I’m an optimist. Or I was. Then the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) presented a new 20-year water supply plan at the last City Council meeting. My takeaway: Our glass is empty.
The plan shows the reliable yield of existing water supplies will be fully used by the end of 2023. It also shows close to 72,000 new units have been approved for development. Some of that probably won’t happen. But more projects pop up every day. So, it all comes down to one thing: How good is the plan?
A lot has changed in just the past six months. There are two significant differences between this new plan and WCWCDs Regional Water Master Plan published in January.
The Master Plan anticipated we’d be getting water from the Lake Powell pipeline beginning in 2034. It also expected it would take until 2040 before we started to see significant new water supply from water reuse. The new plan doesn’t show anything from Lake Powell, and it accelerates the reuse water supply by ten years.
Both of these are good changes. Maybe I’m back to optimist. But the trick is going to be getting reuse up and running in just six years, instead of the previously planned sixteen years. And we don’t yet know how that will impact us financially.
Another trick will be squeezing enough water out of conservation between now and 2030 to avoid depleting our reservoirs. I want to be an optimist but it’s hard to keep water in my glass! Here’s why.
WCWCDs 20-year plan suggests we will have enough water to add 3,000 to 4,000 housing units a year for at least another 20 years. But the plan also says we are out of water this year. And the plan says WCWCD has already totaled over 70,000 units of potential development approved by the cities. So, do we have enough water to keep growing, or are we out of water?
Two Water Supply Models
I gave a presentation, “The Shape of Water” at the City’s Water Talkabout in February. I brought up my observation that there are two ways, or models, to manage and balance water supply and demand. The new 20-year plan uses what I call the “Leading Supply Model.” That model says we have enough. If you use a “Lagging Supply Model,” we’re out.
The Leading Supply Model
The Leading Supply Model lets us commit to new construction today even though we are technically out of water today because it assumes that by the time the new homes are built and occupied, conservation, reuse, and new supply sources will increase enough to meet that new demand.
The Cart Before The Horse
That can work. But it puts the cart before the horse. We’re already dealing with so much uncertainty from Mother Nature. The Leading Supply model just compounds that risk.
What if There is a Shortfall?
What if the Leading Supply Model overestimates how much we’ll get from a new water source, or conservation, or reuse? Or underestimates how much water new construction will consume? Or overestimates how much we’ll get from the Virgin River? What then? That’s a lot of unknown variables.
I believe the Leading Supply Model relies on our reservoirs and the aquifer under Sand Hollow as a backup source of water. It would dip into these to cover shortfalls, and then reassess the situation.
I believe we should only dip into our reservoirs when we have extremely low water years. Other than that, we should add water each year to fill our reservoirs. They are our safety net.
Donald Rumsfeld could have been talking about our water situation when he said there are things we know we know, things we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know.
The Lagging Supply Model
The Lagging Supply Model deals with the things we know we don’t know and the things we don’t know we don’t know. It doesn’t add new construction until new sources, conservation, or reuse actually produce additional water. It’s a more conservative model. But given the uncertainty Mother Nature brings to the table, it’s a lot safer.
The leading supply model minimizes disruption in our economy. The lagging supply model maximizes water security. We can label these as the “eat well model” and the “sleep well model.”
The new 20-year plan now makes it clear we are planning our water future using the Leading Supply Model. I am not comfortable with that. It’s not WCWCDs fault. It’s the fault of the seven member cities. WCWCD can only do what these seven cities tell it to do.
So, where do we go from here?
I might be a mind reader. I can hear you thinking, what about a moratorium on development? The problem with that is the State requires us to leap over two extremely difficult hurdles to enact a moratorium.
First, we have to show there is a “compelling, countervailing public interest” that justifies the moratorium. This is a much higher requirement than for other regulations which can be justified by a reasonably debatable claim that they advance the interests of the community.
So, we need our water supplier, WCWCD, to tell us we can’t have any more water right now. They can’t say that as long as they keep using the Leading Supply Model. They would have to say that if they used the Lagging Supply Model.
Second, we have to show that the moratorium gives us time to solve the problem. Okay, that’s maybe doable, except for a “gotcha” the state threw in: The moratorium can’t be for more than six months. Most of the solutions in the 20-year plan will take a lot longer than that.
WCWCD and the cities have spent almost two years talking about ways to control development demand to keep it in balance with water supply, but they haven’t been able to agree on a viable plan. But they have been busy, merrily approving 72,000 new units for development.
Please share your comments on this topic below.
The Utah legislature is the main culprit here. Utah municipalities try again and again to curb growth and force developers to prove there is enough water to sustain new construction, but the developer-led legislature thwarts all efforts. Standing up for your water supply means electing [gasp!] “not-Republicans.”
Here are responses to questions from Victor Paul’s comments posted on August 4th:
1. The idea was to create “will serve letters” for new projects, to be issued by WCWCD ONLY if there is enough water. The Ivins mayor promoted this idea, which would have been a responsible way to do things. But WCWCD can’t implement new procedures like this without the unanimous agreement of all 7 member cities. That didn’t happen. Right now WCWCD says we have enough water, but that’s because they are using what I can a “leading supply model” when I believe they should be using a “lagging supply model.”
2. WCWCD was counting on water from the Lake Powell Pipeline starting in 2034, even in their new master plan published in January. Fortunately they have reconsidered and their new 20-year plan, published in July, does not show any water from Lake Powell at least over the next 20 years.
3. The contamination is caused by Pah Tempe hot springs (between La Verkin and Hurricane) adding minerals to the water. It can still be used for irrigation because it is mixed with cleaner water from upstream, but below that point it is not suitable for drinking water unless it went through desalination, which is not in WCWCDs 20 year plan.
4. the secondary water would come from Gunlock and from the treatment of wastewater in Bloomington to be used for outdoor irrigation. There has been a lot of research/discussion on whether to do this or to “swap” some water agricultural users have water rights to that is good enough for culinary use (with minimal treatment) and give them the secondary water (sources mentioned above) in return. I think things are leaning toward the swap approach which gives us more culinary and since the goal is to also reduce outdoor water use this may be the better approach. It might also be faster to implement and less costly – but not sure.
It seems to us that that 1 million dollar surplus should be put into a fund to fund water recycling and a secondary water system rather that a pie in the sky road expansion between Main Street and Kasavasa!
Katharine is right. Our leaders do have options regarding our water, but they have chosen to go with the most risky and irresponsible one. How do we explain such irrational behavior? Greed seems to be the only explanation. Very sad.
We all need to save water just like they do in Europe.
People’s lawn and swimming pools should be a no no.
New golf courses should be a no no also…
We all need to save water in our home (taking short showers … etc…
Thank you so much Mike for your thorough discussion on this issue. As Mayor Randall pointed out last year, about 30% of the southern Utah economy is tied to the construction industry, so a moratorium on building would be absolutely devastating for many families, workers, and the surrounding cities.
I run a lot around every city in this area and I still see copious amounts of water on alfalfa fields. We definitely need to look at reuse water and accelerate that as you have pointed out. But I still think we need to get serious about pricing water appropriate. And of course, I believe that secondary water usage is critically important as well. The requirement of metering by 2030 by the Utah legislature will be important for conservation, but that is still years away.
St. George city hiring Doug Bennett was a coup. His expertise and proven track record of success in Las Vegas will benefit this area greatly. As for our part, the HOA board I am on will be implementing phase 2 of our xeriscape project where we will be removing large amounts of our grass and replacing with desert shrubs, trees, and rock. It will look spectacular. We continue to do our part, but I believe the best thing we can do is price water appropriately. The recent tiered increases are a step in the right direction, but the steepness of the curve for tier 2-7 needs to be dramatically higher. Only then will we begin to align incentives. Water, after all, is far too cheap in this area relative to the severity of its scarcity. If water were priced closer to oil, we would see how quickly people would get serious about conservation.
Mike, Thank You for keeping Ivins residents informed. I do appreciate your detailed research and information. I have 4 things that concern me. I am not the best writer but I believe you could explain this better than me.
1. It seems some time ago, maybe a year or more that there was an agreement within Washington county that no more building permits / developments could be approved unless the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) could guarantee that there will be water available to support new building. I think we may have been lied to about this. I really don’t think I will live long enough for Ivins to run out of water but you never know and I would like to help in some way to provide for future generations.
2. RE; Lake Powell pipeline. How could we possibly depend on water from Lake Powell when the lake is at an all time low and other communities already need more water from Lake Powell . Not like they have any to spare.
3. I hear that water from the Virgin River is highly contaminated so how could this water benefit anyone?
4. When we moved to Ivins 10 plus years ago we were told the the landscape water would eventually be converted to I believe culinary water and we are already plumed for it and ready to go, however where would this culinary water come from?
Fact is there is not enough water right now to go around and I don’t care what the Utah State government says, laws and rules were meant to be changed just as they were meant to be created.
PS Don’t even get me started on affordable housing in Ivins. Heck I want a Penthouse in New York or a Home in Beverly hills that is affordable, Thanks for Listening and I think It would be a great idea to have the press involved like St George News (Chris Reed), SL Tribune and Deseret news. I believe we are being pacified for the time being in hopes it rains a bunch real soon. Victor Paul 8-4-2023
Note form Mike Scott: Thank you for your comments. I want to post them right away, so please give me a week or so to answer your questions.
we drove through Desert Country yesterday out by Big Shots Golf. Is scary his much is going on out there and how vast of an area they are developing. Take a drive out there, it’s unreal. The rentals, the townhouse, the 4 plexs, the condos, do I need to say more. That 72000 units could be out there it appears. Do yourself a favor and see it for yourself. Thx for reading this.
Thank you Mike for once again being the only Ivins City Council member who takes the time to research data and inform your constituents. I agree that “a lot has changed” with the districts projections. You touched on this but it seems to me that if Washington County currently has (at different stages of approval) 72,000 units. That number will exponentially increase by the end of this projected period. I think 3000 to 4000 additional units annually is severely underestimating the growth as we have seen it. How did we get to 72000 units approved but not yet developed? This shows very little sign of slowing. The other question I have is this: What about the future forced reduction in allocation from the Virgin river? The water that the district will be allowed to claim in the future. We all know (unless you’ve been living under a rock) that the Virgin River feeds the Colorado River. The federal government has required all states that use water that feeds the Colorado River to reduce their allocations. To my knowledge, Utah has not yet done that but most certainly will be forced to in the future. Do ANY of these numbers account for the probable reduction in amount of water that the district will be able to keep from the Virgin river? Thank you again for all your efforts.
The leaders are being truly irresponsible with the lives of the communities that they are in office to protect. I believe the leaders of these communities will take the money and run when it comes down to it. There must be a better way to hold these leaders accountable for results and the devastation that could result if they aren’t successful in the implementation of these projects. Concerns about local economy now will look foolish compared to the economic impact of running out of water.