HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-2016-35Resolution # 35-2016
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE 2016 FOR
THE CITY OF MOAB
WHEREAS, Utah water providers are required to update their water conservation plans every five years;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Moab's last update was adopted in 201 1; and
WHEREAS, the Water Conservation Plan Update 2016 for the City of Moab is attached to this
resolution; and
NOW THEREFORE, we, the Governing Body of the City of Moab do hereby resolve to adopt the Water
Conservation Plan Update 2016 for the City of Moab in substantially the form attached to this resolution
and to direct the appropriate parties to submit said plan to the State of Utah.
Passed and adopted by action of the Governing Body of the City of Moab in open session this
13'1' day of December, 2016
SIGNE
David L. Sakrison, Mayor
Rachel E. Stenta, City Recorder
Resolution #35-2016 Page 1 of 1
(t)1
i
�f•)'
7 j ft f iJ 4ti
/' 1'
Photo Courtesy of Steve Mulligan
Moab Water Conservation Plan 2016
City of Moab, Utah
12/13/2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of figures and Tables 1
Acknowledgements 1
Checklist for Department of Natural Resources 2
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
THE CITY OF MOAB AND ITS WATER SYSTEM 5
History, Government and Population 5
Moab Water Rights/Water Source Capacity 6
Current City of Moab Water Distribution System Configuration 9
Secondary Water (Irrigation Sources) 12
Moab Area Geology and Origin of Water Sources 13
Water Use Trends, Current Use, & Per Capita Consumption 15
Number of Water Connections 16
Retail Water Deliveries 16
Demand Projections to Build -out 17
Future Supply Sources 18
Distribution System 19
Treatment System 19
Reuse Potential 19
Emergency Action Plan 19
Intersystem Agreements 20
Water Quality 21
Institutional and Political Factors 21
Environmental Concerns 22
Fiscal Structure and Financial Resources 23
WATER CONSERVATION GOALS 24
Why Conserve? 24
Current Water Conservation 24
Public Education on Wise Water Use 25
Water Conservation Policies/Ordinances 27
Numerical Goals for Water Conservation 28
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION MEASURES 29
Stormwater Management: A Scenario 32
Additional Readings on Water Conservation 33
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Moab Population
Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped) Compared
Moab Area Watershed
Moab area watershed boundaries as defined by the hydrological unit codes for Mill
and Castle Creek
Projected Population at Build -out (Moab and Grand County)
Municipal Springs
Municipal Wells
2011 and 2015 Annual Water Production and Utilization by Source
Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped)
Water Production Trends 2010 - 2015
Per Capita Water Consumption Trends
Average Water Consumption Residential versus Commercial 2011-2015
Average Water consumption in AF and percent by type (not including winter overflow)
Table showing adjustments to include winter overflow volumes in Water System totals
and per capita estimates, 2011- 2013
Retail Water Deliveries (Shop Water)
Build -Out Water Demand, as a percentage of Paper Rights and reported 2010 Potential
Production, based on 2015 Per Capita
Maximum Population of Moab at current rates of consumption, based on potential
production and paper water rights
Current Water Rate Structure for the City of Moab (Revised 7/1/2016)
Estimated Conservation Rates to Match Build Out Projections
Water Falling on Moab City at different precipitation levels
Estimated Total Water Use and potential conservation through Landscape
Conversions, per 1,000 square feet
Acknowledgements
The assistance of the following personnel is greatly appreciated: Eve Tallman, Jeff Adams (Executive
Director of the Canyonlands Watershed Council), John Weisheit (Executive Director of Living Rivers),
Leigh Anne Reinhart, Levi Jones, Jennie Ross, Zacharia Levine, Chantel Lindsay, Dana Van Horn, Ralph
Ferrara, Geoff Freethey, Carmella Galley, and Jeff Reinhart.
i
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 j
CHECKLIST for Moab City 2016 / Water Conservation Plan
*C6 Current population: 5235 (per census.gov for 2015)
0 Number of M&I water connections, categorized by type:
Residential 1575
Commercial & Industrial 414
Institutional 84
0 Total water deliveries, categorized by type: See Table 11.
‘C.J Current water supply, categorized by source: See Table 4.
0 Projected needed supply to Build -out: see Table 12.
gProjected supply that can be delayed by implementing conservation programs and practices.
��''�� This is not fully defined in our report. See Tables 13 and 15.
LJ Current per capita water use in gallons per capita per day (gpcd), categorized by type:
����' See Table 7.
ZCompare to state's 2010 average (potable 185, secondary 55 gpcd).
(Residential Potable 127 gpcd, Residential Secondary 40 gpcd) See Table 8.
GConservation Goals: See Table 15 and "Conservation Goals" chapter.
0 Your current metering situation and replacement schedule.
����
All but 20 meters are now radio -read, on track to replace all manual -read.
0 Your current pricing and rate structure: See Table 14.
gList any water conservation ordinances currently implemented:
��'' See "Water Conservation Policies/Ordinances"
�J List any conservation measures currently implemented: See "Current Water Conservation"
0 Do you have a Water Conservation Coordinator on your staff? No
0' Proposed conservation measures: See "Water Conservation Goals"
g Plan adopted by Moab City Council December 13, 2016 Resolution #35-2016
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE 2016
City of Moab, Utah
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of Utah requires that each Utah community adopt a Water Conservation Plan every five
years. The City of Moab last adopted a Plan in 2011; this Water Conservation Plan Update for 2016
considers new data for water supply and demand, trends for the last five years, and future growth
and consumption trends for the Moab area. Based on this information, the 2016 Water Conservation
Plan Update presents goals and objectives to ensure that Moab will meet its future water demand
needs through water conservation programs and practices.
Emerging data from the ongoing study spearheaded by the Utah Division of Water Rights (DWRI), and
undertaken by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), will inform this Water Conservation Plan.
Additional data is drawn not only from Moab City sources but also from reports prepared by
neighboring agencies, including Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA), Moab Irrigation
Company (MIC), and the Grand County Community Development Department.
After decades of water supply projections showing abundant and pure culinary water, new data
suggest an over -allocation of water rights and a trend of water use that appears to be significantly
depleting available resources. Until recently, population projections have not taken into account
denser zoning codes or the burgeoning tourist economy and its impact on per capita water usage.
The 2016 Water Conservation Plan Update sets forth an analysis of the period of 2011-2015. Average
per capita consumption for 2015 was 282 gallons per person per day, when including all culinary
consumption (residential and commercial), divided by the resident Moab population. This
consumption level requires significant conservation measures to decrease consumption to a level
that meets State and Federal consumption goals. If only residential use is taken into account, the
figure was much lower (146 gallons per person per day), but does not portray a realistic picture of
total impact on the existing water supply. Further, at current usage rates which take into account
current tourism impacts, this report suggests the City will exceed water supply when the population
reaches 11,552 residents.
Overall, from 1998 to 2015, the total water delivered by the City of Moab culinary system has
increased by 14%. Because previous water conservation plans have indicated abundant water supply
and relatively low per capita water usage rates, the City of Moab has not been aggressive in pursuing
water conservation measures.
Due to new information about culinary water scarcity and the fast pace of growth in the Moab
residential and overnight accommodation industry, it is recommended that the City aggressively
implement the water conservation measures outlined in this plan, capitalizing on changing
perceptions of what is feasible, and concentrating on reduction in outdoor use of culinary water and
implementing recommendations to reduce threats to water quality.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
This plan recommends that the City aim for a 25% reduction in per capita water consumption over
the next five years, and that the City reduce outdoor usage of culinary water by 25% in the same time
period. In addition, it is recommended that the City integrate the water conservation goals set forth
here and in the existing Moab sustainability plan entitled "2020 Vision"' into the City's Master Plan
and adopt a Water Conservation Mission Statement. Finally, it is recommended that the Council
pursue an interlocal agreement to establish a regional water authority, and call upon community
citizens to form a Moab City Water Conservation and Drought Management Committee.'
The format of this Plan includes data required by the Utah Department of Natural Resources that at
times makes for arduous reading. When possible, data is presented in Acre -Feet (an acre-foot is
equivalent to one foot of water over an area that equals one acre of land area, and one acre-foot
equals 325,850.943 gallons. The primary audience for this report is the City's leadership. The details
starting with the section entitled "Intersystem Agreements" are perhaps most critical for
consideration of future directions for Moab's Water Conservation program.
'Vision 2020: A Sustainable Moab Plan (2008). MoabCityResolutionAdopting2020VisionSustainableMoabPlan.pdf
z It is recommended that the City make use of the vast knowledge of local water and conservation experts to guide water
management issues into the future. Washington County formed such a committee in 1993.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
THE CITY OF MOAB AND ITS WATER SYSTEM
History, Government and Population
The City of Moab was incorporated in 1902. The 2015 City population was 5,2353. The City of Moab
has a Council -Manager form of government, with five elected Council members serving at large and a
separately elected Mayor.
The City's resident population has ebbed and grown slowly over the past ten years, with total growth
of 5.3%. At the same time, rapid growth of overnight accommodations has increased the number of
connections drawing from Moab's water supply. In addition, the population of unincorporated Grand
County has increased along with non-resident tourist facilities. Altogether, the Moab Area Travel
Council currently estimates there are approximately 4,000 overnight accommodation units in the
Moab Valley.4
This chart shows the City of Moab's slow and steady population growth trend.
Figure 1. Moab Population
5250
5200
5150
5100
5050
5000
4950
4900
Moab Population
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Population data from Census.gov and Grond County Community Development
The City's build -out is projected as the City's full growth potential, which is based on existing zonings
The City of Moab has anticipated additional culinary water demand created by limited annexations
and/or higher density rezoning to occur in the future. Because of rapid growth outside the City limits,
in addition to higher density rezoning that has occurred, it is important that the City anticipate
3 Per Zacharia Levine, Grand County Community Development Director (2016-11-16)
4 Moab Area Travel Council: 3,938 total rooms, condominiums, and commercial campsites in Grand County (2016-11-29).
5 Build -out population (Zacharia Levine 2016-11-16)
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
drought conditions and development patterns that are different from those contemplated in the
older build -out analyses, as well as other prospective factors that may affect water supply and
distribution. It should be noted that the 2014 Spanish Valley Water Conservation Plan' anticipates a
population for unincorporated Grand County in the year 2060 at fewer than 6,000 persons, which is
far lower than the eventual projected build -out population. In the GWSSA Culinary Water Master Plan
of 2016, it is projected that the agency will exceed culinary water supply within twenty years.' This
build -out population does not account for available water resources. Potential production capacity is
detailed later in this report.
Table 1. Projected Population at Build -out (Moab and Grand County)
Area (Acres)
Population (2.34 avg. household size)
Moab City
2,594
24,003
Unincorporated Grand County
98,725
70,549
Total Build -out Population
94,552
Courtesy of Grand County Community Development
Moab Water Rights/Water Source Capacity
Through its history, the City of Moab has acquired water rights and water source capacity to meet
historically anticipated build -out projections,$
Shortly after its incorporation in 1902, the City of Moab acquired an approximate half -interest in
Skakel Spring, located behind the Grand Old Ranch House about a mile south of the Colorado River.
The amount of the acquisition was 0.625 cubic feet per second (cfs). Skakel Spring was used as the
culinary source for the City's drinking water system installed in the original platted town blocks to the
south. Outlying farmhouses utilized wells for water.
Contemporary with formation of the City, the Moab Irrigation Company (MIC) built a diversion dam
on Mill Creek where the creek enters the east side of Spanish Valley, and currently provides irrigation
water throughout the City and to unincorporated areas north and west of Moab City. Many
residential lots in the original Moab City town blocks still have irrigation shares with which outside
watering is done, with the water being delivered down the gutters of the town streets to inlets into
yards.
When the uranium boom occurred in Southeast Utah after World War II, Moab's population suddenly
jumped from about 1,500 to 8,000. The City of Moab, motivated by severe water shortages during
the boom which lasted into the early 1950s, acquired rights to underground water that exceeded
'Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA) Water Conservation Plan for Spanish Valley, Utah (2014) p.5.
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/2014%20Conservation%20PIan%20System%2010023%20Final.pdf
GWSSA Culinary Water Master Plan (2016) p.16.
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/Websitel/Web%20Docs/Water%20Master%20PIan%202016.pdf
$ Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/documentcenter/view/383
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
culinary demand at what was then considered to be the City's expected build -out. In 1955, the City
purchased the 1,600-acre Lloyd Sommerville Ranch, which contained Sommerville #1, #2, #3,
McKonkie, and Birch springs. The City sold most of the ranch lying west of the spring area to George
White, and located the Moab City Cemetery, Old City Park (which contains McConkie and Birch
springs) and the Moab Golf Course (which contains the Sommerville #2 and #3 springs) on part of the
remainder.
Water rights were also purchased subsequent to the boom, further augmenting supplies beyond
anticipated demand.9 The City drilled six wells adjacent to the Sommerville #2 and #3 springs; from
1998 through 2005 only wells #6 and #10 have been pumped into the culinary system. The springs
(including Skakel) and the wells are the City of Moab water supply source today. Water from the
Sommerville Ranch springs historically filled the three City water storage tanks having 3,500,000
gallons —or 10.74 acre-feet (AF)--total capacity by gravity flow. In 1999 the City acquired the
remaining interest of 0.626 cfs in Skakel Spring, and afterward rebuilt the Skakel Spring diversion
structure to secure it from accidental or deliberate contamination. Full rights to Skakel were acquired
by the City in order to supply future demand anticipated from annexation of commercial properties in
the north US 191 corridor.
The City of Moab's total water rights equal 13.930 cfs, which is 6,251.78 gallons per minute (gpm) or
27.63 AF per day. The following charts summarize Moab's water rights, for both springs and wells:
Table 2. Municipal Springs (water rights perfected)
Name of Spring
Water Right #
cfs
Limits
AF/YR available
Type of Right
Priority Date
Skakel Spring
a29873
(a change to
Base Rights of
05 — 2105 and
05 — 2103)
1.252
453.50 AF/YR
Diversion;
236.62 AF/YR
Depletion
236.62
Diligence claim
05-2105 = 1889
05-2103 = 1898
a29873 =
2/18/2005
Skakel Spring
05-2740
1.00
"remainder
of flow"
723.91
Fixed -time
application
1/27/ 1999
McConkie
Spring
05-2007
0.21
152.02
Diligence claim
05-2007 = 1903
Sommerville
Spring #1
05-2008
a30363 changed
point of
diversion
0.2
102 AF/YR;
Period of
Use: April 1
to October 31
102
Diligence claim
05-2008 =
4/15/1896
a30363 =
6/21/2005
Sommerville
Springs #2, 3
05-251
0.207
Period of
Use:
November 1
to March 31
62.438
Application to
Appropriate
10/20/1958
Springs sub -total: 2.662 cfs or approximately 1,928.48 AF/yr. When adjusted for seasonal use limits and maximum depletion limits
listed on the State Department of Water Rights website, approximately 1,277.00 AF/YR are available for use.
9 Water rights history (Zacharia Levine 2016-11-16)
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
NOTES:
1) Water rights for Skakel are held under three separate rights, updated in the table above.
2) Total diversion and depletion limits are set for Skakel via change form a29873 allowing a total depletion of
236.62 AF, while right 05-2740 is for the "remainder of flow". It is unclear at this time whether Skakel spring's
total flow capacity is 2.252 cfs or if this additional right (05-2740) is to capture the remaining diversion flows of
right a29873. More information is needed to clarify.
3) Sommerville Springs have seasonal restrictions, limiting each of the two listed rights to distinct seasons as Right
05-2008 limited to 4/1 to 10/31 (7 months) and Right 05-251 limited to 11/1 - 3/31 (5 months). Also, Right 05-
2008 is listed as 0.2 cfs or 102 AF, meaning total production is 42.78 AF less than Use Rate/ Potential Production
of 144.78 AF/yr at the listed flow rate.
4) Total cfs is 2.662 when only one Sommerville Spring right is included at a time to reflect distinct seasonal rights.
See waterrights.utah.gov for more information.
5) Total AF from springs is 1,277.00 AF when adjusted for Limits to seasonal use and maximum depletion
6) Nearly all Spring and Well rights are appurtenant (linked) to each other. More research and knowledge of
water rights are needed to fully understand how this influences total water rights and available water
production from the sole -source aquifer
Table 3.
Municipal Wells (Water rights perfected and proving)
Name of Well
Water
Right #
cfs
AF/YR available
(approximate)
Type of Right
Priority Date
Wells 4a, 5, 6,
7, 9, 11
05-169
3
2,173.34
Application to Appropriate
9/15/1955
Same
05-206
1.63
1,180.85
Application to Appropriate
10/7/1964
Same
05-716
2.256
1,634.35
Application to Appropriate
10/24/1968
Same
05-101
1
724.44
Application to Appropriate
1/27/1954
Same
05-183
1.114
807.03
Application to Appropriate
2/21/1956
Same
05-336
1
724.44
Application to Appropriate
4/14/1961
Well #10
05-429
1
724.44
Application to Appropriate
7/23/1962
West Park Well
05-1540
0.15
108.67
Application to Appropriate
10/12/1978
West Park Well
05-1744
0.118
85.48
Application to Appropriate
4/24/1980
Wells sub -total: 11.268 cfs = approximately 8,163.22 Acre Feet/yr
Notes:
Several of these Rights have been segregated from each other. 05-183 originally was for 5cfs; Right 05-206 was
segregated in 1959 for 3.886 cfs (a27898), from which right 05-716 was segregated in 1968 for 2.256 cfs (a27898a). The
current cfs attributed for each of these rights is depicted in the table above.
1) Water Rights in blue include information (in the listing on waterrights.utah.gov) about seasonal use restrictions for
Spring #1 (05-2008) and Spring 2 and 3 (05-251), which appears to infer a hydrologic connection between the wells and
springs. These rights total 97.6%, or 7,963.09 AF, of Well Rights. Figure 4 in the 2011 Update listed Production values for
Well 6 and 10 only, while this table above highlights the interconnectedness of the majority of available rights to wells.
2) Water Right 05-716 lists three surface springs and three wells as the source. At this time, it is unclear how this right is
executed in relation to the gravity use information provided in Figure 5. See "Comparison of Total Rights and Reported
Usage in 2010" for more information about how this may influence use of available rights.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
3) Language indicating "perfected and proving" comes from 2011 Update; it is unclear which Rights are still proving, and
this should be investigated.
Current City of Moab Water Distribution System Configuration
The City of Moab supplies drinking water to almost all of the residents and businesses within the City.
As noted, not all of the above -named water rights currently provide water into the Moab water
distribution system. Some of these rights are seasonal. As indicated above, Moab also holds
groundwater rights to six major wells that penetrate the aquifer. Only two of these wells are
currently on line, and are only utilized during peak irrigation season. Water sources in the distribution
system for the City of Moab vary seasonally. Moab obtains water from three wells and three springs
during the summer months. From the north end of town, water from Skakel Spring is pumped
through a chlorination station and into a one -million -gallon tank, which then feeds the Northwest
Low pressure zone of the city. Moab City Springs One, Two and Three plus Moab City Wells Six and
Ten south of Moab are channeled into pipes and flow into two gas chlorination stations. From each of
these chlorination stations, water flows downhill to the City grid. Two one -million -gallon storage
tanks are not in line with the main transmission lines, but branch off at the south end of the system.
The City of Moab contracted with the University of Utah Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering in 2010 to produce a report that looked at the utilization of water sources in the Moab
water distribution system. According to the report, Moab at that time used less than half of the water
sources allotted and developed for the City.10 The following table provides a current view of the
water production of each of the in-service water sources for the City:
Table 4. 2011 and 2015 Annual Water Production and Utilization by Source (in Acre -Feet)
YEAR 2011
Source
Volume Used Acre Feet
Potential Production Acre Feet
Springs 1 and 2
840.23
840.23
Spring 3
636.76
636.76
Skakel Spring
317.29
711.98
Well 6
258.77
2418.28
Well 10
253.61
1126.28
TOTAL
2306.66
5733.53
YEAR 2015
Source
Volume Used Acre Feet
Potential Production Acre Feet
Spring 1 and 2
634.25
634.25
Spring 3
510.63
510.63
Skakel Spring
272.73
711.98
Well 6
360.53
2418.28
Well 10
432.41
1126.28
TOTAL
2210.55
5401.42
1° Moab Culinary Water Distribution System Model Description and Analysis: Recommendations for Current and Future
Improvements, 2010-01-15. C.D. Houdeshel and C.A. Pomeroy, University of Utah Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Drought conditions beginning in 1998 with a shift in the Northern Pacific Decadal Oscillation systemll
in ocean currents caused a shift from water production from gravity sources to pumped sources. The
amount of water pumped as a percentage of total water diverted changed dramatically in 2000. It
was noted in the 2011 plan that diminished pressure due to reduced infiltration due to drought
conditions takes two years to reach the point of discharge. Further research may be needed to
determine this two-year assumption figure. The chart on the following page shows the City's total
water production over time, along with the percentage breakdown of pumped versus gravity sources
and a comparison to pre -drought conditions:
Table 5. Total Water Production from Gravity and Pumped
Year
Gravity -
AF
Annual
Gravity as
% of 1998
Pumped
- AF
Annual
pumped as
% of 1998
Total diversion
- AF
Annual Diversion
as % of 1998
% pumped
1998
1,589.38
100.0%
295.26
100.0%
1,884.63
100.0%
15.7%
1999
1,547.33
97.4%
288.38
97.7%
1,835.72
97.4%
15.7%
2000
1,567.59
98.6%
861.19
291.7%
2,428.78
128.9%
35.5%
2001
1,422.46
89.5%
1,051.06
356.0%
2,473.52
131.2%
42.5%
2002
1,306.95
82.2%
735.00
248.9%
2,041.95
108.3%
36.0%
2003
1,220.65
76.8%
861.50
291.8%
2,082.15
110.5%
41.4%
2004
1,292.65
81.3%
845.97
286.5%
2,138.62
113.5%
39.6%
2005
1,295.10
81.5%
865.89
293.3%
2,160.99
114.7%
40.1%
2006
1,385.97
87.2%
1,086.88
368.1%
2,472.85
131.2%
44.0%
2007
1,376.76
86.6%
877.64
297.2%
2,254.40
119.6%
38.9%
2008
1,518.36
95.5%
1,060.73
359.3%
2,579.09
136.8%
41.1%
2009
1,424.33
89.6%
934.81
316.6%
2,359.15
125.2%
39.6%
2010
1,434.43
90.3%
900.69
305.1%
2,335.12
123.9%
38.6%
2011
1,794.29
112.9%
512.38
173.5%
2,306.67
122.4%
22.2%
2012
1,766.82
111.2%
677.15
229.3%
2,443.97
129.7%
27.7%
2013
1,534.20
96.5%
679.54
230.2%
2,213.74
117.5%
30.7%
2014
1,171.67
73.7%
644.47
218.3%
1,816.14
96.4%
35.5%
2015
1,263.77
79.5%
892.83
302.4%
2,156.60
114.4%
41.4%
Gravity
Pumped
Total
Average Acre -Feet Per Year 1998-2015
1,439.77
781.74
2,221.51
11 An internet search produces numerous academic reports on this topic. A good starting point is:
https://en.wikipedia.orp/wiki/Pacific decadal oscillation
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Figure 2. Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped) Compared
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
500.00
0.00
CO 01 O a -I N M d N t0 N CO 01 O N Crl tf1
01 01 O 00 00 00 O O O 1-1 .1 c-1 e-1 .-1 e-I
0101 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00
NNNN N INN NNN N N N N N N
—4—Total Gravity (AF)
—a—Total Pumped (AF)
Total Diversion (AF)
Table 6. Water Production Trends 2010 - 2015 (in acre feet/ year)
Year
Springs - AF
Wells -
AF
Total Use -
AF
%
Spring
% Well
Total
% of
2010
Spring %
of 2010
2010
1,773.82
586.16
2,359.97
75%
25%
100%
100%
2011
1,794.29
512.38
2,306.67
78%
22%
98%
101%
2012
1,766.82
677.15
2,443.97
72%
28%
104%
100%
2013
1,534.20
680.13
2,214.32
69%
31%
94%
86%
2014
1,481.78
680.86
2,162.64
69%
31%
92%
84%
2015
1,417.61
792.94
2,210.55
64%
36%
94%
80%
AVERAGE:
1,628.09
654.94
2,283.02
Trends from 2010 — 2015:
• Use of Skakel has decreased by 11% of potential production (See Table 4)
• Use of Springs 1,2, and 3 has remained 100% of Potential Production, while Potential Production has decreased
80% since 2010. This data requires further investigation.
• Use of Springs 1,2,3 remains several times higher than amount available through Rights to springs. The
relationship of Right 05-716 must be better understood.
• Total Use has decreased 6% since 2010, while total use provided by ground water has risen 11%
• Compared to 2010 figure, water use from well 6 has increased 21% and well 10 increased 50%
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Secondary Water (Irrigation Sources)12
With the loss of cultivated farmland to residential development, 308.79 of the 1,086.897 shares of
Moab Irrigation Company (MIC) stock were acquired in 1979 by the Grand County Water Conservancy
District, which diverts Mill Creek upstream into Ken's Lake for irrigation delivery above Moab in
Spanish Valley. Since then, 66.5 shares of MIC stock have been leased or purchased and transferred
by private owners upstream to the Mill Creek Diversion for Ken's Lake. Seventeen years ago, the MIC
put in pressurized irrigation pipelines to replace their original open ditch system within Moab.
With a motivation to reduce culinary water use on outdoor landscaping, the City should explore the
possibility of acquisition of water shares from the MIC that could be used for outdoor watering. Most
of the remaining MIC water shares that are delivered in Moab, north and west of Moab, and on
Wilson and South Mesas above Mill Creek to the east of Spanish Valley could be bought and
transferred to the Ken's Lake diversion on Mill Creek or used by the City for outdoor irrigation. Inside
the City limits and in the north US 191 corridor, a number of orchards, hay fields, pastures and
gardens are currently irrigated with these shares. Recharge from this irrigation may be largely
responsible for inflow to the Matheson Wetlands Preserve operated by the Nature Conservancy at
the north end of Spanish Valley. Over the years, some of the agricultural parcels were converted to
residential or commercial development, and the predominant pattern has been to cluster buildings,
leaving landscaped open areas. The 2011 Water Conservation plan called for the City to explore and
define ways in which parcels developed with large open spaces could obtain and/or retain MIC water
shares for more widespread outdoor landscaping irrigation. The 2011 report noted that acquisition
of water shares by the Nature Conservancy to maintain recharge of the Matheson Preserve should be
considered in this planning; City discussion with the Nature Conservancy to date has considered
additional treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent so it can be discharged into the
Sloughs. It is possible that reuse could be preferable to higher quality water for that purpose. It is not
recorded whether any discussions with the MIC or private shareholders has occurred in the last five
years.
It will be to the City's benefit to implement a secondary water system to preserve pristine
groundwater demand savings since growth patterns indicate that the total culinary demand on the
City's water system is greater than anticipated supply13, or the City finds it profitable to "swap"
conserved pristine groundwater for irrigation water from the Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency
because the Agency is unable to divert enough pristine groundwater out of the same aquifer the City
is using to meet growth demands in the Agency's service area.14 In 2005, it appeared that
180,641,000 gallons of pristine groundwater were consumed by 31 City customers for irrigation;
another 185,075,000 gallons were apparently used by 2,121 residential customers for outdoor
watering. Although dated, this statistic provides an idea of the total amount of pristine groundwater
that could be conserved by the City if it was replaced by water from a secondary irrigation water
u Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/documentcenter/view/383
'See "Demand Projections to Build -Out" later in this report.
14 See 2014 and 2016 GWSSA documents cited earlier in this report.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 tO.
system. Options for a secondary water system constitute the greatest potential for future water
sources.
Another scenario for the use of secondary water includes the more complex prospect of utilizing
secondary water for flushing toilets and other non -potable uses. This is most likely a project that
would involve municipal facilities such as park restrooms. More research needs to be done to
determine the costs and benefits of such a proposal.
Moab Area Geology and Origin of Water Sources
The City of Moab is located at the north end of Spanish Valley to the south of the Colorado River.
Spanish Valley is a salt collapse graben, formed when a dome of Paradox Formation salts bulged up,
fracturing the overlying sedimentary formations. The fractured formations and part of the salt dome
eroded away, largely from runoff from the La Sal Mountains through the Pack Creek drainage. The
La Sal Mountains compose a small mountain range southeast of Moab that rises approximately
12,000 feet above sea level. The Glen Canyon Group (Navajo, Kayenta and Wingate) of sandstones
conducts water downward from the mountains, which then surfaces in springs at various points along
the Eastern Moab Fault complex on the edge of Spanish Valley. The City's water source, consisting of
wells and springs, is a large aquifer contained in the highly porous Wingate sandstone to the east of
the city. This aquifer is fed by the snowmelt from the La Sal Mountains. This water is classified as
Pristine Ground Water by the Utah DEQ Division of Drinking Water.
Water harvesting practices over the decades have disrupted the hydrology of Spanish Valley over
time, affecting discharge into Pack Creek and the riparian zone. Please see "Environmental Concerns"
later in this report.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Figure 3. Moab Area Watershed (Courtesy of Canyonlands Watershed Council)ls
Melted slew
Idlers Troup
the reeks and 1011
aeno ruler hlh
!beret In crayon
end tie novrdalna
MelW water
entl row wlefr
in0 flnan wa:e-
ti•a eta Hrdal:nf
This forms a big
grourdwate!
.culler, vote
nixed nits
sand pertxles
Cntla in On sardsl:na
at the odes a' lte'�aliGy
t01Cvtt Re1G Hate
Those cracks col:ect
ra:'a end creek vase.
!tires cone aid
0l tee etfe/:f�
fecd.en
and apnoea
acd navy', WWI avu
Creeks bin; stater
I: tee well:nds
when nm'e ;Ions ;mu
nu many an male the
the start ail
na do nto,air
Iha Ct10^a:0 Ninv-
KEY
strewn
rtereealeel stream
.f\ utigatres ditch
&wanton tare
p.kac raw wells
nlnared areas
ne.gebedwees
groundwater roeaarge acne
Is. Gn
twer r
0 YOU aaE NERE
C Ndi Creek nests the CVerado Raw
C Wastewater hastiest Plant
C Pack Creek resets Nip Creak
Nob City Nall
C arena County High School
Q Nab Irrigation Ditches t an! 2
Qr Garbage amp
0 Moab lrrtgwl:n ellch y
0 Moab City walls and Whit
ey Grand Water (Geraaal were
Q Pack Creek Ranch
Q Drinking Water Scree?IMO. Zone
ter public ware unmet
Moab and Castle Valley walersheds
-to scale, overhead YIPW
Mar. na hose I n en. rue in Men
dwMrbd iv 4 dn•I,lYo men ear
mere It M wtwlavbn ell
tr was wa stun ■nay Intorno. non se ow.
15 http://www.riversimulator.org/Resourcesgarcountry/Graphics/MoabAreaWatershedGraphic.jpg
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Water Use Trends, Current Water Use, and per Capita Consumption
Current water use in the past five years reflects an ongoing trend of increased water consumption for
residential users and fluctuating consumption for commercial water consumers. Peak water usage in
2013 and 2014 may be attributed to "Shop Water" deliveries to tankers for oil and gas drilling
practices. Previous Water Conservation Plans indicate that delivery of water through residential
meters decreased from a 1996-2000 average of 4.16 Acre -Feet per day to a 2006-2010 average of
2.69 Acre -Feet per day; and a further reduction to approximately 2.35 Acre -Feet per day in 2015
could be due to changing designations for water use16. Note that per capita numbers are gallons per
day (Tables 7 and 8). Total consumption is shown in Acre -Feet (Table 9).
Table 7. Per Capita Water Consumption Trends. (Does not include Shop water deliveries)
Years
Per Capita —
Dwellings (GPD)
Per Capita —
Dwellings +
Commercial (GPD)
Per Capita — Dwellings + Commercial +
Winter Overflow (GPD)
2006 — 2010
171.67
311.40
2011- 2015
146.58
313.05
394.72 (average for 2011-2013 only)
Change
- 25.10
+ 1.65
% Change
- 15%
+ 0.53%
Table 8. Average Gallons Per Day Water Consumption Residential versus Commercial 2011-2015
Year
Population
Per Capita
Average GPD
— Dwellings
Average
GPD
Dwellings
Average
GPD
Commercial and
Other
Total
GPD
Delivered
Per Capita
Average GPD
—All Uses
2011
5,088
131
667,930
803,270
1,471,200
289
2012
5,116
145
740,503
863,774
1,604,277
313
2013
5,121
146
745,907
1,076,572
1,822,479
355
2014
5,140
165
848,436
816,332
1,664,768
323
2015
5,235
146
765,041
715,096
1,480,137
282
Table 9. Average consumption in Acre Feet Per Year and percent by type (not including winter overflow
Year
Dwellings
Commercial and
Other
Total
% use
by Dwellings
% use
by Commercial
and Other
2011
748.18
899.78
1,647.96
45%
55%
2012
829.47
967.55
1,797.02
46%
54%
2013
835.52
1205.92
2,041.44
41%
59%
2014
950.37
914.41
1,864.78
51%
49%
2015
856.96
801.01
1,657.97
52%
48%
16 Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/383
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Table 10. Table showing Acre -Feet adjustments to include winter overflow volumes in Water System Totals
and per capita estimates, 2011- 201317
Year
Winter
Overflow
AF
Adjusted —
Dwell+Comm +
Overflow AF
Per Capita — All
sources +
overflow\GPD
% Total -
Dwellings
% Total -
Commercial
% Total -
Overflow
2011
529.90
2,178.91
382.31
35%
41%
24%
2012
549.83
2,406.01
419.85
35%
42%
23%
2013
313.96
2,191,19
381.99
41%
45%
14%
Winter overflow needs to be considered in the water supply budget as this water moves from its
source through municipal piping and eventually overflows into Mill Creek further down valley. Prior
to the development of the City water infrastructure, more of this water would have infiltrated into
the aquifer and moved down valley slowly in the sub -surface soil matrix. Winter overflow ranged
from 14% - 24% during the three-year period for which data was compiled.
While current Per Capita usage based on gallons per day consumed at dwellings has decreased from
the 2006-2010 average, the total per capita water usage has increased when commercial water use is
included (Table 7). Factoring in winter overflow and shop water sales increases the average per capita
water use even further.
Number of Water Connections
The number of water connections in the City of Moab system as of November 2016 is 2073. This is an
approximate 8.5% increase from 2010. For 2016, there were 1575 Residential connections, 414
Commercial connections, and 84 Institutional connections.
Retail Water Deliveries (Shop Water)
Moab sells culinary water at the City Shop, mainly by the tanker -load to off -grid agencies such as the
National Park Service and Dead Horse Point State Park. In the last five years, there was a significant
uptick in shop water deliveries due to a boom in oil and gas drilling, which required culinary water for
drilling purposes. The City took action to revise the billing structure for this impact on the water
supply system18.
Table 11. Retail Water Deliveries (Shop Water)
Year
Total Shop Water Billed (gallons)
2011
4,298,250
2012
8,858,325
2013
7,174, 290
2014
13,098,811
2015
3,789,275
17 Data from Water Systems PowerPoint presented by Donna Metzler.
http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/farcountry/Moab/MoabWaterSystem.pdf
18 Tap Water for Oilfield Drilling Becomes an Issue in Moab By Jon Kovash (2014-02-13) http://upr.org/post/tap-water-
oilfield-drilling-becomes-issue-moab
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
16
Demand Projections to Build -out
It is important that a water conservation plan not only consider the five-year time frame called for by
the plan, but a longer time horizon. This plan looks to Build -out, which is currently set at 24,000
persons.
In 1996, future build -out considering zoning at the time accounted for 4,298 additional units to be
added to the 2,051 then existing. Annexation of unincorporated "islands" would add 288 additional
existing residences to the 32 existing in these islands in 1995. At build -out, total residential units
were estimated to be 6,669, housing a projected population of 18,473.19
In 2010, the City's Water Conservation Update stated that the City would meet build -out in
approximately 130 years. Water demand would be 5,135,494 gallons per day at the build -out
population potential of 18,473. With a source capacity of 9,136,958 gallons per day in hand, the
report stated, the City possessed 44% more in water rights and source capacity than what would be
needed at build -out. Further, the report went on to state that the City's population would reach
approximately 7,438, by 2050, and would put water demand at 2,067,764 gallons per day in 2050.
Given that the City has water rights of 9,157,009 gallons per day, the report stated, the City would
not need to acquire more water rights any time before build -out potential is reached.
Since then, Moab's zoning has been upgraded for more dense housing. As stated earlier in this report,
the City's build -out population is now estimated to be 24,000. The acute uptick in overnight
accommodations has also increased daily water usage that must be accounted for in a reasonable
water budget.
The 2010 Moab Water Distribution System Report reviewed future development scenarios and
provided recommendations regarding the City system's ability to accommodate the anticipated
developments. Regarding the Lionsback development, the report recommended that the City allow
development itself but recommended against utilizing the water storage tank contemplated for the
project for City storage. The report also examined other potential commercial and residential
development, and indicated that water sources were more than adequate to meet the demands of
the planned developments. The 2010 Moab Water Distribution System Report maintained that the
"data indicate that the City of Moab can double its current population before new sources need to be
developed or administrative constraints need to be placed on water use" and that "currently the
greatest motivation for water conservation is energy conservation." Further, the report maintained
that "total water availability...is not a limiting factor for growth in the foreseeable future."
At issue and of extreme importance to City leaders and regional water managers is the deceptive
notion that water rights equal water supply. Actual data pertaining to water levels in the aquifer as
19 1996, Public Facilities Analysis, Grand County/City of Moab.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
established by the USGS study and data measuring water supplied by the City's springs and wells are
far more crucial to determining future supply than water shares.
The tables below show water demand anticipated at build -out, and Moab's "carrying capacity" based
on well and spring supplies.
Table 12. Build -Out Water Demand, as a percentage of Paper Rights and reported 2015 Potential
Production, based on average Per Capita use (2011-2015)
Build Out
Water
demand:
Build -out -
AF/day
AF per YR at
Build -out
based on
current GPD
Total
Water
Rights
(AF/yr)*
Build
out
AF/yr as
% of
Rights
2015
Potential
Production
(AF/yr)
Build -out
as % of
potential
production
(AF/yr)
Surplus
or Deficit
Water
Rights at
Build Out
Surplus or
Deficit
Potential
Production
at Build
Out
Dwellings Only
10.80
3,940.96
9,434.10
41.77%
5,401.43
72.96%
Dwellings +
Commercial^
23.06
8,416.85
9,434.10
89.22%
5,401.43
155.83%
10.78%
-55.83%
NOTES:
* Based on 2016 Updated Figure 2 and 3 per Water Rights review
^ Dwellings + Commercial is the figure to use, as this represents the majority of water used in the municipality
^ Does not include Winter Overflow or Shop Water sales
These projections assume that water supply will remain constant, while climate scientists predict increasing climate
uncertainty in the Southwest. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific decadal oscillation as a starting point.
Table 13. Maximum Population of Moab at current rates of consumption,
based on potential production and paper water rights
Potential Production
Paper Rights
Acre feet per year
5,401.43
9,434.10
Safety factor
25%
25%
Available Production (AF/yr)
4,051.07
7,075.58
Per Capita Use (GPD)-Total
313.05
313.05
Maximum Population
11,552.75
20,177.98
NOTES:
1) Assumes current rates of water use are continued
2) Does not account for Colorado River Basin -wide reductions that may be needed
3) Assumes Potential Production from 2011 figure 4 can be sustained without harming the aquifer
4) The safety factor can be adjusted to look at different scenarios
Future Supply Sources
Preliminary information from the USGS report indicates the City should begin to consider the
Colorado River as an alternate source of culinary water. This prospect is complex and costly, not only
because of the great expense to process river water to culinary quality, but also because of the
gravely politicized battle for the river water in both the Upper and Lower Colorado River basins.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
L. -
Distribution System20
The City of Moab water distribution system requires some replacement of water mains. A schedule
for replacement of these mains should be developed. The system is sized to meet current and
projected demand, with the exception of new service lines needed for new development. Each
water connection is serviced by a meter. The City has nearly completed its meter replacement
program, with all but 20 meters now part of a radio -read meter system.
During the period of this report, there was a 50 gallon per minute leak where the City's water system
connected with the GWSSA system at an emergency connect point near the golf course. That point is
now disconnected and the leak was stopped. In the event of an emergency where one water system
is required to augment the other, the connection will be made manually by crews.
Treatment System
Treatment for the City of Moab water system consists of minimal chlorination. USGS water sampling
in 1997 found the drinking water of the City of Moab, before treatment, equals or exceeds the quality
of 80 percent of brands of bottled drinking water from springs sold in stores (comparison data is from
the published Natural Resources Defense Council study of bottled water quality).
Reuse Potential
In the City's 2020 Vision: A Sustainable Moab Plan, Water Reuse was addressed with an actionable
goal to allow Utah residents to reuse relatively clean, safe "gray water" to off -set outdoor
landscaping and gardening water use while at the same time conserving Utah's scarce culinary water
sources. City officials were encouraged to work with other Utah communities to foster State of Utah
changes to rules and regulations to allow more flexible gray water use. Graywater pilot projects are
now underway in Moab and Grand County, due to a successful collaboration between state officials,
permaculture designers, and USU faculty.21
Emergency Action Plan
The City's on -file emergency plan can be considered a water conservation plan for circumstances in
which pumped culinary water from City wells is not available. In event of emergency, such as the
main well pump failure that occurred in 1998 at the Moab Golf Course, citizens are asked through the
media to discontinue all outside watering until adequate water flow is restored. City Public Works
staff go in the field to identify customers who haven't gotten the message. If citizens refuse to stop
outside watering when asked, their water meter is turned off and locked. Gravity flow from the
Sommerville springs to the City storage tanks is sufficient to keep the storage tanks full while meeting
inside culinary water needs; during the winter months, spring flow normally exceeds water usage in
2° Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/383
22http://www.moabtimes.com/view/full story/27309063/article-Graywater-system-pilot-projects-now-underway-in-
Moab?instance=home news 2nd left
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
19
the system and the well pumps are not operated. Under emergency conditions, the City's concern is
to maintain the storage tanks full so that water is available for firefighting.
Intersystem Agreements
There are currently no significant intersystem agreements for culinary water. The Grand Water and
Sewer Service Agency, which serves Spanish Valley and is uphill and to the south of the City, does not
have sufficient water sources in hand to meet its service area's build -out demand22. It is suggested
that the City of Moab work to establish a regional water authority that will include all water systems
in the watershed including Moab City, Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency, Castle Valley, San Juan
Special Service District and water systems in southern Spanish Valley and Pack Creek. In lieu of the
unlikely annexation of the San Juan County users into Grand County, a regional water authority can
help to mitigate threats to the water system in the years to come. The Southern Nevada Water
Authority sets a good example.
With regard to the new Manti-La Sal Forest Plan in development, it should be noted that Grand
County and Castle Valley have cooperating agency status and the City of Moab does not. It is advised
that the City leadership have a "seat at the table" by engaging with federal land management
agencies to oversee potential impacts on Moab's watershed, particularly Water Source Protection.
Figure 4. Moab area watershed boundaries as defined by the hydrological unit codes for Mill and
Castle Creek
22 Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency Culinary Water Master Plan 2016.
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/Website1/Web%20Docs/Water%20Master%20PIan%202016.pdf
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 ':!
Water Quality
Water quality in the Moab water system meets all state and federal standards23. All drinking water
supply for the City of Moab is Pristine Ground Water from wells and springs discharging from a
sandstone aquifer. This aquifer enjoys the protections of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
designation as a Sole Source Aquifer. [Sole Source Aquifer Determination for Glen Canyon Aquifer
System, Moab, Utah, published in the January 7, 2002 Federal Register, volume 67 #4, pp. 736-738.]
Recently, citizens residing near the GWSSA's Chapman Well and just to the west have raised concerns
about declining water quality in their wells. One resident has noted that the Chapman Well is slightly
higher in elevation and the cone of depression from the Chapman Well is allowing Pack Creek Aquifer
water to flow into nearby wells. It is claimed that the quality of the water in nearby wells is
declining.24 The possibility of Pack Creek Water intruding into Glen Canyon Aquifer is something that
should be investigated in the ongoing USGS study. Specifically, it is recommended to explore whether
the USGS study can verify that pumping on the edge of the Glen Canyon Aquifer is reducing the
outflow of water from the Glen Canyon Aquifer and allowing water from the Pack Creek aquifer to
intrude into the Glen Canyon Aquifer. There is a question of whether Pack Creek water is moving into
or close to the Moab City's wells during heavy pumping in the summer. Additionally, he asks if this is
an indication that nearly all of the total available underground water near the Chapman Well is being
utilized and whether any new allocations should be made from the Chapman well.
In addition to this possible depletion or invasion of the system, it is recommended that the City take
action to protect the aquifer from potential threats posed by proposed developments throughout the
watershed. This includes SITLA land at Johnson's Up -On -Toe, as well as upgradient public and
private land administered by counties, the BLM, and the USFS. It is recommended that the City
participate directly in federal land management agency planning efforts which include the Moab area
watershed, and cover activities which may impact the quantity or quality of water percolating into
the aquifer, including oil and gas drilling, and vegetation management.
Institutional and Political Factors
There are several institutional and political factors relevant to the City of Moab Water Conservation
Plan. It will be important to review any water rights applications submitted by adjacent water
agencies such as the Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency, San Juan Special Service District, and
other water users in the past five years to ensure that applications that involve such things as a
change in points of diversion do not negatively affect the quantity or quality of Moab's water sources.
In addition, the ability of the City to work with the Moab Irrigation Company (MIC) and its
shareholders to keep surface -diverted irrigation water flowing to areas within the City, rather than
23 Moab City Water Quality Report 2013. https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1063
24 Emailed from William Love copied to City Council 2016-11-15.
25 A Look at Johnson's Up -On -Top. http://www.livingrivers.org/pdfs/Johnsons.pdf
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
being moved away from these lands for application elsewhere is key. A large part of the MIC's water
shares are currently used by homeowners for yard irrigation, so it functions as a de facto secondary
irrigation water system for residences in older portions of town. The City must look to the future of
utilizing MIC water for outdoor uses within the City limits.
Also, the potential development of a new water system in northern San Juan County should be of
great concern to the City leadership. The San Juan Spanish Valley Special Service District has already
changed a point of diversion from the San Juan River to Spanish Valley for 500 Acre Feet (not to be
used until after USGS study) and have another right to 5000 Acre Feet to the Colorado River that
could potentially have a change in point of diversion filed.26
Environmental Concerns
Environmental concerns for the culinary system are growing; as stated earlier in this report, the
USGS water study may reveal less water in the aquifer than assumed, and private wells near the golf
course are reporting degraded water quality. Also, the potential development of SITLA land above the
aquifer at Johnson's Up -On -Top could be a threat, along with potential hydraulic fracturing used in oil
and gas drilling within the watershed. It is likely the City of Moab will need to develop new water
supply sources or water rights, and does not yet have a water treatment facility for lower -grade
water such as Colorado River water. The City will need to continue to monitor water quality and
quantity to ensure the long-term sustainability of Moab's water sources.
Also of importance is climate change and how it affects our local aquifer. The City should consider
scientific modeling to inform watershed policy. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are computer
representations of the global climate system —the atmosphere, the oceans, ice sheets and sea ice,
and the land surface —based on both physical laws and parameters derived from observation. The
consensus of projections from about 35 GCMs is that the Intermountain West will warm by +2°F to
+6°F by mid-century, relative to the 1971-2000 baseline. The range of projections reflects both
greenhouse gas emission scenarios and differences among the models in how future climate will
unfold under a given emissions scenario. The projections show summers warming more than winters,
and typical summer temperatures by 2050 will be as warm or warmer than the hottest 10% of
summers that occurred in the 20th century. The individual GCM projections have less agreement
about whether average annual precipitation will increase or decrease in our region by 2050. The
multi -model average shows little change in annual mean precipitation by 2050. Further, the models
also suggest a seasonal shift in precipitation, with the combined effects of a northward -shifting storm
track, potentially wetter storms and a drying of the sub -tropical regions globally resulting in more
mid -winter precipitation, and in some areas, a decrease in late spring and summer precipitation.
Together, the uncertain changes in precipitation and the more certain impacts of warming lead to a
broad range of plausible futures for water in the Intermountain West. Consistent themes across those
26 Mark Stilson, Regional Engineer, USGS Presentation 2016-11-08.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 '-'
futures include snowmelt and runoff occurring earlier in the spring, decreased late -summer stream
flows, and increased water use by crops and other vegetation.27
Although the analysis in this document does not include allowances for climate change, it may be
prudent for City water policy to err on the conservative side to account for possible decrease in water
supply relative to demand in the context of the changing climate, as well as potential changes in
seasonal distribution of precipitation, snow melt, and peak events.
Fiscal Structure and Financial Resources
The City recently issued bonds to complete the new Wastewater Treatment Plant, due to be
completed in 2018. It is recommended that the City plan for expanded water rights, irrigation water
rights, and incentive programs for commercial and residential projects to enhance water
conservation to meet the City's conservation targets. One avenue for potential funding is the
"WaterSMART Grants" program administered by the Department of Reclamation.'
The City leadership should determine a realistic budget for Water Conservation. At the low end, the
City should maintain an educational page on the City's website. In the medium range of funding, the
City should coordinate public workshops, pilot and demonstration projects, and dedicated
sustainability staff. At the high end of fiscal commitment, the City should consider financial rebates
and incentives and technical assistance for retrofits of residential and commercial systems.
The City's current water rate structure was updated in 2016. The following is the City's current water
rate structure:
Table 14. Current Water Rate Structure for the City of Moab (Revised 7/1/2016)
Clin UTILITY BILLING INFORMATION
RESIDENTIAL
Cn
IW-
W I COMMERCIAL
l-
55.93
.47
.64
s1o.1z
2.24
.57
.66
.79
o..m In. oy
611.86
.94
1.29
Oa* rr ay
$20.24
4.50
1.15
1.33
1.58
• minimum charge (includes the first 2,000 gallons)
• per thousand for 3,000 to 10,000 gallons
. per thousand for 11,000 or more gallons
• minimum charge (includes the first 2,000 gallons)
• per thousand for 3,000 to 5,000 gallons
• per thousand for 6,000 to 10,000 gallons
• per thousand for 11,000 to 50,000 gallons
• per thousand for 51,000 or more gallons
27Western Water Assessment, Intermountain West Projection http://wwa.colorado.edu/climate/change.html
28 https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/grants.html
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
11A
WATER CONSERVATION GOALS
Why Conserve?
Several sources were consulted to gather suggestions for water efficiency programs that may be
adopted for Moab, including The City of St. George29, the State of California30, the Alliance for Water
Efficiency31, and the Utah Governor's Office32.
There are important benefits to increasing water use efficiency, including:
• Reduced stress on the environment of the watershed
• Reduced landscape runoff (contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides, and road debris) to
surface waters
• Ability to stretch existing water supplies
• Ability to provide water for surface or groundwater storage in wet years
• Delayed capital cost of new infrastructure to treat and deliver water
• Reduced water -related energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions
• Better capacity to meet the water demand of Moab's growing population and visitors
Current Water Conservation
In the last few years, the overburdened wastewater treatment plant made robust water conservation
campaigns difficult. More water has been needed to lessen the strain on the aging facility. Water
conservation campaigns focused on indoor usage may need to delay a large-scale roll -out until the
new wastewater treatment plant comes online in 2018 or beyond., while campaigns focused on
outdoor conservation can begin immediately.
Another challenge related to implementation of water conservation measures is that the City of
Moab has a very small Water Department staff. The City does not have a Water Conservation
Coordinator or Sustainability staff, although there is a Community Development Director and a Public
Works Director. It is recommended that the City consider creating such a role on the City staff.
Regardless, the City should embrace initiatives that are cost effective and not staff intensive, and that
the effectiveness of water conservation efforts be simple to measure. This situation is another motive
29 City of St. George Water Conservation Plan Update 2013
https://www.sgcity.org/pdf/administration/formsandapplications/conservationforms/washingtoncountywaterwiseplantli
st.pdfwaterconservationplan.pdf
3° California Water Plan Update 2013: Chapter 3. Urban Water Use
Efficiency.http://www.water.ca.gov/calendar/materials/vol3 urbanwue apr release 16033.pdf
31 Alliance for Water Efficiency Tracking Tool. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Tracking-Tool.aspx
32 See Governor Herbert's WATER CONSERVATION, UTAH EXEC. ORDER NO. 2015-4, Issued: June 3, 2015.
http://www.rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2015/ExecDoc156361.htm
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
to call upon community citizens to form a Moab City Water Conservation and Drought Management
Committee, which can provide advice and guidance to staff and report to the City Council regularly
with recommendations and actionable water conservation objectives.
The City of Moab is poised to ramp up public efforts with respect to water conservation. Past water
conservation efforts, a relatively dry climate, public perception, a high percentage of outdoor water
usage, impacts on the City Waste Water Treatment Plant, and uncertainty with respect to the long-
term availability of water sources are just a few of the challenges to be addressed.
The idea of water conservation has not been thoroughly institutionalized and culturally accepted
within the community. People are under the impression that water is a readily available resource
with no need for conservation efforts, and adjusting this perception may be difficult. However, the
population in general is changing perceptions of what is feasible. Also, the easy access to low -flow
plumbing fixtures and other water -saving technologies will make a City-wide water conservation
program understandable and palatable to the local populace.
Water conservation measures such as progressive rate structures are difficult when trying to address
outdoor use only, but the City has recently implemented a new rate structure.
It is important to address the challenges and constraints in the development of short and long term
water conservation goals. The fact that the City of Moab has not implemented intensive
conservation efforts in the past, the overall public perception about the availability of water, the fact
that Moab's outdoor water use is relatively high, the need to maintain water flow into the
wastewater treatment plant to ensure its efficient operation, and the issues related to preserving and
promoting the secondary water system all must be taken into consideration.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that there is uncertainty associated with understanding the City's
water sources, rights, and implications of multiple users on the same aquifer. There are issues such
as water quality, drought conditions and unknown factors that may affect our water sources. These
issues point to the need for conservation.
Public Education on Wise Water Use
The City should rekindle the former campaign on wise water use, specifically, the following:
(1) Renewal of City public education through the media and bill enclosures, reminding people to not
water in the heat of the day; to water for a long period of time at intervals to get deep penetration of
water and encourage deep rooting of landscaping, rather than for brief periods often; and to
encourage low -water -demand plant selection for non -edible landscaping (xeriscaping)33. There are
33 Water conservation advocates tend to ignore the distinction between edible and non -edible landscaping. Moab is
dependent on what are possibly even more drought stressed agricultural areas for shipped -in food, including produce
from California and Arizona, and which utilize Colorado River water which suffers significant evaporation losses. Local
agriculture and self-reliance are valued in our community. Local ag with conscientious irrigation, while less conserving in a
conventional sense than xeriscape, may represent a regionally more appropriate response to limited water supplies.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
numerous topics that can and should be included, including water harvesting (on -site stormwater
management to offset irrigation demand and provide additional benefits), and graywater reuse.
(2) Sponsoring of public workshops on water -efficient irrigation and landscaping as a public service.
(3) Revision of landscaping standards in residential and commercial site development zoning
regulations to require water -efficient landscaping cultivar selection and irrigation systems.
(4) Development and placement of placards in restrooms reminding visitors that they are visiting an
arid climate in which water is limited, and stating ways to conserve water during their stay.
The Travel Council should fund and publicize water saving tips in all overnight accommodations and
commercial restrooms, as well as at the MRAC. It is very common for tourists to ignore or not
understand the water challenges faced in a hot and dry climate. It can be an everyday occurrence to
observe a line of rental jeeps at the carwash, or notice campers taking 20 minute showers at the pool.
Even seemingly small savings can add up, when magnified by the 25,000 average visitors in peak
summer months34. For example, turning off the tap after wetting a toothbrush or while lathering
hands with soap; reusing towels; taking five-minute showers; sweeping patios instead of hosing them
down; and wiping down a mountain bike with a dry cloth instead of using water.
An aggressive public information campaign directed toward residential, commercial, and institutional
outdoor water use, commercial use in restaurants and hotels, and tourism -related water use is
needed. The Transient Room Tax (TRT) is a likely source for publicity funds to mitigate the impacts of
the tens of thousands of tourists the City hosts on a daily basis in the peak months of the year.
Promoting strategies to convert landscapes from high water use to drought tolerant plantings and
high efficiency irrigation systems can greatly reduce outdoor water usage. Further, incorporating
landscape -based stormwater retention strategies, roof water catchment, and greywater reuse can
further decrease the amount of outdoor water used for landscaping while producing additional
benefits to water quality, decreased energy use and more.
Another public education challenge, faced by communities throughout the west, is that Moab is in an
arid climate. The 2005 Water Conservation Plan showed that approximately 60% of the water that is
delivered to customers from City sources is used for outdoor irrigation, and this number is in line with
34 Analysis of TRT & Sales Tax statistics from the City of Moab Treasurer for 2014-2016, compared January (with little or
no outdoor water use and few tourists) with peak demand in August (with outdoor water use and the highest tax
revenues per year) resulting in a figure representing consumption generated by tourists and outdoor water use that is
approximately 2.5 times the indoor usage of residents alone. Assuming that some portion of the Moab population spends
significantly in Grand Junction, online, or elsewhere, then this ratio would increase and there would be more average
tourists per day using the infrastructure. For example, in 2015 if half of March sales were actually tourists (to establish
baseline of 41,805), then it would be 360% (3.6x), or an additional 26,000 people per day. So, likely we are somewhere in
between this 2.5x and 3.6x population much of the time. Deborah Barton, Grand County's Solid Waste Special Service
District manager, reported on December 1, 2016, a 3.5x increase in volumes to landfill/recycling facilities during tourist
season vs. baseline, so the water -use estimates have this additional credence.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 ! 1;;
the range for communities throughout the West.35 This means that conservation efforts need to be
aimed toward outdoor use.36
Water Conservation Policies/Ordinances
In 2009, the City of Moab adopted Resolution #18-2009, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2020 VISION:
A SUSTAINABLE MOAB PLAN. This plan recognizes the leadership role of the City of Moab in
"championing volunteer efforts to preserve and conserve natural resources and promote a cleaner,
healthier environment." It also acknowledges "new paradigms of natural resource utilization, [to]
ensure the health and well-being of future residents while at the same time meeting the needs of our
current residents37."
The first part of the plan presents goals for water conservation, to ensure the long-term productivity
of The City of Moab's aquifers. It calls for reduction of per -household, per -business and City -owned
facilities' water use by 20 percent by the year 2020.
The Action Steps proposed included these measures:
• Adopt a new water rate structure that rewards culinary water conservation. (Completed 2016)
• Investigate how other communities have implemented successful water conservation plans and
implement productive programs.
• Implement water use reduction and water reuse programs at City -owned facilities.
• Expand public awareness of the City of Moab and Grand County culinary water resources.
The City staff has embraced several water conservation measures for City -owned properties,
including elimination of mid -day watering of landscapes (when possible, watering between midnight
and four AM). In addition, the City Hall landscape, along with a few other "demonstration gardens" at
the public library, the hospice garden, and at USU, present water -wise landscapes and plants for
citizen education.
The Moab City Water Conservation and Drought Management Committee can embrace these
objectives and make recommendations for public education campaigns and revisions to the City
Code.
Another element of Vision 2020 addresses sustainable construction practices. While the goal is far-
reaching in its effort to utilize renewable energy sources and green building elements in residential
and commercial building projects, a simple piece of this is codifying water -efficient plumbing fixtures,
landscaping, and graywater systems to cut down on culinary water use City-wide. The Water
ss Annual water use for 1,000 houses in each of 12 cities. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/local/heaney.html
se Crossroads Utah p.16. http://utahrivers.orP/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Crossroads.pdf
37 Vision 2020: A Sustainable Moab Plan (2008). MoabCityResolutionAdopting2020VisionSustainableMoabPlan.pdf.
Passed and adopted by action of the Governing Body of the City of Moab in open session this 2Sth day of August, 2009.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Conservation and Drought Management Committee can research what is feasible, what other
jurisdictions have already adopted, and tailor a campaign that fits Moab's needs.
"Retrofitting for Sustainability" provides existing home and business owners incentives to reach the
goal of increasing energy efficient retrofits by 40% by 2020. This goal called upon collaboration with
the Southeast Utah Association of Local Governments to identify and retrofit energy inefficient
dwellings owned or occupied by low and moderate income households, and to work with utility
companies to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives for homes and businesses.
Moab City and the City Hall in particular have been models for the community with solar projects,
low-water landscaping, energy efficient fixtures, and more. The City can continue its impact by
embracing the existing action steps of providing regular commentary to local news outlets regarding
sustainable practices and Moab's success in achieving the goals of the Vision 2020 Plan; assigning
staff and a citizens' committee to provide regular reports to the Moab City Council on the progress of
this plan; provide regular reports to community groups and organizations on the progress of this plan
as well as information on sustainable "best practices" in other locales that can be successfully
implemented here; and utilize the City of Moab's website and internet-based written, audio and
video networks to encourage sustainable practices.
Future Planning and Zoning ordinances should be required to balance the "water budget" to ensure
water conservation measures do not compete with development and to ensure Moab City remains
drought and flood resilient.
Numerical Goals for Water Conservation
As stated earlier in this report, current water supply can optimistically sustain a total Moab
population of approximately 11,552. Capping the population would be the easiest numerical goal to
ensure adequate water resources. However, the always -growing tourist market may further alter this
level. As stated earlier, the average number of daily visitors in peak months has already topped about
25,000 visitors on top of the Moab resident population of about 5,000. The Moab -Area Travel Council
mission to promote Moab as a year-round destination threatens the City's ability to "make up" for
record usage in summer during the low -use winter months.
In lieu of capping the population, the table below shows the estimated conservation rates needed to
match the build -out projections. One column shows the high percentage of reduction needed based
on reported potential production of available sources; the other column shows the more modest
rates of conservation that is needed if all water rights exercised resulted in "wet water" delivered:
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Table 15. Estimated Conservation Rates to match Build Out population
roiections
Potential Production*
Paper Rights
Conservation Rate to achieve
Build -Out population:
51.87%
15.94 /o °
Per Capita GPD to achieve Build -
Out (Dwellings + Commercial)
150.67
263.16
NOTES:
Conservation rates estimated as ratio of population for Carrying Capacity to projected Build Out, based on
2015 rates of consumption and safety factor used in carrying capacity estimates.
*Potential production may be revised when final USGA report is issued.
As stated earlier in this report, it is recommended that the City embrace an initial goal of 25%
reduction in culinary water consumption for both indoor and outdoor use over the next five years. By
comparison, the current goal for the City of Albuquerque is 40%38.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
The City of Moab is primed to embrace water conservation efforts in light of our high per capita use
due to the heavy burden of tourism, which drives the local economy. There are several areas where
conservation measures are needed, and many are relatively easy to embrace.
• Appoint a Citizens' Water Conservation and Drought Management Committee.
• Create a Sustainability Coordinator role on the City staff.
• Implement a public education campaign as detailed above.
• Ensure plumbing codes require more efficient fixtures.
• Adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance.
• Reward new technologies in the commercial/industrial sector, including waterless or 0.5
gallon urinals, high -efficiency toilets, commercial washing machines, and pre -rinse spray
valves in restaurant kitchens, and commercial dishwashers.
• Mitigate existing inefficiencies in residential plumbing, including Toilets, Showers, Leaks,
Faucets, and Clothes Washers.
• Revise codes to allow graywater systems and composting toilets within City limits.
• Prohibit hosing down sidewalks and washing cars with hoses that do not have a shut-off valve.
• Reduce impact on current supply: The approvals of large new developments in Moab must be
linked to assurances that there is an adequate water supply over a twenty year period.
Without assurances that there is a reliable source of water, even in dry years, large
development projects cannot proceed.
38 http://www.harvesth2o.com/alb.shtml
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 ! '10
t
" A d o p t a g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e o r d i n a n c e f o r s t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t t o p r o t e c t w a t e r q u a l i t y ,
i n c r e a s e l o c a l i z e d g r o u n d w a t e r r e c h a r g e a n d o f f - s e t l a n d s c a p e i r r i g a t i o n t h r o u g h m a t c h i n g
p l a n t i n g s w i t h g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e t r e a t m e n t s .
" P r o h i b i t o u t d o o r w a t e r i n g b e t w e e n t h e h o u r s o f 1 0 : 0 0 a m a n d 6 : 0 0 p m . a n d i n t r o d u c e
p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n s f o r s t a f f t o e n f o r c e c o r r e c t i o n s f o r o v e r - w a t e r e d l a w n s , p o o r l y m a i n t a i n e d
s y s t e m s w i t h u n n e c e s s a r y o v e r s p r a y , a n d e t c . M o r e r e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t
l e v e l o f w a t e r s a v i n g s c a n b e r e a l i z e d i f a l l i r r i g a t i o n i s s h i f t e d t o n i g h t .
" E n s u r e a l l C i t y - o w n e d f a c i l i t i e s a d h e r e t o t h e G o v e r n o r ' s E x e c u t i v e O r d e r N o . 2 0 1 5 - 4 a n d
e n c o u r a g e a l l g o v e r n m e n t a l f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n M o a b C i t y l i m i t s ( F e d e r a l , S t a t e , a n d
C o u n t y ) t o a d h e r e t o t h e s a m e 3 9 .
" S t u d y f e a s i b i l i t y a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a l l o w i n g w i n t e r o v e r f l o w t o r e c h a r g e t h e a q u i f e r a s h i g h
a s p o s s i b l e .
" P u r s u e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a s e c o n d a r y w a t e r s y s t e m f o r o u t d o o r w a t e r i n g a n d o t h e r
s e c o n d a r y u s e s t o p r e s e r v e p r i s t i n e g r o u n d w a t e r .
" U p d a t e V i s i o n 2 0 2 0 t o a c k n o w l e d g e w h a t h a s b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d , a n d r e s e t t a r g e t s a s p a r t o f
t h e r e v i s e d G e n e r a l P l a n .
" T h e C i t y s h o u l d w o r k w i t h o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l u s e r s i n t a k i n g m e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e a p p l i c a t i o n
o f c u l i n a r y w a t e r t o l a r g e l a w n a n d o t h e r p l a n t e d a r e a s .
" I n a d d i t i o n t o w o r k a l r e a d y d o n e b y t h e C i t y ' s W a t e r D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f , T h e C i t y s h o u l d
c o n d u c t w a t e r u s a g e a u d i t s o f C i t y a n d o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s t o d e t e r m i n e m o r e e f f i c i e n t w a t e r
a p p l i c a t i o n a n d l a w n m a i n t e n a n c e p r a c t i c e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C i t y s h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o c o n s i d e r
a l t e r n a t i v e s t o g r a s s a n d o t h e r h i g h w a t e r p l a n t s w h e n d e v e l o p i n g n e w p a r k s a n d t o r e -
l a n d s c a p e " w a s t e d t u r f " ( n o t p l a y i n g f i e l d s a n d e t c . ) i n e x i s t i n g p a r k a r e a s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C i t y
s h o u l d w o r k w i t h M o a b I r r i g a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i f i t i s f e a s i b l e f o r t h e C i t y t o a c q u i r e w a t e r
s h a r e s . T h i s c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y r e d u c e t h e C i t y ' s r e l i a n c e o n c u l i n a r y w a t e r f o r C i t y u s e , a n d
a d d m o r e C i t y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e u s e o f r u n o f f w a t e r f o r i r r i g a t i o n p u r p o s e s .
" T h e l o n g - t e r m v i a b i l i t y o f t h e M o a b I r r i g a t i o n C o m p a n y ( M I C ) s h o u l d b e o f c o n c e r n t o t h e
C o u n c i l . I t h a s b e e n m e n t i o n e d s e v e r a l t i m e s t h a t t h e a b i l i t y o f c i t y r e s i d e n t s t o u s e M I C w a t e r
i s i m p o r t a n t f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f c u l i n a r y w a t e r f o r i n d o o r u s e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o m a i n t a i n a
p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h M I C t o e n s u r e c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m w i t h i n
c i t y l i m i t s . I t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e M I C s y s t e m , w h i l e r e c e n t l y u p g r a d e d t o a
p r e s s u r i z e d s y s t e m , i s a n o l d s y s t e m w i t h c o n s t a n t m a i n t e n a n c e c h a l l e n g e s .
" I n t e g r a t e w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n w i t h i s s u e s a t t h e W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t i n c l u d e
e d u c a t i o n o n c o m p o s t i n g t o m i n i m i z e u s e o f g a r b a g e d i s p o s a l s a n d c r e a t e a s o i l a m e n d m e n t
t h a t h e l p s w i t h l a n d s c a p e w a t e r r e t e n t i o n , a n d p r o m o t e c o m p o s t i n g t o i l e t s . T h e S t a t e o f
A r i z o n a h a s b e e n a l e a d e r i n i n n o v a t i o n i n t h i s a r e a . 4 o
3 9 S e e G o v e r n o r H e r b e r t ' s W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N , U T A H E X E C . O R D E R N O . 2 0 1 5 - 4 , I s s u e d : J u n e 3 , 2 0 1 5 .
h t t p : / / w w w . r u l e s . u t a h . R o v / e x e c d o c s / 2 0 1 5 / E x e c D o c 1 5 6 3 6 1 . h t m
4 o A r i z o n a c o d e o n " m a x i m u m w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n : "
h t t p s : / / I e g a m a z d e q . R o v / e n v i r o n / w a t e r / e n g i n e e r i n g / d o w n l o a d / r u l e s / o s s 4 0 3 . p d f )
M O A B W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N P L A N 2 0 1 6 ? ? '
- - - i
" A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , i t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e C i t y t a k e a c t i o n t o p r o t e c t t h e a q u i f e r f r o m
p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t s p o s e d b y p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e w a t e r s h e d . T h i s i n c l u d e s
S I T L A l a n d a t J o h n s o n ' s U p - O n - T o p 4 1 , a s w e l l a s u p g r a d i e n t p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e l a n d
a d m i n i s t e r e d b y c o u n t i e s , t h e B L M , a n d t h e U S F S . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e C i t y p a r t i c i p a t e
d i r e c t l y i n f e d e r a l l a n d m a n a g e m e n t a g e n c y p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s w h i c h i n c l u d e t h e M o a b a r e a
w a t e r s h e d , a n d c o v e r a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h m a y i m p a c t t h e q u a n t i t y o r q u a l i t y o f w a t e r p e r c o l a t i n g
i n t o t h e a q u i f e r , i n c l u d i n g o i l a n d g a s d r i l l i n g , a n d v e g e t a t i o n m a n a g e m e n t .
' A L o o k a t J o h n s o n ' s U p - O n - T o p . h t t p : / / w w w . l i v i n g r i v e r s . o r g / p d f s / J o h n s o n s . p d f
M O A B W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N P L A N 2 0 1 6
Stormwater Management: A Scenario
Rainwater is a resource, and when not managed properly can become a nuisance and liability. The potential to
manage precipitation as part of the water supply portfolio should be explored. Pursuing site -scale water
harvesting through green infrastructure best practices would simultaneously improve stormwater
management.
Table 16. Water Falling on Moab City at different precipitation levels:
% put to
Use:
50%
Area (sq ft)
Precip/YR
(in)
Constant
Coefficient
Gallons/YR
AF/YR total
A F/Y R
avail
for Use
112,994,640.00
4
0.623
0.75
211,186,982.16
648.11
324.05
6
316,780,473.24
972.16
486.08
9
475,170,709.86
1,458.25
729.12
Calculated as:
Area in square feet is Acres within City Limits (2,594) x square feet per acre (43,560)
Precipitation per year is average total rain and snow, in inches. Average precipitation in Moab is 9 inches, and 3
scenarios were estimated
Constant is used to convert to gallons, based on 7.48 gal/cubic ft x 1ft/12inches
Coefficient is the percent of precipitation running off surfaces. 0.75 was selected to reflect high levels of
imperviousness in built environment. A more thorough analysis of land use would inform the best coefficient to use.
The percent put to use reflects a selected target for the amount of precipitation that could be captured or directed to
offset existing or future water demand
Table 17. Estimated Total Water Use and potential conservation through Landscape Conversions, per 1,000
sauare feet
PF
IE
ETWU
Conventional turf and sprinklers
0.8
0.75
43,063
Water -wise plantings and drip
0.3
0.81
14,953
Potential water conservation:
28,110
Percent reduction:
65%
Based on the above values and assumptions, 1 acre foot/ year of water conservation could be achieved for every 11,600
square feet of landscape conversion. Additional benefits would accrue when landscape conversion projects are designed
to harvest runoff, build healthy soil, and/or reuse greywater on -site.
Calculation based on CA Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, where:
ETWU = PF x ET x 0.623 / IE
ETWU = Estimated Total Water Use, in gallons per year
PF = Plant factor, with 1 being an open pan evaporation test. Expressed in decimal form as percent water use relative to
open pan
ET = evapotranspiration (inches per year) less effective precipitation (0.75 * average precipitation per year)
IE = Irrigation efficiency. The percent of water applied that is beneficially used by the plants. Rates from 2015 CA WELO
update.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016
Additional Readings on Water Conservation
(Courtesy of John Weisheit, Executive Director of Living Rivers)
Shrinking the Earth: The Rise and Decline of American Abundance (2015). Donald Worster. Oxford University Press (on
order at Grand County Public Library).
Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (1986). Mark Reisner.
Vision 2020: A Sustainable Moab Plan (2009) https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1006
GWSSA Water Conservation Plan for Spanish Valley, Utah (2014)
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/2014%20Conservation%20PIan%20System%2010023%20Final,pdf
2014 - Living with Water Scarcity; (References). Zetland.
2015- A Performance Audit of Projections of Utah's Water Needs. Utah legislative audit.
2016 - Grand County Water Master Plan. GWSSA.
1979 - Colorado River Basin Water Problems and How to Reduce Their Impact. Government Accountability Office.
1998 - National Drought Policy Act
2005 - Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction (emphasis on drought and floods). National Science and Technology
Council.
2006 - Managing Drought and Water Scarcity in Vulnerable Environments. Geological Society of America.
2009 - The End of Abundance: How Water Bureaucrats Created and Destroyed the Southern California Oasis. Zetland.
2009 - Prosperity Without Growth Report. Jackson.
2010- Forest and Water Climate Adaption: A case Study of Moab and Castle Valley, Utah. CWC.
2012 -Crossroads Utah. URC.
2013 - Hydrologic Assessment of the Surface Water and Groundwater Resources of Castle Valley, Utah: Part 1: Hydrologic
and Environmental Analysis (HESA) and Preliminary Water Budget
EPA Review of Proposed Lionsback Resort Development
http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/Moab/Cloudrock/EPAFinalMoabMemo305eptember2008.pdf
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016