“Slow the Flow of H2O” Evaluating A Decade of UtahWater Conservation Legislation

If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. Loran Eisley

Goldberry, S.A., Summers, L.

INTRODUCTION

Prior to reservoirs and the extraction of ground water, the availability of fresh water

greatly influenced the movement of human populations within ancient Utah. Located

within the geographical boundaries of the Great Basin, Utah’s early indigenous people

lives were intricately connected to fresh water sources. While tribal boundaries were

often determined by water-ways the appropriation, or diversion of water resources was

not a major concern, as their culture, and values did not require laws for water use.

Water laws and regulations were later instigated by the Anglo-European settlers. After

arriving into the valleys that sloped westward along the Wasatch mountain-range, they

diverted water from a creek in the Salt Lake Valley for their first crops. Eventually,

Utah’s water resources were appropriated by legislation, and the simple canals

morphed into a complex system of delivery, storage systems and treatment facilities.

More recently, economics and growth have influenced the development of additional

legislation that includes water conserving ethics and regulations. This legislation was

initiated primarily to ensure the future availability, and safety of Utah’s water. Since

water conserving legislation passed in 1998, several house-bills and public outreach

programs have been adopted by water conservancy

districts, and municipalities. Their main goal has been,

“Slow the Flow of H2O.”

THE COLORADO RIVER: A LIQUID ASSET

A vital, liquid asset that has changed the landscapes of

Utah and other Western states are the waters of the Colorado

River. Critically important to seven western states, indigenous

aboriginal tribes and Mexico, it is considered to be the most regulated river in the world

(Anderson, D.L., 2002). Its head-waters originate within the peaks of the Rocky Mountain

range in Colorado and Wyoming. However, before ending its flow into the Gulf of California,

it provides water for municipalities, industry, agriculture and hydroelectric power for cities.

Five of the seven upper and lower Colorado River Basin States are among the fastest

growing in the nation. Ranked by growth they include: (1) Nevada, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado,

(4) Utah and (5) Idaho. Utah, the second driest state in the continental United States lies

within the lower and upper Colorado River Basins. In the year 2000, diversions from the

upper Colorado River totaled 953,000 acre-feet of water that was diverted at specific

tributaries throughout the state. A majority of Utah’s diversions from the Colorado occur

from the Duchene River system in the Uintah Basin. This water is then transported to

communities along the Wasatch Front through the federally funded Central Utah Water

Project (CUP).

Utah has rights to an additional 200,000 af/year of water that is calculated into its

future water budget. Within the lower Colorado River Basin, the currently unused water

is calculated to serve future populations expected to increase at a rate of 2.96% for the

next twenty years. However, growth rates for the part of the state located in the upper

basin are projected to be only 1.74% (Anderson, D.L.,2002). In 1998, recognizing that

increases in population within both upper and lower basins could equate to water

consumption in excess of supply, the state legislature passed House Bill 418. In 2004,

an amendment was passed (HB 71) that strengthened and refined certain guidelines of

the original legislation.

HOUSE BILL 418: CONSIDERING UTAH’S WATER FUTURE

Prior to the passing of House Bill 418, several communities were practicing water conservation measures that

included: universal metering, watershed protection and had adopted water conserving rates for their culinary

water supplies. H.B. 418 was written in response to the Utah Division of Water Resources, Division of Water

Rights and a Utah state government subcommittee (the Governor’s Water Conservation Team) that recognized

the importance of implementing statewide best management practices that would reduce water use, while

increasing water awareness. Moreover, the language of HB 418 preamble was one of cooperation, rather than

strongly regulatory; “…an act relating to water and irrigation; requiring water conservancy districts and water

retailers to prepare and adopt or update a water conservation plan and file it with the Division of Water

Resources; and requiring the Board of Water Resources to study the plans and make recommendations.”

Required to submit their plans by April 1, 1999, Utah’s water retailers, municipalities

and water conservancy districts serving more than 500 connections responded in

varying levels of detail. While the requirements of HB 418 were similar to those

required by Regional Drinking Water Facilities Plan initiative conducted in Utah to

meet the federally mandated 1996 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act; H.B. 418 was

comprised of ten specific measurable guidelines:

1. The installation and use of water efficient fixtures and appliances, including toilets,

shower fixtures and faucets.

2. Residential and commercial landscapes and irrigation that require less water to

maintain.

3. More water efficient industrial and commercial processes involving the use of

water.

4. Water reuse systems, both potable and not potable.

5. Distribution system leak repair.

6. Dissemination of public information regarding more efficient use of water, including

public education programs, customer water use audits, and water saving

demonstrations.

7. Water rate structures designed to encourage more efficient use of water.

8. Statutes, ordinances, codes, or regulations designed to encourage more efficient

use of water by means such as water efficient fixtures and landscapes.

9. Incentives to implement water efficient techniques, including rebates to water users

to encourage the implementation of more water efficient measures.

10. Other measures designed to conserve water.

DROUGHT CYCLES

While state models allocate for projected depletions based on historical evaporation

rates from reservoirs, the values do not include adjustments for increased temperatures

associated with global warming. The most recent drought cycle in Utah, (2000-2007)

impressed municipalities and water retailers on the necessity of having a viable drought

contingency plan. During the evaluation of the conservation plans submitted for review

from 1998-2008, the majority of the municipalities included severe drought contingency

plans as a conservation ‘Best Management Plan.’ Many municipalities had the foresight

to implement “increasing block” rate structures, concluding that they promoted

conservation, while ensuring that municipalities had adequate funds for operations and

maintenance. North Logan mayor, Val Potter observed on the interrelation between

water pricing, drought preparedness and conservation. “The drought got our attention!

Wells are drawn down, pumping costs have increased and the city is facing the expense

of developing new storage and water. We will need to conserve even after the drought.

Pricing water for conservation is our best tool.”

As the plans were evaluated for thoroughness and conservation measurability by Utah

Division of Water Resources conservation staff, additional factors were considered. (1)

municipality size and (2) the resources available for water conservation project

development. Awareness about the importance of water conservation plans varied from

progressive and detailed, to brief statements about how water conservation practices

were only necessary during times of drought. Salt Lake City, with the largest

population centers in Utah considered the definition and scope of water conservation.

“Water conservation is a set of strategies for reducing the volume of water withdrawn

from a water supply source, for reducing the loss or waste of water, for maintaining or

improving efficiency in the use of water, for increasing the recycling and reuse of

water, and for preventing the pollution of water….Every person, animal and plant which

resides within, works, or passes through our community benefits from water

conservation…” While population and the complexity of the Salt Lake City water system

contributed to the thoroughness of their conservation plan, many smaller municipalities

also included rate incentive pricing and moderately detailed water-conservation plans.

EVALUATING THE PLANS

The municipalities chosen for review spanned the entire state, from Logan City located

in the northern pan-handle of Utah, to Blanding City nestled within the red-rock

landscapes of the four-corner area in the south. Tourism, particularly in the southern

portion of the state contributes to seasonal-peak water use. Those most affected by

these seasonal fluctuations include Blanding, Moab and St. George. Many of the cities

also receive water from conservancy districts, in addition to their own developments.

As stated within H.B. 418, all water entities were responsible for submitting water

conservation plans; and while this study has focused upon municipalities their

conservancy districts are also included.

The major water conservancy districts are Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District,

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District and

Washington County Water Conservancy District. Metropolitan Water District of Salt

Lake and Sandy is not a conservancy district but is a major wholesale water supplier to

SLC and Sandy. There are also nineteen additional water conservancy districts located

throughout the state.

One of the primary roles of the conservancy districts is to assist their customer

agencies in reaching the conservation goals they have set. For example: Jordan Valley

Water

Conservancy

District

(JVWCD) could

never reach its

goal of twenty-

five percent

reduction in

water

deliveries by

2025 unless all

their customer

agencies were

striving to meet

an identical

Municipality

Submitted

Population

1999 2003-2007

Conservancy District

Logan 99/05 42,000 47,000 Bear River C.D.

Morgan 99/04 2,540 2,800 Weber Basin C.D.

Riverdale 99/05 8,250 8,328 Sub Roy C.D.

Centerville 99/05 15,000 17,225 Weber Basin C.D.

Salt Lake

City

99/04 313473 325,000 7 Salt Lake C.D.

West Jordan 99/09 64,200 80,812 Jordan Valley Water

C.D.

Vernal 99/05 7,700 7,714 Central Utah Project

Moab 99/06 5,200 5,200 Washington County

C.D.

Blanding 99/04 3,299 3,200 Wide Hollow C.D.

St. George 99/08 70,000 83,364 Washington County

C.D.

goal. One incentive is water-conservation grants. JVWCD provides $50,000 grants to

each of its customer cities and districts. To receive the grant a customer agencies must

illustrate quantifiable conservation measures that will facilitate the conservancy district

reaching their conservation goals. West Jordan City is a customer municipality of

JVWCD. With a similar water conserving vision to the conservancy district they have

many exceptional water conserving programs they have developed from water

conservation grants.

MEASURING CHANGE

The analysis of the water-conservation plans submitted from 1999-2009, focused upon

the implementation of the water conservation guidelines listed in both H.B. 418, and

H.B. 71. In addition, a ranking system of “Currently in Use,” and “Not in Use,” was

designated to both indoor, outdoor water conserving features. From the total number

of municipalities that were evaluated, a percentage was established for each water

conserving feature studied, and all data represents a total implementation rather than

an evaluation of each individual municipality. Data collected from the submitted plans

of H.B. 418 (1999), supplied a portrait of a statewide need to increase measureable

water conserving guidelines. From the ten suggested practices outlined within H.B.

418 only two water conserving practices; water metering for culinary water sources

and mulching programs were implemented by fifty percent of the selected cities, and

conservancy districts. In many instances the submitted water conservation plans

lacked reference to a particular guideline.

Low-flow faucets

Dual flush toilets

Low-flow showers

Indoor leak checks

Water Meter (culinary)

ET Systems

Water Reuse

Mulching

Water Efficient Landscaping

Community Conservation Group

Time/Over Watering Ordinance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not in Use Currently in Use

Table 1: Evaluation of selected Utah municipalities interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs as submitted in their H.B. 418 water conservation plans (1999). Categorized by the rate of use, or in some instances not applicable.

Low-flow faucets

Low-flow showers

Water Meter (potable)

ET Weather Stations

Water Efficient Landscaping

Time/Watering Ordinances

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Not in Use Currently in Use

Table 2: The 2004-2009 evaluation of selected Utah municipalities’ interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs, as directed by H.B. 71. Categorized by the implementation of water conserving programs outlined within the H.B.

Almost a decade later, H.B. 71 was enacted by the state. Municipalities and

conservancy districts were required to reevaluate and resubmit their water

conservation plans. Many municipalities, particularly those located within dense urban

centers began to implement landscape rebates. Furthermore, the economics of water

was considered, as several municipalities included changes in their water rate

structures. Complimentary water-audits created more partnerships between

conservancy districts and provided an environment where ‘Community Conservation

Groups’ could flourish. Additional water conservation measures, including water reuse

in the landscape, and water metering for secondary water saw an increase though it

still ranked below fifty percent.

Additional measures within H.B. 71

were included into the new plans.

Several conservancy districts now had

demonstration water conservation

landscapes for area citizens and

businesses to glean inspiration from,

and over sixty percent had

measureable results from their water

education programs. Other successful

measures included large-user water

conservation programs for industry,

municipal parks, and by-ways. West Jordan illustrated the estimated costs of water-

savings of their conservation programs, and the associated costs per acre-feet.

City of West Jordan Estimated Costs of Water Savings

of Conservation Programs

ProgramCost per Acre-Feet

of Water Savings

Commercial Landscape

Ordinance$14

ULFT Rebate Program $75

“Water Check” Audit Program $50

4th Grade Educational Program $235

RAINWATER HARVESTING: A POPULAR DIVERSION

Recent legislation has recently added another dimension to water conservation efforts,

rainwater harvesting. While the harvesting of rainwater is an ancient worldwide

practice dating back to circa 1,500 B.C. (Hicks, 2008), individuals have been unable to

practice it due to the state of Utah’s established water laws that follow the Doctrine of

Prior Appropriation. The major tenants of the law are “First in time is first in right.” and

“Use it or lose it.” During the early-anglo settlement the right to use water was simply

established by diverting the water from its primary source and then applying it for a

beneficial use.

Consequently, the prior interpretation of rainwater harvesting meant that water was

being removed from use downstream, and appeared to contradict the “First in time,

first in right,” doctrine. However, Senate Bill 128 is representative with how individuals

view water in Utah and may promote greater water stewardship. While the amount of

water that can be harvested is only 2,500 gallons in an underground container or 55

gallons in two above ground containers/parcel (lot), it may facilitate increased wise-

water use applications of non-potable water in landscape and toilet-flushing.

Particularly, when rainwater harvesting contributes positively to the equation that

describes monthly conservation practices: Supply > Demand (Kinkade-Levario, 2007).

THE ULTIMATE PARTNERSHIP: PRICING AND CONSERVATION

House Bill 418 forges a link between water rates and conservation with the statement

that, “Water conservation plans may include information regarding: (among other

things) water rate structures designed to encourage more efficient use of water.” The

latest document produced by the Utah Division of Water Resources in its State Water

Planning Program, titled The Jordan River Basin Plan, points out the major difficulty in

setting water rates for conservation in Utah. Water is cheap. The average cost per

1,000 gallons of water in the Jordan River Basin, where most of the people live is just

$1.60. The state average is $1.15 compared to the national average of $2.50 (UDWR,

2010).

A widespread custom used in setting water rates is to set the price of water at a level

where revenues equal the cost of delivery. To stay true to this cost of service principle

cities and districts avoid increasing the price of water to incentivize customers to

achieve their conservation goals. Instead, some utilities have moved into some

innovative conservation rate structures. Salt Lake City, for example adopted a seasonal

rate structure, as have five other major water suppliers in Salt Lake County. Some

suppliers have added an increasing block feature to their summer rate.

A somewhat new form of rate structure that is slowly gaining popularity sets a water

budget or allocation for each customer in the residential, commercial or other customer

classes. No water providers in Utah have implemented this as yet but one major

conservancy districts and one improvement district are taking a serious look. This

water budget rate structure combines improved education on an enhanced water bill

with tough overage charges for water used in excess of the water budget. With this one

the utility is responsible for deciding what amount of water constitutes efficient use for

each customer. The customer is responsible for using water appropriately or paying a

much higher price for the wasted water. In some cases the extra revenue from the

higher rates is used to fund conservation programs targeted toward helping those who

are using excessive amounts.

Utah’s most popular conservation rate structure is the increasing block rate with 42

percent of the drinking water systems using it. As also with the other rate structures

mentioned, a base fee ranging from $2.88 to a high of $36.00 is applied for each

customer and often no water is granted for this fee (Utah Division Water Resources,

2010) An increasing commodity charge is then set for each succeeding price block.

CONCLUSION: CONSERVATION’S BOTTOM LINE

Municipalities of all population sizes implemented many proactive and measureable

additions into their water conservation plans. Several larger municipalities had

exemplary water conservation plans that were both quantifiable and visionary. West

Jordan City is one example of successfully implementing comprehensive BMP’s. Since

H.B. 418 their per capita water use has decreased from 227 gallons per capita per day

(gpcpd) to 193 gpcpd. These values reflect a 15% decrease in use from 2000.

Moreover, the effectiveness of their water conservation programs is reflected in their

expenditures and project water savings (WJC Conservation Plan, 2009).

Evaluation of the selected plans

illustrated that conservation, education

and equitable water rate structures are a

necessary component for dynamic water

conserving plans. The magnitude of

providing adequate and quality water,

while promoting water conservation

ethics will require continued vigilance

and evaluation of the best management

practices (BMP’s) described within both

house bills. The future of Utah’s water is dependent upon commitment from the entire

spectrum of water users and a heightened recognition of our interdependency to all life

and that our actions will benefit a future that we cannot see.

REFFERENCES Anderson, D.L. (2002) The Colorado River, Utah’s Perspective, Utah Division of Water

Resources,2nd ed. State of Utah Department of Natural Resources.

http://www.water.utah.gov/Interstate/TheColoradoRiverart.pdf.]

Gleick, P.H., Chalecki, E.L. (2001) The Impacts of Climate Changes for Water Resources

of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins. Paper No. 99085

of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2000.

Hicks, B. (2008) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial

Facilities in Arlington County, Virginia. Masters Thesis. Nickolas School of the

Environment and Earth Sciences. Duke University.

http://www.rainharvest.com/more/MastersProjectRainHarvest_200805.pdf

Kindade-Levario, H.( 2007.) Design for Water, Gabriola Island, British Columbia,

Canada. New Society Publishers.

Longuevergne, L. et al (2011). GRACE Hydrological estimates for small basins:

Evaluating processing approaches on the High Plains Aquifer, USA. Water

Resources Research, VOL. 46, W11517.

Utah Division of Water Resources, (2010). Jordan River Basin Plan. pg.90-91.

West Jordan City 2009 Water Conservation Plan Update. (2009). Current Water

Conservation Programs. Ch. 3. pg.11-12.