1. “Slow the Flow of H2O” Evaluating A Decade of Utah
Water Conservation Legislation
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. Loran Eisley
Goldberry, S.A., Summers, L.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to reservoirs and the extraction of ground water, the availability of fresh water greatly influenced the movemen
of human populations within ancient Utah. Located within the geographical boundaries of the Great Basin, Utah‟s
early indigenous people lives were intricately connected to fresh water sources. While tribal boundaries were often
determined by water-ways the appropriation, or diversion of water resources was not a major concern, as their
culture, and values did not require laws for water use.
Water laws and regulations were later instigated by the Anglo-European settlers. After arriving into the valleys that
sloped westward along the Wasatch mountain-range, they diverted water from a creek in the SaltLakeValley for their
first crops. Eventually, Utah‟s water resources were appropriated by legislation, and the simple canals morphed into
a complex system of delivery, storage systems and treatment facilities. More recently, economics and growth have
influenced the development of additional legislation that includes water conserving ethics and regulations. This
legislation was initiated primarily to ensure the future availability, and safety of Utah‟s water. Since water conserving
legislation passed in 1998, several house-bills and public outreach programs have been adopted by water
conservancy districts, and municipalities. Their main goal has been, “Slow the Flow of H2O.”
THE COLORADO RIVER: A LIQUID ASSET
A vital, liquid asset that has changed the landscapes of Utah and other Western
states are the waters of theColorado River. Critically important to seven western
states, indigenous aboriginal tribes and Mexico, it is considered to be the most
regulated river in the world (Anderson, D.L., 2002). Its head-waters originate
within the peaks of the RockyMountain range in Colorado and Wyoming.
However, before ending itsflow into the Gulf of California, it provides water for
municipalities, industry, agriculture and hydroelectric power for cities.

2. Five of the seven upper and lower Colorado River Basin States are among the fastest growing in the nation. Ranked by
growth they include: (1) Nevada, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Utah and (5) Idaho. Utah, the second driest state in the
continental United States lies within the lower and upper Colorado River Basins. In the year 2000, diversions from the
upper Colorado River totaled 953,000 acre-feet of water that was diverted at specific tributaries throughout the state. A
majority of Utah‟s diversions from the Colorado occur from the DucheneRiver system in the UintahBasin. This water is
then transported to communities along the Wasatch Front through the federally funded Central Utah Water Project (CUP).
Utah has rights to an additional 200,000 af/year of water that is calculated into its future water budget. Within the
lower ColoradoRiver Basin, the currently unused water is calculated to serve future populations expected to increase
at a rate of 2.96% for the next twenty years. However, growth rates for the part of the state located in the upper
basin are projected to be only 1.74% (Anderson, D.L.,2002). In 1998, recognizing that increases in population
within both upper and lower basins could equate to water consumption in excess of supply, the state legislature
passed House Bill 418. In 2004, an amendment was passed (HB 71) that strengthened and refined certain guidelines
of the original legislation.
HOUSE BILL 418: CONSIDERING UTAH’S WATER FUTURE
Prior to the passing of House Bill 418, several communities were practicing water conservation measures that
included: universal metering, watershed protection and had adopted water conservingrates for their culinary
water supplies. H.B. 418 was written in response to the Utah Division of Water Resources, Division of Water
Rights and a Utahstate government subcommittee(the Governor’s Water Conservation Team) that recognized
the importance of implementing statewide best management practices that would reduce water use, while
increasing water awareness. Moreover, the language of HB 418 preamble was one of cooperation, rather than
strongly regulatory; “…an act relating to water and irrigation; requiring water conservancy districts and water
retailers to prepare and adopt or update a water conservation plan and file it with the Division of Water
Resources; and requiring the Board of Water Resources to study the plans and make recommendations.”
Required to submit their plans by April 1, 1999, Utah‟s water retailers, municipalities and water conservancy districts
serving more than 500 connections responded in varying levels of detail. While the requirements of HB 418 were
similar to those required by Regional Drinking Water Facilities Plan initiative conducted in Utah to meet the
federally mandated 1996 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act; H.B. 418was comprised of ten specific measurable
guidelines:

3. 1. The installation and use of water efficient fixtures and appliances, including toilets, shower fixtures and faucets.
2. Residential and commercial landscapes and irrigation that require less water to maintain.
3. More water efficient industrial and commercial processes involving the use of water.
4. Water reuse systems, both potable and not potable.
5. Distribution system leak repair.
6. Dissemination of public information regarding more efficient use of water, including public education programs, customer water use
audits, and water saving demonstrations.
7. Water rate structures designed to encourage more efficient use of water.
8. Statutes, ordinances, codes, or regulations designed to encourage more efficient use of water by means such as water efficient fixtures
and landscapes.
9. Incentives to implement water efficient techniques, including rebates to water users to encourage the implementation of more water
efficient measures.
10. Other measures designed to conserve water.
DROUGHT CYCLES
While state models allocate for projected depletions based on historical evaporation rates from reservoirs, the values
do not include adjustments for increased temperatures associated with global warming. The most recent drought
cycle in Utah, (2000-2007) impressed municipalities and water retailers on the necessity of having a viable drought
contingency plan. During the evaluation of the conservation plans submitted for review from 1998-2008, the
majority of the municipalities included severe drought contingency plans as a conservation „Best Management
Plan.‟Many municipalities had the foresight to implement “increasing block” rate structures, concluding that they
promoted conservation, while ensuring that municipalities had adequate funds for operations and maintenance.
North Logan mayor, Val Potter observed on the interrelation between water pricing, drought preparedness and
conservation. “The drought got ourattention! Wells are drawndown, pumping costs haveincreased and the city
isfacing the expense ofdeveloping new storageand water. We will need toconserve even after thedrought. Pricing
water forconservation is our besttool.”
As the plans were evaluated for thoroughness and conservation measurability by Utah Division of Water Resources
conservation staff, additional factors were considered. (1) municipality size and (2) the resources available for water
conservation project development.Awareness about the importance of water conservation plans varied from
progressive and detailed, to brief statements about how water conservation practices were only necessary during
times of drought.Salt Lake City, with the largest population centers in Utah considered the definition and scope of

4. water conservation. “Water conservation is a set of strategies for reducing the volume of water withdrawn from a
water supply source, for reducing the loss or waste of water, for maintaining or improving efficiency in the use of
water, for increasing the recycling and reuse of water, and for preventing the pollution of water….Every person,
animal and plant which resides within, works, or passes through our community benefits from water
conservation…”While population and the complexity of the Salt Lake City water system contributed to the
thoroughness of their conservation plan, many smaller municipalities also included rate incentive pricing and
moderately detailed water-conservation plans.
EVALUATING THE PLANS
The municipalities chosen for review spanned the entire state, from LoganCity located in the northern pan-handle
of Utah, to BlandingCity nestled within the red-rock landscapes of the four-corner area in the south. Tourism,
particularly in the southern portion of the state contributes to seasonal-peak water use. Those most affected by
these seasonal fluctuations include Blanding, Moab and St. George. Many of the cities also receive water from
conservancy districts, in addition to their own developments. As stated within H.B. 418, all water entities were
responsible for submitting water conservation plans; and while this study has focused upon municipalities their
conservancy districts are also included.
The major water conservancy districts are Jordan Valley WaterConservancy District, Weber Basin Water
Conservancy District, CentralUtah Water Conservancy District and Washington County Water
ConservancyDistrict. Metropolitan Water District of SaltLake and Sandy is not aconservancy district but is a major
wholesale water
Population supplier to SLC
Municipality Submitted 1999 2003-2007 Conservancy District andSandy. There
Logan 99/05 42,000 47,000 Bear River C.D.
are also nineteen
additional water
Morgan 99/04 2,540 2,800 Weber Basin C.D.
conservancydistricts
Riverdale 99/05 8,250 8,328 Sub Roy C.D. located throughout
Centerville 99/05 15,000 17,225 Weber Basin C.D. the state.
Salt Lake City 99/04 313473 325,000 7 SaltLakeC.D. One of the primary
West Jordan 99/09 64,200 80,812 JordanValley Water C.D. roles of the
Vernal 99/05 7,700 7,714 Central Utah Project conservancy
Moab 99/06 5,200 5,200 WashingtonCountyC.D.
Blanding 99/04 3,299 3,200 Wide Hollow C.D.
St. George 99/08 70,000 83,364 WashingtonCountyC.D.

5. districtsis to assist their customer agencies in reaching the conservation goals theyhave set. For example: Jordan
Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) could never reach its goal of twenty-five percent reduction inwater
deliveries by 2025 unless all their customer agencies were striving to meet an identical goal. One incentive is water-
conservation grants. JVWCD provides $50,000 grants to each of its customer citiesand districts.To receive the
grant a customer agencies must illustrate quantifiable conservation measures that will facilitate the conservancy
district reaching their conservation goals. West Jordan City is a customer municipality of JVWCD. With a similar
water conserving vision to the conservancy district they have many exceptional water conserving programs they
have developed from water conservation grants.
MEASURING CHANGE
The analysis of the water-conservation plans submitted from 1999-2009, focused upon the implementation of the
water conservation guidelines listed in both H.B. 418, and H.B. 71. In addition, a ranking system of “Currently in
Use,” and “Not in Use,” was designated to both indoor, outdoor water conserving features. From the total number
of municipalities that were evaluated, a percentage was established for each water conserving feature studied, and all
data represents a total implementation rather than an evaluation of each individual municipality. Data collected from
the submitted plans of H.B. 418 (1999), supplied a portrait of a statewide need to increase measureable water
conserving guidelines. From the ten suggested practices outlined within H.B. 418 only two water conserving
practices; water metering for culinary water sources and mulching programs were implemented by fifty percent of
the selected cities, and conservancy districts. In many instances the submitted water conservation plans lacked
reference to a particular guideline.

6. Not in Use Currently in Use
Time/Over Watering Ordinance
Community Conservation Group
Water Efficient Landscaping
Mulching
Water Reuse
ET Systems
Water Meter (culinary)
Indoor leak checks
Low-flow showers
Dual flush toilets
Low-flow faucets
0 10 20 30 40 50
Table 1:Evaluation of selected Utah municipalities interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs as submitted in their H.B. 418
water conservation plans (1999). Categorized by the rate of use, or in some instances not applicable.
Not in Use Currently in Use
Time/Watering Ordinances
Water Efficient Landscaping
ET Weather Stations
Water Meter (potable)
Low-flow showers
Low-flow faucets
0 10 20 30 40 50
Table 2: The 2004-2009 evaluation of selected Utah municipalities’ interior (top) and exterior (lower) water conservation programs, as directed by
H.B. 71. Categorized by the implementation of water conserving programs outlined within the H.B.

7. Almost a decade later, H.B. 71 was enacted by the state. Municipalities and conservancy districts were required to
reevaluate and resubmit their water conservation plans. Many municipalities, particularly those located within dense
urban centers began to implement landscape rebates. Furthermore, the economics of water was considered, as
several municipalities included changes in their water rate structures. Complimentary water-audits created more
partnerships between conservancy districts and provided an environment where „Community Conservation
Groups‟could flourish. Additional water conservation measures, including water reuse in the landscape, and water
metering for secondary water saw an increase though it still ranked below fifty percent.
City of West Jordan Estimated Costs of Water Savings of Conservation
Additional measures within H.B. 71 were included
Programs into the new plans. Several conservancy districts
now had demonstration water conservation
Cost per Acre-Feet of
Program landscapes for area citizens and businesses to glean
Water Savings
inspiration from, and over sixty percent had
Commercial Landscape Ordinance $14
measureable results from their water education
ULFT Rebate Program $75 programs. Other successful measures included
large-user water conservation programs for
“Water Check” Audit Program $50
industry, municipal parks, and by-ways. West
4th Grade Educational Program $235
Jordan illustrated the estimated costs of water-
savings of their conservation programs, and the
associated costs per acre-feet.
RAINWATER HARVESTING: A POPULAR DIVERSION
Recent legislation has recently added another dimension to water conservation efforts, rainwater harvesting. While
the harvesting of rainwater is an ancient worldwide practice dating back to circa 1,500 B.C. (Hicks, 2008),
individuals have been unable to practice it due to the state of Utah‟s established water laws that follow the Doctrine
of Prior Appropriation. The major tenants of the law are “First in time is first in right.” and “Use it or lose it.” During
the early-anglo settlement the right to use water was simply established by diverting the water from its primary
source and then applying it for a beneficial use.

8. Consequently, the prior interpretation of rainwater harvesting meant that water was being removed from use
downstream, and appeared to contradict the “First in time, first in right,” doctrine. However, Senate Bill 128 is
representative with how individuals view water in Utah and may promote greater water stewardship. While the
amount of water that can be harvested is only 2,500 gallons in an underground container or 55 gallons in two above
ground containers/parcel (lot), it may facilitate increased wise-water use applications of non-potable water in
landscape and toilet-flushing. Particularly, when rainwater harvesting contributes positively to the equation that
describes monthly conservation practices: Supply >Demand (Kinkade-Levario, 2007).
THE ULTIMATE PARTNERSHIP: PRICING AND CONSERVATION
House Bill 418 forges a link between water rates and conservation with the statement that, “Water conservation
plans may include information regarding: (among other things) water rate structures designed to encourage more
efficient use of water.” The latest document produced by the Utah Division of Water Resources in its State Water
Planning Program, titled The Jordan River Basin Plan, points out the major difficulty in setting water rates for
conservation in Utah. Water is cheap. The average cost per 1,000 gallons of water in the JordanRiver Basin, where
most of the people live is just $1.60. The state average is $1.15 compared to the national average of $2.50 (UDWR,
2010).
A widespread custom used in setting water rates is to set the price of water at a level where revenues equal the cost
of delivery. To stay true to this cost of service principle cities and districts avoid increasing the price of water to
incentivize customers to achieve their conservation goals. Instead, some utilities have moved into some innovative
conservation rate structures. Salt Lake City, for example adopted a seasonal rate structure, as have five other major
water suppliers in SaltLakeCounty. Some suppliers have added an increasing block feature to their summer rate.
A somewhat new form of rate structure that is slowly gaining popularity sets a water budget or allocation for each
customer in the residential, commercial or other customer classes. No water providers in Utah have implemented
this as yet but one major conservancy districts and one improvement district are taking a serious look. This water
budget rate structure combines improved education on an enhanced water bill with tough overage charges for water
used in excess of the water budget. With this one the utility is responsible for deciding what amount of water
constitutes efficient use for each customer. The customer is responsible for using water appropriately or paying a
much higher price for the wasted water. In some cases the extra revenue from the higher rates is used to fund
conservation programs targeted toward helping those who are using excessive amounts.

9. Utah‟s most popular conservation rate structure is the increasing block rate with 42 percent of the drinking water
systems using it. As also with the other rate structures mentioned, a base fee ranging from $2.88 to a high of $36.00
is applied for each customer and often no water is granted for this fee (Utah Division Water Resources, 2010)An
increasing commodity charge is then set for each succeeding price block.
CONCLUSION: CONSERVATION’S BOTTOM LINE
Municipalities of all population sizes implemented many proactive and measureable additions into their water
conservation plans. Several larger municipalities had exemplary water conservation plans that were both
quantifiable and visionary. West JordanCity is one example of successfully implementing comprehensive BMP‟s.
Since H.B. 418 their per capita water use has decreased from 227 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) to 193 gpcpd.
These values reflect a 15% decrease in use from 2000. Moreover, the effectiveness of their water conservation
programs is reflected in their expenditures and project water savings (WJC Conservation Plan, 2009).
Evaluation of the selected plans illustrated that
conservation, education and equitable water rate
structures are a necessary component for dynamic
water conserving plans. The magnitude of providing
adequate and quality water, while promoting water
conservation ethics will require continued vigilance
and evaluation of the best management practices
(BMP‟s) described within both house bills. The future
of Utah‟s water is dependent upon commitment from
the entire spectrum of water users and a heightened
recognition of our interdependency to all life and that our actions will benefit a future that we cannot see.
REFFERENCES
Anderson, D.L. (2002) The Colorado River, Utah’s Perspective, Utah Division of Water Resources,2nd ed. State of Utah
Department of Natural Resources.

10. http://www.water.utah.gov/Interstate/TheColoradoRiverart.pdf.]
Gleick, P.H., Chalecki, E.L.(2001) The Impacts of Climate Changes for Water Resources of the Colorado and
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins. Paper No. 99085 of the Journal of the American Water Resources
Association.2000.
Hicks, B. (2008) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial Facilities in Arlington County,
Virginia.Masters Thesis. Nickolas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences.Duke
University.http://www.rainharvest.com/more/MastersProjectRainHarvest_200805.pdf
Kindade-Levario, H.( 2007.) Design for Water, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada. New Society Publishers.
Longuevergne, L. et al (2011). GRACE Hydrological estimates for small basins: Evaluating processing approaches on the High
Plains Aquifer, USA. Water
Resources Research, VOL. 46, W11517.
Utah Division of Water Resources, (2010).Jordan River Basin Plan.pg.90-91.
West Jordan City 2009 Water Conservation Plan Update. (2009). Current Water Conservation Programs. Ch. 3. pg.11-
12.