Water District Challenges Local Waters Alternative
– By Lisa Rutherford –
About a month ago I wrote about the Local Waters Alternative to the Lake Powell Pipeline 2.0, a plan that promotes using our local water resources effectively to meet our future growth. The Washington County Water Conservancy District has challenged the plan, and some of their points need to be addressed.
The district asserts that the Local Waters Alternative (LWA) overestimated the amount of water reliably available from the Washington County Water Conservancy District’s water rights in the Virgin River. However, the LWA author reviewed water rights information and that raised questions about whether the LPP Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) included all the available water rights. This is a question that bears more investigation, and which the water district just seems willing to dismiss out of hand.
The district feels that the LWA analysis fails to consider normal variations in the hydrology and projected climate change impacts in the Virgin River basin. But the LWA did consider that and recommends capturing water during high-flow periods rather than letting it flow downstream as is currently done during much of the year. Although the LWA did not explain specifically how and where to store the water, it clearly stated: “Underground storage using aquifer storage and recovery techniques would be the best option for longer term storage and utilization of water from the Virgin River, but all available storage options should be considered.” Perhaps this is not precise enough for the district. However, it is not the job of others to give the district clear direction on how to do their job but rather to raise questions and concerns and offer recommendations that the district should address with greater effort.
The district feels that the LWA did not provide enough information regarding how to treat water to drinking water standards effectively. The district apparently didn’t read the LWA closely. The LWA did propose treatment of water to increase our culinary water. The LWA points out that “the WCWCD avoids reporting all of its potential water supply in the DEIS by only disclosing water meeting specific minimum EPA water quality requirements, when in fact it possesses numerous water supplies of lower quality. Water treatment methods continue to advance and treating water of lower quality is an obvious alternative to the Lake Powell Pipeline that the DEIS has ignored.” The LWA states: “Other technologies have been proven to safely treat recycled water to culinary standards with costs significantly lower than reverse osmosis. Additionally, these treatment processes do not generate a constant brine waste stream which is often challenging and costly to dispose of for inland communities such as those in Washington County.” The LWA provides more information on reuse in several sections and also addresses “water loss”—as in leaky pipes—which the state and district actually use to justify our need for more water.
It is true that the recent LWA does not include costs for their local waters conservation program, but the earlier LWA in 2013 had a price tag that was half the cost of the LPP, a cost that could be incurred “incrementally” not tying up big chunks of money for decades. The district asserts that reverse osmosis (RO) costs would drive the LWA plan costs higher, but LWA and others such as water treatment facilities in Altamont, Florida, show that RO is not the only option anymore and that treatment technology continues to improve. The district continues to use RO to serve their cost argument. But, as is obvious to most who study water, conservation is the cheapest water.
The district’s main concern, as it harps on constantly, is the need for a second source of water, which clearly the LWA does not provide. Erroneously, the district believes the Colorado River (CR) and Lake Powell would provide that second source, but anyone who has been tracking the condition of the Colorado River and future flow projections should easily recognize what an unreliable source of water this river has become. Utah bases its CR water right on a flow of 15 million acre feet a year while the river’s latest flows are around 12-13 MAFY and some are looking at 10 MAFY in the future. This is certainly not a future on which to base a project costing several billion dollars of Utah’s money—money they say will be repaid but which would tie up Utah money for decades to come on what appears to be an empty and imaginary dream by LPP proponents.
The district’s opposition paper asserts that many of LWA’s conservation measures are already in place and that our per capita water use has decreased 30% since 2000. In 2000 we were using nearly 400 gallons per capita per day! Our usage is now around 271 gpcd. It’s easy to show some progress from such a high and wasteful starting point. While our conservation program specifics may compare well to other desert areas, we are not seeing comparable results shown in the district’s own review by Maddaus. We spent more per capita than most of the cities to which we were compared. The LWA compares Washington County’s per person water use to other areas, and the majority use less than we do. As usual, the district asserts that LWA’s comparing us to others is not fair —apples to oranges —but they do it themselves as in their own Maddaus report.
The district’s objections to the LWA are hollow. The Local Waters Alternative to the Lake Powell Pipeline 2.0 provides a reliable future supply of ‘at least’ 111,212 AF of culinary water and an ongoing 15,693 AF of secondary water—enough water to meet our growth needs with reasonable usage. The state and district predict our usage at 240 gpcd from 2040 to 2075. That is NOT reasonable usage. It only supports their perceived need for the pipeline.
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
