Water conservation and the Lake Powell Pipeline: A conundrum
At the 2019 Utah Water Users Workshop in March, one presenter noted that when water is scarce, conservation seems important, but when water is abundant, attitudes change. This speaks to my concern: If the state and our water district secure approval and money to build the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline, what will happen to conservation? Even now, as we are warned that we are running out of water — a warning that lacks data to back it up — our conservation efforts are lacking.
The Washington County Water Conservancy District gives itself much credit for water conservation in our county. But the proof is not there to substantiate that claim and take credit. We are still using 303 gallons per capita, or gpcd, per day — 140 gpcd is residential — more than any other desert community. Our district and state say that we should not compare ourselves to other areas, but they do exactly that when it suits their purposes.
The January 2019 “Water Needs Assessment: Water Use and Conservation Update” was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Lake Powell Pipeline licensing. In their last-minute submittal, the Water Needs Assessment challenged public comments made during that comment period. As usual, the state and district got the last word, and citizens and organizations were given no opportunity to respond to FERC regarding their assertions. The document is filled with the state’s and district’s reason for needing the Lake Powell Pipeline while discounting the true value of conservation. So, if the state and district are discounting the value of conservation by arguing that we must have the Lake Powell Pipeline, where will their commitment to conservation go once water flows? Down the drain, I believe! They say that both conservation and the Lake Powell Pipeline are needed, but one must wonder how much they will hold to that.
The report asserts, as has been done repeatedly for the 13 years I’ve studied this issue, that if we conserve too much, we will face dire consequences. But other areas that have conserved more and use less water have not experienced dire consequences. Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and others all seem to be doing well. Yes, there are Colorado River challenges as we’ve seen from recent Drought Contingency Plan negotiations and will see in the future as negotiations continue. But conservation has not caused their problems. Conservation has allowed those areas to grow — which could be a good or bad thing depending on one’s perspective.
But too much reliance on conservation is not the only warning offered by the state and our water district. Single reliance on the Virgin River is a hook that the state and district have been using for 13 years to convince us to build the Lake Powell Pipeline. This latest report to FERC asserts that “water supply models designed to project future flow scenarios in the Virgin River under differing climate regimes call into question the annual reliability of the quantity of water available from this source,” but I could find no details to support this.
The report asserts that with so many variables, it’s “not possible to pinpoint the exact amount of water supply that will be necessary at a specific point in time.” However, that said, with so much to lose by overextending ourselves on a multi-billion dollar project, we have to rely to a certain extent on projections. We are projected to have around 500,000 residents by 2065. If those 500,000 residents use 175–180 gpcd, that would amount to between 99,722 and 102,571 acre feet per year of water. That’s within what the county says it can provide without the Lake Powell Pipeline, which doesn’t include the 140,000 acre feet under Sand Hollow Reservoir that serves as a safety supply for drought protection. According to a United States Geological Survey report, the Sand Hollow aquifer recharge from 2002–14 averaged around 10,000 acre feet per year (127,000 acre feet total). So although this storage is for drought protection, that’s a lot of water that could be used in the future and is growing substantially every year, eventually to 300,000 acre feet! As this county nears 2060, the larger population can determine if they want to build the Lake Powell Pipeline, and we can easily and effectively use incremental conservation measures to get us there.
According to the Water Needs Assessment report, the state and district feel that those who would “forego development of Lake Powell Pipeline and instead rely primarily on conservation in combination with agricultural water transfers fail to acknowledge the immense risk associated with a failure to timely utilize available Colorado River supplies.” They do not explain what “failure to utilize available Colorado River supplies” really means. The Division of Water Resources director has made it clear that our Colorado River water right is not in jeopardy. Those who are focused on getting the Colorado River supplies now fail to acknowledge the climate change projections for diminished flows in the river. Isn’t it prudent to take a wait-and-see attitude since we don’t need the water?
The report asserts that the district has “aggressively, and successfully, pursued conservation objectives for many years.” And yet, in 2013, when the Community Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee met, the district’s Las Vegas consultant’s presentation revealed that we were using 270 gpcd while now we are using 303 gpcd. Seems we’re headed in the wrong direction. If that 270 gpcd did not include all water being used, that was not made clear by the district or the consultant.
The state’s new conservation goal for Washington County is 259 gallons per person per day in 2065! Is this meager conservation effort merely to trick citizens — to make us think that Washington County is doing what’s needed just long enough to get Lake Powell Pipeline funding approved, after which we can return to our wasteful ways? Even a goal of 259 gallons per person per day by 2065 is still wasteful compared to what other desert communities have already achieved.
So what about comparing us to other desert communities? As usual, the state and district assert in their Water Needs Assessment document that we can’t be compared to other communities; yet in the very same document, they compare our county to nine other cities. Their comparison reveals that our district provided 43.8 million gallons per day, or mgd, to 153,300 citizens in 2017 while the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority provided 87.5 mgd (twice as much) to 658,238 citizens (four times as many). The chart also shows that Colorado Springs Utilities serviced 470,513 citizens with 78.6 mgd. So I guess it depends upon who’s doing the comparison as to the validity, and I’m not sure their comparison even substantiates their position that we are managing water well.
The state and district assert that “Water supply projects take years, if not decades, to plan, permit and construct.” Some take longer than others. Including repair of a damaged dike, the Quail Creek project took about 8 years, from planning to completion and repair (1982–1990). Now, even with the size of the Lake Powell Pipeline being greater than Quail Creek project, the pipeline is projected to be built in 3 to 4 years. Yes, it’s taken many years of planning to get us to this point (2006–19), but the actual construction of the project, should it ever be needed, would not take that long, and much of the ground work has already been laid.
So back to my original question: What will happen to water conservation efforts by our state, district, and cities if we get Lake Powell Pipeline water? With current lackluster efforts resulting in consumption that’s higher than it should be, what will more water bring? I don’t know what you think, but I think it would create less emphasis on water conservation, more overuse of water on landscaping, more lawns versus drought-tolerant landscaping, and a general disregard for the value and importance of water — something Utah’s pioneers recognized but which seems to have been lost on current generations.
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 “Water conservation and the Lake Powell Pipeline: A conundrum”
Southern Utah Gardening: How to grow grass in the middle of the desert, for some reason
Why the Lake Powell pipeline is good and will make us all rich
