Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

58
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE EFFECTS OF POPULATION GROWTH, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND INCREASED WATER REUSE ON WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN UTAH DEREK BRUTON This dissertation submitted for the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PEMBROKE COLLEGE August 2014 Supervisor: Dr Richard Fenner

Transcript of Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

Page 1: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

EFFECTS OF POPULATION GROWTH, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND INCREASED

WATER REUSE ON WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN UTAH

DEREK BRUTON

This dissertation submitted for the degree of

MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY

ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

PEMBROKE COLLEGE

August 2014

Supervisor: Dr Richard Fenner

Page 2: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

ii

Statement of Originality

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of

work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text

This dissertation does not exceed the limit of 15,000 words.

X

Signed By Derek Bruton

Date 29 August, 2014

Page 3: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dick Fenner for supervising me and helping guide and focus my rather

vague initial idea. I also am also extremely grateful to Sian and her patience with my tedious

questions regarding tier 4 visa requirements for students wishing to bring family. Even though

it was a bit of a pain, we made it over legally in the end.

My college, and all those who do so much to make it run, will also be one of my fondest

memories from my time here. Pembroke feels like home, and I hope to come back often.

I also need to mention my parents, Tom and Cindy, without whom I would never have learned

to love reading, math, science, water, and learning in general.

Finally, and most important of all, I need to thank my amazing wife and wonderful little boy.

Henry has let me see the world as new and fascinating, and coming home to his smile after a

long day in the engineering department always brought me joy. Jen, you are my best friend in

the world. This year has been absolutely mad sometimes, but we made it. It is to you that I

dedicate my work. Volim te.

Page 4: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

iv

Abstract

Future water shortages have been a major concern as the urban development along the

Wasatch Front continues to swell the demand on Utah’s already limited water supplies. By

taking a broad view and modelling the water sources, uses, losses, and final destinations in the

Utah Lake and Jordan River Basins, it becomes apparent that current state policies, if goals

are met and maintained, should be sufficient to cope with anticipated growth through 2060.

While this is good news for the immediate future, it relies on a potentially serious decline of

agriculture which may impact the food security of the area. Additionally, the pressures which

are causing this water stress will hardly cease to exist beyond 2060, so innovative ways to

either reduce demand or increase available supply still need to be explored. Conservation

efforts and demand focused goals, the primary focus of the state, will buy critical time, but if

Utah continues to grow, finding new water sources may become necessary.

One option in particular has the potential to revolutionize the way water has been managed in

the states (including Utah) along the Colorado River: trading energy for water. This energy

for water exchange would allow landlocked states along the Colorado River to gain part of

California’s share of the river’s water in return for enough electricity (and likely some

financing for the necessary infrastructure) to desalinate an equivalent volume.

The model developed also has the potential to be refined into a powerful water policy impact

and analysis tool and the steps which would be necessary for its further development are

presented.

Page 5: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

v

Table of Contents

Statement of Originality ............................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Key Research Questions .............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2

2 Definition of Study Area .................................................................................................... 3

3 Data and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Current Land Use ......................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Precipitation .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Natural Evaporation and Transpiration .............................................................. 10

3.2.3 Groundwater Infiltration ..................................................................................... 11

3.2.4 Surface Water ..................................................................................................... 11

3.2.5 Trans-basin Diversions ....................................................................................... 11

3.2.6 Climate Change .................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Municipal and Industrial Water Use .......................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Per Capita Water Use Trends ............................................................................. 13

Page 6: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

vi

3.3.2 Population ........................................................................................................... 14

3.3.3 Net M&I Use ...................................................................................................... 16

3.3.4 Wastewater Recycling and Reuse....................................................................... 16

3.4 Agricultural Water Use .............................................................................................. 17

3.4.1 Agriculture Trends .............................................................................................. 17

3.5 Model Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 20

4 Results .............................................................................................................................. 21

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 21

4.2 2010 Baseline ............................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Scenario 1: 2060 with Current Trends ....................................................................... 23

4.4 Scenario 2: Climate Change....................................................................................... 24

4.5 Scenario 3: Failed Conservation ................................................................................ 25

4.6 Scenario 4: Agricultural Protection from 2025 .......................................................... 26

4.7 Scenario 5: Additional Trans-basin Diversion ........................................................... 27

4.8 Scenario 6: Wastewater to Agriculture Recycling ..................................................... 28

4.9 Scenario 7: Wastewater to M&I Recycling ............................................................... 29

4.10 Scenario 8: Wastewater Recycling split to Agriculture/M&I ................................ 30

4.11 Summary of Results ............................................................................................... 31

5 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 General Observations ................................................................................................. 32

5.2 Current Situation and Trends ..................................................................................... 32

5.3 Water Policy Options ................................................................................................. 33

5.3.1 Continued Conservation ..................................................................................... 33

Page 7: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

vii

5.3.2 Protection of Agriculture .................................................................................... 34

5.3.3 Options for Greater Trans-basin Diversions: Trading Energy for Water ........... 35

5.3.4 Wastewater Recycling ........................................................................................ 38

5.3.5 Desperate Measures in the Future? ..................................................................... 38

5.4 Study Limitations ....................................................................................................... 40

6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 41

6.1 Policy and Administration ......................................................................................... 41

6.2 Further Research ........................................................................................................ 41

6.2.1 Data Standardization and Completeness ............................................................ 42

6.2.2 Introduce Multi-year Storage and Use Modelling .............................................. 42

6.2.3 Create a “Water Web” Model of Catchment Basin ............................................ 42

6.2.4 Generate Water Policy Impact Assessment Tool ............................................... 43

References ................................................................................................................................ 44

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 49

Page 8: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Regional Overview and Study Boundary ................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Geographic Features of Study Area ............................................................................ 4

Figure 3: Current Water Related Land Use ................................................................................ 6

Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Study Region .......................................................... 8

Figure 5: Monthly Precipitation Overview ................................................................................. 9

Figure 6: Comparison of Household Daily Water Use per Capita ........................................... 14

Figure 7: Population Projection through 2060 ......................................................................... 15

Figure 8: 2010 Population Density ........................................................................................... 15

Figure 9: Agricultural land loss in the Jordan River Basin (1988-2002) ................................. 18

Figure 10: 2010 Baseline Scenario Sankey Diagram ............................................................... 22

Figure 11: Scenario 1 Sankey Diagram—2060 with Current Trends ...................................... 23

Figure 12: Scenario 2 Sankey Diagram—Potential Impact of Climate Change ...................... 24

Figure 13: Scenario 3 Sankey Diagram—Impact of Stalled Conservation Efforts .................. 25

Figure 14: Scenario 4 Sankey Diagram—Effect of Agricultural Protection ............................ 26

Figure 15: Scenario 5 Sankey Diagram—Securing Additional Trans-basin Diversions ......... 27

Figure 16: Scenario 6 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling I ......................................... 28

Figure 17: Scenario 7 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling II ........................................ 29

Figure 18: Scenario 8 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling III ....................................... 30

Page 9: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Scenario Definitions .................................................................................................. 20

Table 2: Key Values for Baseline ............................................................................................ 22

Table 3: Key Values for Scenario 1......................................................................................... 23

Table 4: Key Values for Scenario 2......................................................................................... 24

Table 6: Key Values for Scenario 4......................................................................................... 26

Table 7: Key Values for Scenario 5......................................................................................... 27

Table 8: Key Values for Scenario 6......................................................................................... 28

Table 9: Key Values for Scenario 7......................................................................................... 29

Table 10: Key Values for Scenario 8....................................................................................... 30

Table 11: Summary of Results ................................................................................................ 31

Table 12: Comparison of Modelled Policies on Water Use .................................................... 33

Page 10: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

During the summer of 1847, a weary company of migrants were crossing the high plains of

modern day Wyoming as they trekked westward seeking a new home. They were very curious

about the location which they intended to settle in, but they had relatively little knowledge of

what awaited them there. This was not unusual in a time when much of the American West

was still undocumented, and first-hand accounts of what lay ahead were invaluable. Their

thrill at meeting an explorer who knew their destination must have dimmed somewhat as this

already legendary figure gave a less than optimistic opinion about their chances:

‘James Bridger, the well-known mountaineer… when he met President Brigham Young at the

Pioneer camp on the Big Sandy, about the last of June, and learned our destination to be the

valley of the Great Salt Lake, he gave us a general outline and description of this country,

over which he had roamed with the Indians in his hunting and trapping excursions, and

expressed grave doubts whether corn could be produced at all in these mountains… and so

sanguine was he that it could not be done, that he proffered to give a thousand dollars for the

first ear of corn raised in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, or the valley of the Utah outlet, as

he termed it, meaning the valley between Utah Lake and Salt Lake. President Young replied

to him: “Wait a little, and we will show you.”’ [1].

The company of pioneers did settle in the region around the Great Salt Lake and, contrary to

the expectations of the legendary Jim Bridger, established a thriving agricultural community.

Within twenty-four hours of their arrival in the valley they had already dammed one of the

mountain streams and turned the water onto their freshly planted fields [1]. Through hard

work and increasingly intense irrigation practices, corn not only grew that first season, but

Page 11: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

2

today accounts for more than 10,000 acres of the 136,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land

in the region. In addition to more than 300,000 total acres of agricultural land, the “Valley of

the Utah outlet” (better known now as the Salt Lake and Utah valleys) is home to more than

1.6 million people and a thriving economy [2]. While Bridger’s fears that crops were unlikely

to grow in the region have been proven false, several major concerns remain about how much

more development can be supported in the area.

1.2 Key Research Questions

There are several key research questions being investigated:

1. What is the current water supply and demand in the Jordan River and Utah Lake

basins?

2. To what degree will the balance of supply and demand be altered by 2060 if current

trends continue?

3. How would preserving agricultural production, implementing wastewater recycling,

and additional trans-basin diversion impact this balance?

4. What policies should be implemented or emphasized in order to ensure future water

supply exceeding demand?

1.3 Objectives

The study has two main objectives: 1) Create a model of water supply and demand in the

selected region which looks at both the current situation and allows for the investigation of

various future scenarios and 2) Investigate which technical or administrative alternatives

could be used to alleviate water stress in the future.

Page 12: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

3

2 Definition of Study Area

Since water is the key resource in question, water was used to define the boundaries of the

study region. Specifically, the Jordan River and Utah Lake catchment basins are of primary

interest because they contain the primary population core of the state as well as a non-trivial

amount of agriculture. These basins form the core of Utah’s municipal and industrial water

demand, as well as the location of the majority of projected future urban development [2].

Figure 1: Regional Overview and Study Boundary

Data: Utah AGRC, USGS [4][5][6][7][8]

Cartography: DJ Bruton

Page 13: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

4

Geographically these basins are in a semi-arid region along the eastern edge of the endorheic

(having no outlet to an ocean) Great Basin region. Major geographic features in the area

include the Utah and Great Salt Lake Valleys, bounded by the Oquirrh and East Tintic

Mountains to the west and the Wasatch Mountains to the east. The Utah Lake basin also

includes the Provo River catchment which juts out through the Wasatch Range eastward into

the Uinta Mountains. The Wasatch and Uinta mountains are particularly critical to the

hydrology with the significant annual snowpack which accumulates in the upper reaches each

winter [3].

Figure 2: Geographic Features of Study Area

Data: Utah AGRC [4][5][6][8]

Cartography: DJ Bruton

Page 14: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

5

3 Data and Methodology

The basic model is fairly straightforward and broad: an overview of total inputs, uses, losses,

and outflows from the study region. This is in order to provide an easily understood graphical

representation of the overall system using a Sankey diagram, a new way of looking at this

particular collection of data. The model could be easily used to communicate how current

trends and future policies could affect the overall balance between water supply and demand

in this critical region.

In order to analyse both current and future water use, an understanding of the hydrology, land

use, population trends, development patterns, and existing water-related infrastructure is

required. Due to the varied nature of this information, a wide variety of sources were required

and the results are an amalgamation of the best available data sets. While the author

recognizes that a more complex model would be feasible, the limited time and resources

available for this dissertation necessitated a relatively broad approach at the moment.

The primary hurdle faced in modelling current and future water supply and demand was the

lack of standardized data. While there is an abundance of information, it tends to be

compartmentalized according to the remit of whichever government body is publishing the

data. While the cause of this is understandable, it necessitated several significant assumptions

and extrapolations which will be addressed in this section.

3.1 Current Land Use

Overall land use in the study area is divided into four categories: undeveloped land (mostly

mountainous or desert) currently accounts for 62%, water bodies 11%, agriculture 13%, and

Page 15: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

6

urban uses the final 14% (see Figure 3) [9]. These different land uses correlate with the

different types of water use upon which this model is based.

Figure 3: Current Water Related Land Use

Source: Utah AGRC [4][5] [6][8][9]

Cartography: DJ Bruton

Page 16: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

7

The data used for the model can be split into three major categories: 1) Hydrology, 2)

Municipal and Industrial Water Use, and 3) Agricultural Water Use. The data and

assumptions regarding these aspects will be detailed in this section, the resulting model which

they create will be presented in chapter 4, and those results analysed in chapter 5.

3.2 Hydrology

The basis of any analysis on water budgeting depends on a reliable estimate of annual water

availability. This requires information regarding total average precipitation, groundwater

infiltration, and natural evaporation and transpiration losses.

3.2.1 Precipitation

Determining the average total volume of precipitation which falls into the study area annually

was the first step in creating the water budget. Due to the topography of the region, the annual

precipitation ranges from less than three inches per year in some of the western valleys to

more than sixty-six inches per year on some mountain peaks (see Figure 4) [8]. Coupled with

the seasonal variations—cold, wetter winters and hot, very dry summers (see Figure 5)—this

non-uniform precipitation distribution has significant implications for water storage and

management strategies. It is also important to note that Utah historically experiences regular

periods of extended drought [12]. Due to time and data constraints, neither drought conditions

nor seasonal variability will be addressed in this study at this time.

Page 17: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

8

Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Study Region

Data: Utah AGRC, OSU [4][5][6][8][10]

Cartography: DJ Bruton

Page 18: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

9

Fig

ure

5:

Mon

thly

Pre

cip

itati

on

Over

vie

w

Data

: U

tah

AG

RC

, O

SU

[4

][5

][6

][8

][1

1][

10

], C

art

og

rap

hy

: D

J B

ruto

n

Page 19: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

10

The nature of this study—the broad overview of supply and demand trends—requires one key

value: total average annual precipitation in the study region. In a 2007 study of watershed

basins in Utah it was calculated that 25 inches per year fall in the combined Utah Lake and

Jordan River Basins [3]. Geospatial analysis of the precipitation data used to create Figure 4

and Figure 5 supports this value and 25 inches per year which will serve as the baseline

average precipitation for this study.

To get the total precipitation volume from this annual precipitation rate is a straightforward

multiplication of rate and area, or 25 inches per year covering 2,502,664 acres [3]. This gives

a calculated total volume of approximately 5,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water (6.4 million

cubic metres) per year. What is more difficult is determining how much of this water is

returned back to the atmosphere though natural evaporation and transpiration, how much

infiltrates into the ground, and how much remains as surface water in streams, lakes, and

reservoirs.

3.2.2 Natural Evaporation and Transpiration

To know how much water is lost it is easiest to measure the amount of water which is

accessible and assume that the difference between that and total precipitation is the natural

depletion. A report from 2001, using data from 1961-1990, provides the estimated water

supplies for each basin. The average amount of water available for use in the Utah Lake and

Jordan River basins comes to 1,275,000 AF/year, or 24% of the total precipitation

volume[13]. This loss of 76% seems reasonable compared to the state-wide average of 86%

evaporation and transpiration losses given in the same report.

Page 20: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

11

3.2.3 Groundwater Infiltration

In addition to the natural losses back into the atmosphere, a significant proportion of the total

precipitation infiltrates into the region’s aquifers. Due to the surrounding mountains the

aquifers are wholly contained within the study basins, meaning that it can reasonably be

assumed that the only source of groundwater is the rain and snow which falls in the basins of

interest [14].

For this model, data on infiltration rates was taken from two reports from the Utah Division of

Water Resources on water plans for the Utah Lake and Jordan River Basins from 1997 and

2013(respectively) [15][16]. This gives a combined total infiltration of 1,000,000 AF/year for

the study area.

3.2.4 Surface Water

Unlike groundwater quantities and flows, surface water flows are fairly simple to assess.

According to the Utah Division of Water Resources, the average total amount of precipitation

that becomes available as surface water is around 450,000 AF/year [13][15][16].

3.2.5 Trans-basin Diversions

Water resource planners and engineers have not been content to rely solely on precipitation

which falls within the natural catchment of this region. As part of the Central Utah Project, a

series of reservoirs and tunnels divert water from the Colorado River Basin in Eastern Utah

though the Wasatch Mountains for use in the study area [17]. The total amount of water which

can be legally transported away from the Colorado River for use in Utah is determined by the

Colorado River Compact and in practice, this means a current limit of 162,900 AF/year

[18][19]. The technical capacity of the existing trans-basin water infrastructure (which is all

Page 21: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

12

gravity driven) is 920,000 AF/year [20][21][22]. This means that if Utah were not legally

bound to release 535,000 AF/year of Colorado River water, which originates in the Utah

mountains, a much larger amount of water could technically be transported into the study area

with little additional infrastructure [13].

In modelling an additional trans-basin diversion it was assumed that approximately 230,000

additional acre-feet of water could be diverted annually into the study area if an equal amount

of water were somehow available to be traded to a state lower along the Colorado

River(Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, or California). Establishing an actual amount feasible

would require additional hydrological analysis of the Western Colorado River Catchment

Basin and further research into how Utah could realistically trade its available resources

(primarily energy) for more water rights. While an in depth hydrological study will not be

addressed in this study, the potential for resource exchange will be discussed in chapter 5.

3.2.6 Climate Change

One potentially major factor in the future water supply for Utah is the complex issue of

climate change and the degree to which it will alter the water cycle in the state. While it is

currently uncertain what the precise impacts will be, there is general consensus that Utah is

likely looking at increases in both total precipitation and evaporation [29][30][31][32].

Assuming an average temperature increase of 2ºC, precipitation looks to be increased by

about 10% on average, but with potentially significant shifts to shorter, warmer winters with

less snowpack and more rainfall and hotter, drier summers [29][31]. When looking back at the

historic monthly precipitation averages in Figure 5, it becomes apparent that while this net

increase would be welcomed, the future implications of summers with even less rainfall are

not appealing. While increased precipitation may rise the supply of available water, drier

Page 22: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

13

summers will definitely increase the demand for agricultural and residential water use barring

a major shift in lifestyle.

Just looking at the precipitation, though, is not sufficient for modelling the possible impact on

the water supply and demand. Already it has been calculated that this area loses 76% of the

total precipitation to natural evaporation and transpiration, and this number will only rise with

increased temperature. While there is no definite figure for how much this increase will be,

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th

Report calculates the region of

interest will experience around a 5% increase in evaporation [29]. Assuming that this proves

to be correct, the total natural evaporation losses shifts to 79%.

The calculated cumulative effect is a slight decrease in the available water supply. It should

be noted that this effect relies on several layers of assumptions and is not a meant as a

prediction, but a reasonable estimate of what the future may look like.

3.3 Municipal and Industrial Water Use

3.3.1 Per Capita Water Use Trends

Within urbanized areas, water is typically considered in terms of municipal and industrial

(M&I) use. The data collected by the Utah Division of Water Resources regarding M&I usage

in the study area further breaks this down into six subcategories: residential outdoor,

residential indoor, commercial, institutional, industrial, and secondary [23]. In 2000, the

average user was responsible for 321 gallons of water per day, the second highest per capita

demand in the United States (only Nevada consumes more) [24]. By 2010 this figure had

fallen to 301 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) [9]. This means that in the first decade of the

twenty-first century, per capita M&I demand has already fallen 6.2%. This is in line with the

Page 23: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

14

state goal of reductions of 12.5% by 2020 and 25% by 2050 relative to 2000

[24][25][26][27][33][34]. The continuation of this trend will is a critical assumption for

forecasting future demand and will be a key variable in creating future scenarios.

Of these 301 gallons, approximately 130 are directly

used in households (residential indoor and outdoor

usage) [23]. When this 130 GPCD for household

consumption is viewed in comparison with the US and

UK averages for daily household use (90 and 40 GPCD

respectively, see Figure 6), it becomes apparent that

there should be significant opportunity for demand

reduction through conservation [23][26][28]. While it

must be noted that there are significant climatic

differences between Utah and much of the US (or the

UK for that matter), it is not very sensible for arid Utah

to continue to consume so much more per capita. When

looking at the broader picture of both per capita use and

population growth, how long such high consumption

can be sustained becomes a critical concern in planning

for the future.

3.3.2 Population

In addition to having the second highest per capita water consumption, Utah also holds the

title of the third fastest growing state in the US [35]. The Utah Lake and Jordan River basins

account for 57% of the total population of the state on less than 5% of the state’s total land

area, and is expected to continue to experience a large portion of future growth [2][35].

Figure 6: Comparison of Household Daily

Water Use per Capita

[23] [26] [28]

Page 24: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

15

Currently the total population of the study area is 1.6 million, but this is projected to increase

to around 3 million in 2060 (see Figure 7) [2].

Figure 7: Population Projection through 2060

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Budget and Planning [2]

Figure 8: 2010 Population Density

Source: US Census Bureau

Page 25: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

16

3.3.3 Net M&I Use

With projections for the population levels and per capita M&I consumption it is a simple

matter of multiplication to obtain a likely total demand for municipal and industrial water use

in future years.

One important assumption made with regards to M&I usage is the relative weight of each of

the six subcategories. In projecting future demand it has been assumed that the current

balance will remain even as the total magnitude changes. This would rely on conservation

efforts to be equally effective for all the uses (which is unlikely), but the exact future split is

beyond the scope of this study to predict. In modelling these uses the total daily per capita

water use and total population are used to generate a total M&I demand, which is then divided

into the subcategories according to the 2010 proportions. The ratio of each of these categories

which then enters the public sewers as wastewater has also been assumed to remain constant

into the future.

3.3.4 Wastewater Recycling and Reuse

One area which is widely recognized as a promising (although typically unpopular)

unexploited source of water is the effluent of wastewater treatment plants [36] [37]. This

water may have a ‘yuck factor’ associated with it, but it represents a potentially significant

amount of water. While only about 35% of M&I water ever reaches the sewers, the rest being

lost primarily due to evaporation and transpiration as potable water is used for landscape

irrigation, it is technically feasible that all of this could be treated to a standard where it could

at least be used for irrigation purposes [38]. For the purpose of this study it was assumed that

all of this return water could, by 2060, be recycled.

Page 26: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

17

3.4 Agricultural Water Use

While agricultural has historically been the major source of water demand in Utah, it’s

significance in this area is diminishing as population growth drives increased urbanization (or

suburbanization, as the case may be).

3.4.1 Agriculture Trends

The Jordan River Basin already provides and interesting example of the decline of agricultural

water use. In 1979 there were over 51,000 acres of irrigated land, which had fallen to 14,000

(a 73% loss) by 2002 (see Figure 9) [16]. This loss has been directly effected by rapid growth

of suburban communities in the valley in direct relation to the rapid population growth. It is

projected that this trend will continue until there is effectively no significant agricultural

activity in this part of the study area [16].

Page 27: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

18

Figure 9: Agricultural land loss in the Jordan River Basin (1988-2002)

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources [16]

While the Utah Lake Basin is not yet as urbanized, the downward trend of agriculture in the

area has also been observed and projected [13]. Using data from the Utah Division of Water

Page 28: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

19

Resources, a picture of the water demand in the combined study area was created and

extrapolated to 2060 assuming a continued linear trend. 2010 agricultural water demand stood

around 560,000 AF/year, but this could fall to as low as 310,000 AF/year by 2060 based on

these data. This would represent a decrease of 55%, much of which would be a result of

decreased agricultural production.

While this somewhat relieves the stress that a growing population incurs on the available

water supply, it raises questions about the security of a local food supply. The risk inherent in

an increase in dependency on imported food products was sufficient to prompt the

formulation of one forecast scenario looking at how protecting agricultural land and water

rights would impact the overall demand on the water supply. This protection was set with the

assumption that a policy restricting the development of productive agricultural land were to be

implemented in 2025 which would roughly lock in agricultural water demand at that level

indefinitely.

Page 29: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

20

3.5 Model Scenarios

One of the most critical parts of the model is selecting reasonable combinations of future

water use patterns. A baseline for 2010 serves as the foundation for future projections and was

the first scenario completed in this study. Eight other scenarios have been established to

provide an overview of how general water trends will impact the overall water stress of the

region. They are all set in the year 2060 and Table 1 lays out which factors were included in

each scenario.

Table 1: Scenario Definitions

Sce

nar

io

De

fin

ing

Feat

ure

Ye

ar

Co

nse

rvat

ion

G

oal

Met

Clim

ate

Ch

ange

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

Co

nse

rvat

ion

fr

om

20

25

Ad

dit

ion

al

Tran

s-b

asin

Div

ersi

on

Was

tew

ater

R

ecy

clin

g

Baseline

2010 NA NA NA NA NA

1 Current Trends

2060 Y N N N N

2 Current w/ Climate Change

2060 Y Y N N N

3 Failed Conservation

2060 N Y N N N

4 Agricultural Protection

2060 Y Y Y N N

5 Additional Trans-basin Diversion

2060 Y Y N Y N

6 Recycle to Agriculture

2060 Y Y N N Y

7 Recycle to M&I

2060 Y Y N N Y

8 Recycle Ag/M&I Split

2060 Y Y N N Y

Page 30: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

21

The aim of laying out the scenarios in this manner is to allow comparisons of how changing a

single factor would affect the overall balance of supply and demand. First, the baseline

provides a snapshot of the current state of affairs. Following that, Scenario 1 projects current

usage trends out to 2060 to see how demand will change. Scenario 2 follows with adding what

current studies predict the probable impact of climate change to the available water supply

will be. Scenario 3 then looks at the eventuality that conservation efforts stall and water

demand per capita remains near 2010 levels. Scenario 4 assumes that conservation has been

successful, but concerns about food security and disappearing farmland prompt a policy

protecting agricultural production from 2025 onward. Scenario 5 investigates how diverting

additional water from the Colorado River could impact water availability. Scenarios 6, 7, and

8 then address to what degree recycling wastewater could supplement the existing supply.

4 Results

4.1 Introduction

Sankey diagrams1 of each scenario are presented in this chapter. For ease of comparison, style

and scale are kept constant for all the diagrams. Additionally, a table with several key values

is given for each scenario as well as well as one summary table (see Table 11) for overall

comparison. Discussion of these scenarios will be presented in chapter 5. A complete table of

all values used in all scenarios is available in Appendix A.

1 Sankey diagrams (named after Captain Matthew Sankey who is credited with creating the first in 1898 to show

the energy efficiency of a steam engine) are a value-weighted flow diagram useful in visualizing complicated

systems [36].

Page 31: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

22

4.2 2010 Baseline

Figure 10: 2010 Baseline Scenario Sankey Diagram

Table 2: Key Values for Baseline

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,214,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,450,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand558,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 531,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

75%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 32: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

23

4.3 Scenario 1: 2060 with Current Trends

Figure 11: Scenario 1 Sankey Diagram—2060 with Current Trends

Table 3: Key Values for Scenario 1

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,214,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,450,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

77%

Wastewater

Treatment

Page 33: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

24

4.4 Scenario 2: Climate Change

Figure 12: Scenario 2 Sankey Diagram—Potential Impact of Climate Change

Table 4: Key Values for Scenario 2

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

82%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 34: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

25

4.5 Scenario 3: Failed Conservation

Figure 13: Scenario 3 Sankey Diagram—Impact of Stalled Conservation Efforts

Table 5: Key Values for Scenario 3

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 1,008,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

97%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 35: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

26

4.6 Scenario 4: Agricultural Protection from 2025

Figure 14: Scenario 4 Sankey Diagram—Effect of Agricultural Protection

Table 6: Key Values for Scenario 4

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand484,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

95%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 36: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

27

4.7 Scenario 5: Additional Trans-basin Diversion

Figure 15: Scenario 5 Sankey Diagram—Securing Additional Trans-basin Diversions

Table 7: Key Values for Scenario 5

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion400,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,589,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

70%

Page 37: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

28

4.8 Scenario 6: Wastewater to Agriculture Recycling

Figure 16: Scenario 6 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling I

Table 8: Key Values for Scenario 6

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Recycled 233,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

65%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 38: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

29

4.9 Scenario 7: Wastewater to M&I Recycling

Figure 17: Scenario 7 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling II

Table 9: Key Values for Scenario 7

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Recycled 233,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

65%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 39: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

30

4.10 Scenario 8: Wastewater Recycling split to Agriculture/M&I

Figure 18: Scenario 8 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling III

Table 10: Key Values for Scenario 8

Category Value Unit

Precipitation 5,735,000 AF/year

Trans-basin

Diversion173,000 AF/year

Available Water 1,361,000 AF/year

Agricultural

Demand310,000 AF/year

M&I Demand 807,000 AF/year

Recycled 233,000 AF/year

Percentage of

Available Water

Used

65%

Wastewater Treatment

Page 40: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

31

4.11 Summary of Results

Table 11: Summary of Results Sc

ena

rio

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Des

crip

tio

n

20

10

Bas

elin

e

Cu

rren

t Tr

end

s

Clim

ate

Ch

ange

Faile

d

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

Pro

tect

ion

Ad

dit

ion

al

Tran

s-b

asin

D

iver

sio

n

Was

tew

ater

R

ecy

clin

g I

Was

tew

ater

Re

cycl

ing

II

Was

tew

ater

Re

cycl

ing

III

Pre

cip

itat

ion

5,214,000 5,214,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000

AF/

year

Tran

s-b

asin

Div

ersi

on

173,000 173,000 173,000 173,000 173,000 400,000 173,000 173,000 173,000

AF/

year

Ava

ilab

le

Wat

er

1,450,000 1,450,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,589,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000

AF/

year

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

Dem

and

558,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 484,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000

AF/

year

M&

I Dem

and

531,000 807,000 807,000 1,008,000 807,000 807,000 807,000 807,000 807,000

AF/

year

Rec

ycle

d

0 0 0 0 0 0 233,000 233,000 233,000 A

F/ye

ar

Per

cen

tage

of

Ava

ilab

le

Wat

er U

sed

75% 77% 82% 97% 95% 70% 65% 65% 65%

Note: Percentage of Available Water Used should be treated carefully in comparing

scenarios. Scenarios 0, 1, and 2 are to look at how current trends and climate change impact

the water supply/demand balance. The values for scenarios 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 should primarily

be compared with scenario 2 as they are calculated using the same water budget. Scenario5

increases the budget by bringing more water into the study area.

Page 41: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

32

5 Discussion

5.1 General Observations

This is the first time that water budget data has been presented in this way for Utah. Sankey

diagrams have been used to show average surface water flow rates for rivers and streams in

the area, but this is the first time all uses have been visualized together for the catchment

basin as a whole. While there is room to make the model more sophisticated, the overall effect

is very informative and allows for quick and intuitive comparison of the effects of policies on

water stress.

With this in mind, it is important to note that while all of the projected scenarios are thought

to be reasonable, they are intended to spark discussion regarding which approaches to

reducing water stress should be pursued. Many more variants were explored (typically

involving the process of looking at two or more of the policies and seeing cumulative effects

for different years), but this was impractical to include in a paper report. Ideally this model

lends itself to an interactive user interface where both time and policy option inputs can be

altered and the resulting changes displayed.

5.2 Current Situation and Trends

Overall the situation in the study area seems less severe than initially expected. Currently,

water demand is about 75% of the water budget of a year with average precipitation, which

can be anticipated to rise to around 82% in 2060 if conservation efforts are successful (Figure

10, Figure 11, Figure 12, and Table 11).

Page 42: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

33

The most strikingly unanticipated, although in retrospect not unintuitive, result is that the

primary total percentage of available water used in 2060 is projected to be comparable to that

of 2010. While at first this appears to be positive news, upon further review it is less

appealing. The primary reason that water demand in 2060 is unexpectedly low is that

agriculture is anticipated to be severely curtailed as urban sprawl pushes out into farmland.

5.3 Water Policy Options

While the overall situation for 2060 may not be as stressed as was anticipated, it could easily

be made either better or worse by how water is acquired and used in the area. The specific

policies illustrated in scenarios 4 through 8 (water conservation, agricultural protection,

additional trans-basin diversion, and wastewater recycling) and their impacts on the overall

water balance influence merit further discussion.

Table 12: Comparison of Modelled Policies on Water Use

Water

Conservation

Agricultural

Protection from

2025

Additional

Trans-basin

Diversion

100%

Wastewater

Recycling

Relative Impact

on Usage of

Available Water

-15% +13% -12% -17%

5.3.1 Continued Conservation

Water conservation is, for very good reason, the primary focus of current policy in Utah to

facilitate continued development [12] [13] [15] [16] [23]. If the goal of 25% reduction

compared to 2000 use is reached by 2050, and thereafter maintained, the reduction in demand

compared to a scenario where per capita consumption remains at 2010 levels is around

Page 43: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

34

200,000 AF/year (see Figure 12, Figure 13, and Table 11). This represents a difference of

15% of the total water available for use. This conservation trend, reported to be on track by

the major water suppliers in the region, is one of the key factors which indicates that water

stress in 2060 may not be much more than today [33][34].

5.3.2 Protection of Agriculture

Another trend which will, if allowed to continue, cause a very significant impact in reducing

water demand is the projected decline of agriculture in the study area. While this is good for

reducing water stress, it seems to be a major concern when looking at the wider system. By

outsourcing food production, the cities in the study area will be increasing the amount of

water embodied in the increased volume of imported crops and goods.

In 2007 Utah already imported over a quarter (26% by weight) of the agricultural products

used in the state [47]. With the Utah Lake Basin being one of the most productive regions of

the state, accounting for a total of 14% of the agricultural production by value in 2012, the

projected loss of 53% of the agricultural land in the study area could have appreciable impact

on both the economy and food security of the region [13] [48].

Based on these concerns scenario 4 (see Figure 14) illustrates how preserving the amount of

water available to agriculture at the level projected for 2025 would impact the overall water

use balance (this date was chosen to be far enough in the future to be feasible, but close

enough to still have a considerable water demand). The outcome was an increase of 13% in

how much of the available water was used. Water stress begins to become a major issue if

agriculture is preserved in this region alongside continued population growth.

This assumption that agricultural protecting is both feasible and possible does not look at how

better irrigation practices could increase the total yield per acre-foot. It also relies on

Page 44: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

35

anecdotal evidence to establish 2025 as a reasonable date for implementation. Future research

into the agricultural laws, trends, practices, politics, and demands would be necessary to

provide any sort of recommendations about the specifics of what sort of policy could work to

provide this sort of protection of local agricultural production.

5.3.3 Options for Greater Trans-basin Diversions: Trading Energy for Water

Realistically, there is only one way to increase the supply of water in the study area:

increasing trans-basin diversions from the headwaters of the Colorado River. This is neither a

new idea nor untried, but it remains the only realistic option if conservation and wastewater

recycling prove to be insufficient. As was mentioned earlier, the existing tunnel network

which brings water under the Wasatch Mountains was built to be able to convey far more

water than is currently legal under the Colorado River Compact. This coupled with the fact

that the state currently releases 535,000 AF/year to the states lower down the Colorado River

makes it technically feasible to trade for water rights from a lower state, such as California,

but legally complicated and financially questionable.

It should be noted that trans-basin diversion should be viewed as at most a supplementary

component of a larger water security scheme, not as a way to avoid the difficulty of

implementing water conservation initiatives. That being said, it seems logical that the

population of Utah will continue to grow beyond 2060, so there may well be a point where all

reasonable demand reduction efforts have been made and increasing the supply is the only

way to ensure water security.

In terms of scenario 5 it is important to note that one of the interesting aspects of this sort of

trade is scalability of a solution. Simply put, for any reasonable amount of water which Utah

Page 45: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

36

could secure rights to, the infrastructure is in place to transport it to where it is needed to

provide relief from water stress. With the value chosen for modelling, an additional 230,000

AF/year being brought in, the amount of available water increases and the percentage being

used drops by 12% (compare Figure 12 and Figure 15). The actual quantity here mainly

depends on what Utah could trade with its downstream neighbours. What could convince

these states, which face worse water stress than Utah, give up any of their portion of the

Colorado River? One resource in particular may hold the key to facilitating an exchange:

energy.

Utah is an energy rich state, both in terms of fossil fuels and solar insolation [49]. Perhaps,

then, this energy could be converted into electricity which could be exchanged with California

for an increased portion of the Colorado River. Already Utah has a goal of generating 25%

more electricity than it consumes and exporting the excess [50]. The prospect of Utah (or

other arid areas in the Southwest such as Nevada) using water security as a motive to invest in

(hopefully) sustainable energy generation technologies and trade the electricity to California

for desalination in return for the right to retain an equivalent volume of water is intriguing and

merits further investigation.

The proposal of desalination is a very familiar, albeit complex and sometimes controversial,

solution for 21st century water shortages. One of the critical shortcomings of desalination is

the very high energy cost which is inherent in removing dissolved salt from water. This

daunting energy demand, coupled with a high capital cost, means that currently desalination

struggles to produce fresh water at a competitive cost to more traditional methods for

developing water supplies [36].

Currently California is constructing fourteen large scale desalination plants to combat the

extended drought and projected future demand growth for water in the state [49]. The largest

Page 46: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

37

of these is located in Carlsbad and has a design capacity of 50 million gallons a day (56,000

AF/year). Upon completion, it will be the largest desalination plant in the western

hemisphere. This plant has a reported cost of about $1 billion and a projected power

requirement of around 3 kWh per m3, or 207 GWh per year [53]. While this is a substantial

initial price tag and serious energy demand, it can be expected that economies of scale will

bring the cost down and technological advances will reduce the power consumption closer to

the theoretical limit of 0.86 kWh per m3.

Utah currently generates around 41,600 GWh of electricity per year, so the prospect of

powering five desalination plants like that at Carlsbad (giving a total water production similar

to that used for scenario 5) with a total power demand of 1,035 GWh does not seem an

unreasonable goal. Ideally, this energy could come from developing the solar power potential

of the state, with a guaranteed demand for the electricity. This could provide a major step for

large scale solar installation in the United States as it would have the three aspects which are

necessary for a solar energy to be viable: a good location, a guaranteed purchaser of the

electricity, and a developer (the state, most likely) providing support in financing and

development [51].

There would be many legal and administrative issues to sort out in determining who pays for

which bits of the new infrastructure, how water is exactly allocated, and what environmental

flows need to be maintained in the Colorado River, but the concept merits further

development and research. There are definite concerns (such as the environmental impact of

the massive solar farms this would necessitate, whether or not it would be ethical to use

electricity from coal fired power plants, and how to avoid increased per capita consumption if

water is felt to be plentiful) but overall, it seems to be a realistic way for the Colorado

Compact states to work together to ensure continued water security.

Page 47: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

38

5.3.4 Wastewater Recycling

The scenario variable which gave the most significant impact in terms of reducing water

stress proved to be wastewater recycling. If 100% of effluent streams from wastewater

treatment plants in the study area were to be treated so as to be suitable for reuse, it could

provide a reduction of around 17% in the percentage of available water used.

The reason that three very similar recycling scenarios were included was to highlight the fact

that regardless of how the recycled water is used, the overall impact of recycling water is the

same. This emphasizes the somewhat unintuitive consequence that wastewater recycling

reduces the percent of available water used without altering the end result of discharges to the

Great Salt Lake (compare Figure 13 with Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 ). It does have a

significant impact on the balance of surface water to groundwater entering the lake, which

could have considerable impacts on the salinity of critical wetland shoreline habitat, meaning

the environmental impact of wastewater recycling would need to be fully investigated before

committing too fully to this course of action.

5.3.5 Desperate Measures in the Future?

Beyond the rather traditional methods of conservation, reuse, and trading for additional water

shares, there are also more extreme measures to ensure water security. One of these which

became apparent in this study was the potential that land reclamation in Utah Lake could both

significantly decrease natural evaporation losses and provide potentially valuable land for

agriculture or settlement.

Currently, evaporation from Utah Lake surface is around 350,000 AF/year which, for a lake

with a capacity of 870,000 AF, is a substantial loss (~40% annually) [19] [40]. For

comparison, thirty miles to the east of Utah Lake, Strawberry Reservoir has a capacity of

Page 48: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

39

1,106,500 AF, but only loses 22,740 AF/year to evaporation (~2% loss annually) [19]. This is

partly due to Strawberry being higher in the mountains, but primarily because of the

difference between the surface areas and depths of the two bodies of water. Utah Lake covers

a total of 151 mi2 with a maximum depth of only 14 feet, while Strawberry Reservoir has a

maximum surface area of less than 27 mi2 and a max depth of 200 feet [40][41][42].

With Utah Lake being so shallow the feasibility of land reclamation is something that will

likely be discussed sometime in the future as water and land both become scarcer. The water

impact alone is quite significant: around 3.6 Acre-feet would become available for every acre

of the lake reclaimed. When this is viewed in light of the amount of water an acre of various

crops requires the appeal become readily apparent. The thirstiest crops in this exact area need

around 2.7 (alfalfa) to 3 (orchard) acre-feet per year, while grain and corn need about 1.7 [46].

This means that it for every unit of land created from Utah Lake there would be enough water

to not only irrigate that land, but also make available extra water for other uses.

As interesting as this option seems, though, it will most likely never happen. There are three

major issues preventing it: environmental concerns, public opinion, and safety risks. First,

Utah Lake is the sole natural home to an endangered species: the June sucker (Chasmistes

liorus). The prospect of causing major disturbances in an area where an intense recovery

programme is under way is so extremely unlikely that this factor alone would make land

reclamation here unfeasible. Coupled with it the strong public opposition to any changes to

the lake (such as the outcry in 2009 over a bridge was proposed to connect towns on opposite

sides of the lake), it is apparent that there is little chance of something this drastic in the

foreseeable future [44]. Finally, there is the concern that the land fill used for typical land

reclamation projects is prone to liquefaction, which is a significant risk with the proximity of

the lake to the Wasatch Fault [45].

Page 49: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

40

Overall the option represents an interesting potential source of water availability, but is not

worth pursuing in the near future. This option may need to be investigated after all other

options have been exhausted, but it is difficult to argue that such a dramatic and permanent

impact on the environment and natural landscape will ever be desirable.

5.4 Study Limitations

While this study has provided interesting results and allowed for better policy comparison, it

does have several major limitations which must be acknowledged.

First off, the data and time available necessitated a simple basin wide model, neglecting the

complexity of the real water use picture of the area. To provide any sort of meaningful

recommendations at a level appropriate for operational decisions a similar analysis would

need to be performed on individual river/aquifer levels and a complicated regional water web

would need to be constructed.

Additionally, the actual impact of climate change in 2060 (with regards to both new averages

and variability) is currently unknowable. As more data is gathered and climate change models

are refined, the impacts assigned to this may change slightly or drastically, and this model

would need to be updated accordingly.

Overall, as has been mentioned before, the strength of this study is in comparing broad policy

options. It has potential to become a more refined and useful tool for evaluating specific plans

and policy options, but needs considerable further development.

Page 50: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

41

6 Recommendations

6.1 Policy and Administration

Four main recommendations can be made from this study:

1. The state should aggressively continue conservation efforts.

2. Losing agricultural production, though good for water security, is likely undesirable

and merits further study into its protection.

3. Wastewater recycling could have a significant impact on reducing water stress, but

could also have unintended consequences due to reducing the amount of surface water

entering the Great Salt Lake

4. Increasing the water supply through additional trans-basin diversion is technically

feasible though an energy for water exchange, but should be pursued as a policy of last

resort due to its high cost and energy demand.

6.2 Further Research

The most important result to come from this study is the potential for further development

into a comprehensive water policy analysis and recommendation tool. This would require

creating a standardized data format for water use in Utah (or another study area as the case

may be), extending both the breadth of the model to encompass the complexity of multi-year

precipitation and storage, increasing the depth of the model to look at water extraction and

returns to individual water courses, and formatting the entire body of work in such a way that

policy proposals could be modelled to look at specific geospatial impacts on water systems.

Page 51: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

42

6.2.1 Data Standardization and Completeness

The first step needed to improve the model created for this study is standardizing and

organizing all water supply and demand data for the region. A single database, with

standardized data collection intervals, would need to be developed in partnership with the

state agencies, municipal and regional water providers, industrial water users, and farming

associations.

Efforts are already being made with these goals in mind, primarily by a coalition called

‘iUtah,’ composed of research teams from the state’s three major research universities and

backed by government grants [54].

6.2.2 Introduce Multi-year Storage and Use Modelling

In order to better represent the real world, the model needs to be adapted to account for the

interaction between wet and dry years and the impact of water storage. Better information

about water use behaviour during particularly wet or dry periods would need to be available to

look at how both agricultural and M&I water demand fluctuates based on precipitation

conditions, but that could likely be obtained from existing data. While not particularly

difficult, it would allow the model to be applied to extended drought conditions which would

be extremely useful in projecting future worst-case scenarios for water availability.

6.2.3 Create a “Water Web” Model of Catchment Basin

In order to capitalize on the potential which this modelling presents, the resolution at which it

is done also needs to be increased. This means moving beyond catchment wide numbers to

focus in at the level of individual water courses and aquifers. If the inputs and extractions

were modelled for all significant water systems, with all of the complicated interconnections

Page 52: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

43

between them mapped out, a powerful water management tool could be created. This would

resemble a hierarchical web which could allow for both real-time data inputs from gauging

stations as well as future projections based on specific geographical development patterns.

While many of the components which such a model would be made up of are already

available (flow readings on streams, surveys of groundwater conditions, snowpack levels,

extraction rates for public water supply, etc.), the current lack of standardization and the

fragmented nature or water management and oversight in Utah have prevented such a model

from being created.

The benefit of such a complicated model would be to provide water resource planners with a

complete overview of the choices and actions of all the concerned players (citizens,

businesses, local, state, and federal government) interact and affect each other as well as

providing the underpinnings for a more complete policy impact assessment tool.

6.2.4 Generate Water Policy Impact Assessment Tool

The most useful development would be to expand and refine this model to the point of being

able to quantify and visualize the impacts of specific land development and planning

decisions, as well as wider regional water management policies. This would likely require a

massive amount of data and development and the support of all the municipal and regional

water associations to create, but would allow for a holistic simulation of how the development

plans of the entire region would interact and impact water availability.

Page 53: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

44

References

[1] Snow, E. (1913, May). Excerpt from the Diary of Erastus Snow. Improvement Era, XVI,

pp. 751-67.

[2] Utah Governor's Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). DEA Population Projections.

Retrieved February 12, 2014, from Governor's Office of Management and Budget:

http://governor.utah.gov/DEA/popprojections.html

[3] Ramsey, R. D., Banner, R. E., & Mcginty, E. I. L. (2007). Watershed Basins of Utah (pp.

29–38). Retrieved from

http://extension.usu.edu/utahrangelands/files/uploads/RRU_Section_Four.pdf

[4] USGS, Utah AGRC. (n.d.). Lakes, Rivers, Streams, Springs. Retrieved May 26, 2014,

from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/water-

data-services/lakes-rivers-dams/

[5] USGS. (n.d.). 90 Meter USGS DEM (Utah Statewide). Retrieved June 16, 2014, from

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/elevation-

terrain-data/10-30-90-meter-elevation-models-usgs-dems/

[6] U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Utah AGRC. (n.d.). Watershed Areas. Retrieved May

26, 2014, from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:

http://gis.utah.gov/data/water-data-services/watersheds/

[7] USGS. (n.d.). US Geological Survey, North America Political Boundaries. Retrieved

July 3, 2014, from geocommons: http://geocommons.com/overlays/2264

[8] Utah AGRC. (n.d.). City, County, and State Boundaries. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:

http://gis.utah.gov/data/boundaries/citycountystate/

[9] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2011). Water

Related Land Use. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from Utah Automated Geographic

Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/planning/water-related-land/

[10] Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University. (2010). Average Annual

Precipitation 1981-2010: Utah. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from USDA Geospatial

Data Gateway: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState

[11] Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University. (n.d.). Average Monthly

Precipitation 1981-2010: Utah. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from USDA Geospatial

Data Gateway: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState

Page 54: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

45

[12] From, L., Past, T. H. E., For, P., & Future, T. H. E. (2008). Drought in Utah: Learning

from the Past-Preparing for the Future.

[13] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2001). Utah’s

Water Resources: Planning for the Future 2001.

[14] Burden, C. B., & U.S. Geological Survey. (2011). Groundwater Conditions in Utah:

Spring 2011 Cooperative Investigations Report No. 52.

[15] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (1997). Utah State

Water Plan: Utah Lake Basin.

[16] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2010). Jordan

River Basin: Planning for the Future. Retrieved from

http://www.water.utah.gov/Planning/SWP/Jord_riv/Jordan River Basin

Final0610t.pdf

[17] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2009, August 25). Project Details- Central Utah Project.

Retrieved August 7, 2014, from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Utah+Project

[18] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2008, December). Hoover Dam Frequently Asked

Questions: The Colorado River. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/riverfaq.html

[19] Central Utah Water Conservancy District. (2004). Octopus Chart.

[20] U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). CUPCAO. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from

Central Utah Project Completion Act Office: http://www.cupcao.gov/

[21] U.S Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Diamond Fork System. Retrieved August 7, 2014,

from CUPCAO: http://www.cupcao.gov/bonneville/dfs.html

[22] Provo River Water Users Association. (n.d.). Duchesne Diversion. Retrieved August 7,

2014, from Provo River Water Users Association: http://www.prwua.org/provo-

river-project-features/duchesne-tunnel-system/duchesne-diversion.php

[23] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2013). State of

Utah Municipal and Industrial Water Supply and Use Study Summary 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/PDF/2010 M_I Statewide Summary

Final.pdf

[24] U.S. Geological Survey. (2005). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Page 55: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

46

[25] U.S. Geological Survey. (1998). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

[26] U.S. Geological Survey. (2009). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

[27] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2003). Utah’s

M&I Water Conservation Plan.

[28] Waterwise. (n.d.). Water-The Facts. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from Waterwise.org.uk:

http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/25/Water_factsheet_2012.pdf

[29] Kimoto, M., Vecchi, G., John, J., Slater, A., & Zwiers, F. (2013). Near-term Climate

Change: Projections and Predictability. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science

Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

[30] Shi, D., Devineni, N., Lall, U., & Pinero, E. (2013). America’s Water Risk: Water Stress

and Climate Variability.

[31] Berghuijs, W. R., Woods, R. A., & Hrachowitz, M. (2014). A precipitation shift from

snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow, (May), 18–21.

doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2246

[32] Bardsley, T., Wood, A., Hobbins, M., Kirkham, T., Briefer, L., Niermeyer, J., & Burian,

S. (2013). Planning for an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment

toward Adaptation Planning for Public Water Supply. Earth Interactions, 17(23), 1–

26. doi:10.1175/2012EI000501.1

[33] Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. (2014). JCWCD Service Area Population and

Water Usage.

[34] Wilson, M. (2014). MWDSLS Consertation Trends.

[35] U.S. Census Bureau; Utah AGRC. (2010, May 26). 2010 Demographic Data. Retrieved

2014, from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:

http://gis.utah.gov/data/demographic/2010-census-data/

[36] Prud'Homme, A. (2011). The Ripple Effect. New York: Scribner.

[37] Rogers, P., & Leal, S. (2010). Running Out of Water. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

[38] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2005). Water

Reuse in Utah.

Page 56: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

47

[39] Phineas. (n.d.). A Sankey Diagram is Worth a Thousand Pie Charts. Retrieved August

21, 2014, from Sankey Diagrams: http://www.sankey-diagrams.com/

[40] Psomas and SWCA, “Utah Lake TMDL: Pollutant Loading Assessment & Designated

Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment,” 2007.

[41] WolframAlpha. (2014). Utah Lake. Retrieved from WolframAlpha:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Utah+Lake

[42] Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2013) Strawberry Reservoir and Valley Statistics,

Retrieved from http://wildlife.utah.gov/strawberry/straw4.php

[43] June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program. (2014) Retrieved from

www.junesuckerrecovery.org.

[44] Meyers, Donald. (2009) “Bridge over Utah Lake? Support is scarce,” The Salt Lake

Tribune, 15 November 2009. Retrieved from

www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_13793302.

[45] USGS Earthquake Glossary-liquefaction. (n.d.) Retrieved from

earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=liquefaction

[46] Hill, R. W., Miner, D., & Hinton, A. (2002). Sprinklers, Crop Water, and Irrigation

Time: Utah County, 1–10.

[47] United States Department of Transportation. (2009) “Inbound Shipment Characteristics

by State of Origin for State of Destination: 2007.” Retrieved from

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow

_survey/2007/states/utah/html/table_08.html.

[48] United States Department of Agriculture. (2012) “USDA Census of Agriculture State and

County Profiles, Utah: 2012.” Retrieved from

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profil

es/Utah/

[49] Utah Office of Energy Development. (2014) Utah’s Energy Resources. Retrieved from

http://energy.utah.gov/resource-areas/

[50] Utah Governor’s Office. (2014), Energy Priorities. Retrieved from

http://www.utah.gov/governor/priorities/energy.html

[51] Friedman, Gabe. (2014), “Sun Land,” The New Yorker, 6 August 2014, Retrieved from

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/sun-land-solar-power-development

[52] Young, Angelo. (2014) “California Sand Fire: Desalination Plants May Be State’s Only

Solution Despite Environmental, Energy Concerns.” 27 July 2014, International

Page 57: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

48

Business Times, retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/california-sand-fire-

desalination-plants-may-be-states-only-solution-despite-environmental-1640292

[53] Desware. (2014) “Energy Requirements of Desalination Processes,” Encyclopedia of

Desalination and Water Resources. Retrieved from www.desware.net/desa4.aspx

[54] iUtah. (2014), About iUtah, Retrieved from iutahepscor.org/about.html

Additional Resources:

[55] Richardson, G. B. (1906). Underground Water in the Valleys of Utah Lake and Jordan

River, Utah.

[56] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2000). Municipal

and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah and East Juab Counties Area: Data

Collected for Calendar Year 1998.

[57] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2004). Municipal

and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah Lake Basin: Data Collected for

Calendar Year 2003. Retrieved from

http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/utaheastjuabcounty/Utah Lake 2003 M&I.pdf

[58] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2006). Municipal

and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Jordan River Basin: Data Collected for

Calendar Year 2003. Retrieved from

http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/lowerjordan/Jordan 2003 M&I Rpt.pdf

[59] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2008). Municipal

and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah Lake Basin: Data Collected for

Calendar Year 2005, (May).

[60] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2009). Municipal

and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Jordan River: Data Collected for

Calendar Year 2005. Retrieved from

http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/lowerjordan/Jordan 2005 M&I.pdf

[61] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2012). The water-

energy nexus in Utah 2012.

Page 58: Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

49

Appendix A

Water Use Model for Utah Lake and Jordan River BasinsDJ Bruton

Aug-14 Case Name 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Year2060 Wastewater Split 2010 2060 2060 & CC

2060

Failed

Cons

WC: 2060,

Cons, CC, Ag

Protection

after 2025

Full

Transbasin

Diversion

2060

Wastewa

ter to Ag

2060

Wastewa

ter to

M&I

2060

Wastewa

ter Split

From literature

Projections/Calculations Inches Precip 27.5 25 25 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Inches

Copy of Previous Total Study Area 2502664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 Acres

Summation Natural Evap % 0.79275 76% 76% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79%

Water Budget 1188635 1,277,401 1,277,401 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 AF/year

Sources: Natural Evap 4546637 3,936,482 3,936,482 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 AF/year

1 CUWCD Octopus Chart Population 2988420 1,576,280 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 AF/year

2 Watershed Basins of Utah Total Agricultural Water 310370 558,395 310,370 310,370 310,370 483,988 310,370 310,370 310,370 310,370 AF/year

3 JRB Planning 2007 Ag Return 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 AF/year

4 Utah 2010 M&I Irrigation GW Return 0.19 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

5 Utah Lake Planning M&I GPCD 241 301 241 241 301 241 241 241 241 241 GPCD

6 Utah Planning 2001 Total M&I 806733 530,695 806,733 806,733 1,007,579 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 AF/year

7 Groundwater Conditions 2011 Surface/Groundwater Split 0.25 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

8 Water Related Land Use Transbasin Diversion 172900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 400,000 172,900 172,900 172,900 AF/year

9 Utah Gov. Office % Wastewater Recycled to M&I 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50%

% Wastewater Recycled to Ag 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 50%

Total Available Water 1361535 1,450,301 1,450,301 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,588,635 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,361,535

From Flow To Process Status

BOUND 1 A Process: Input: Output: 7 0 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 Description:

BOUND 2 A A 1 5735272 5,213,883 5,213,883 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 Total Precip

A 3 BOUND 2 172900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 400,000 172,900 172,900 172,900 Transbasin Diversion

A 4 B 3 4546637 3,936,482 3,936,482 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 Evap Losses

A 5 C 4 363285.1 452,051 452,051 363,285 363,285 363,285 590,385 363,285 363,285 363,285 Surface Water 1

B 6 D 5 998250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 Groundwater 1

B 7 M B 4 363285.1 452,051 452,051 363,285 363,285 363,285 590,385 363,285 363,285 363,285 Surface Water 1

B 8 E 6 48463.88 139,599 77,593 77,593 77,593 120,997 77,593 19,335 77,593 48,464 Ag from SW

C 9 D 7 142266.5 179,779 172,776 84,009 33,798 40,605 311,109 142,267 142,267 142,267 Surface Water Less Ag & M&I

C 10 E 8 172554.6 132,674 201,683 201,683 251,895 201,683 201,683 201,683 143,426 172,555 M&I from SW

C 11 N C 5 998250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 Groundwater 1

D 12 N 9 145391.6 418,796 232,778 232,778 232,778 362,991 232,778 58,006 232,778 145,392 Ag from GW

D 13 BOUND 10 517663.9 398,021 605,050 605,050 755,685 605,050 605,050 605,050 430,278 517,664 M&I from GW

D 14 M 11 335194.5 181,432 160,423 160,423 9,788 30,210 160,423 335,194 335,194 335,194 GW less Ag & M&I

E 15 F D 6 48463.88 139,599 77,593 77,593 77,593 120,997 77,593 19,335 77,593 48,464 Ag from SW

E 16 G 9 145391.6 418,796 232,778 232,778 232,778 362,991 232,778 58,006 232,778 145,392 Ag from GW

E 17 H R2 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 0 116,514 Recycled to Ag

E 18 I Ag Subtotal 310370 558,395 310,370 310,370 310,370 483,988 310,370 310,370 310,370 310,370

E 19 J 12 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 Ag return to GW

E 20 K 13 249059.1 448,089 249,059 249,059 249,059 388,380 249,059 249,059 249,059 249,059 Ag Depletion

F 21 BOUND 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ag return to SW

F 22 N E 8 172554.6 132,674 201,683 201,683 251,895 201,683 201,683 201,683 143,426 172,555 M&I from SW

G 23 BOUND 10 517663.9 398,021 605,050 605,050 755,685 605,050 605,050 605,050 430,278 517,664 M&I from GW

G 24 L R1 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 116,514 Recycled to M&I

H 25 BOUND M&I Subtotal 806733 530,695 806,733 806,733 1,007,579 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733

H 26 L 15 177769.9 116,943 177,770 177,770 222,028 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 Res Outdoor

I 27 BOUND 16 161457.1 106,212 161,457 161,457 201,654 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 Res Indoor

I 28 L 17 94238.9 61,993 94,239 94,239 117,701 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 Commercial

J 29 BOUND 18 226190.1 148,795 226,190 226,190 282,503 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 Institutional

J 30 L 19 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial

K 31 BOUND 20 97956.87 64,439 97,957 97,957 122,344 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 Secondary

K 32 N F 15 177769.9 116,943 177,770 177,770 222,028 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 Res Outdoor

L 33 BOUND 21 143993.6 94,724 143,994 143,994 179,843 143,994 143,994 143,994 143,994 143,994 Res Outdoor Depletion

L 34 M 22 33776.28 22,219 33,776 33,776 42,185 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 Res Outdoor to GW

M 35 O G 16 161457.1 106,212 161,457 161,457 201,654 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 Res Indoor

N 36 O 23 3229.09 2,124 3,229 3,229 4,033 3,229 3,229 3,229 3,229 3,229 Res Indoor Depletion

O 37 BOUND 24 158228 104,088 158,228 158,228 197,621 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 Res Indoor Return

L R1 E H 17 94238.9 61,993 94,239 94,239 117,701 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 Commercial

L R2 D 25 20355.64 13,391 20,356 20,356 25,423 20,356 20,356 20,356 20,356 20,356 Com Depletion

26 73883.26 48,603 73,883 73,883 92,277 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 Com Return

I 18 226190.1 148,795 226,190 226,190 282,503 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 Institutional

27 181857 119,631 181,857 181,857 227,133 181,857 181,857 181,857 181,857 181,857 Inst Depletion

28 44333.18 29,164 44,333 44,333 55,370 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 Inst Return

J 19 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial

29 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial Depletion

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial Return

K 20 97956.87 64,439 97,957 97,957 122,344 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 Secondary

31 79345.06 52,196 79,345 79,345 99,099 79,345 79,345 79,345 79,345 79,345 Secondary Depletion

32 18611.8 12,243 18,612 18,612 23,245 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 Secondary to GW

L 24 158228 104,088 158,228 158,228 197,621 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 Res Indoor Return

26 73883.26 48,603 73,883 73,883 92,277 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 Com Return

28 44333.18 29,164 44,333 44,333 55,370 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 Inst Return

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial Return

33 43415.47 28,560 43,415 43,415 54,224 43,415 43,415 43,415 43,415 43,415 Wastewater Treatment Losses

R1 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 116,514 Recycled to M&I

R2 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 0 116,514 Recycled to Ag

34 0 153,294 233,029 233,029 291,044 233,029 233,029 0 0 0 Wastewater to SW Return

M 7 142266.5 179,779 172,776 84,009 33,798 40,605 311,109 142,267 142,267 142,267 Surface Water Less Ag & M&I

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ag return to SW

34 0 153,294 233,029 233,029 291,044 233,029 233,029 0 0 0 Wastewater to SW Return

35 142266.5 333,073 405,805 317,038 324,842 273,634 544,138 142,267 142,267 142,267 SW to Outflow

N 11 335194.5 181,432 160,423 160,423 9,788 30,210 160,423 335,194 335,194 335,194 GW less Ag & M&I

12 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 Ag return to GW

22 33776.28 22,219 33,776 33,776 42,185 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 Res Outdoor to GW

32 18611.8 12,243 18,612 18,612 23,245 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 Secondary to GW

36 448893.5 326,201 274,122 274,122 136,530 178,205 274,122 448,893 448,893 448,893 GW to Outflow

O 35 142266.5 333,073 405,805 317,038 324,842 273,634 544,138 142,267 142,267 142,267 SW to Outflow

36 448893.5 326,201 274,122 274,122 136,530 178,205 274,122 448,893 448,893 448,893 GW to Outflow

37 591160 659,274 679,926 591,160 461,372 451,839 818,260 591,160 591,160 591,160 Total to GSL