water briefing - home - washington county water ... · 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030...

Water Briefing March 27, 2015

Water Briefing March 27, 2015

• Water Conditions and Availability

• Utah Economy

• Water Resource Risks

• Water Resource Stability

• Lake Powell Pipeline

• Funding

• Q&A

Overview

Water Conditions and Availability Southern Utah

Current Washington County Water Supplies

WCWCD Per Capita Water Use 2010

KCWCD Per Capita Water Use 2010

M&I Water Demand Forecast

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year.

FACT: Utah was the seventh

fastest-growing state in

the nation from 2013-

2014, down from

second fastest the year

prior. North Dakota

continues to hold the

top spot for growth.

Note: Calculations exclude the District of Columbia.

CONSIDER: Due to the relative size of

the state, Utah’s

incremental population

growth from 2013 to 2014

was nearly three times

that of North Dakota’s.

+15,625

+40,115

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year.

Population 2004-2014

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Mill

ion

s

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Applied Analysis, Intercensal years have been estimated.

Population 2004-2014

2.6 M

3.1 M

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Mill

ion

s

+20.4%

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Applied Analysis, Intercensal years have been estimated.

Population Growth State Comparisons | 2013-2014

1.4%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Wes

t Virg

inia

Illin

ois

Con

nect

icut

Ala

ska

New

Mex

ico

Ver

mon

tP

enns

ylva

nia

Mis

siss

ippi

Mai

neM

ichi

gan

Wyo

min

gR

hode

Isla

ndO

hio

Wis

cons

inN

ew Y

ork

Ark

ansa

sK

ansa

sN

ew J

erse

yM

isso

uri

Ken

tuck

yN

ew H

amps

hire

Ala

bam

aIn

dian

aLo

uisi

ana

Iow

aM

assa

chus

etts

Mar

ylan

dO

klah

oma

Min

neso

taN

ebra

ska

Virg

inia

Haw

aii

Ten

ness

eeM

onta

naS

outh

Dak

ota

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Cal

iforn

iaG

eorg

iaO

rego

nD

elaw

are

Was

hing

ton

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Idah

oU

tah

Ariz

ona

Flo

rida

Col

orad

oT

exas

Nev

ada

Nor

th D

akot

a

United States: 0.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year, 2013-2014

Utah’s Projected

Population Growth

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

19

00

19

07

19

14

19

21

19

28

19

35

19

42

19

49

19

56

19

63

19

70

19

77

19

84

19

91

19

98

20

05

20

12

20

19

20

26

20

33

20

40

20

47

20

54

MIL

LIO

NS

Utah’s population

is projected to

double by 2060

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2013

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Was

hin

gto

n C

ou

nty

Po

pu

lati

on

Historic Population Projected Population

Washington County’s population growth

Population is

projected to

quadruple by 2060

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2013

Historical Projections Washington County

“St. George, Utah set to be one of the

fastest-growing areas.”

Wall Street Journal

Cities in South, West to Grow Faster

Kathleen Madigan

June 22, 2014

Non-Permanent Residents

Entity

Permanent

Population

(% of Total)

(1,2)

Non-

Permanent

Population

(% of Total)

(1,2)

Permanent

Population

(2010) (3)

Non-

Permanent

Population

(2010)

Total

Population

(2010)

Washington

County

73% 27% 138,530 51,237 189,767

Kane County 41% 59% 6,740 9,669 16,439

Notes: (1)Source of data: (WCWCD 2007b). (2)Source of data: (Noel 2008).Data are for parcels, not population. (3)Source of data: DWRe M&I Supply and Use Reports (DWRe 2013a, DWRe 2013b).

Tourists

County Average Annual Tourist Estimate(1)

Washington County 16,013,000

Kane County 465,000

Notes: (1)Average annual tourists = (# hotel rooms) × (occupancy rate) × (1.5 people per room) × (365 days per year).

Source: Dixie Convention Center 2007; Hallisey 2007.

Employment 2004-2014

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Th

ou

san

ds

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment-Based Employment, Seasonally Adjusted

Employment Growth by Sector Year-over-Year

500

700

700

1,800

2,000

4,700

5,800

6,200

6,700

10,000

11,600

Other Services

Mining & Logging

Information

Manufacturing

Financial Activities

Professional & Business Services

Education & Health Services

Leisure & Hospitality

Government

Construction

Trade, Transportation & Utilities

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2013 vs December 2014, Not Seasonally Adjusted

Net Job Growth:

+50,700

Employment Growth State Comparisons | 2013-2014

3.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Mis

siss

ippi

Ala

ska

New

Jer

sey

Virg

inia

Mar

ylan

dN

ebra

ska

Sou

th D

akot

aM

aine

Illin

ois

Kan

sas

Pen

nsyl

vani

aW

est V

irgin

iaIo

wa

Mic

higa

nO

hio

Ver

mon

tN

ew Y

ork

Min

neso

taN

ew H

amps

hire

Loui

sian

aW

yom

ing

Haw

aii

Idah

oC

onne

ctic

utM

onta

naM

isso

uri

Ala

bam

aN

ew M

exic

oR

hode

Isla

ndK

entu

cky

Mas

sach

uset

tsW

isco

nsin

Ark

ansa

sIn

dian

aC

alifo

rnia

Okl

ahom

aN

evad

aT

enne

ssee

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Ariz

ona

Col

orad

oG

eorg

iaD

elaw

are

Was

hing

ton

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ore

gon

Flo

rida

Uta

hT

exas

Nor

th D

akot

a

United States: 2.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment-Based Employment Growth, December 2013 vs. December 2014, Not Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate 2004-2014

3.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate State Comparisons | December 2014

3.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

Nor

th D

akot

aN

ebra

ska

Sou

th D

akot

aU

tah

Min

neso

taO

klah

oma

Haw

aii

New

Ham

pshi

reV

erm

ont

Col

orad

oK

ansa

sW

yom

ing

Iow

aId

aho

Mon

tana

Tex

asV

irgin

iaP

enns

ylva

nia

Ohi

oD

elaw

are

Wis

cons

inM

assa

chus

etts

Mis

sour

iN

orth

Car

olin

aK

entu

cky

Mai

neM

aryl

and

Ark

ansa

sF

lorid

aN

ew Y

ork

Indi

ana

Wes

t Virg

inia

New

Mex

ico

Ala

bam

aIll

inoi

sC

onne

ctic

utN

ew J

erse

yW

ashi

ngto

nA

lask

aM

ichi

gan

Ariz

ona

Geo

rgia

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Ten

ness

eeO

rego

nR

hode

Isla

ndN

evad

aC

alifo

rnia

Loui

sian

aM

issi

ssip

pi

United States: 5.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Seasonally Adjusted

Personal Income 2004-Q3 2013

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Bill

ion

s

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,‘14 is an average of Q1-Q3 2014

Personal Income 2004-Q3 2013

$88.3 B

$110.8 B

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Bill

ion

s

+25.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,‘14 is an average of Q1-Q3 2014

Personal Income Per Capita State Comparisons | 2013

$36,640

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Mis

siss

ippi

Wes

t Virg

inia

Sou

th C

arol

ina

New

Mex

ico

Idah

oK

entu

cky

Ala

bam

aU

tah

Ark

ansa

sA

rizon

aG

eorg

iaIn

dian

aN

orth

Car

olin

aM

ichi

gan

Nev

ada

Mon

tana

Ten

ness

eeO

rego

nM

isso

uri

Mai

neO

hio

Loui

sian

aF

lorid

aO

klah

oma

Wis

cons

inT

exas

Kan

sas

Iow

aD

elaw

are

Haw

aii

Ver

mon

tS

outh

Dak

ota

Pen

nsyl

vani

aC

olor

ado

Illin

ois

Rho

de Is

land

Neb

rask

aM

inne

sota

Was

hing

ton

Cal

iforn

iaV

irgin

iaA

lask

aN

ew H

amps

hire

Wyo

min

gN

orth

Dak

ota

Mar

ylan

dN

ew Y

ork

New

Jer

sey

Mas

sach

uset

tsC

onne

ctic

ut

Th

ou

san

ds

United States: $44,765

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Taxable Retail Sales

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Bill

ion

s

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Taxable Retail Sales

$36.5 B

$47.4 B

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Bill

ion

s

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

+30.0%

Source: Forbes Magazine, Online Edition 11/12/2014

Utah Heads the Best States for

Business 2014

“Leading the way is Utah, which

previously ranked first between

2010 and 2012 before dropping

to third last year…Utah’s

economy expanded 2.4% a year

over the past five years—fifth

best in the U.S. It is the only state

to rank in the top 10 in five of the

six main categories we used to

determine the Best States.”

“Twelve years ago, we didn’t see Utah as

a competitor at all.”

- Tom Clark, CEO, Metro Denver Economic

Development Corp.

Source: The Denver Post, Online Edition 10/19/2014

Source: WalletHub.com, 9/23/2014

Utah is the Happiest State in the Country

• #1 in job satisfaction

• #1 in lowest median number of hours worked per week

• #1 for volunteerism

• #1 for lowest divorce rate

Utah’s Competitive Advantage

• Among the strongest economies in the United States

• The most diversified economy of its size in the United States

• Strong cluster development and commercialization of research, with universities being a major driver

• High rates of population growth, but more importantly, population retention

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Ave

rag

e A

nn

ual

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(in

.)

Gallons Per Capita Per Day

Washington County

Water Consumption (Public Supply) vs. Precipitation

Utah Counties

Source: USGS and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Ave

rag

e A

nn

ual

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(in

.)

Gallons Per Capita Per Day

Source: USGS and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

Washington County

Water Consumption (Domestic Supply) vs. Precipitation

Utah Counties

Major Uses of the State’s Total Precipitation

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources

88.7%

4.5%

0.8%

2.2% 3.8%

1.1%

Natural Environment/ GroundwaterRecharge

Agricultural Depletions

Municipal & Industrial Depletions

Wetlands/Reservoir Depletions

Net Outflow (includes flow to GSL)

Potential Developable Supply

Water Productivity (in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

$14

$25

$37 $39

$51

World Utah Nevada United States California

Source: The World Bank, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, Applied Analysis

Water Productivity – Exc. Irrigation (in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

$62

$91

$111

$192

United States Nevada Utah California

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, Applied Analysis

Use of Diverted Water

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources

4%

6%

8%

Agriculture

Residential indoor use

Residential outdooruse

Commercial, industrial,institutional

FACT:

Utah is one of the

driest states in the

nation and currently

consumes 253 billion

gallons of water

each year.

Source: The Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and Applied Analysis

CONSIDER:

With the state’s population

expected to grow by

another 2.9 million people

by 2060, the state will need

to be able to deliver an

additional 244 billion

gallons of water.


253

CURRENT

CONSUMPTION

484

DEMAND

BY 2060

244

INCREMENTAL

WATER REQUIRED

Future Water Demand In Billons of Gallons


0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Acr

e F

eet

Water Supply for Utah Water Demand for Utah

Forecasted Water Shortfall 2000 - 2060

Water Supply

736,300

Water Shortfall

749,700


Required Water Resource Investment

$14.7 Billion

New Resource Development

$17.9 Billion

Repair and Replacement

$32.7 Billion

Required Investment

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.


State Water Infrastructure Plan

• $32.7 billion needed by 2060

New Development

$14.8 billion Repair & Replacement

$17.9 billion

Utah’s Economic Potential

Current Values (253 BILLION

GALLONS)

Potential in 2060 (WITH ONLY

EXISTING WATER

RESOURCES)

Conservative

Scenario (10% CONSERVATION)

Mid-Case


Aggressive


Gross State

Product $136 Billion $202 Billion $355 Billion $407 Billion $492 Billion

Population 3.1 Million 3.3 Million 5.2 Million 6.0 Million 7.2 Million

Households 701,281 1,039,745 1,830,279 2,098,412 2,534,233

Personal

Income $112.1 Billion $166.1 Billion $292.3 Billion $355.1 Billion $404.7 Billion

Private

Businesses 86,402 128,102 225,501 258,536 312,233

Employment 1.4 Million 2.1 Million 3.7 Million 4.2 Million 5.1 Million

Visitation 11.3 Million 16.3 Million 28.7 Million 32.9 Million 39.8 Million

Potential With Comprehensive Water Resource

Development and Conservation in 2060


Mid-Case Scenario (25% Conservation)

• Growth in Utah’s Total Economic Output for Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$6.27 : $1 GROSS PRODUCT

• Growth in Utah’s Personal Income for Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$5.17 : $1 PERSONAL INCOME

• Estimated Cost per Permanent Job Created by Additional Water Supply

$15,472 COST PER JOB

• State and Local Tax Collections For Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$0.41 : $1 STATE TAXES


One-Time Construction Benefits (Mid-Case Scenario)

Person Years of Employment

(Thousands) Labor Income Output

Additional

State Tax

Direct 194 $12.5B $32.7B $547M

Indirect 103 $4.9B $16.6B $812M

Induced 118 $4.7B $15.3B $795M

TOTAL 415 $22.1B $64.5B $2.1B

One-time benefits to the state from implementing a $32.7 billion statewide

water resource stability master plan will create jobs for Utah families, and

stimulate economic activity statewide by relying on in-state vendors for

materials, goods and services.

Source: The Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and Applied Analysis Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Utah’s $136 billion

economy is remarkably

complex and

interwoven. The outputs

of one industry become

the inputs of another.

Water resource

instability in one sector

runs the very real risk of

destabilizing others.

DIRECT IMPACT INDIRECT IMPACT


Water resources are an essential element of economic development and diversification.

Ensuring water resources is critical to protecting the state’s economy.

A comprehensive, master-planned approach is necessary and appropriate.

• A 138-mile pipeline

with pumping stations

and hydropower

plants from Lake

Powell to Sand

Hollow Reservoir

• Estimated annual

yield 86,249 acre feet

• Scheduled to start

construction in 2020

• Estimated cost:

$1.064 billion* ($12,336 per acre foot)

*2008 estimate prepared by the Utah Division of Water Resources

http://www.water.utah.gov/lakepowellpipeline/projectUpdates/June2008OPCCSummary%20r1.pdf

Lake Powell Pipeline

Project Flyover Video

http://www.water.utah.gov/lakepowellpipeline/projectUpdates/June2008OPCCSummary r1.pdf

//Wcwcd-fs/shared/Public Education/Presentations/2015/LPP Intake to Sand Hollow.mpg

2006

Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act

2007

Preliminary design and environmental

work

2008

Begin environmental study process

2017-2018

NEPA record of decision and permits

2018-2019

Final design

2020

Construction begins

2025-2030

Water delivery

Project Timeline

Need for Additional Water Supplies Projected water demand without the Lake Powell Pipeline

Need for Additional Water Supplies Projected water demand with the Lake Powell Pipeline

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Virgin RiverColorado River

An

nu

al D

isch

arge

(M

illio

n A

cre

fe

et)

90%

Average

Colorado vs. Virgin River

District Funding

Utah’s water conservancy district’s have three

legislatively-approved sources of capital and operating

funds that will be used to repay the state:

Water rates Property taxes Impact fees

Funding

Fund Allocation

Water rates fund on-going operation and

maintenance of existing water deliveries

Property taxes fund public services (fire

protection, etc.)

Impact fees assist in the capital costs of

new infrastructure

How will we pay for the Lake Powell Pipeline?

• Some variation of water rates, property taxes and impact

fees

• The district is working with state representatives, financial

analysts and economists to create a financial model for

water infrastructure costs in Washington County

• There are many variables. Additional information will be

shared as the project’s environmental studies are

completed and a final design is approved.

$30,000,000

$101,000,000

$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

GO Bond Value Total Taxable Value

GO bond 30%of total

taxable property tax values

Water Project Financing Quail Creek Reservoir

In 1983, residents voted for a $30 million bond to fund Quail Creek

Reservoir when total taxable property values were $101 million

Quail Creek Cost

GO Bond 8%of total

Taxable Property Tax Values

$-

$2,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$12,000,000,000

GO Bond Value Total Taxable Value

$912,500,000

Lake Powell Pipeline

Water Project Financing Lake Powell Pipeline

Washington County’s state-estimated project cost is $912.5 million;

2014 total taxable property values are $11.15 billion

$11,150,160,581

Q&A Q & A Thank you for your time.

water briefing - home - washington county water ... · 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030...

Documents