Utah Population

2000-2012

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

Mill

ions

Utah Population

2000-2012

2.2 M

2.9 M

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

Mill

ions

Population Growth

State Comparisons | 2011-2012

1.4%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Rho

de Is

land

Ver

mon

tO

hio

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Illin

ois

Mic

higa

nM

aine

New

Mex

ico

Pen

nsyl

vani

aM

isso

uri

New

Ham

pshi

reM

issi

ssip

piKe

ntuc

kyW

isco

nsin

Con

nect

icut

Indi

ana

Ark

ansa

sIo

wa

Ala

bam

aN

ew J

erse

yKa

nsas

New

Yor

kLo

uisi

ana

Okl

ahom

aM

inne

sota

Idah

oM

onta

naN

ebra

ska

Ore

gon

Tenn

esse

eM

assa

chus

etts

Cal

iforn

iaS

outh

Car

olin

aM

aryl

and

Was

hing

ton

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Geo

rgia

Ariz

ona

Del

awar

eV

irgin

iaS

outh

Dak

ota

Ala

ska

Haw

aii

Nev

ada

Uta

hFl

orid

aC

olor

ado

Wyo

min

gTe

xas

Nor

th D

akot

aD

ist.

of C

olum

bia

United States: 0.8%

Utah Employment

2000-2013

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Thou

sand

s

Employment Growth

State Comparisons | 2012-2013

3.2%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

Ala

ska

Rho

de Is

land

Dis

t. o

f Col

umbi

aP

enns

ylva

nia

Okl

ahom

aN

ebra

ska

Ohi

oM

aine

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Ala

bam

aN

ew Y

ork

Wis

cons

inW

yom

ing

Haw

aii

Illin

ois

Kent

ucky

New

Mex

ico

New

Ham

pshi

reS

outh

Dak

ota

Ark

ansa

sKa

nsas

Loui

sian

aM

assa

chus

etts

Tenn

esse

eN

evad

aC

onne

ctic

utV

irgin

iaM

aryl

and

Ver

mon

tC

alifo

rnia

Del

awar

eIo

wa

Mic

higa

nN

orth

Car

olin

aO

rego

nM

isso

uri

Flor

ida

Indi

ana

Mon

tana

New

Jer

sey

Min

neso

taS

outh

Car

olin

aM

issi

ssip

piW

ashi

ngto

nC

olor

ado

Idah

oN

orth

Dak

ota

Texa

sG

eorg

iaA

rizon

aU

tah

United States: 1.6%

Utah Unemployment Rate

2000-2013

4.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Unemployment Rate

State Comparisons | July 2013

4.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Nor

th D

akot

aS

outh

Dak

ota

Neb

rask

aH

awai

iU

tah

Ver

mon

tW

yom

ing

Iow

aN

ew H

amps

hire

Min

neso

taM

onta

naO

klah

oma

Virg

inia

Kans

asW

est

Vir

gini

aA

laba

ma

Ala

ska

Texa

sId

aho

Wis

cons

inM

aine

New

Mex

ico

Was

hing

ton

Loui

sian

aC

olor

ado

Flor

ida

Mar

ylan

dM

isso

uri

Mas

sach

uset

tsO

hio

Ark

ansa

sD

elaw

are

New

Yor

kP

enns

ylva

nia

Ariz

ona

Ore

gon

Con

nect

icut

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Indi

ana

Kent

ucky

Mis

siss

ippi

Tenn

esse

eD

ist.

of C

olum

bia

New

Jer

sey

Cal

iforn

iaG

eorg

iaM

ichi

gan

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Rho

de Is

land

Illin

ois

Nev

ada

United States: 7.4%

Utah Personal Income

2000-2012

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

Bill

ions

Utah Personal Income

2000-2012

$90.6 B $98.8 B

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

Bill

ions

Personal Income Per Capita

State Comparisons | 2012

$34,601

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Mis

siss

ippi

Idah

oS

outh

Car

olin

aW

est

Vir

gini

aU

tah

Ark

ansa

sKe

ntuc

kyN

ew M

exic

oA

laba

ma

Ariz

ona

Geo

rgia

Indi

ana

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Nev

ada

Mon

tana

Mic

higa

nTe

nnes

see

Ore

gon

Okl

ahom

aM

isso

uri

Ohi

oLo

uisi

ana

Mai

neFl

orid

aW

isco

nsin

Texa

sKa

nsas

Del

awar

eIo

wa

Ver

mon

tN

ebra

ska

Pen

nsyl

vani

aS

outh

Dak

ota

Haw

aii

Illin

ois

Cal

iforn

iaR

hode

Isla

ndC

olor

ado

Was

hing

ton

Min

neso

taA

lask

aN

ew H

amps

hire

Virg

inia

Wyo

min

gN

orth

Dak

ota

Mar

ylan

dN

ew Y

ork

New

Jer

sey

Mas

sach

uset

tsC

onne

ctic

utD

ist.

of C

olom

bia

Thou

sand

s

United States: $42,693

“Utah heads our list of the Best States for Business for a

third straight year. Utah’s economy has expanded 2.3% annually since 2006–fifth best in the U.S–versus 0.5% for the

nation as a whole.”

• Among the strongest economies in the United States

• The most diversified economy of its size in the United States

• Strong cluster development and commercialization of research, including via universities

• High rates of population growth, but more importantly, population retention

5.96M +3.20M

State of Utah Projected Population (2060)

State of Utah Projected Population Growth (2060)

$130.5B +3.4% State of Utah Gross Domestic Product (2012)

State of Utah Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate (2012)

2,855,287 State of Utah Resident Population (2012)

1,292,000 +3.2%

State of Utah Employment Base (July 2012)

State of Utah Employment Growth Rate (July 2012)

$98.8B State of Utah Total Personal Income (2012)

Conflict is not Likely it is Imminent

“In a recent volley between Phoenix and Los Angeles,

newspapers in those two arid cities pointed fingers at each other over who has the least sustainable water supply.”

“…the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that thirsty Texas counties can’t run a pipeline

into Oklahoma for more drops to drink.”

“At issue is a 2012 order…to eventually pump some 84,000 acre-feet of

groundwater a year…from four rural valleys in Lincoln and White Pine counties.”

1 2 3 4 7 8 5 2 3 1 4

Water Shortage Impacts

“The new estimate for municipal and industrial water demand was increased to 2,553,000 ac-ft. However, water planners estimated that local suppliers would still be able to meet this larger future demand and maintain a reliable supply surplus, if a variety of strategies were employed.”

“The new estimate for municipal and industrial water demand was increased to 2,553,000 ac-ft. However, water planners estimated that local suppliers would still be able to meet this larger future demand and maintain a reliable supply surplus, if a variety of strategies were employed.”

Proposed Pipeline Projects in the West

• Perception = Reality

• Uncertainty abounds - climate change, population shifts, reliability of existing resources

• The water manager’s long view

• Strategies are not mutually exclusive, conservation + water resource development

• How much risk are you willing to accept

Renewable Internal Freshwater

Supply Per Capita (in Cubic Meters)

596

1,217

4,422

4,617

6,123

7,922

9,044

16,378

22,364

Middle East & North Africa

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

East Asia & Pacific

World

Europe & Central Asia

United States

North America

Latin America & Caribbean

Annual Freshwater Withdrawals

(% of Internal Resources)

2.0%

3.2%

7.7%

9.2%

9.3%

10.9%

17.0%

51.6%

133.3%

Latin America & Caribbean

Sub-Saharan Africa

Europe & Central Asia

World

North America

East Asia & Pacific

United States

South Asia

Middle East & North Africa

Water Productivity

(in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

$2

$7

$8

$11

$14

$14

$28

$28

$32

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Middle East & North Africa

East Asia & Pacific

Latin America & Caribbean

World

North America

United States

Europe & Central Asia

Water Productivity – Top 20

(in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

$938

$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900

$1,000

Water Productivity

(in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater*)

$14 $15

$27 $28

$34

World Utah California U.S. Nevada

*Withdrawals include saline sources in some cases

Water Use in the United States

1950-2005*

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Mill

ions

Bill

ion

Gal

lons

Per

Day

Total Withdrawals Population

*Most current data available

Water Use in the United States

1950-2005*

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Mill

ions

Bill

ion

Gal

lons

Per

Day

Public Supply Irrigation

Thermoelectric Power Other

Population

*Most current data available

Per Capita Water Use (in Gallons)

1950-2005*

1,194

1,463 1,506 1,600

1,797 1,941 1,873

1,638 1,601 1,494 1,448

1,363

*Most current data available

Per Capita Water Use (in Gallons)

State Comparisons | 2005*

2,008

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Dis

t. o

f Col

umbi

aR

hode

Isla

ndM

aine

Okl

ahom

aM

assa

chus

etts

Geo

rgia

Sou

th D

akot

aP

enns

ylva

nia

Min

neso

taN

ew Y

ork

Ver

mon

tN

ew J

erse

yW

ashi

ngto

nN

evad

aO

hio

Mis

siss

ippi

New

Ham

pshi

reFl

orid

aKe

ntuc

kyA

rizon

aC

onne

ctic

utIo

wa

Mic

higa

nTe

xas

Illin

ois

Del

awar

eC

alifo

rnia

Mar

ylan

dKa

nsas

Virg

inia

Haw

aii

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Indi

ana

Mis

sour

iW

isco

nsin

Ala

ska

New

Mex

ico

Tenn

esse

eS

outh

Car

olin

aO

rego

nU

tah

Nor

th D

akot

aA

laba

ma

Loui

sian

aW

est

Vir

gini

aC

olor

ado

Ark

ansa

sN

ebra

ska

Wyo

min

gM

onta

naId

aho

United States: 1,363

*Most current data available

California Water Use

By Category

Public Supply 15.3% Irrigation

53.3%

Thermoelectric Power 27.6%

Other 3.8%

Nevada Water Use

By Category

Public Supply 28.4%

Irrigation 63.1%

Thermoelectric Power 1.5%

Other 7.0%

Utah Water Use

By Category

Public Supply 11.9%

Irrigation 78.2%

Thermoelectric Power 1.2%

Other 8.8%

Utah Water Use

By Category

Public Supply 11.9%

Irrigation 78.2%

Thermoelectric Power 1.2%

Other 8.8%

Water Productivity (Excluding Irrigation)

(in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater*)

$34

$57

$70

$92

United StatesAverage

California Utah Nevada

*Withdrawals include saline sources in some cases

5.7 MAF Total Water Withdrawals (All Purposes), State of Utah,

2005 (Latest Available From the USGS)

Agricultural

Municipal & Industrial

Total

Diverted 3,743,000 1,001,000 4,744,000

Consumed 2,706,000 410,000 3,116,000

Returned to the Environment

1,037,000 591,000 1,628,000

Utah Water Use (in Acre-Feet Per Year)

1.7 MAF State of Utah Colorado River Apportionment

Natural Flow at Lees Ferry

1906-2013 (in Acre-Feet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1906

1911

1916

1921

1926

1931

1936

1941

1946

1951

1956

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

Mill

ions

10-Year Average

Natural Flow at Lees Ferry

1980-2013 (in Acre-Feet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mill

ions

10-Year Average

Water Resource Development Timeline

1941 The Utah Water Conservancy District Act was passed, allowing government entities to build reservoir projects and provide water supply protection.

1948 Upper Colorado River Compact allocated Upper Basin water based on percentages (Utah received 23 percent).

1950 Weber Basin Water Conservancy District created, allowing Bureau of Reclamation to construct Weber Basin Project.

1951 Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District became first customer for Central Utah Project, which provided funds necessary for construction to begin.

1956 Colorado River States Project passed, allowing for dams in Upper Basin of Colorado River and funding for Central Utah Project.

1963 Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon Dams built, providing water storage for droughts and emergencies.

1964 Central Utah Water Conservancy District formed.

1991 Bear River Development Act passed.

1992 Central Utah Project Completion Act approved, marking the end of federal funding for water development projects. Funding now provided by the state.

2006 Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act passed.

2012 The Legislative Task Force formed to focus on water development throughout the state.

1982 Quail Creek Dam and Sand Hollow Reservoir become early examples of state funded water development projects.

$20 B Estimated Cost of Utah Water Infrastructure Projects

Water Projects $1 Billion +

By Sponsor

1) Weber Basin WCD (Davis County) - $1.5 Billion

2) Weber Basin WCD (Weber County) - $1.5 Billion

3) Bear River Development - $1.5 Billion

4) Washington County WCD - $1.0 Billion

5) Lake Powell Pipeline - $1.0 Billion

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

Mill

ions

Projected Funding Covered by State Funding Agencies

Utah Water Infrastructure Projects

Projected Annual Funding Needs

Conservation, Conservation, Conservation

The Goal:

Reduce per capita water use by 25% by 2025

What Does Nearly $20 Billion in Water Projects Mean for the State of Utah?

One-Time Construction Impacts

Preliminary Impacts Jobs: ±198,000 Wages: ±$8.4 Billion Output: ±$29.7 Billion

Economic

Growth

Potential

• Population: 3.2 Million

• Households: 1,030,000

• GSP: $183 Billion

• Income: $107 Billion

• Business: 90,000

Water Resource Diversity

1,292,000 Total Utah Employees Currently Supported

by Water Resource Stability

83,694 Total Utah Businesses Currently Supported

by Water Resource Stability

Growth Interruption…

• Mild (1% to 2%) = $1.3B to $2.6B

• Moderate (3% to 5%) =$3.9B to $6.5B

• Severe (6% to 10%) = $7.8B to $13.1B

…Annually

Water resources are an essential element of economic development and diversification.

Ensuring water resources is critical to protecting the state’s economy.

A comprehensive, master-planned approach is necessary and appropriate.