Utah State Group Presentation Background - Current population - Population growth o Projects for future population/water imbalances - General water policy - Type of climate - History of development - Geography and water resources - History of st George / green river pipeline Why we chose this issue? Issue - Problem statement: too much investment in new infrastructure versus investing in conservation and BMP o St George pipeline o Green river pipeline to CO front range Solutions(s) -50% of content: your group’s suggestion of how to best address the issue - Conservation - Wise / efficient use of local water supplies - Water re-use - Pricing strategies https://utah.sierraclub.org/content/lake-powell-st-george-pipeline - What is the Lake Powell-St. George Pipeline? o Proposed by the Washington County Water Conservancy District Other interests in the project: St George City The Hildale & Colorado City communities Kaibab Band of Paiutes (at Moccasin) Kane County Water Conservancy District Kanab City State & Institutional Trust Lands Administration o 139 mile pipeline from Lake Powell to St. George o Pump about 86,000 Acre Feet from Lake Powell o Cost estimates = 1.402.4 billion dollars o “the ENTIRE repayment burden of this wasteful project will fall on the taxpayers of Washington and Kane Counties” - Why build the Lake Powell-St. George Pipeline? - Why do we see this as an issue? o Acquiring water from great distances is expensive and not sustainable http://www.sgcity.org/wp/water/sgnew.php - Proposed by Washington County Water Conservacny District o Other interests in the project: St George City The Hildale & Colorado City communities Kaibab Band of Paiutes (at Moccasin) Kane County Water Conservancy District Kanab City State & Institutional Trust Lands Administration - The State Board of Water Resources has set aside 73,000 acre-feet with a comment that “… the Lake Powell Pipeline will probably be a state project” - Pipeline would develop enough pressure to operate a hydropower turbine generator at the Sand Hollow site and much of the pumping cost recovered thru the sale of electricity http://www.water.utah.gov/lakepowellpipeline/generalinformation/default.asp - 139 miles buried of 69 inch pipe from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George - Pumping facilities near Glen Canyon Dam with booster pumping stations along the pipeline alignment to provide approximately 2,000 foot lift needed to carry the water over the high point in the pipeline - Hydroelectric generation facilities to utilize the 2,900 foot drop between the high point and the end of the pipeline - Power sales will be used to help offset pumping costs - At full development Pipeline is expected to deliver o up to 82,000 acre-feet (26.7 billion gallons) / year to Washington County o 4,000 acre feet (1.3 billion gallons) to Kane County Water Conservancy District - Water diverted into pipeline will be a portion of Utah’s Upper Colorado River Compact allocation - The State will build the project and the districts will repay the costs through water sales - Timeline o 2020 Construction begins o 2025 Water delivery begins - The Division of Water Resources current cost estimate (June 2008) for the entire project is 1.006 billion o Construction o Materials o Engineering o Land and right-of-way acquisition o Agency fees http://citizensfordixie.org/lake-powell-pipeline/ - Pipeline has cost $24.7 million dollars so far - Initial costs were estimated at $250 million, now $2 million - Depending on the diminishing Colorado River for future water supply is unsustainable - Solutions o Conservation and reductions should be implemented across all sectors Indoor and outdoor use Commercial Industrial Secondary Agriculture Institutional water use Higher priority on booting local water supplies, increased conservation, pricing strategies, efficiency, and reuse that could result in significant cost savings and provide enough water for growth - Washingotn County has some of the highest per capita use and the lowest prices for the water in the west http://citizensfordixie.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Colorado-River-WaterSupply-and-Demand-Study-Fact-Sheet.pdf - “Based on preliminary assessments of the scenarios quantified to date, large supply-demand imbalances (greater than 3.5 million acre-feet) are plausible over the next 50 years, particularly when considering potential changes in climate” - “Given the historical variability of the Colorado River inflows and the potential for increased variability in the future, there is a great uncertainty associated with future water supply throughout the Basin over the next 50 years. That uncertainty, couple with the uncertainty in the future demand for water Basin-wide, is being addressed using a scenario planning approach” http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/water/pdf/altlakepowellreport.pdf - The Local Waters Alternative : Solutions to meeting future water demands of Washington County, Utah without the development of the Lake Powell Pipeline - Data used to establish Washington County’s future water demand and supplies – and justify the Lake Powell Pipeline – contains numerous errors and assumptions that undermine its credibility o Current rates of water use are estimates applied across the country, instead of being derived from recently measured data o The reported current water supplies and future estimates are inconsistent within and across the Draft Study Reports - - This study argues that Kane County already has sufficient water supplies to meet its demands through 2060 without the pipeline Look at revised population and water demand projections ( page 4 ) Local Waters Alternative Summary o Future per-capita demand is modeled to decline by 1% per year (every year per capita water use will decline by 1% based on each previous year’s level of per capita water use, through 2060) Rate of conservation is achievable and goes a long way toward closing the supply and demand gap, reducing total demands in 2060 by over 42,000 AFY Result in a total water demand of about 115,000 AFY in 2060 With a system-wide water use rate of 176 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) In contrast, the conservation plan proposed in Draft Study Report 19 would result in a total demand of 158,000 AFY and a system-wide water use rate of 242 gpcd in 2060 o Draft Study Report 19 represents an average annual conservation rate of .37% per year, using the same methodology as the 1% With a 50 year timeframe, this represents a nearly 40% reduction in per capita from 2010 levels Passive Conservation o The conservation naturally achieved due to the replacement of older water-using devices, with newer, more efficient ones Washington County reportedly had a system wide total water use rate of 292 gallons per capita per day in 2010 o Includes both culinary (potable) and secondary (non potable) water across all sectors