St. George Utah is a growing city; it just happens to be located in the driest county in the second driest state in the country. It needs water, or does it? St. George already has the highest per capita water consumption rate for desert cities in the U.S. (335 gal/person/day), but that's not enough to satisfy the city's thirst. The Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD), responsible for St. George's water supply, has proposed building a pipeline to bring water from Lake Powell, a distance of 130 miles. Is the pipeline really needed? Conservation groups point to the city's high water consumption and say no. But, the WCWCB is still persisting, saying they will need the water to support future growth. What really qualifies as need here? Is growth in the desert really a good thing, especially when water conservation isn't the main priority? Federal and Utah State planners and politicians must face these questions soon, because St. George is getting thirsty again.

Background:

A history of supply; Utah Water Policy

For a brief period in the very beginning Utahans believed in water conservation. Back then the LDS church recognized that water is scarce in the desert and shouldn’t be wasted. By the 1870’s water speculators had moved in and water became a for-profit commodity. By the turn of the century water supply was in the hands of government agencies. Since then Utah has had a history of 50% government subsidized water use and today it has the cheapest consumer water prices in the country. Water conservation advocates contend that the cheap prices have encouraged over-consumption. Utah is the second driest state in the country (Nevada is the driest) yet it has the highest per-capita water consumption, 293-320 gallons per person/day compared to an average of 245 for western states and 179 for the nation[1]. According to Zach Frankel, Director of Utah Rivers Conservation Council, “We don’t have a water shortage problem. What we have is a problem in how the water we have is used.[2]” 87.3% of the water in Utah goes to agriculture, which only produces 1.2% of the gross state product. Residential water consumption only uses 9.2% of the water and 67% of that is outdoor use for gardens and lawns. The political pressure to maintain the current water consumption system is high and each time there is a water shortage politicians and planners jump to increase supply. Even though a recent study by the Utah Foundation—a nonpartisan think tank—concluded there are adequate supplies of water for current Utahns’ and future generations with a renewed emphasis on conservation—state legislators have rejected proposals to establish a task force to look into increasing water conservation[3]. Even a simple bill to change the name of the Utah Division of Water Resources to the Utah Division of Water Resources and Conservation never made it out of committee.

“Somehow, water conservation is viewed as a bad thing. When it comes to education, health care, and social services, many legislators are eager to cut budgets and make agencies prove they need more money. When it comes to water development, they can’t seem to throw tax money at it fast enough.”—Zach Frankel, Director Utah Rivers Conservation Council[4].

Getting paid to waste—County Water Boards

In Utah the lack of financial conservation incentives goes beyond the consumer. County Water Boards have a disincentive to conserve water in their districts. Water Board revenue is based largely on how much water they deliver. The more water they deliver the more money they receive. This provides financial disincentives for water conservation; County Boards that spend money on conservation efforts find that the more successful they are the smaller their budget becomes.[5] The result is most Counties in Utah increase supply as water becomes scarce.

St George/Washington County Water Conservancy District

“There will yet be built, between those volcanic ridges, a city, with spire, towers, and steeples, with homes containing many inhabitants.”—Brigham Young, LDS leader and prophet, on an 1861 visit to the future site of St. George[6].

St. George is located in southern Utah not far from the Arizona border. It is the county seat and population center for Washington County, the driest county in Utah. St. George has experienced rapid population growth, growing to 90,354 in 2000, 6.6 times the 1970 population of 13,669. And that is nothing compared to what some experts predict for the future. One study commissioned by the Washington County Water Conservancy District predicted population growth to 525,000 by 2050. The Grand Canyon Trust commissioned an opposing study that predicted lower population growth, only 340,000 by 2050. It is clear that some population growth is imminent, what is not so clear is the need for another water supply.

Currently St. George has the highest per-capita water consumption rate in the state, and possibly the nation. Tucson Arizona has a similar climate and demography, yet its per capita consumption of 170 gallons/person/day is half of St.George’s 335[7]. Most of the city’s lawns are Kentucky bluegrass, a species that requires enormous amounts of water to keep green. City ordinances designed to conserve water have proved invaluable in reducing water use in cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. But neither St. George nor Washington County have ordinances in place for water conservation or landscaping. The current high per-capita water use combined with population growth and economic development will lead to a water crisis in the future. Everyone agrees that something must be done to curb the crisis, what they don’t agree on is how the problem should be addressed.

Controversy:

Both sides have held firm to their positions. At the heart of each argument are two separate studies on the future water needs of St. George and the surrounding areas. The WCWCD commissioned Boyle Engineering to conduct the first study, an analysis of potential water supplies in the region. The Grand Canyon Trust commissioned Hydrosphere Resource Consultants to do a second study “to review the baseline assumptions presented in the Boyle Report and to provide an independent assessment of water supply needs.[11]”

”The Boyle Report”

The Boyle Report made several projections of population growth and water needs for St. George and Washington County. It predicted that St. George would reach a population of 525,000 by 2050. The population projection was one of the basic assumptions of the study; the other basic assumption was that per-capita water use would not change over the years. These assumptions make it apparent that the region would eventually run out of water using current sources. Therefore the Boyle Report recommended the Lake Powell to St. George Pipeline as the best solution to future water shortages.

The Hydrosphere Report

“The study shows clearly that we do not need the proposed pipeline from Lake Powell to Washington County.”—Jim McMahon, Grand Canyon Trust Southwest Director[12].

The Hydrosphere Study questioned the two basic assumptions of the Boyle Report. They made a more conservative population estimate of 340,000 by 2050. The report claimed that Boyle had overestimated population growth based on consolidated development plans in 12 municipalities in Washington County. The Hydrosphere study also found that Boyle had grossly overestimated future water use. Hydrosphere used an economic/financial model for determining future water use. The model took into account economic factors like price elasticity, as new water supplies are tapped prices go up and people conserve more and per capita water use goes down. The Boyle Report didn’t take these factors into account. Based on the new population growth and water use estimates, the Hydrosphere Report concluded that no new water sources would have to be developed. The current water sources would be more than enough if cost effective conservation methods are employed.

“Since I moved here almost two years ago, I have not met a single person who thinks that 525,000 people living in Washington County is desirable. The Trust’s vision is that 100 years from now a person traveling from St. George to Page, Arizona will encounter compact, thriving human communities nestled within an open, rural landscape. Others have a vision of a suburban sprawl from Las Vegas to Lake Powell, all tied to abundantly available water. That sea of strip malls and subdivisions is not inevitable. It’s up to local citizens to decide what type of place they want this to be and to express that to various officials.”—Jim McMahon, Grand Canyon Trust Southwest Director.

The WCWCD plans to complete construction on the pipeline by 2030. So far the only hold up is funding for the project. There is strong backing from Utah politicians and state government agencies like the DWR. The Bush Administration has a history of helping Utah Congressmen get what they want, and they want federal funding and approval for the project. The Clinton Adminstration and former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit were opposed to the pipeline. With the change in administrations many believe construction may be completed sooner than originally planned[13]. Environmentalists still have hope that the project will be defeated. The planning process is just beginning and major decisions will have to be made in the next five years. Water is always controversial and complex, with the outcome of development and reclamation proposals unpredictable.

Solutions:

Finding a solution to water shortages has led two opposing viewpoints into battle. The first view, held by many state and local politicians, sees water as essential for Utah and St. George’s quality of life. Therefore, water should be cheap and abundant at the expense of taxpayers. The other view, held by environmentalists and many of the other 50 states, is that water is a scarce commodity, and should be conserved using financial incentives (raising the price to consumers). The two viewpoints provide two very different solutions to St. George and southern Utah’s water shortage.

Watering the desert—Lake Powell to St. George pipeline

The Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD), the Utah Division of Water Resources (DWR), Kane County Water Conservancy, and the cities of St. George and Kanab all support increasing the water supply as the solution to future water shortages. This has presented a problem since there is virtually no more available water in the immediate surroundings. The nearest large supply of water is Lake Powell, 130 miles from St. George. The solution pushed by the WCWCD and backed by the other groups, calls for building a massive pipeline from Lake Powell to St. George. Preliminary studies commissioned by the WCWCD estimate the cost of the pipeline at $400 million[8]. The rights to the 70,000 acre-feet/year of water (enough water to fill an area the size of a football field 24 miles high[9]) are owned by the State of Utah and would come out of Flaming Gorge Dam. The water would be released from the dam and flow to Lake Powell where it would be extracted. From there the water would be pumped uphill for a small portion of the journey, gravity would then pull the water into St. George where it would fill a reservoir and power a hydroelectric plant. Sales of the electricity created would pay for most of the pumping costs.

Only 60,000 acre-feet would make it to St. George, the other 10,000 would go to the city of Kanab and other future developments along the 130 miles of pipeline. The $400 million price tag would be paid largely by the DWR and the WCWCD; any other groups benefiting from the water, including Kanab, would have to pick up a share of the price. Engineering studies commissioned by the WCWCD and the DWR show that the costs of the pipeline are too high to justify construction at this point in time. But, the WCWCD and the DWR are not giving up. They are currently trying to lobby Congress to appropriate federal funds for the project. As water in the region becomes an even scarcer resource the benefits of piping water in are predicted to outweigh the costs of construction. The WCWCD still predicts the project will be complete by 2030.

A cheaper solution—Water Conservation in the desert

“What we need to do is start conserving water and get our use in line with everyone else in the West,”—Jim McMahon, Grand Canyon Trust Southwest Director[10].

The other solution, backed by the Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Rivers Conservation Council, and other conservation based groups, calls for conservation of the already existing water in the southern Utah desert areas. These groups point out that the cheap water in St. George has already led to over consumption—bringing in more water only fuels the problem. They propose conservation incentives, including making water users pay a higher percentage of the costs, city and county ordinances designed to reduce water consumption, and reducing the amount of crops grown in the region, especially alfalfa.

Contacts For More Information:

· PIPELINE NOT NEEDED Grand Canyon Trust press release: http://beta3.c-t-g.com/hot_news-080400.htm

· Grand Canyon Trust: Proposed Lake Powell to St. George Pipeline: http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/virgriver/urban/stgeorge.html

· Grand Canyon Trust: Virgin River: Urban and Rural Growth: http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/virgriver/urban/

· For a copy of the Hydrosphere study and report contact GCT headquarters at Headquarters:
2601 N. Fort Valley Road
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Phone: (928) 774-7488
Fax: (928) 774-7570

· WCWCD: http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/

· ”The Boyle Report”—Water Supply Needs for Washington and Kane Counties & Lake Powell Pipeline Study: http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/WebPage/ReportsPlanAgreements/Purpose&Needs/Purpose&NeedsFrameSet1

· Utah Division of Water Resources: http://www.water.utah.gov/

· City of St. George: Water & Power: http://www.ci.st-george.ut.us/wp/conservation/

· Utah Rivers Council: http://www.wasatch.com/~urc/

Profile Prepared by:

Jeremiah Centrella, Colorado College, June 2002.

Sources:

Endnotes:

[1] “Utah’s Water Resources: Planning for the future” a report of the Salt Lake City Utilities Commission. Nov 13, 2000. available at www.ci.slc.ut.us/utilities/news11142000.htm

[2] Spangler, Jerry Utah water war mired in politics lobbyists sink reform efforts, some critics say Utah League of Cities and Towns news report, 2000. www.ulct.org/news/across_utah/water/des_news050702f.html

[3] Spangler, Jerry Utah water war mired in politics lobbyists sink reform efforts, some critics say Utah League of Cities and Towns news report, 2000. www.ulct.org/news/across_utah/water/des_news050702f.html

[4] Spangler, Jerry Utah water war mired in politics lobbyists sink reform efforts, some critics say Utah League of Cities and Towns news report, 2000. www.ulct.org/news/across_utah/water/des_news050702f.html

[5] Spangler, Jerry Utah water war mired in politics lobbyists sink reform efforts, some critics say Utah League of Cities and Towns news report, 2000. www.ulct.org/news/across_utah/water/des_news050702f.html

[6] Wilkinson, Todd Roman aqueducts of new West: water pipes Christian Science Monitor May 3, 2001. Available at www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/05/03/p3s1.htm

[7] Grand Canyon Trust news release Pipeline Not Needed. Aug 4, 2000. Available at http://beta3.c-t-g.com/hot_news-080400.htm

[8] Wilkinson, Todd Roman aqueducts of new West: water pipes Christian Science Monitor May 3, 2001. Available at www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/05/03/p3s1.htm

[9] Wilkinson, Todd Roman aqueducts of new West: water pipes Christian Science Monitor May 3, 2001. Available at www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/05/03/p3s1.htm

[10] Grand Canyon Trust press release Pipeline Not Needed. Aug 4, 2000 Available at http://beta3.c-t-g.com/hot_news-080400.htm

[11] Grand Canyon Trust website www.grandcanyontrust.org/virgriver/urban/

[12] [12] Grand Canyon Trust press release Pipeline Not Needed. Aug 4, 2000 Available at http://beta3.c-t-g.com/hot_news-080400.htm

[13] Grand Canyon Trust web article Proposed Lake Powell to St. George Pipeline. Available at Proposed Lake Powell to St. George Pipeline