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.