W
W
a
a
s
s
h
h
i
i
n
n
g
g
t
t
o
o
n
n
C
C
o
o
u
u
n
n
t
t
y
y
W
W
a
a
t
t
e
e
r
r
M
M
a
a
n
n
a
a
g
g
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
a
a
n
n
d
d
C
C
o
o
n
n
s
s
e
e
r
r
v
v
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
P
P
l
l
a
a
n
n
May 21, 1996
Revised December 31, 2010
Washington County Water Conservancy District
533 E Waterworks DriveSt. George, UT 84770 (435) 673-3617
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Water History, Current Resources ... 1
Chapter 2 Present Water Use and Future Water Needs ... 13
Chapter 3 Current Conservation Programs ... 20
Chapter 4 Looking Forward ... 27
Chapter 5 Funding, Monitoring & Resolution ... 35
Glossary, Abbreviations & Acronyms... 37
Appendix A – Maddaus Water Management Evaluation ... 38
Water History, Current Resources
Chapter 1 Water History, Current Resources
Introduction
In response to the rapid growth occurring throughout the state of Utah, Washington County Water Conservancy District (District) board became concerned for the future cost and availability of the water supply.
Perhaps at this time providing some background information concerning the initial work on this Plan, which was originally completed in 1995, will give insight to how the plan has begun. Several factors led the District’s realization of the need for the development of a water conservation plan.
Washington County has experienced tremendous increase in growth, which, in turn, has created an obvious need for conservation practices to be developed and implemented in order to maintain quality of life.
In August 1993, the District approved a Long Term Framework for Water Resource Management, Development, and Protection Plan, which states, “The District shall develop a water conservation plan which promotes public education and information dissemination concerning water conservation; and promotes the adoption of
technologies, practices, and devices which will yield improvements in the efficiency and management of water use.”
These elements led the District to form a Water Conservation and Drought Management Committee (“Committee”) in August of 1993. The evolution of this conservation plan is the product of initial efforts taken at that time.
A similar concern has been demonstrated by the state legislature in the Water
Conservation Plan Act (House Bill 71) passed and revised in the 2004 legislative session (Section 73-10-32 Utah Code Annotated). This Water Conservation Plan (WCP) is written to address how water conservation programs and practices will play an important role in meeting future water needs as well as address the concerns of leaders and citizens of both Washington County and the state of Utah.
Washington County has faced increasing demands for scarce water resources. Pioneers settled the area and established farming to survive. Today agriculture is still an important part of the community although dramatic recent residential growth is stressing developed water
Water History, Current Resources
extremely hot and dry climate. Water conservation and planning is now emphasized as an important part of the solution to meeting growing water needs with limited supplies.1
In the 1990's, a new approach to managing water in terms of demand reduction evolved. Conservation and demand management have been viable components in meeting future water needs. The Washington County Water Conservancy District (“District”) adopted its first conservation plan in May of 1996. This Water Management and Conservation Plan (“Plan”) manages the demand side of water use and minimizes the depletion of existing surface water and groundwater sources. The added water savings achieved through this approach is a cost effective and an environmentally sound resource.
This recent revision to the WCP has implemented the recommendations from an evaluation completed in 2010 by Maddaus Water Management (MWM). The purpose of this technical analysis was to:
1. Identify and evaluate current and new conservation measures that could be implemented by the District to reduce future water demand and meet State’s water conservation goal of 25 percent reduction in per capita water use from 2000 to 2050.
2. Estimate the costs and water savings of those measures
3. Combine the measures into increasingly more aggressive programs and evaluate the costs and water savings of the alternate programs.
Description of Washington County and Water Resources
Washington County (“County”) has been primarily an agriculture community. Today, however, the tourist industry is its primary source of business, attracting visitors worldwide. The County offers some of the most beautiful scenes scenic views found anywhere, including Zion National Park. A site seeing tour of the area could include state parks, ghost towns,
pioneer buildings, canyons, coves, caves, deserts, streams, and mineral pools with a wide range of activities including golfing, swimming, horseback riding, bicycling, hiking. Both indoor and outdoor theaters offer outstanding productions depicting the heritage and natural beauty of the area. The County is also known for its annual St. George Marathon, Huntsman World Senior Games, Rotary Bowl and the famous "Dixie Roundup".
Second only to Nevada, Utah is the driest state within the United States. The County’s average precipitation is eight inches compared to the state’s average of thirteen. The County’s low precipitation, desert climate and susceptibility to prolonged drought renders the water supply limited and unpredictable. The population growth rate and the 300 sunny days per year present a definite challenge to meet the County’s water needs. Water managers have felt the
Water History, Current Resources
capture the water --wherever and however the water becomes available as well as curbing the demand for water. In 1877, John Wesley Powell said, “In the whole region *the West+, mere land is of no value. What is really valuable is the water privilege.” Over the years as the area has been settled and developed, that statement has proven true.
Washington County is located in the southwestern corner of the state of Utah. Arizona and Nevada lie on its southwesterly borders. Iron and Kane counties of Utah surround its northeasterly borders. The County covers 2,425 square miles. Its dimensions from east to west span approximately 63 miles and north to south an average of 38 ½ miles. Washington County is average compared in size to the other counties in Utah. Of Utah’s 29 counties, 14 are larger and 14 are smaller than Washington County.
The County’s terrain consists of a mixture of both desert and mountain climes. The County has an elevation range of 8,165 feet. Beaver Dam Wash, at the Arizona border (just east of the Nevada line), has an elevation of 2,200 feet above sea level. The highest point in the County is Signal Peak in the Pine Valley Mountain range with an elevation of 10,365 feet. Only one of the 29 counties in Utah, Duchesne County in the northeastern part of the state, has a greater elevation range. The variety of elevation affords a wide range in altitude, precipitation, and temperature in the County. These environments give way to a potpourri of vegetation from sparse desert growth to towering pine forests. The majority of the County’s population resides in the lower elevation of 2,800 feet.
The County boasts of three of the 15 most visited attractions in the state of Utah. Zion National Park ranked third; Quail Creek State Park placed eleventh; and Snow Canyon State Park was positioned at fifteenth.2 In 2009, Zion National Park, the most popular of Utah’s five national parks, hosted over 2.7 million visitors.3
Spectacular scenery, renowned events, quality healthcare, a warm climate, proximity to a major transportation corridor and a vast array of activities has been instrumental in creating a very high growth rate. The County's population in 2009 was estimated at 137,473. In the past 10 years, the County has seen an average growth rate of 6.2 percent. From the previous year, the growth rate of the county is 1.3 percent with an average of 4.8 percent over the last nine years. County’s scenic beauty, climate, culture and activities as well as regional national parks attract numerous visitors, many of whom purchase second homes in the area. It is estimated that non-residents own 25 percent of the homes in the County. Washington County’s
population and especially population projections, as stated by Utah’s Demographic and Economic Analysis (DEA), are more elusive than for other areas in the state mostly due to the “Snowbird” population. Individuals may reside in the county for the largest portion of the year and continue to list their primary residency as another location. This factor makes it extremely difficult to determine the population of the county. For these reasons, the population in the County fluctuates greatly.
Water History, Current Resources
History of County’s Water Development
The Virgin River spans 160 miles. It flows through three steep canyons and descends from an approximate 9,000 foot elevation at its source to around 1,500 feet at the point it enters Lake Mead. For more than 2,000 years, the Virgin River has been diverted to benefit the inhabitants of the land. When the first white man came into the area, the Southern Paiute Tribe was found cultivating crops in some areas they inhabited.
Located on the edge of the Mojave Desert, Washington County residents have always struggled in the arid environment to develop and maintain precious water sources necessary for sustaining life and building a quality lifestyle. Most of the County’s population and arable land lies in low elevation desert conditions where precipitation is minimal, unpredictable and erratic.
In 1854, the Mormon Church sent Jacob Hamblin to establish a settlement on the Santa Clara Creek. In 1856, a few farmers established the first settlement of Santa Clara, about one-half mile above the present Santa Clara. In 1857, Washington City was settled and the area became known as “Utah’s Dixie.” In 1858, an experimental cotton farm was started at
Hebersville (later called Price and now known as Bloomington). By 1861, there were additional settlements along the Virgin River at Grafton, Virgin, Rockville, and Springdale.
Development of the Virgin River began when the first Mormon pioneers realized that, without control of the water resources provided by this muddy river, no permanent settlement was possible. In 1902, there were at least 15 diversions with 41 ditches irrigating 6,548 acres. Materials such as rock, wood and embankments were put to use by these determined pioneers. The raging, uncontrollable water of the Virgin destroyed each dam. The pioneers also tried to utilize ground water by drilling wells, but their first few attempts were unsuccessful. Thus, freshwater springs and the Virgin River and its tributaries were their main sources of water for all uses.
All communities, large and small, have developed and transported water to their residents. The early pioneers learned the key to continued growth and development of southern Utah was, and still is, water availability. Water management has been the key to the continued posterity of the County. The District has served as a leader in assisting these
communities to meet their water needs. Creation of the District
In the 1960s, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed the Dixie Project. This project was designed to capture water from the Virgin River and create a reservoir capacity of 250,000 acre-foot (AF). The cost was estimated at $60,000,000. Due to the high costs and geological and environmental considerations, the project was abandoned.
Water History, Current Resources
from the State Water Board. The authority of the Board and the transfer of water rights enabled the District to build Quail Creek Reservoir.
Regional Water Supply
The District and currently seven4 municipal customers have entered into a Regional Water Supply Agreement dated April 23, 2006 (RWSA). This agreement provides for
cooperative and coordinated action with respect to the planning, development, acquisition, construction, operation, management and conservation of water, water quality and related facilities. The goals of the RWSA are to develop and provide water and related facilities and services efficiently and effectively to meet future demand for water in Washington County. The coordinated efforts will augment operational capacity and flexibility necessary to meet these goals. This agreement promotes the utilization of natural resources for the overall promotion of the general welfare of the residents of Washington County.
The RWSA implemented a new approach to pricing water, which eliminated the need for take-or-pay contracts and created pricing mechanisms to encourage water conservation. In addition, this agreement encourages better partnerships in resource sharing. The RWSA also imposes conservation and water quality requirements on municipal water customers through stipulations on water use, landscape ordinances, and water reuse. Impact fees are charged on new residential and commercial development to cover water development costs to meet the needs of new growth. Impact fee rates are based on lot size, irrigated landscape and meter size, so impact fees encourage smaller lot sizes and conservation of water.
Inventory of Water Resources
Water supply for the District originates from ground and surface water sources. The Navajo Sandstone Aquifer and shallow alluvial aquifers provide ground water resources.
Surface water sources consist of water originated from the Virgin River and its tributaries either taken directly through diversions or stored in reservoirs. The District’s existing culinary and secondary water supply projects and their associated yields are summarized in Table 1. Total water supply within Washington County includes those rights owned by the District and rights owned by other municipalities and private water companies.
Water History, Current Resources
Table 1-District’s Existing Water Supply
Project
Reliable Culinary Quality Water Yield (AF/yr) 1
Reliable Secondary Quality Water Yield (AF/yr) 1
Quail Creek and Sand Hollow Reservoir
29,500 0
Sand Hollow Ground Water 8,000 0
Kolob Reservoir 2,000 0
Meadow Hollow Reservoir 200 0
Anderson Jct Well Field 2,000 0
Sullivan Well Field 750 0
Kayenta (Ence Wells) Water System
1,000 0
Gunlock to Santa Clara Pipeline (includes Gunlock & Ivins Reservoirs)
0 2,5002
Toquerville Secondary Water System
0 160
Crystal Creek Pipeline 2,000 0
Total 45,450 2,660
Notes: 1
Source of data: (WCWCD 2006; WCWCD 2007c; DWRe 2008a), except for Gunlock to Santa Clara Pipeline reliable secondary yield.
2
Source of data: WCWCD (2008)
The total existing reliable supply in Washington County, including those rights owned by the the District, is approximately 72,560 AF per year of potable supply and 7,450 AF per year of
secondary supply (DWRe 2007a; DWRe 2008a). Additio
nal supplies available from current or pending projects include 3,900 AF per year of available supply from a newly constructed water reuse plant in St. George. Reliable supply for surface water sources was calculated for a 75 percent reliability level (i.e., maximum surface water shortage of 25 percent in any given year that would be made up with ground water supply). The resulting total reliable existing and near-term supply for Washington County is approximately 83, 910 AF per year.
Storage Facilities Quail Creek Reservoir
Quail Creek Reservoir is located within the Hurricane City limits. It is approximately 15 miles northeast of the St. George City. The reservoir was completed in April 1985 at a cost of $23,502,400. Two dams, covering a surface area of 620 acres, form the reservoir. The storage
Water History, Current Resources
to feed the reservoir. The project also contains two hydroelectric plants on the pipeline. This facility has been fully operational since 1985.
The primary purpose of Quail Creek Reservoir is to provide a source of water for municipal and industrial growth in the County. Local cities have been interested in purchasing water from Quail Creek Reservoir because they face growing demand with limited city water resources available.
The cost for Quail Creek Reservoir with diversion dam was $23,502,400. Sand Hollow Reservoir
Sand Hollow Reservoir is located approximately 5.5 miles southwest of Hurricane. Two dams known as the North Dam and West Dam enclose the reservoir. Water to fill the reservoir originates from the Virgin River at the existing Quail Creek Diversion Dam and is transported from the diversion in the existing pipeline serving the Quail Creek Reservoir. A 60" pipeline connects the pipeline at the Wayne Wilson Hydroplant heading due south to the Sand Hollow Reservoir. The pipeline is designed so the water can be conveyed by gravity flow from Sand Hollow to Quail Creek Reservoir or pumped back up gradient in the opposite direction. The Sand Hollow pump station consists of five pumps with a capacity of 110 cubic foot per second (cfs) at 90 feet of head.
This project serves both as a ground water recharge and as a storage facility. The reservoir has a capacity of 50,000 AF of storage, which covers a surface area of approximately 1,300 acres. A 20,000 AF drought pool acts as a buffer in extreme droughts. The reservoir also serves as a groundwater recharge facility for the underlying Navajo Sandstone Aquifer. This recharge will provide an annual yield of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 AF to the aquifer each year.
Sand Hollow Reservoir will eventually be the terminal for the water transported from Lake Powell through the planned Lake Powell Pipeline project. The price tag for this reservoir was $35,000,000.
Kolob Reservoir
Kolob Reservoir is located 25 miles north of Virgin, Utah and 36 miles northeast of St. George, Utah. The reservoir was completed in 1957. At that time, Kolob Reservoir and Storage Association, Inc. and the Cedar City Corporation owned it. When construction commenced on Quail Creek Reservoir, the District entered into an agreement to acquire water rights out of Kolob Reservoir and later acquired the water rights. The 5,500 AF storage reservoir is owned, managed and maintained by the District. This project’s annual yield is approximately 2,500 AF. Gunlock Reservoir
Water from this reservoir is used for irrigation from Gunlock down to Santa Clara, Ivins and St. George. In 2003, the District piped the Santa Clara Canal from the reservoir to Santa
Water History, Current Resources
The District constructed a new outlet structure at the reservoir in 2009. The old single-pipe outlet was plugged by decades of reservoir sedimentation and from debris because of the flood in July 2007. The new outlet has multiple outlets, which will allow the District to pull water out of the reservoir at different levels. This will serve two purposes:
Water can be withdrawn at higher levels where the water is warmer. This will improve Woundfin habitat. The endangered Woundfin does not reproduce in cold temperatures. The Virgin River Program paid for part of this project.
Withdrawing water from the upper levels of the reservoir will cure the odor problem that existed when the water could only be drawn from the bottom of the reservoir. Gunlock has a storage capacity of 10,884 AF. However, the reservoir has lost 2,000 to 3,000 AF of its storage capacity over the past 40 years due to sediment buildup. Sediment was
removed from the river at the head of the reservoir in 2010 to help limit future short-term deposition of sediment into the reservoir.
Ivins Reservoir
This reservoir is used to store and deliver irrigation water to certain users on the Santa Clara River. Washington County Water Conservancy District has taken over operation and maintenance of the reservoir since 2000. An agreement with the irrigation companies on the Santa Clara river facilitated this change. The agreement settled water right issues with the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian tribe of Utah. The reservoir is now operated in conjunction with the Gunlock Reservoir as part of the Santa Clara Project. In return for the reservoir, the Santa Clara Field Canal Company now has primary water. This irrigation system is connected to the recycled water from St. George City’s wastewater treatment plant. The recycled water will help alleviate the use of fresh water out of Gunlock Reservoir. The Santa Clara project combined with recycled or reuse water is used for agriculture, residential secondary water, golf courses and public parks in St. George, Ivins and Santa Clara.
Culinary Systems
Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant (Wholesale)
In 1986, St. George City built Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant at a capacity of 10 million gallons daily (mgd). When the 10 mgd capacity of the treatment plant was no longer adequate, plans were put in place to expand the facility to the extent that it could treat 20 mgd. The expansion cost approximately $15 million and was dedicated in March 1997. At the
beginning of the 21st century, St. George and Washington County continued to grapple with growth and drought issues. The water treatment plant was expanded yet again in 2005 with the capability of treating 40 mgd. The cost of expanding to 40 mgd capacity was approximately $23 million.
Water History, Current Resources
tank for treated water was also constructed in 2010, which helps to meet daily demands and allow for more efficient system operation.
Sand Hollow Basin Wells (Wholesale)
As previously mentioned, Sand Hollow Reservoir acts as a recharge facility. Currently, 13 wells identified as Sand Hollow #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, #9, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22 and #23, are operational. These wells pump the recharge in the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer. It is currently proposed that the completed facility will contain 16 wells. There is an 18" line installed around the basin of the reservoir to connect current and future wells. There is a million gallon storage tank and chlorination treatment included in the project. The water is treated as it comes out of the tank and distributed through 13,712 feet of an 18-inch line to the Regional Pipeline. The annual water yield available through this project is approximately 3,333 AF. This annual water yield is separate from the water rights and water recharged by the reservoir.
Hurricane Valley Water System (Culinary, Retail)
This project now incorporated into the Sand Hollow well system. Included in this incorporated system consists of two wells, one 130,000 gallon tank and one 100,000 gallon tank. Hurricane Valley Water System is located two miles south of Hurricane, Utah. The District purchased the existing system in August 1997 from a private water company. It services two developments, the Sky Ranch and Cliffdwellers. The original system was built between 1980 and 1985. Under District ownership, the water system has been upgraded. It has the capacity to serve 1,095 connections. 140 of those connections are currently being served.
The system serves the two residential communities of Sky Ranch and Cliffdwellers developments. These developments are located five miles west of Hurricane City. The
distribution system consists of almost eight miles of predominately 6-inch and 8-inch pipe with a minute amount of 2-inch pipe. The facility wells and water tank are located two miles
northwest of the actual development. The primary well, known as Sand Hollow well #3, has a pumping capacity of 100-220 gallons per minute (gpm) with the secondary well having the same capacity. The second well, known as Sand Hollow well #4, is used only as a back-up water source.5
These developments have landscaping restrictions that limit turf areas. The maximum water usage for each system is 803 AF per year. The District also has established a very
aggressive water rate structure, which is designed to encourage water conservation. The rates increase with usage and if a user exceeds a threshold quantity for the year, the remaining amount of water purchased for the year is at the highest rate possible.
Anderson Junction Well & Pipeline Water System (Culinary, Wholesale, Retail)
The Anderson Junction System is located roughly 20 miles northeast of St. George. This is a wholesale water supply system. The first well in this system was drilled in February 1994. A
Water History, Current Resources
pumping rate of 1,100-1,200 gpm.6 The pipeline extends from a 400,000 gallon water tank to the town of Virgin for a total of 6.22 miles of 12-inch, 10-inch and 8-inch pipe. This system currently supplies wholesale water for the cities of Toquerville, La Verkin and Virgin.
The District’s obligation to Toquerville entitles them to a maximum number of 500 connections. Toquerville has not maximized their system’s supply and, therefore, the District is not supplying any surplus water to them at this time.
The District’s obligation to Virgin is 1,000 connections. Presently, 216 residential and 9 commercial connections are in use. La Verkin has a maximum 1,000 connections and are currently using 91 of those connections. The maximum water usage for each town is 1,000 AF per year.
In 2005, the District extended a 14-inch culinary water line from Anderson Junction to Leeds. The Casa de Oro subdivision within Leeds previously operated a private water system. The subdivision abandoned this system and connected to the new water source. There are 19 customers.
Kayenta (Ence Wells) Water System(Culinary, Wholesale)
The District purchased the Kayenta wells (also known as the Ence wells) in 1997. This system serves the residential area of Kayenta within the town of Ivins. It is located eight miles northwest of St. George. The system currently provides water to 303 residents with 552 possible connections. The Kayenta Water System consists of two wells. The District provides bulk water and the water is distributed by a private water company. Well #1 was drilled in 1974 and was originally used for irrigation. It has a pumping capacity of 356 gpm. In the fall of 2001, the District completed drilling a second well to serve as a supplemental source of culinary water for Ivins. The second well pumps at 443 gpm. The wellheads have an elevation of approximately 2,930 feet.7 The maximum water usage for each system is 612 AF per year.
Sullivan Wells (Currently not in use)
The Sullivan Wells are located approximately two miles southeast of Leeds, Utah, and a mile north of Sandstone Mountain. The District acquired property and the original well in 1997. The Water District constructed three wells in this area. The wells produce water from the Springdale Sandstone member of the Moenave Formation. The rock layer has limited thickness and is generally not found in hydrological conditions allowing it to function as a groundwater aquifer. The fractured nature of the Springdale sandstone at this location provides an aquifer, which the Water District has developed. At the location of the Water District’s wells the sandstone dips to the east with a north-south trending strike. The sandstone extends
northward where it is exposed at the base of the Pine Valley Mountain. The District’s “Sullivan” wells near Leeds will be connected to the water tanks located near Anderson Junction and
Water History, Current Resources
Regional Pipeline(Culinary Distribution System)
This distribution system was constructed in cooperation with St. George, Santa Clara, Washington and Ivins cities. This pipeline distributes water from the Sand Hollow/Quail Creek System. The pipeline begins at the Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant and runs approximately 20 miles west to the Snow Canyon wells (Ivins area). The facility includes a 500,000 gallon tank and two pump stations. The purpose of this pipeline is three-fold: 1) to meet the water needs of a rapidly growing community; 2) to establish an efficient water delivery system from Quail Creek Reservoir to the west side of the County; and 3) to comply with the new federal arsenic standards by blending other water with the Snow Canyon wells. The project was completed in the spring of 2004.
Secondary Water Systems
Toquerville Secondary Water System(TSWS)(Retail)
A consortium between the District, Toquerville City and the Toquerville Irrigation Company, which promoted conservation and provided a convenient, efficient irrigation system to the water users, led the way in the realization of this project. The water saved by the
conversion of an open-ditch irrigation system, which is inefficient and outdated, to a
pressurized irrigation system is estimated at approximately 30 percent. Nearly 619 AF of water could be saved. Together, the partners created a new entity designated as the Toquerville Secondary Water System (“TSWS”). The agreement allowed the District to purchase water rights held by the irrigation company’s shareholders and convert their open-ditch irrigation system to a pressurized system, which distributes irrigation water to the residents of the Toquerville area. This project was completed in the spring of 2000 and currently serves 304 connections. A maximum number of 1,000 connections are allowed on this system.
The system consists of a new diversion structure at the west field ditch diversion on Ash Creek. From the diversion structure, the water is piped approximately 1,100 feet to a 12 AF regulating reservoir. From the main regulating reservoir, water is pumped approximately 9,800 feet through a 20-inch diameter pipeline to a reservoir with a holding capacity of approximately 13 AF. There are various service connections along this main pipeline.
From the secondary reservoir, irrigation water is piped throughout the distribution system through pipes ranging from 12 down to 4 inches in diameter. An existing 15-inch diameter pipeline conveys water from the west side of Toquerville to the east side and
eventually to downstream users. The irrigation system was also designed to allow the District to gravity feed excess water during the winter months to the Quail Creek system. The system includes water rights totaling 2,063.4 AF per year. In 2003, the system adopted a ‘time-of-day’ watering restriction.
Water History, Current Resources
project replaced four existing diversions on Santa Clara River and converted the current flood irrigation over to a pressurized system.
This pipeline will promote more efficient use of water and will aid in the
reduction of water losses from evaporation and infiltration. The project was completed in the spring of 2004. The saved water will be used to provide yearlong river flows below Gunlock Reservoir and helped settle water rights disputes on the Santa Clara River. This project’s yield is 3,600 AF of water per year.
Crystal Creek Pipeline (Wholesale)
The last phase of this project was completed in 2009. Work began on this pipeline in 1996 with the completion of a feasibility study. Ten years later in 2006, on-site work began with the completion of the diversion. Due to the elevation of the project, rugged conditions, and early snowfalls, only four miles of pipe could be installed each year. The pipeline is 12-miles long and consists of 36-inch steel and High-density Polyurethane (HDPE) pipe. Eight miles of road had to be constructed in the high terrain to provide a route for the pipe in the rugged terrain. The water from this pipeline is delivered to Kolob Reservoir. The annual water yield from this project is 2,000 AF per year.
Other Management Practices for Water Resources Watershed Management and Enhancement
The District has adopted a Watershed Management Plan, which includes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) development for the Lower Colorado River Watershed and a Surface Protection Plan for the Virgin River Watershed. This plan is a joint effort including the following entities or agencies: the District, United States Forest Service Dixie National Forest, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Land
Management, St. George City and the Town of Springdale. The completed watershed management plan includes watershed management-related studies with public input. The project is under the direction of the Virgin River Watershed Advisory Committee and chaired by the District. The Plan is being completed as part of the Virgin River Management Plan.
The objective of the plan addresses the health of the Virgin River watershed and meet the requirements of the TMDL as required by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act and the Utah Source Water Assessment Program Utah Source Protection Rule (®309-605).
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Chapter 2 Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Washington County - Present and Future Water Demands
As the County’s population continues to escalate, challenges loom that requireimmediate attention if the quality of life currently experienced is to persist. Providing adequate water supplies to sustain domestic, industrial and agricultural needs are among the most
challenging of the issues at hand. Conservation, coupled with drought management and best management practices are valuable tools when utilized to maximize the limited water
resources of this area.
Data are collected from six of the major cities in the county to track water usage. The cities are: St. George, Washington, Hurricane, La Verkin, Ivins and Santa Clara. Tracking both culinary and non-treated water, Figure 1 displays the total water usage for 2009 for these combined six cities.
Figure 1: 2009 Monthly Water Usage for 6 cities
A calculation of gallons per capita per person per day (gpcd) is used to evaluate an
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Acre
-feet
Month
2009 Monthly Water Usage
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Therefore, two calculations are given. Typical gpcd using only primary residents' or census population is displayed in Figure 2. Figure 3 depicts the water use per person after
compensating for the water used in second homes.
Figure 2: GPCD calculated using 6 cities estimated population
326 310 279 293 252 249 268 280 261 247 239 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ga llons per Ca pita Da ily Year
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Figure 3: GPCD calculated using 6 cities with 2nd homes estimated population
Under contract with the State of Utah, Montgomery Watson & Harza Americas, Inc. (MWH) prepared The Water Needs Assessment to determine future water needs for the
County. This study uses population projections and estimates water demand. The update of this Plan incorporates the findings of this report.
The following table provides a breakdown of the residential water use in both outdoor and indoor use and CII water use (based on 2005 gpcd).
Water Use Categories Culinary Secondary Total
Residential - Indoor 71.9 0.0 71.9 Residential - Outdoor 97.4 15.8 113.3 Commercial 61.4 9.5 70.9 Institutional 15.5 26.0 41.5 Industry/Stock Water 3.7 1.0 4.7 Total 250.0 52.3 302.3 Source: DWRe 2009b. 260 247 223 233 201 198 214 223 208 197 191 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ga llons per Ca pita Da ily
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Residential CII
68% (61%) 32% (39%)
The first number given is the percentage of total culinary water use, and the second number given (the number in parentheses) is the percentage of total water use including secondary water use.
Population Projections
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) projections were updated in January 2008. As required by the state, these values are used as the primary population forecast for this study. Population projections for Washington County are in Table 2.
Table 2 GOPB Population Projections
Parameter2 Year 2005 to 2060 AGR 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Pop. 127,090 168,078 279,864 415,510 559,670 709,674 AGR -- 5.59% 5.10% 3.95% 2.98% 2.37% 3.48%
Per Capita Water Use
Current and future per capita water use was determined by 2005 per capita Municipal & Industrial (M&I) water use provided by the Utah Division of Water Resources (DWRe). Current per capita water use values are provided in Table 3. The per capita water use provided here was calculated as the total water use (culinary and secondary) divided by the total permanent population.
Table 3 Division of Water Resources M&I 2005 Report
Demand Projections District Culinary (gpcd) Secondary (gpcd) Total (gpcd) WCWCD 242.0 52.3 294.3
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
section. No additional Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) demands were included for the District.
The demand forecast shown in Figure 4 indicates that total M&I demand for the District
is expected to increase from 46,700 AF per year in 2009 to 229,740 AF per year in 2060.
When determining future water use, a percent of real water losses is calculated into the demand projection. This is known as Non-Revenue Water (or Unaccounted for Water). WCWCD system has an estimated 6 percent system loss, which is below the industry standard of 10 percent.
Figure 4 Total M&I Water Demand Forecast
Table 4 summarizes the water supply projects currently planned by the District to meet the demands of existing and future water users in Washington County, and those that those being considered pending resolution of critical technical, environmental or cost concerns. Individual projects would supply either culinary or secondary water to District customers.
25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000
Total Projected M&I Water Demand (with conservation) (AF/YR)
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
Table 4: Future Planned and Potential the District Water Supply Projects
Project
Estimated Reliable Culinary Supply (AF/yr)
Estimated Reliable Secondary Supply
(AF/yr)
Ash Creek Pipeline 5,000 0
Maximize Existing Wastewater Reuse 1 0 1,700 Quail Creek Reservoir Agricultural Exchange2 4,000 0
Lake Powell Pipeline 70,000 0
Potential Future Wastewater Reuse3 0 54,5004
Total Potential Yield from Future Projects 79,000 68,600
1
The maximum capacity of the existing reuse treatment plant is 3,360 AF/yr. In the absence of a storage reservoir, but this supply can only be used to meet secondary demands during the irrigation season (April through October). And there is no storage capacity resulting in the loss of any supplies that are not used by the end of a given month. Assumed that only 50 percent of treatment capacity could be utilized because of lack of storage capacity for reuse water.
2
Of the 17,300 AF per year of available supply, 4,000 AF/yr of this supply would be reserved for the Quail Creek Reservoir Agricultural Supply Exchange to meet culinary demands, leaving 13,300 AF/yr available for the agricultural conversion projects. An additional loss from advanced water treatment was assumed as described in the following footnote, resulting in 12,400 AF per year reliable yield.
3
Wastewater reuse could potentially be increased up to the wastewater effluent rate for communities served by the St. George wastewater treatment plant (i.e., St. George, Washington, Santa Clara, and Ivins), limited by secondary demand. The wastewater effluent available for reuse is calculated assuming the ratio of wastewater effluent to total M&I water supply (approximately 27 percent) remains constant for these cities in the future, and using the 2060 projected total M&I water use for these cities. However, the actual amount of this potential reuse that could actually be used as secondary supply would be limited by storage constraints and secondary demands which were considered in Chapter 6 when determining a realistic estimate of the portion of this supply that could be used.
The RWSA provides the structure by which the District will provide water throughout the county in the future. The municipal customers will retain their existing water resources, rights and facilities, except to the extent that they choose to integrate them with the District’s water supplies provided through the RWSA, which would require additional contracts with the District. The RWSA changes the approach for providing water supply, with water being sold at rates that are structured to encourage conservation (i.e., customers only pay for water they use not for typical take and pay contracts).
Water quality issues will influence the potential for use of several of the future projects. For example, elevated levels of total dissolved solids in water associated with agricultural conversions will limit the cost effective use of this water to selected secondary water uses such as turf irrigation. Culinary use of this surface water supply would require advanced water treatment such as reverse osmosis. Other sources of developed an future water resources have much more favorable water quality. For example, current Total Dissolved Solids concentrations
Present Water Use and Future Water Needs
approximately 1,500 mg/L (USEPA 2008). Blending with other lower TDS sources may be required for widespread secondary use of the Washington Fields agricultural conversions, in order to reduce salinity to a level appropriate for irrigation of common residential turf and ornamentals.
Current Conservation Programs
Chapter 3 Current Conservation Programs
With the completion of the original conservation plan in 1996, the District has
implemented conservation programs. In 2010, a detailed water conservation evaluation was conducted by Maddaus Water Management (MWM). The analysis reviewed recent water use data at the customer level (billing data), evaluated existing water conservation measures, considered potential future water conservation measures based on experience in other parts of the country, developed alternative conservation programs and selected likely programs to be implemented in the future. The analysis of potential conservation measures was performed using a conservation model developed by MWM that analyses water use at the end-use level and includes information on individual unit water savings, year of implementation, unit costs to customers and the utility, market penetration, and other factors. The evaluation is included in Appendix A
Water Conservation Demonstration Garden
The District, in partnership with other agencies, agreed that a demonstration garden would be an excellent educational tool (“The Garden”). Under the direction of the committee, comprised of the District, St. George City, Utah State University (USU) Extension and a private landscape architect, The Garden has been an educational resource to the community in the art of water-efficient landscaping. The disciplines demonstrated at The Garden include soil
composition and fertilization; weather and climate; irrigation practices and technologies; plant design and plant selection. There are four landscape themes demonstrated at the Garden: 1) Desert Highlands, 2) Urban Desert, 3) Native Desert Shrublands and 4) Desert Oasis. The main structures in The Garden were completed in December 2003. In 2005, a part-time horticulturist was hired to oversee the maintenance and the education components of the demonstration garden. In 2007 the position was upgraded to full-time. As The Garden is maintained, it is constantly updated. Plant material is added and changed through the seasons and year.
The Garden provides visitors with education through pamphlets and marquees. In 2009, 1,400 visitors were logged. This demonstration garden provides assistance to organizations such as USU Extension's Master Gardeners, Utah Nursery and Landscape Association, and local schools and garden clubs. This venue is becoming quite popular for weddings and other main events. There are two annual events held at The Garden, which are sponsored by City of St.
Current Conservation Programs
The Garden is a resource to the community to educate on alternatives to high water use landscapes. With the completion of The Garden, the focus of the following years will be to increase public awareness of this resource and continue implementing educational avenues for public participation.
For the evaluation of this program, it was combined with public information. The program is considered for single family homes at a cost to the district of $2.50 per account with a 10 percent administration and marketing mark-up.
Media Campaign
Governor’s Conservation Team
The District participates in the Governor’s Conservation Team media campaign. The campaign started in the fourth year of a drought. The goals of the program are to stretch current water supplies, by way of conservation measures, in order to deal with short-term needs. The campaigns encourage a long-term water conservation ethic among Utahns. The annual cost share of the program is $12,500 from the District, which will be pooled, with other monies from the other members of the team. The District will continue supporting and assisting the Governor’s Conservation Team to increase
conservation attitudes throughout the state through a unified conservation message. Local Media Campaign
A local media campaign was launched in 2000. The different mediums are used periodically to promote activities or programs as needed. The goal of this program is to reach residents county-wide through varying media formats. The annual cost of the program is around $25,000. It has been a remarkable educational tool in bringing awareness of programs and water issues in the community.
This program was evaluated with the demonstration garden. These programs are considered for single family homes, at a cost to the district of $2.50 per account with a 10 percent administration and marketing mark-up.
Education and Outreach
Annual Washington County Water Fair
The District participates in several outreach and education programs. The major program is the annual Water Fair presented to all 4th graders in Washington County which began in 1995. The 4th grade was selected to support the State’s core water curriculum. The Water Fair reaches approximately 1,900 students. The students meet at Dixie State College. They are assigned to attend four of the 33 presentations available and they compete in a water jeopardy contest. Local merchants contribute the prizes for the winning classes in the contest. The Fair incorporates water education in the areas of water treatment, water properties, water infrastructure, water conservation and source
Current Conservation Programs
The District promotes water education/conservation in all educational opportunities. In addition, District staff members serve as a resource to educators in elementary, secondary and higher education. Other educational outreach endeavors commit only staff time and minimal District resources.
The evaluation of this program is combined with public information. The program is considered for single family homes at a cost to the district of $2.50 per account with a 10 percent administration and marketing mark-up.
Booths & Public Events
The District participates in providing a booth with conservation information at public events and other events that are appropriate to join. For the evaluation of this program, it is combined with public information. The program is considered for single family homes at a cost to the district of $2.50 per account with a 10 percent administration and marketing mark-up.
Conservation Education and Certification
The District provides administration of Irrigation Association certification testing. Past testing has included Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor and Irrigation System Design and Maintenance.
In 2003, the District, in partnership with Dixie Applied Technology College (DXATC), USU Extension, and St. George City created a program to educate the landscape professional in water efficient landscape management. The program has offered two courses: Water Efficient Turf Management and Planting for Success. DXATC paid for, arranged the promotion of the courses, and offered their facility for the classes. USU Extension agent, Rick Heflebower, taught and arranged for specialized instructors and supervised the teaching of the courses.
The goals include the encouragement of professionalism; an increase in the landscape professional’s knowledge of best management practices for water efficient landscapes. It is estimated that a five percent drop in water demands can be achieved through proper landscape management practices.
Costs for the promotion of the courses presented by the Irrigation Association are incurred by the Association itself. The District arranges for the classroom through the County Extension at no cost. The major portion of the costs in connection with the courses presented by the landscape professional courses have been absorbed by DXATC.
The evaluation of this program calculated a cost for single family of $25. A $100 cost for Multi-family, Institutional and Commercial accounts. The program has a 30 percent administration and marketing mark-up.
Current Conservation Programs
users, the landscape professional and homeowner to gauge the irrigation needs of the landscape. A website has been created to disseminate the ET value county-wide through a website at www.dixiegardener.org.
The goal of this program is to educate both the homeowner and landscape professional on the water needs of the landscape plants. It is estimated that, if correct irrigation principles can be implemented, water needs can be decreased by at least 30 percent.
The District has taken over the hosting of the website and cost of USU Extension updates the website weekly and pays for the cost to host the website. This program was not evaluated in the Maddaus Report.
Study on High Salinity in Water
The District is working with retired BYU professor and researcher Dr. Frank Williams in conducting research to identify plants and irrigation practices that are tolerant of high salinity water. The purpose is to evaluate the use of Virgin River water in the establishment and management of ornamentals and other common varieties of horticultural plants in this area. The plants studied will be those commonly used in this area and thought to be salt tolerant. The study will evaluate the establishment of the plants in high salinity water as well as the plants ability to survive on minimal water use thus establishing best management practices for landscapes using river water. Plant lists will also be developed for residents of Washington County to use. Plants will be rated from sensitive to tolerant in their reaction to the high salt content of the water.
The goal of the program is to evaluate methods and management practices and
establish best management practices for ornamentals and other common plant material used in the area. This will be done by studying various planting methods to find what will best establish the plant. Once the plants are established, they will continue to be evaluated on growth
characteristics. The soil will also be monitored for accumulation of salts and management practices developed to produce the best results. Special attention will be given to the various species of grasses that are believed to be well adapted to this area. Trees, shrubs, and other landscape plants will also be evaluated.
With the criteria developed, homeowners and commercial landscapers can evaluate the varieties that will be best suited for the area, especially when using a secondary water source such as the Virgin River. The research done anticipates
agriculture conversion of Virgin River water at the Washington Fields Diversion and use of the water in secondary water systems in Washington and St. George. Use of the water by St. George City on public parks, cemeteries and other public areas has revealed that the water will not be suitable for some of the area's commonly used landscaping plants. Both salinity and the element boron appear to be an issue. A standard list of plants and best planting methods will be distributed to area residents indicating methods for planting that, if adhered to, will tolerate the salinity and also conserve
Current Conservation Programs
order to establish that the proper planting methods will continue to save water long after the establishment of the plants. At the conclusion of this study, the information collected will be published. This will be beneficial in demonstrating how, with proper soil preparation, planting, managed water use and that water of lower quality can be
successfully utilized. A short list of recommended plants and their tolerance for low quality water will be developed for the area. This program was not evaluated in the MWM Report.
Utah Water-wise Plant Tagging
The District contributed to the State’s Utah Water-wise Plant Tagging program. Representatives from several government and local organizations worked together to organize a list of ornamental trees, shrubs, herbaceous perennials, ornamental grasses, and ground covers that would meet the criteria listed below:
1) water-wise,
2) adaptable to Utah's arid climate and cold winters, 3) available in the industry,
4) relatively easy to maintain in the landscape, and
5) have desirable landscape characteristics which remain desirable under limited water availability.
The tagging process establishes that the plant requires water at most once every two weeks after establishment in order to maintain its aesthetic characteristics. The plant is identified with a generic, bright yellow tag indicating to the consumer that the plant is a water-wise plant. Participating nurseries and garden centers throughout the state will have these tagged plants available.
The program goals of this State developed program are to assist Utah citizens in identifying water-wise plants for use in their region. An evaluation was not performed for this program in the Maddaus Report.
Conservation Pricing in Water Rates & Billing Usage Information
Conservation Pricing
The District uses a tiered water rate and requires that its partner cities use a tiered water rate as well. Currently, with the tiered water rates, some cities provide no water in the base rate. The District will continue to encourage all cities to implement rates that encourage conservation. Table 5 lists the present water rates for some Washington County cities.
Current Conservation Programs
Table 5 Washington County Cities Water Rates
Cities Price* per 1,000 Hurricane Valley $3.10 Ivins $2.82 La Verkin $2.66 Avg Price $2.13 Enterprise $1.97 Hurricane $1.75 Santa Clara $1.68 St. George $1.62 Toquerville $1.47
*Based on usage of 15,000 gallons
Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to reduce average or peak use, or both. Such pricing includes:
Basic Rate
Definition: A basic rate is a monthly charge based on meter size and designed to recover the fixed cost of providing service. This includes the cost of meter reading, billing,
accounting, collecting, debt service on bonds, depreciation, insurance and other costs that do not vary with the amount of water delivered by the system; and
Covering all fixed costs with the base charge assures that conservation successes do not create revenue deficiencies. This rate does not include any water.
Usage Rate
The water customer is charged a unit price according to their water usage for the month. Each unit of water is priced in such a way to penalize the water user for inefficient use. Any fees collected from abuse of water usage could be allocated to conservation programs.
Base Sewer Charge According to Water Used
A volume charge for water and sewer service based on metered water use. The volume charge should be designed to recover all variable costs. Variable costs include energy for pumping, treatment chemicals, and any other costs that vary with the amount of water delivered.
Other optional rates Seasonal rates
These rates are based on seasonal water use such as summer versus winter or excess-use surcharges to reduce peak demands during summer months.
The District will continue to encourage each community in the County to make
information available to each household concerning Peak Demand Periods and strategies the household can utilize to reduce use during those periods.
Current Conservation Programs
Billing Usage Information
Many of the cities include in the monthly billing statement a monthly comparison of customer’s water usage. This provides a tool for residents to bring awareness of their water usage and how to manage it better. However, because of billing software limitations, not all cities are able to provide this information.
Looking Forward
Chapter 4 Looking Forward
A quality water conservation plan consists of three elements: it is goal-oriented, cost-effective and practical in design and implementation. With this in mind, the water conservation mission of the District is to provide leadership to the County in the implementation and
dissemination of water conservation practices. It is the District’s desire to be a resource to the County by providing a meaningful water conservation effort and addressing the
implementation of a comprehensive program, utilization measures and incentives to conserve water. By promoting a meaningful water conservation effort, the District will be able to reduce water demands by 25 percent by the year 2050, thereby delaying the need for new water supply and infrastructure, and meeting the current water needs of the County.
Through the implementation of water conservation measures, the District will also provide avenues through which endangered species can be protected, challenges and costs of additional water development can be met, and water needs for the population growth can be satisfied.
Implementation of Water Management and Conservation Practices
The original Water Conservation Committee selected various conservation measures, which have been adopted as needed. The impetus for the total effort will come from the District by way of funding as well as staff time dedicated to the implementation of the proposed water management and conservation practices. Various entities or agencies in partnership with the District in this effort include the State of Utah - Division of WaterResources, Washington County, the municipalities in Washington County, irrigation companies (throughout the County), the Cooperative Extension Service, the National Resource
Conservation Service, the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Each of the partners will have a unique role, which will be specified in the explanation of each conservation practice or project.
Looking Forward
Future Water Management Projects General Supply Management
In order to increase water supply, the following projects (listed in Table 6) should be implemented as needed. They are listed in order of priority with an explanation of the
requirements of the project and the lead agency that will be responsible for implementation. Information regarding costs and benefits of specific practices will need to be developed and presented to individual irrigation companies and irrigators. The National Resource Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension Service seem best equipped to accomplish this task with the assistance and encouragement of individual committee members and the District. It is expected that the District, in cooperation with local irrigation companies and the Utah Division of Water Resources, would proceed as rapidly as possible to gather the necessary information to fund and implement the first five items.
Table 6 Future Water Supply Proposed Projects
Supply Source Avg Annual Yield in 2060 (AF/yr) Type of Supply Timing Start Date Comments
Quail Creek Reservoir Agricultural Supply Exchange 4,000 Culinary Begin when needed; phase in over time 2017
Culinary supply currently used by agriculture, exchanged for
secondary-grade quality water from the Virgin River.
Ash Creek Pipeline 5,000 Culinary When Needed 2017
Culinary supply indirectly by supplying secondary supply grade water to offset current culinary use.
Crystal Creek Pipeline 2,000 Culinary When Needed 2019 Culinary supply Maximize Existing Wastewater Reuse Capacity of 10 mgd 1,700(1) Secondary Begin when needed; phase in over time 2020
Treatment capacity and distribution system can be phased as needed to meet secondary demand.
Agricultural Conversions from Development 12,400(2)(3) Secondary Begin when needed; phase in over time 2020 Consists of multiple projects and water rights changes. Linear annual increase to meet secondary demand.
Lake Powell Pipeline 70,000 Culinary When needed 2020
Can be used to meet culinary and/or secondary supply as needed.
Future Wastewater
Reuse 16,900 Secondary When needed 2037
Phased in as needed to meet secondary demand
Looking Forward
Notes (1)
The water reuse plant recently constructed in St. George has a total capacity of 11,200 AF per year. Two of three filters have been installed to date (current capacity of 7,800 AF per year), with 3,400 AF per year of additional future capacity as needed. This supply can only be used to meet secondary demands during the irrigation season (April through October) and there is no storage capacity resulting in the loss of any supplies not used by the end of a given month. Average annual yield was estimated as 50 percent of capacity.
(2)
A 20 percent loss was realized for treatment with reverse osmosis to reduce salinity to a level where the supply would be usable for secondary M&I purposes. (MWH 2006).
(3)
Total amount available from this supply would be 12,400 AF per year in 2060.
Reduction in Ash Creek Drainage Water Losses
This project consists of two parts. First, a collection system will be constructed to replace the current open ditches on Leap Creek, South Ash Creek and Wet Sandy Creek. This will carry the water from the existing points of diversion and the existing Ash Creek Reservoir to a proposed reservoir west of Toquerville. A specific site for this reservoir has not yet been identified although several are under consideration. Second, a pipeline from the reservoir to the Toquerville and La Verkin secondary water system will be constructed. Storage from the reservoir would be used for outdoor watering in the communities of Toquerville and La Verkin, thereby conserving the high quality Toquerville Spring water for culinary use. Irrigation water for Pintura and Anderson Junction would be provided directly from the pipeline to the users in those areas.8 This project will be a cooperative effort between the District, the area irrigation companies and cities, and the State Division of Water Resources. This project has a potential yield of 5,000 AF per year.
Enhancement of Underground Water Sources
With increasing costs of new water projects and the depletion of surface water supplies, a greater focus will be on the need for development of the groundwater supply in the County. Wise water-management policy should dictate that long-term withdrawal not exceed the average annual recharge. It has been estimated that the average annual groundwater recharge equals approximately the discharge of 155,000 AF in the Virgin River Basin.18 Historical
estimates of discharge from springs and wells vary from 40 percent of the average annual groundwater discharge in the Central basin to only 10 percent in the Upper Basin.19 Groundwater in the Virgin River Basin in Washington County is considered to be fully appropriated by Utah's Division of Water Rights, except for small domestic uses in limited areas. Future groundwater development has limited potential.
8
Washington County Water Conservancy District Purpose and Need Study. Boyle Engineering Corporation. March
1995.d
Looking Forward
One project of groundwater enhancement has been implemented in the Sand Hollow Reservoir Project. Any other opportunities that arise for ground water to be recharged or enhanced should be studied for feasibility.
The District has started the enhancement of underground water sources through the Sand Hollow Project. In addition to being a storage facility, this reservoir also acts as a
groundwater recharge facility. It is estimated this project will add 10,000 AF to the groundwater supply annually.
Lake Powell Pipeline
A feasibility study has been completed on a water pipeline extending from Lake Powell to Sand Hollow Reservoir. Legislation was passed authorizing the Utah Board of Water
Resources to pursue preliminary engineering design and permits for the project. The studies have concluded that the pipeline could deliver water at a reasonable unit cost. The District has established a financial mechanism in its Capital Facilities Plan to pay for new water
development projects like the Lake Powell Pipeline project and other projects through impact fees. The fees are established to cover the cost of new water development. The proposed pipeline would consist of approximately 138 miles of a 69" pipe. The alignment generally follows the existing highway and designated utility corridors and it has been aligned to avoid wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, national forests and other sensitive lands. Work on the project will continue with issuance of permits and rights of way, authorization of funding by the state, final engineering and construction. It is currently anticipated that the project will be completed in the year 2020.
The estimated annual yield of the pipeline for the District is 70,000 AF. Future Water Conservation Programs
Based on the Maddaus evaluation, Table 7 lists current conservation programs and new 17 recommended programs for implementation between now and 2035. The evaluation determined that with the existing programs and the 17 recommended programs a potential water savings of 26,962 AF by the year 2035. This would be a water savings of 16.6 percent in total water production by the year 2035. The program costs and benefit-cost ratio of each program is included in Appendix A.
The evaluation concluded the District's service area has a relatively high portion of residential water use and a significant amount of outdoor water use. Consequently, residential conservation programs produce the most savings. The amount of new growth forecasted for the District's area is high so measures directed at new development produce large savings. Successful implementation of these programs will exceed the State's and District's goal of 25 percent reduction in per capita water use. In setting this goal, the District has followed the State’s example and also adopted the 2000 year as the baseline gpcd of 326. This gpcd number is calculated from annual utility billing data collected from the six major cities (St. George, Washington, Hurricane, Santa Clara, Ivins and LaVerkin) in the county.
