WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER USEExecutive Water Finance Board | September 17, 2018

wcwcd.org

Water Use by Type

2

Potable76%

Secondary24%

wcwcd.org

Water Use by Category

3

Primary Residents

51.6%

Second Homes12.9%

Commercial13.2%

Institutional22.0%

Industrial0.4%

wcwcd.org

Households

Approximately 20% percent of homes in Washington County are second homes.

4

Primary Home Second Home

City

Population

(2016)

Persons per

Household

(2012-2016)

% Second Homes

(2017)

St. George 82,318 2.88 21%

Washington 25,339 2.90 21%

Hurricane 16,159 3.02 16%

Ivins 8,132 2.76 19%

wcwcd.org

Second Home Water Use (indoor & outdoor)

Homes randomly selected from Washington County Assessor data. Average daily use calculated from June 2015 to

May 2017 monthly billing data provided by cities. Homes supplied secondary irrigation water are excluded.

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

St. George Washington Hurricane Ivins

Daily

resid

ential use (

gpd)

Primary home Second home

n=50

n=11

n=73

n=15

n=78

n=14

n=68 n=25

wcwcd.org

Second Home Water Use (indoor)

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

St. George Washington Hurricane Ivins

Avera

ge d

aily

use (

gpd)

Primary home Second home

n=79 n=14n=69

n=25

n=66

n=14

n=75

n=15

Homes randomly selected from Washington County Assessor data. Average daily use calculated from June 2015 to

May 2017 monthly billing data provided by cities. Homes supplied secondary irrigation water are excluded.

wcwcd.org

Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Water Use

7

• Commercial, institutional and industrial (CII) 2017 water use data is from the

cities of St. George, Washington and Hurricane

• Data represents more than 90 percent of CII use in Washington County

• Includes all potable and most secondary water use

• Preliminary analysis

wcwcd.org

Preliminary CII Water Use by Industry

8

*Industry category does not include the total secondary irrigation use.

Some of the total secondary irrigation water is only master metered.

-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Bill

ion g

allo

ns

Secondary

Potable

wcwcd.org

Golf Course Water Use

• Conservation efforts

–11 of the 12 courses use secondary (irrigation, reused

wastewater or brackish) water

–Testing water-efficient turf varieties specifically for golf-course

use

• More than 300,000 annual visitors*

• More than $55 million estimated direct economic

impact*

9

Images by St George Utah Golf

*St. George Area Convention & Tourism Office

wcwcd.org

Educational Facilities Water Use

• Conservation efforts

–Water-efficient landscapes including artificial turf fields

–Use of irrigation water for landscapes

–Landscape auditor

–High efficiency fixtures

• Approximately 50 K-12 schools

–20% of the county’s population is school aged (5-17 years)

• Three institutions of higher education

–More than 10,000 students

10

Images by Bud Mahas Construction

wcwcd.org

Construction-Related Water Use

• St. George is the fastest growing

metropolitan area in the nation

• Water is used for dust control, compaction,

gravel production, cement plants, etc.;

secondary water is used when available

• More than 10 percent of our workforce is

employed in construction; number of

employees increased 11 percent from

2017 to 2018

11

wcwcd.org

Parks and Recreational Water Use

• Conservation efforts

–Use of secondary irrigation

–Water efficient irrigation systems, including smart

controllers

–Facilities serve as flood control detention basins

• Enhance the recreational amenities and

aesthetics of the community

• Popular venues for community and athletic

events

12

wcwcd.org

Q&A

13

wcwcd.org

LOCAL WATER SOURCESExecutive Water Finance Board | September 17, 2018

wcwcd.org

Water Supply Planning

• Exhaustive evaluation of water supply options

–Surface water

–Groundwater

–Colorado River

• Storage expansion evaluations

• Conservation

15

wcwcd.org

Water Supply Planning

• Most supply options eliminated from further consideration*

–Limited new water appropriations (per Utah State Engineer)

–Technical infeasibility (geologic and capacity limitations)

–Water quality issues

–Wilderness areas or national parks conflicts

–Excessive environmental impacts

16

* State of Utah 1988, 1992, 1993, 2008, 2012, 2016 studies

wcwcd.org

Water Supply Planning

• Virgin River Supply Considerations

–Virgin River closed to new appropriations

–Water right priorities restrict diversions

–Limited storage site availability

–Utahns desire to protect ag uses and rural culture

–Brackish ag water requires reverse osmosis treatment

17

wcwcd.org

Water Supply Planning

• Additional Groundwater Supply

–Navajo Sandstone aquifer is over-appropriated

–Escalante Valley groundwater management plan aims to reduce existing withdrawals

–Pursuit of Snake Valley groundwater is inadvisable due to opposition from water right holders

in Utah and Nevada resulting in failure to reach agreement

18

wcwcd.org

Water Supply Planning

• Conservation

–District’s comprehensive approach relies heavily on conservation

–Conservation-only proposals

• forego critical, second source development

• create significant water shortage risk

• exact high socioeconomic costs

19

wcwcd.org

LPP Study Report Alternatives

20

Alternative Cost Considerations

LPP $1.4 billion

infrastructure costs

• Provides a critical second supply

• Higher reliability than Virgin River

• Higher quality water

• Preserves agriculture

No Lake

Powell Water

$2.9 billion

infrastructure costs

significant additional

homeowner costs

• Does not provide a second supply

• Eliminates residential outdoor

potable water use

• Eliminates most agriculture

No Action no new infrastructure

included

• No new water supply investment

• Constant water shortages with

socioeconomic consequences

Note: Costs are in 2016 dollars (LPP Final License Application, UDWRe 2016)

wcwcd.org

Q&A

21

wcwcd.org

AGRICULTURAL WATERExecutive Water Finance Board | September 17, 2018

wcwcd.org

Agricultural Water

• Limitations

–Availability

–Reliability

–Water right priority

–Quality

–Collection

–Cost

• Estimated conversion potential approximately 10,000 acre feet

23

wcwcd.org

Availability

24

wcwcd.org

Reliability

25

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,0001

91

0

191

2

191

4

191

6

191

8

192

0

192

2

192

4

192

6

192

8

193

0

193

2

193

4

193

6

193

8

194

0

194

2

194

4

194

6

194

8

195

0

195

2

195

4

195

6

195

8

196

0

196

2

196

4

196

6

196

8

197

0

197

9

198

1

198

3

198

5

198

7

198

9

199

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

201

5

201

7

An

nu

al F

low

ne

ar

Qu

ail

Div

ers

ion

(acre

fe

et)

wcwcd.org

Reliability

26

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1-Oct 20-Nov 9-Jan 28-Feb 19-Apr 8-Jun 28-Jul 16-Sep

Flo

wra

te n

ear

Quail

Div

ers

ion

(cubic

feet per

second)

2016-2017

2017-2018

wcwcd.org

Quality

• One of the top three

contaminants to the Colorado

River is in Washington County

• Hot springs deposit 110,000

tons (4,074 dump truck loads)

of salt annually into the system

27

wcwcd.org

Collection

• Typical high flow conditions at the Quail Creek Diversion Dam

28

wcwcd.org

Cost

• Purchase of water rights

• Treatment

–Estimates for reverse osmosis exceed current project costs, are more environmentally

impacting and do not introduce a second source of water to the community

29

wcwcd.org

Q&A

30

wcwcd.org

RESPONSE TO LOCAL WATERS PROPOSAL Executive Water Finance Board | September 17, 2018

wcwcd.org

Local Waters Proposal

• Entirely dependent on dwindling Virgin River supplies

• Does not provide a critical second source or reserve supply

• Presumes unachievable water use reductions

• Eliminates practically all agriculture in Washington County

• Costs to the community are higher than LPP

32

wcwcd.org

Local Waters Proposal

33

Water Supply

Components

Lake Powell Pipeline Western Resource

Advocates Proposal

Additional Agriculture Water Transfers$0 $21,000,000

Lake Powell Pipeline$1,417,000,000 $0

Costs to Achieve Water Use

Reductions $0 $1,281,000,000

Other Infrastructure Costsa

$0 $253,000,000Total Costs Distinct to Each

Alternativeb $1,417,000,000 $1,555,000,000

Notes:a - Apple Valley Pipeline, agricultural water diversion/distribution facilities, and storage facilities. Does not include reverse

osmosis.

b - LPP Alternative is at an AACE Class 4 cost estimate (stated accuracy range = ‐20% to + 30%); Western Resource

Advocates proposal is at an AACE Class 5 cost estimate (stated accuracy range = ‐30% to + 50%)

wcwcd.org

Q&A

34