Our state’s water policy-makers at the Division of Water Resources (DWRe) has been working on defining goals for reducing our water use, and have invited your input.
This is a chance for you to influence policy.
The subject is complicated, and it will take an effort to read the document. If you don’t have time or energy you can read CSU's Comments of Regional Water Conservation Goals made on an earlier version, which are summarized below. The new version is improved in some ways from the older one, but the primary issues remain.
The goals are too weak.
The goals are anemic when compared to communities in other states, to what is possible, and perhaps to what will be necessary. Utah ranks worst in the country, and Washington County is perhaps the worst in the state with water use over 300 gallons per person per day - (not counting agricultural use). That’s twice the national average and about twice of what water-wise communities in the Southwest use. The proposed goal of 29% reduction (to 237) over the next 45 years is very poor, about .6% per year. We can, and must, do much better, more like a 40% reduction (to 175). This can easily and cheaply be done while still maintaining a vibrant, growing and attractive community. However, that rate of water use would mean the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP) would not be needed for a very long time, if ever, and that is something that policy-makers do not want to consider.
The goals did not consider the limits of the water supply.
This is a major error. We must be sure our goal for water use is not greater than our water supply. The regional water conservation goals were set without considering how much water will be available. Our studies indicate Washington County’s 2065 local water supply will support its 2065 population at 175 gallons per person daily, a very achievable number, but far less than the declared goal of 237. Considering second homes whose owners are not considered in the population numbers but use water as if they lived here, the goal should be more like 150 gallons per person per day. By omitting this all-important constraint, the recommended goal would put us in danger. We need an open and honest projection of our water supply in order to set a safe water conservation goal.
Note: The Lake Powell Pipeline, if it were viable, would enable the wasteful use of 237 gallons per person per day as proposed in the DWRe study. Assessing the viability of the LPP would be part of determining our projected water supply. Our analysis indicates that due to reduced flows of the Colorado River over the past 20 years, and the projected continued reduction into the future, all of the states using the Colorado River will have to significantly reduce the amount they take out of it. This is recognized by numerous scientific studies of the river. When Utah is finally forced to acknowledge that it cannot assume the river will flow forever at its 1922 level, it will realize that it is already taking more water from the river than will be allowed in the future. Adding the LPP to its over-use would not be allowed. Our analysis shows that LPP is not a viable project, and cannot save us from our wasteful water ways. Our policy-makers should sanction an open and honest evaluation of all of our water supply options, and let the decisions follow the data.
The goals were set without any definition of how or if they will be implemented.
An overall strategic water plan, with buy-in from all stakeholders, is missing, making goal-setting an academic exercise. The goals have been set without any agreement to them or any plan to implement them.
Another closed process with insufficient stakeholder participation.
The participants who engaged in the goal-setting process were largely those invested in large water projects like the Lake Powell Pipeline. They have downplayed the need for conservation and have mis-characterized its costs and yields for years. The process was not an open, transparent and engaging of all shareholders, resulting in significant bias and the wrong answer.
The most impactful water conservation methods were not property represented.
The costs and yields of many of the most effective water conservation measures (e.g., water pricing, informative water billing, water budgeting, building codes on landscaping) were not addressed. These would have dramatic effects on our water use goals.
We hope this request for comment will open a new chapter in public engagement on our water policy, a real dialog rather than our comments going into a black hole, never to be seen again. Goal-setting, and the implementation of measures to achieve them, must be driven by verifiable facts and data, in the context of a strategic plan for our water.
