basis for the financing was legislated into law.

“The statute, which is the current law for financing it, has a finance plan laid out in it. That was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate, and one dissenting vote in the House and signed by the governor,” he said. “That’s the current law for how that project will be financed and paid for. Assuming we follow that, and [the economists] chose not to in their analysis, the economic impact is not too serious. Frankly, when you look at theirs, if you got at the price they’re talking about, you’re talking some increase of less than a penny per gallon to pay for that project.”

When it comes to the overall cost, Thompson stated that southern Utah has historically had some of the lowest water rates in the nation, and in order to guarantee future water supplies, those rates would inevitably be raised. He also said that the alternative was a much worse option.

“There’s no question it’s a big project,” he said. “There’s no question that water’s going to cost significantly more. In Utah, we’re used to cheap water. When you look at big metropolitan areas of the West, our water rates are less than two dollars a thousand [gallons], and their water rates are closer to ten. The fact that our water is going to cost slightly more in the future I don’t think is a deal killer. Running out of water’s the deal killer.”

Unlike other counties and metropolitan areas, Washington County does not have a diverse source of water, and building the Lake Powell Pipeline would ensure that it has enough water to see it through tough times.

“We’re just coming through the fourth year of a significant drought. As you move from 150,000 people to 500,000, you’ve got have a more diverse water resource, and Lake Powell provides that,” Thompson said. “In water, we’re planning decades in advance. It takes so long to put them online, get them ready, get them permitted, go through agencies. We’re not developing a water supply for the next ten years; we’re really developing a water supply for the 30-40 years beyond that.”

Next week: A critical analysis of the arguments.

Read part one here:

The Lake Powell Pipeline, Part I: boon or boondoggle