HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2021-07-13JULY 13, 2021
PRE -COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
** THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON IN THE MOAB CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS **
MASKS ARE ENCOURAGED BUT NOT REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE
VACCINATED. MASKS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNVACCINATED.
SOCIAL DISTANCING IS REQUIRED.
City Council Chambers
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532
Pre -Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.
Water Resource Management Work Plan Workshop
agenda summary water resources management work plan.pdf
draft water work plan 06.24.2021.pdf
water resource management plan for the moab spanish
valley .pdf
Draft Water Conservation Plan Presentation
wcp agenda summary.pdf
01 water conservation plan update 2021 draft.pdf
plan-moab water conservation plan update 2016.pdf
wcp goals and policies summary 2021 jul 13.pdf
Discussion on water management and conservation
Regular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Citizens to Be Heard
If you do not plan to attend in person but would still like to
submit written comments for the Citizens to Be Heard portion
of the meeting, please fill out the form found
here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheard
You must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the
meeting. Please limit your comments to 400 words.
Administrative Reports
City Manager Updates
Finance Update
Walnut Lane Update
Fire and Watershed Map; Recovery Process
Mayor and Council Reports
Approval of Minutes
June 22, 2021, Regular Meeting
min -cc -2021 -06 -22 draft.pdf
June 30, 2021, Special Meeting
min -cc -2021 -06 -30 draft.pdf
July 7, 2021, Special Meeting
min -cc -2021 -07 -07 draft.pdf
Old Business
Proposed Ordinance 2021 -14: An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab
Municipal Code, Section 10.01.090 Pertaining to Prima Facie Speed Limits
Briefing and possible action
ordinance no. 2021 -14 agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - ordinance no. 2021 -14.pdf
attachment 2 - map of prima facie speed limit sign locations.pdf
New Business
Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the City Planning Commission
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary sheet - appointment of brityn ballard to city
planning commission.pdf
bb planning commision letter of interest brityn ballard .pdf
Possible Award of a Contract for Construction of the Mill Creek Drive Water
Improvements Project
Briefing and possible action
possible award of a contract for construction of the mill creek
drive water improvements project agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - bid opening summary sheet and
recommendation.pdf
Award of a Task Order for Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
Construction Administration
Briefing and possible action
award of a task order for mill creek drive water improvements
agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - construction administration task order.pdf
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Discussion
Discussion and direction
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Adjournment
One or more Council members may participate remotely
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.
1.1.
Documents:
1.2.
Documents:
1.3.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
6.
7.
7.1.
Documents:
7.2.
Documents:
7.3.
Documents:
8.
8.1.
Documents:
9.
9.1.
Documents:
9.2.
Documents:
9.3.
Documents:
9.4.
10.
11.
JULY 13, 2021PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.** THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON IN THE MOAB CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS **MASKS ARE ENCOURAGED BUT NOT REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE VACCINATED. MASKS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNVACCINATED. SOCIAL DISTANCING IS REQUIRED.City Council Chambers217 East Center StreetMoab, Utah 84532Pre-Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.Water Resource Management Work Plan Workshopagenda summary water resources management work plan.pdfdraft water work plan 06.24.2021.pdfwater resource management plan for the moab spanish valley .pdfDraft Water Conservation Plan Presentationwcp agenda summary.pdf01 water conservation plan update 2021 draft.pdfplan-moab water conservation plan update 2016.pdfwcp goals and policies summary 2021 jul 13.pdfDiscussion on water management and conservationRegular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Pledge of AllegianceCitizens to Be HeardIf you do not plan to attend in person but would still like to
submit written comments for the Citizens to Be Heard portion
of the meeting, please fill out the form found
here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheard
You must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the
meeting. Please limit your comments to 400 words.
Administrative Reports
City Manager Updates
Finance Update
Walnut Lane Update
Fire and Watershed Map; Recovery Process
Mayor and Council Reports
Approval of Minutes
June 22, 2021, Regular Meeting
min -cc -2021 -06 -22 draft.pdf
June 30, 2021, Special Meeting
min -cc -2021 -06 -30 draft.pdf
July 7, 2021, Special Meeting
min -cc -2021 -07 -07 draft.pdf
Old Business
Proposed Ordinance 2021 -14: An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab
Municipal Code, Section 10.01.090 Pertaining to Prima Facie Speed Limits
Briefing and possible action
ordinance no. 2021 -14 agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - ordinance no. 2021 -14.pdf
attachment 2 - map of prima facie speed limit sign locations.pdf
New Business
Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the City Planning Commission
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary sheet - appointment of brityn ballard to city
planning commission.pdf
bb planning commision letter of interest brityn ballard .pdf
Possible Award of a Contract for Construction of the Mill Creek Drive Water
Improvements Project
Briefing and possible action
possible award of a contract for construction of the mill creek
drive water improvements project agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - bid opening summary sheet and
recommendation.pdf
Award of a Task Order for Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
Construction Administration
Briefing and possible action
award of a task order for mill creek drive water improvements
agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - construction administration task order.pdf
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Discussion
Discussion and direction
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Adjournment
One or more Council members may participate remotely
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.1.1.Documents:1.2.Documents:1.3.2.3.4.
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
6.
7.
7.1.
Documents:
7.2.
Documents:
7.3.
Documents:
8.
8.1.
Documents:
9.
9.1.
Documents:
9.2.
Documents:
9.3.
Documents:
9.4.
10.
11.
JULY 13, 2021PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.** THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON IN THE MOAB CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS **MASKS ARE ENCOURAGED BUT NOT REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE VACCINATED. MASKS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNVACCINATED. SOCIAL DISTANCING IS REQUIRED.City Council Chambers217 East Center StreetMoab, Utah 84532Pre-Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.Water Resource Management Work Plan Workshopagenda summary water resources management work plan.pdfdraft water work plan 06.24.2021.pdfwater resource management plan for the moab spanish valley .pdfDraft Water Conservation Plan Presentationwcp agenda summary.pdf01 water conservation plan update 2021 draft.pdfplan-moab water conservation plan update 2016.pdfwcp goals and policies summary 2021 jul 13.pdfDiscussion on water management and conservationRegular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Pledge of AllegianceCitizens to Be HeardIf you do not plan to attend in person but would still like to submit written comments for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheardYou must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Please limit your comments to 400 words. Administrative ReportsCity Manager UpdatesFinance UpdateWalnut Lane UpdateFire and Watershed Map; Recovery ProcessMayor and Council ReportsApproval of MinutesJune 22, 2021, Regular Meetingmin-cc -2021 -06 -22 draft.pdfJune 30, 2021, Special Meetingmin-cc -2021 -06 -30 draft.pdfJuly 7, 2021, Special Meetingmin-cc -2021 -07 -07 draft.pdfOld BusinessProposed Ordinance 2021 -14: An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code, Section 10.01.090 Pertaining to Prima Facie Speed LimitsBriefing and possible actionordinance no. 2021 -14 agenda summary.pdfattachment 1 - ordinance no. 2021 -14.pdfattachment 2 - map of prima facie speed limit sign locations.pdfNew BusinessConfirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the City Planning CommissionBriefing and possible actionagenda summary sheet - appointment of brityn ballard to city planning commission.pdfbb planning commision letter of interest brityn ballard .pdf
Possible Award of a Contract for Construction of the Mill Creek Drive Water
Improvements Project
Briefing and possible action
possible award of a contract for construction of the mill creek
drive water improvements project agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - bid opening summary sheet and
recommendation.pdf
Award of a Task Order for Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
Construction Administration
Briefing and possible action
award of a task order for mill creek drive water improvements
agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - construction administration task order.pdf
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Discussion
Discussion and direction
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Adjournment
One or more Council members may participate remotely
Special Accommodations:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center
Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to
the meeting.
Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
1.1.1.Documents:1.2.Documents:1.3.2.3.4.5.5.1.5.2.5.3.5.4.6.7.7.1.Documents:7.2.Documents:7.3.Documents:8.8.1.Documents:9.9.1.Documents:
9.2.
Documents:
9.3.
Documents:
9.4.
10.
11.
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Title: Water Resource Management Work Plan Workshop
Date Submitted: July 7, 2021
Staff Presenter: Carly Castle, Deputy City Manager; Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s):
o Draft Water Work Plan
o Water Resources Management for the Moab Spanish Valley Water Providers
Coalition Draft Scope of Work
Options: Discussion
Recommended Motion: N/A
Background/Summary:
The purpose of this workshop is to discuss a new approach to the City’s water resource
management planning. This new approach will be guided by a Water Resource Management
Work Plan, and it will include intensive coordination with other Moab Valley water providers
and the state. Critical components of the Plan are new City ordinances and regulations that are
necessary to secure and preserve our water supply.
WHY THE NEED FOR CHANGE IN HOW WE MANAGE OUR WATER RESOURCES?
The City, the Utah Division of Water Rights, and many other stakeholders have discovered that
there is an impending issue regarding the groundwater situation in the Moab area, and there is
merit to looking at this issue and seeking solutions in a proactive manner. Additionally, other
changed conditions such explosive visitor and residential growth, threats from climate change,
ongoing drought, emerging threats and vulnerabilities to our watershed (such as fire and
development pressures), and an aging City water infrastructure have led City staff to the
conclusion that a more integrated, comprehensive approach to managing the Valley’s precious
water resources is needed in order to ensure a water supply for residents and visitors.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The City operates within a legal, regulatory, and political framework that puts some limits on its
discretion and ability to manage its water. A brief description of the elements of this framework
is provided below:
A. Utah Constitution: Article XI, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution addresses municipal
water rights and water sources. This section provides that a municipality “may not
directly or indirectly lease, sell, alienate, or dispose of any of [its] water rights or sources
of water supply” and “shall preserve and maintain those water rights and sources of water
supply to supply water to the municipality’s inhabitants and others within the
municipality’s designated water service area.” In other words, the City may be
constitutionally required to “preserve and maintain” its water rights and water sources to
supply water to its inhabitants, and the City should avoid “disposing” of its water rights
by determining not to use and develop its water rights and water sources.
B. Equal Protection. The U.S. Constitution and the Utah Constitution contain provisions
safeguarding an individual’s right to equal protection under the law. Additionally, U.C.A.
10-7-14 provides that “Within the municipality’s designated water service area, a
municipality shall provide service to all retail customers in a manner consistent with
principles of equal protection; and apply restrictions on water use to all retail customers
in times of anticipated or actual water shortages in a manner consistent with principles of
equal protection.”
C. Regulatory Takings: A property owner within the City boundaries could claim a
regulatory taking if the City were to deny the property owner the ability to use or develop
the property in any meaningful way through ordinances. Regulatory taking claims would
likely incorporate some of the other elements of this regulatory framework, including
equal protection and constitutional obligations for water service. It is hard to predict the
outcome of a regulatory taking claim because there are a lot of facts and factors that a
court would have to weigh.
D. Alternatives are Required: Ordinances, regulations, or policies that restrict the
provision of City water to a new development will likely require alternatives or options
for a developer to mitigate the groundwater and water supply concerns that underly the
proposed regulation to avoid concerns about the policy being arbitrary and capricious.
For example, it would be prudent to include provisions in any potential regulatory regime
that allow a developer to convey groundwater rights to the City that could be used to
provide water to the new development. Other alternatives could include a developer
providing additional system infrastructure (wells, water storage facilities, etc.) that add to
the City’s ability to provide water for new development.
E. Safe Yield: Determining the “safe yield” of an aquifer rests the State Engineer, which is
expressly stated in statute. The City does not have the authority to make this
determination.
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORK PLAN
Below is a brief description of a Draft Water Resource Management Work Plan that staff will
discuss with the Council during the workshop. An outline of the plan can be found in the
attachments to this staff report. The discussion will focus on the items that are in blue, as they are
the major new initiatives that the City will focus on in the upcoming year. These items are most
critical to ensuring the City has a high-quality, reliable, and resilient water supply now and in the
future. The plan is organized into three sections: analysis, policy, and O&M.
A. Analysis: Refine Source Availability and Options
1. Participate in Ongoing Research and Monitoring Efforts: These efforts
include groundwater monitoring efforts, as well as the Mid-Valley Hydrogeology
research effort conducted with other government agencies.
2. Conduct a Needs Assessment to Determine Current and Future Usage
Scenarios: The City will partner with Western Resource Advocates and the
Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy to conduct a needs assessment for the
City’s water demand. The four key phases of this assessment framework are: (1)
forming a core water and land use planning team, (2) assessing local conditions,
(3) identifying local points of impact, and (4) taking action. Stage 2, the self-
assessment, will lay the groundwork for the Project Accelerator and other high-
priority integrated water and land use initiatives in Moab.
3. Evaluate New Source Options: New sources to be assessed will include
groundwater and surface water options.
4. Bifurcate Systems into Culinary and Secondary Water: This effort will
optimize the best use for the most appropriate sources of water.
B. Policy: Resource Policy Development
1. Ordinance Development and Adoption: The ordinances that staff recommend
Council develop include a water shortage/emergency ordinance; a potential
dedication or exaction system that requires certain developers to bring new, wet
water to the City in order to develop projects of a certain size and impact; and
landscaping standards.
2. Conservation Measures: These measures should include measures for City
facilities, for residents, and for the Moab community’s many visitors.
3. Valley-wide Interagency Coordination and Cooperation: The Moab Valley
water providers will formalize a water provider group consisting of the City of
Moab, GWSSA, San Juan County, and Moab Irrigation Company to coordinate
water conservation, management, and development efforts so that the water
provision system in the valley is more cohesive and consistent amongst the big
water users.
4. Develop a Water Resource Management Plan: The City of Moab, GWSSA,
San Juan County, and Moab Irrigation Company should develop and implement a
Water Resource Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to ensure water
availability for the residents and visitors to the Moab/Spanish Valley for the next
100 years. The plan will consider ground and surface water sources and uses, and
the scope of work will be established by the four water providers. This plan will
map out a series of projects that will ensure a safe yield of groundwater in the
Valley is not exceeded, while providing a path forward to develop alternative
water sources to guarantee adequate water supply to the Moab Valley. More
information about this effort can be found as an attachment to this staff report.
5. Participate in Water Resources Regulatory and Legal Activities: These
activities include maintaining legal strategies protecting the City’s water rights,
using our lobbying efforts at the legislature to protect the City’s interests at the
state level, and maintaining information exchange with state and federal agencies.
C. O&M: Maintain and Optimize City Water System
1. Implement the 2021 Bond Package: This effort is already underway.
2. Operate and Maintain System
3. Evaluate and Optimize System Redundancy
4. Maintain Regulatory Standing
5. Maintain Sufficient Revenue Stream
Refine Source Availability and Options
1) lead and manage Midvalley Hydrogeology research with UDWRi, UGS, USGS 1) water emergency/shortage 1) well replacement
2) geology, geo-chemistry, geo-physics, monitoring 2) dedication/exaction 2) new storage tank
3) landscape standards 3) distribution system replacement/upgrade
4) system security and optimization
1) evaluate vacant land, zoning implications
2) determine infrastructure/supply needs for various scenarios 1) for City facility implementation
3) engage with Western Resource Advocates for needs assessment framework 2) for residents and businesses 1) ensure budget is sufficient to maintain staff
3) for visitors 2) ensure budget is sufficient to maintain equipment
3) ensure budget is sufficient to replace failing components
1) Mill & Pack Creeks, Colorado River, Ken's Lake
2) overflow from existing springs 1) formalize water providers group
3) add additional wells 2) include staff and electeds 1) internal to City system
2) in cooperation with other valley water providers
1) evaluate cross system/agency existing connections 1) participation and funding by 4 providers and state
2) consider new connections (interagency and standalone) 2) utilizing existing and future data from Analysis 1) ensure proper staff training and certifications
2) ensure proper record keeping
1) costs, both capital and maintenance 1) maintain and develop legal strategies for paper and wet water
2) implementation schedule 2) stay current at state and Basin level with lobbying presence 1) monitor changes in revenue due to usage changes
3) water rights usage 3) maintain information exchange with state and federal agencies 2) develop reserve fund to address unforeseen circumstance
4) current legal implications 3) modify rates and impact fees as needed
5) public transparency 4) continue to maximize cost sharing grant/loan programs
6) drought
E) Maintain sufficient revenue stream
D) Maintain regulatory standing
C) Evaluate and optimize system redundancy
B) Opearate and maintain system
A) Implement 2021 bond package
E) Participate in water resources regulatory and legal activities
D) Organize valleywide water resource management plan
C) Valleywide interagency coordination/cooperation
A) Ordinance Development and Adoption
B) Conservation measures
E) All scenarios include consideration of parameters of:
D) Bifurcate systems into culinary and secondary water
C) Evaluate new source options
B) Conduct needs assessment to determine current and future usage scenarios
ANALYSIS
A) Participate in ongoing research and monitoring efforts
POLICY O & M
Resource Policy Development Maintain and Optimize City Water System
Water Resources Workplan DRAFT (6/24/2021)
Water Resource Management Plan
for the
Moab Spanish Valley Water Providers Coalition
1. Intended Coalition Participants: Moab/Spanish Valley Water Providers
a. City of Moab
b. Grand Water Sewer Service Agency
c. San Juan County Special Services District
d. Moab Irrigation Company
2. Coalition Purpose
a. Develop and implement a Water Resource Management Plan for the
Moab/Spanish Valley (Plan)
3. Plan Purpose
a. The locally led Plan will be a document that is intended to insure water
availability for the residents and visitors to the Moab/Spanish Valley
(Valley) for the next 100-years.
4. Plan Elements and Features
a. The Plan will consider ground and surface water sources and uses.
b. The Plan Management Team (Coalition) will consist of the 4 Valley water
providers in consultation with the UDWRi.
c. The Plan detailed scope of work will be established by the Coalition and
the Plan will be produced by an independent consultant selected by the
Coalition, funded by the Coalition and under the management of the
Coalition.
d. The Plan will maximize use of existing data and science/hydrology.
e. The Plan will include:
i. Public Engagement
ii. Costs, both Capital and Maintenance
iii. Alternatives Development and Recommendations
iv. Implementation Schedule/Plan
v. Water Rights Consideration
vi. Legal/Regulatory Implications
vii. Drought/climate Change considerations
viii. Other considerations as needed.
f. Plan Deliverable:
i. Supporting documentation for item e. above developed and
considered as part of the Plan.
ii. An Implementation Plan that will include scope, schedule and costs
for a Recommended Alternative that includes a Project or series of
Projects, that will ensure safe yield of groundwater in the Valley is
not exceeded, while insuring availability of water to all residents
and visitors in the Valley for the next 100-years.
iii. Other unanticipated items as may be considered in the Plan
g. Plan Preliminary Schedule:
i. August 2021 - Resolution of support for Plan collaboration and
funding commitment by the Coalition
ii. October 2021 - Selection of a qualified consultant to develop the
Plan
iii. November 2021/June 2022 – Plan Development
iv. June 2022 – Adoption of the Plan by local Coalition Governing
Bodies
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 13th, 2021
Title: Water Conservation Plan Update Draft Presentation / Discussion
Presenter: Mila Dunbar-Irwin, Sustainability Director
Attachment(s): Draft Water Conservation Plan Update 2021; Water Conservation Plan 2016
Recommended Motion: N/A
Background/Summary: The Water Conservation Plan Act (73-10-32, UCA) requires every water conservancy district and public water system with over 500 connections to submit a water conservation plan to the Division of Water Resources every five years. The City of Moab last submitted a plan in 2016. The state has asked for a draft for review on or around July 15th, with adoption by City Council required by December 31st of this year. The Water Conservation and Drought Management Board, City Engineering staff, Public Works Director, and the Sustainability Director have worked together to write this draft Water Conservation Plan for 2021. It is presented to Council for initial review and feedback today, with the expectation that there will be additional opportunities between now and December to make any requested changes, as well as to review any changes the State recommends. Much of the information in the plan is required by the state, and is not up for debate – this includes the majority of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The area of the plan most in need of Council feedback is Section 6 regarding conservation policy, goals, and intentions. A summary sheet with proposed ideas is attached. Utah DWR established Regional Conservation Goals in November 2019 which have replaced the statewide 25% reduction target previously set by the Governor. The Regional Goal for Moab is 267 gallons / person / day, or a 20% reduction from current regional average, by 2030. Moab is currently at 278GPCD, well on the way to meet this goal, and we have proposed a more ambitious, and still achievable, target instead - cutting outdoor irrigation by 50% by 2030 and, taking into account population projections, keeping our current total residential water use at the same level as it is in 2021. This conservative approach allows for the uncertainty in the aquifer measurements, and insists that new development not use any more water than is already available, while reducing current wasteful outdoor watering practices.
Water Conservation Plan Update 2021
City of Moab
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1: SYSTEM PROFILE .......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 History, Government and Population ................................................................................... 4
Fig 1. Projected Population Growth ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 Water governance structure** ............................................................................................. 5
Fig. 2 Map of Current Service Area ............................................................................................. 5
1.3 Water Distribution System.................................................................................................... 6
Fig. 3 Number and Type of Connections in 2020 ........................................................................ 6
1.4 Water Treatment System ...................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 2: SUPPLY ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Sources – Aquifers, Surface Water, and Water Rights ......................................................... 6
2.1.1 History ** ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Aquifer and surface water descriptions and maps** .................................................... 6
Table 1. SUPPLY CATEGORIZED BY TYPE of SOURCE** .............................................................. 7
2.2 Secondary Water (Irrigation Sources) ................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Moab Irrigation Company .............................................................................................. 7
2.2.2 The Colorado River ......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Water Rights** ..................................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 3: WATER MEASUREMENT............................................................................................... 8
3.1 Water Measurement Methods and Practices** .................................................................. 8
SECTION 4: SYSTEM WATER LOSS ................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Water Loss ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Leak Detection and Repair .................................................................................................... 9
SECTION 5: WATER USE ................................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 10
Fig. 3 Water Use by Sector and Year ..................................................................................... 10
Table 2. Potable vs. Non-Potable Water Use ........................................................................ 10
5.1.1 Water Use – Permanent Residents .............................................................................. 11
Fig. 3 Population vs Water Use ............................................................................................. 11
Fig. 6 Gallons per Capita per Day by Type ............................................................................ 12
Table 3. Gallons per Capita per Day 2005 - 2020 .................................................................. 12
5.1.2 Water Use – Visitors .................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Water Production and Projections** ................................................................................. 13
Fig. 4 Water Produced by Source / Year ............................................................................... 13
Fig. 4 Water Production Trends by Source ........................................................................... 14
5.3 Billing ................................................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 6: WATER CONSERVATION ............................................................................................. 16
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16
6.2 Water Use Reduction Goal ................................................................................................. 16
6.3 Water Conservation Metric ................................................................................................ 17
6.4 Current Conservation Measures ......................................................................................... 17
6.5 Current Conservation Ordinances and Standards .............................................................. 18
6.6 New Conservation Measures for the Next Five Years ........................................................ 18
6.6.1 Planning Efforts** ........................................................................................................ 18
6.6.2 Ordinances and Policies ............................................................................................... 18
6.6.3 City Facilities Improvements ........................................................................................ 19
6.6.4 Outreach and Education .............................................................................................. 20
6.6.5 Programs ...................................................................................................................... 20
6.7 Responsibility for Meeting Conservation Goals ................................................................. 21
6.8 Action and Implementation Timeline ................................................................................. 21
SECTION 7: ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS ............................................................................................ 21
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 21
7.2 Matheson Wetlands............................................................................................................ 22
7.3 Mill Creek ............................................................................................................................ 22
7.4 Pack Creek ........................................................................................................................... 22
SECTION 8: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 23
8.1 Colorado River .................................................................................................................... 23
8.2 Water Banking .................................................................................................................... 23
Acknowledgements
This plan was written as a joint effort between City Staff and the Water Conservation and
Drought Management Advisory Board. City staff included Mila Dunbar-Irwin, Chuck Williams,
Mark Jolissaint, Levi Jones, Marcy Mason and Ben Billingsley. Contributors from the Water
Conservation and Drought Management Board were Jeremy Lynch, Eve Tallman, Arne
Hultquist, Mike Duncan, Kara Dohrenwend, and Steve Getz. Other contributors include Elaine
Gizler and Dave Engleman.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Moab 2021 Water Conservation Plan has been prepared to comply with the Utah
Water Conservation Plan Act of 1998 amended in 2004 with HB71 Section 73-10-32. Statute
requires that every Utah water conservancy district and water retailer adopt a Water
Conservation Plan every five years and file the plan with the Utah Board of Water Resources.
This 2021 Water Conservation Plan Update presents updated data for water supply and
demand, trends, future growth and consumption projections, and proposes policies and actions
to achieve regional conservation goals.
The Regional Water Conservation Goal for the “Upper Colorado River” area (Carbon, Emery,
Grand, and San Juan Counties) is 20% by 2030, from an average of 333 gallons / day / person
(GPCD) to 267GPCD. Moab is close to this goal and is currently at 278GPCD according to 2020
population estimates. The 2020 Census data will be available in 2022, at which time, the City
will have a more accurate resident number, and it is likely the actual GPCD will be lower.
The City proposes to meet and exceed the Regional Goal by setting a new goal of 230GPCD by
2030. This represents a 50% decrease in outdoor landscape irrigation and would result in the
total volume of residential water use staying the same, while still accounting for the projected
increase in population. A goal of 230GPCD by 2030 is a representation of the water
conservation values of the community and an effort to keep water use at a safe level to ensure
sustainable quality of life for the City of Moab and its environs.
To meet this goal, the City plans to implement a suite of water conservation measures including
policies, outreach, infrastructure improvements, and water resource management planning.
Proposed policies include regulating landscapes and turfgrass for new development, water wise
development standards, and re-landscape incentives. Outreach and education for current
residents as well as making technical resources and expertise available are a key component of
meeting the City’s goal. The City has committed to system upgrades which will be completed
over the next five years and have the potential to reduce loss and improve efficiency, as well as
developing a new source (well). In addition, the City is embarking on a water resource
management planning effort in coordination with other water providers who share the
groundwater supply, to make smart decisions now and prevent shortages in the future.
Underpinning all of these efforts is on-going research by state, local, and federal agencies to
improve data accuracy and forecasting.
Data for this plan comes from ongoing studies by the Utah Division of Water Rights (DWRI), the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) as well as the City
and neighboring water users, Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA), and Moab
Irrigation Company (MIC). Population data was derived from the 2020 US Census.
SECTION 1: SYSTEM PROFILE
1.1 History, Government and Population
The City of Moab was incorporated in 1902 and is the largest city in Grand County. The City of
Moab has a Council-Manager form of government, with five elected Council members, a
separately elected Mayor, and an appointed City Manager.
The area has been known for mining, filming, and now tourism over the decades. It is the
jumping off point for Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, as well as home to world-
renowned mountain bike and 4x4 trails, which means that the area seems millions of visitors
every year. This transient population makes water planning more complicated, and can be a
point of contention for those concerned that our GCPD does not differentiate between visitors
and residents, resulting in each resident being “responsible” for some portion of the tourism
impact. Please see Section 6, Water Conservation, for more details.
The resident population of the City has slowly grown over the past ten years, with an average
estimated growth rate of 1.01%. Current resident population is estimated at 5,341 using this
assumed growth rate, and will be updated with the 2020 Census data available in 2022. Using
simply the average growth rate from the past 10 years, Moab City would see an increase of
approximately 2,500 people in the next 40 years.
Fig 1. Projected Population Growth
However, build-out projections are complex, and have many different scenarios based on
current zoning, potential zone changes, types of uses, and possible future regulations such as
water availability. 2020 Census data may be higher than the previous growth rates, and post-
covid, Moab seems to have undergone a boom in popularity if the housing market is any
indication of current residential demand.
There are currently 240 vacant properties within City limits, representing 725 buildable acres
(there are 1116 vacant acres, but the remaining 391 acres are unbuildable due to natural
hazards). Approximately 30% of these are zoned for commercial uses. The lowest end of the
5341
7984
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
20
4
7
20
4
9
20
5
1
20
5
3
20
5
5
20
5
7
20
5
9
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Year
Estimated Population
build-out scenario is one single-family dwelling on each residentially zoned property and non-
residential uses on the others, which adds only about 223 people (using as average of 3 people
/ household) to the projected population. The build-out number gets much higher assuming
each property uses their total density allowance, and higher still if any are rezoned to zones
allowing more density than currently permitted. With a medium scenario, where every vacant
residential property is subdivided and developed to the maximum density allowed by current
zone (excluding multi-family options), then there are 3,000 new units built, and approximately
9,000 more people.
The City is currently looking into these various scenarios to develop smart land use policy based
on limited resources and community desires. The matter is complicated further by the addition
of other water users outside City limits who share the aquifer – residents of both Grand County
and San Juan County. Acknowledging this reality is the inspiration behind the initiation of the
Moab Spanish Valley Water Providers Coalition, a water resource management planning group
to be convened later in 2021.
It is impossible to address the population of Moab without representing tourism. Though the
City only has around 5,000 permanent residents, the area (including Spanish Valley) sees more
than a million visitors per year, many of which stay at least one night in the many overnight
accommodations available in both City limits and Grand County.
1.2 Water governance structure**
Fig. 2 Map of Current Service Area
1.3 Water Distribution System
The City of Moab supplies drinking water to almost all the residents and businesses within the
City. Three wells and three springs provide drinking water year round, and an additional spring
and well are used for irrigation only. Water sources in the distribution system for the City of
Moab vary seasonally and yearly. 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. Birch Springs 1, 2 and 3 and Wells #6 and #10 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. See Section 2 for volume and supply information.
Fig. 3 Number and Type of Connections in 2020
Type of Connection Number in 2020
Residential 1,773
Commercial 430
Institutional 60
TOTAL 2,263
The City of Moab’s water system operates as an Enterprise Fund in which fees are charged to
users of the system to pay for the costs. The Water Fund revenue sources consists of water
base and usage fees from residential and commercial customers, bulk water sales, water impact
fees, and proceeds from debt service secured by water rates. In April of 2021 the water
revenue was used to secure a bond to enable the City to complete a backlog of necessary water
related projects in the next 5 years, including developing a new well, Well #12. These projects
also include water line improvements along Mill Creek Drive, a new 2 million gallon storage
tank on Spanish Valley Drive, and various optimization projects on existing facilities. The Water
Department keeps up on leak and loss maintenance regularly (see Section 4).
1.4 Water Treatment System
• New sewer plant
• Potential for re-use of water (Matheson wetlands)
SECTION 2: SUPPLY
2.1 Sources – Aquifers, Surface Water, and Water Rights
2.1.1 History **
2.1.2 Aquifer and surface water descriptions and maps**
During the last several years the City, GWSSA and several other concerned entities funded a
USGS study to help better understand the aquifers in our area (citations here). The City of
Moab also hired a consultant, Ken Kolm, to further understanding of this very complex system
(citations here).
Due to the complexity of the aquifers fed by snow melt from the La Sal Mountains there is not
complete agreement on exactly how the system functions, and there is still a wide range in the
estimates of how much water is in the aquifer and what the recharge rate is. This discussion is
ongoing in the community and will be a part of groundwater management planning efforts.
The complexity of our water source not only makes quantifying it difficult, but it also means our
water supply is relatively invisible to residents and visitors alike. Conservation of a resource
that may only be understood to be gone when wells run dry creates a challenging conservation
planning atmosphere. The City of Moab and others in the community can help lead the
conversation about understanding our water system is complex, how we are working to
understand the security of our water supply, and how every resident can help through water
conservation.
Table 1. SUPPLY CATEGORIZED BY TYPE of SOURCE**
2.2 Secondary Water (Irrigation Sources)
2.2.1 Moab Irrigation Company
Moab Irrigation Company (MIC) is a non-profit organization founded about 1890 which has
senior water rights to almost all of the water in the Mill Creek drainage, including North Fork,
which is usually around 6,000 acre-feet per year. Headwaters of both branches of Mill Creek are
high on the west side of the La Sal mountains. Mill Creek is the principal drainage supplying
water to Spanish Valley.
There are three diversions in the upper reaches of the creek that supply water to three ditches
– Wilson Mesa, South Mesa, and Horse Creek – for agricultural and irrigation uses. There is
another large diversion, discussed below, supplying water through Sheley Tunnel to Ken’s Lake,
which is a reservoir supplying irrigation water to upper valley users.
There are three more diversions on Mill Creek below its confluence with North Fork. The two
lower dams are near each other and not far from the intersection of Spanish Valley Drive and
Powerhouse Lane. The uppermost dam of this group supplies mostly small farms on the
southeast edge of the city. The remaining two dams supply two "ditches" (long since replaced
by closed plastic piping) that stretch from east to west across Moab City. The users on these
ditches are more than a hundred of mostly urban landscapers who enjoy relatively inexpensive
irrigation water compared to what it would cost to irrigate with city culinary water. Delivery
takes advantage of the steady downhill grade to the west to hydrostatically pressurize the
pipelines; no pumps are used. The majority of these users flood irrigate their properties.
Since 1980, all flow (except a BLM required 3 cfs minimum in-stream flow) in Mill Creek is
diverted by Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA) into Ken's Lake where it is used
for irrigation in the upper valley. [A hydrologist employed to study the City’s culinary water
supply asserts that this reduced (since 1980) stream flow has detrimentally reduced the city’s
production from its springs and wells at the golf course as well as Skakel Springs farther north
along a NW trending Kayenta fault line.] MIC charges GWSSA for this diverted water, and in
turn if MIC wishes to augment its city pipelines in late summer (a common occurrence in recent
frequent drought years) when Mill Creek flow is low, GWSSA charges MIC for water pumped
from Valley Fill Aquifer wells in the same geographic area as MIC diversions. Ken's Lake also
owns a large number of MIC shares, for which it pays an assessment fee like any other MIC
shareholder.
In summer, MIC frequently takes all Mill Creek flow at its two lower dams to serve its city users,
leaving Mill Creek almost dry, particularly in the daytime when more people are watering than
they do at night. Water does seep back into the creek below the lower dam so that by the time
Mill Creek crosses Main Street (Hwy 191) there is some flow back in the creekbed. The
aesthetics and ecological amenity of leaving some modest flow, ideally even in drought years, in
the creek all the way through town is desirable, but there's not enough water to serve MIC
customers and leave some in the creek unless water distribution can be made more efficient.
Doing so is certainly possible, but it requires considerable upgrade to both MIC and user
systems with technologies such as pumps, timers, tanks, automated diversion dams and
automated valves. Surface water is messy to handle, involving foreign material such as sand,
limbs, leaves and beavers, making the situation more complicated.
Similarly, the idea of using MIC water, its pipelines, or at the least its right-of-way through town
to grow a secondary municipal water system surfaces periodically. This is possible, but likely
means converting MIC from a non-pressurized to a pressurized, metered system, which is not
currently in City or MIC budgets.
2.2.2 The Colorado River
Another potential secondary irrigation system is surface water out of the Colorado River. The
City of Moab holds xxcfs/AF in water rights (see above) and has the opportunity to conserve
culinary water and add non-potable supply for outdoor irrigation needs. Developing this system
would cost XX$$ and take XX years and is not within the scope of City capital improvement
projects at the moment. However, as a means to further conserve culinary water supplies, this
development could be well warranted in the future.
2.3 Water Rights**
• Summary of Moab water rights
• Other water rights on the same source
• Opportunity for water banking
SECTION 3: WATER MEASUREMENT
3.1 Water Measurement Methods and Practices**
• Requirement: List current water measurement methods and practices
o Percent of metered connections by type, reading frequency, calibration schedule,
new development laws and replacement schedule.
SECTION 4: SYSTEM WATER LOSS
4.1 Water Loss
There were approximately 550 acre-feet of water, or about 20%, lost between production and
metered connections in 2020, which is typical for recent years. The City engineering and public
works team attributes this loss to four possible causes:
1. Dispersed Leaks: individual leaks may be too small to be noticed but taken together
could have a significant effect. Water lines are in various types of soils, some of
which may be able to absorb a slow leak for a long time without evidence showing.
2. Water Line Breaks: these are repaired quickly, but large amounts of water can be
lost during the leaking period.
3. Unmetered Connections: there may be older connections that are as yet unmetered.
4. Fire Hydrant Exercise: public works exercises fire hydrants on a schedule, and the
water used is not metered.
Source overflow from springs is not metered and bypasses the system, so would not be
counted as loss.
4.2 Leak Detection and Repair
Moab City has four full time Water Department personnel directly supervised by the Public
Works Director. They work around the clock to provide safe drinking water for the City of
Moab. They monitor and perform regular maintenance on the water production and treatment
process daily and always make necessary repairs immediately. They have a SCADA system that
is able to monitor and control various parts of the water system remotely from a desktop
computer or a phone app with full control of all the pumps in the system. This means they are
able to see intrusion alarms and all of the tank levels in real time.
The Water Department takes leaks seriously and responds immediately to all identified issues,
making a conscious effort to lose the least amount of water possible during repairs. They are
always on high alert and inspecting the water system for leaks and have personnel on-call 24/7
through local dispatch through the Sheriff’s office or by the on-call number (435)210-1982. The
City Water Department responded to 35 water leaks in 2020 and completed repairs on 8 water
mains and 22 service lines.
The Treasury and Water Departments work closely together on water conservation. The Water
Department reads all water meters, most of which are digitally broadcast, and reports those
readings to the Treasury Department monthly. The Treasury Department is able to identify high
usages through their billing software which creates a re-read list. The Water Department will
then verify the unusually high readings on the ground and report the conditions back to the
Treasury Department. If there is evidence of a water leak the homeowner is notified
immediately and work begins on a solution. When the leak is properly fixed, the homeowner
can request a rebate on the amount of their water bill caused by the leak. This is intended as an
incentive to fix leaks and not simply let them run, though, that has happened in the past, and it
may be time to add a penalty for those who do not choose to fix their leaks.
In addition, the Water Department works to educate customers on ways to conserve water.
From irrigation watering schedules to overflowing swamp coolers and leaking faucets, they help
customers identify high usage areas and come up with solutions.
In an effort to maintain water quality the Water Department cleans and inspects water storage
facilities every 5 years. They flush low flow and dead-end lines on a regular basis and upon
restoring water after an outage, they flush water mains until free of sand. There is sediment
that flows naturally from the springs and settles in main lines due to aging infrastructure. New
infrastructure additions strictly follow AWWA water standards. From installation and pressure
testing to treatment and sampling all applicable standards are followed every time to maintain
water quality.
SECTION 5: WATER USE
5.1 Water Use
Total water used from 2005 – 2020 has decreased. In recent years, the proportion of water
going to commercial uses has begun to decrease in comparison to residential use as well, as the
City becomes more built-out and residentially focused, and commercial and agricultural uses
move out into Spanish Valley. The City has set the goal of a 50% reduction is outdoor landscape
irrigation by 2030 to effectively keep residential draw the same as it is today, regardless of the
projected increase in population.
Fig. 3 Water Use by Sector and Year
Table 2. Potable vs. Non-Potable Water Use
The City of Moab only began keeping records on non-potable water production and use in
2017. There are only three connections that are considered non-potable water used for
irrigation. Well #7 is used exclusively by the Golf Course for spring irrigation to make up for
shortfalls when their usual water source (GWSSA) does not have enough supply. They use
varying levels per year depending on available surface water. The City Center well is exclusively
used for irrigation of City facilities near City Hall, and McConkie spring is a diversion near Old
City Park used for irrigation there.
-
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Water Used (AF) by Year and Sector 2005-2020
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial Wholesale Unmetered
SOURCE 2020 2019 2018 2017
City Center Well 1.35 N/A N/A N/A
McConkie Spring (Irrigation) 120.00 120.00 120.00 152.03
Well #7 Golf Course (Irrigation) 8.43 18.00 182.70 41.06
Total Per Year 129.78 138.00 302.70 193.09
5.1.1 Water Use – Permanent Residents
Total water use has been trending downwards in the past 15 years, even as population has
risen. This is due to shifting uses from commercial and mining towards residential, conversion
of agricultural land to residential use, replacement of an old sewage treatment facility, and
likely some water conservation awareness as well. In 2005 the total water used was 1,965 acre-
feet and in 2020 the total was 1,667 acre-feet. The City of Moab aims to keep total water use at
or around the current level into 2030, regardless of population growth.
Fig. 3 Population vs Water Use
-
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ac
r
e
F
e
e
t
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Axis Title
Population Growth and Total Water Used
Est. Population (based on US Census Data)Total Water Used
Fig. 6 Gallons per Capita per Day by Type
Table 3. Gallons per Capita per Day 2005 - 2020
Year Population GPCD
Residential
GPCD
Commercial
GPCD
Institutional
GPCD Total
2005 4936 192.76 162.72 - 355.48
2006 4968 191.78 161.60 - 353.38
2007 5001 164.18 129.78 - 293.96
2008 5,033 174.56 144.34 - 318.89
2009 5,066 168.42 150.65 - 319.06
2010 5,111 135.46 183.40 - 318.87
2011 5,097 131.05 157.60 - 288.64
2012 5,186 142.79 166.56 - 309.35
2013 5,184 143.89 207.67 - 351.56
2014 5,225 162.38 156.24 - 318.62
2015 5,251 145.69 136.18 - 281.88
2016 5,261 135.68 171.73 - 307.41
2017 5,219 139.50 139.97 46.21 325.69
2018 5,288 143.66 127.38 36.12 307.17
2019 5,336 145.33 99.91 27.43 272.67
2020 5,341 166.47 89.23 22.97 278.67
-
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
GPCD 2005-2020 by Type
GPCD Residential GPCD Commercial GPCD Institutional GPCD Total
5.1.2 Water Use – Visitors
No discussion of water use in Moab would be complete without addressing the impact of our
many visitors. Currently, overnight accommodations account for approximately 16% of the
commercial water used. In 2019 (a more typical year than 2020), this was a total of 95AF. As
visitors increase, we can expect their water usage to increase concurrently unless more
conservation measures are implemented at overnight accommodations. Outreach efforts are
part of the five year conservation plan. However, considering that overnight accommodations
only account for 16% of the City’s commercial usage, this sector does not have an oversize
impact on the total.
5.2 Water Production and Projections**
Fig. 4 Water Produced by Source / Year
Water Source Data (AF) 5-yr
average
2016
(2,388
AF)
2017
(2,540
AF)
2018
(2,478
AF)
2019
(2,264
AF)
2020
(2,218
AF)
Birch Springs 1,2,3 (WS003) 535.82 515.78 551.85 539.83 503.63 468.42
Sommerville Springs Nos. 1
& 2 (WS001,2)
535.79 518.19 572.11 517.06 472.09 469.22
Well No. 10 (WS010) 529.13 533.68 565.79 487.91 521.26 409.36
Well No. 6 (WS007) 415.20 450.83 426.63 368.13 458.60 478.65
Skakel Springs (WS012) 241.73 232.35 230.31 262.53 169.92 264.30
McConkie Spring (Irrigation,
estimated)
130.68 120.00 152.03 120.00 120.00 120.00
Well #7 Golf Course
(Irrigation)
80.14 16.67 41.06 182.70 18.00 8.43
Total Per Year 2,468.48 2,387.50 2,539.78 2,478.16 2,263.50 2,218.38
Fig. 4 Water Production Trends by Source
• Requirement: comparison graph with a) reliable supply through 2060, b) current water
use projections, and c) efficient use
• Water source development, supply, and cost projections
5.3 Billing
The City recently updated water rates to adopt a stronger tiered rate structure to encourage
conservation, particularly for commercial properties. These new rates were only recently
adopted in the winter of 2020 / 2021 and have yet to see a full summer season. We are hoping
that it will encourage adoption of conservation behaviors and more awareness of water use.
See below for the current rates.
Residential, within the City $13.00 minimum charge (includes the first 3,000 gal.) $1.13/thousand for 3,001 to 10,000 gal. $1.50/thousand for 10,001 to 60,000 gal. $1.88/thousand for 60,001 or more gal.
Residential, outside the City $18.85 minimum charge (includes the first 3,000 gal.) $1.50/thousand for 3,001 to 10,000 gal. $2.25/thousand for 10,001 to 60,000 gal. $2.63/thousand for 60,001 or more gal.
Commercial, within the City $37.50 minimum charge (includes the first 2,000 gal.) $1.50/thousand for 2,001 to 5,000 gal. $2.25/thousand for 5,001 to 10,000 gal. $3.40/thousand for 10,001 to 50,000 gal.
-
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
2016 (2,388 AF)2017 (2,540 AF)2018 (2,478 AF)2019 (2,264 AF)2020 (2,218 AF)
Water Production 2016-2020 (AF)
Birch Springs 1,2,3 (WS003)
Sommerville Springs Nos. 1 & 2 (WS001,2)
Well No. 10 (WS010)
Well No. 6 (WS007)Skakel Springs (WS012)McConkie Spring (Irrigation, estimated)Well #7 Golf Course (Irrigation)
$4.25/thousand for 50,001 or more gal.
Commercial, outside the City $44.25 minimum charge (includes the first 2,000 gal.) $3.00/thousand for 2,001 to 5,000 gal. $3.38/thousand for 5,001 to 10,000 gal. $4.25/thousand for 10,001 to 50,000 gal. $4.68/thousand for 50,001 or more gal.
Shop Water Retail Fee (City Public
Works Yard) $32.50 for first 2,000 gallons, $12.75/1,000 gal.
Shop Water Government Fee (City
Public Works Yard) $26.00 for first 2,000 gallons, $9.38/1,000 gal.
Construction Fire Hydrant Fee $32.50 for first 2,000 gallons, $12.75/1,000 gal.
Construction Fire Hydrant Rental Fee $15 per day
City Parks & Cemeteries $0.81/1,000 gal.
Moab Golf Course Well #7 Current Commercial Rate
Water turn-on fee, after failure to pay
City water/sewer charges
$25.00 during normal working hours;
$50.00 after normal working hours
Water meter re-read charges
The City crew will re-read the
customer’s meter. $10.00
The City crew will test a customer’s
meter. $20.00
The City crew will change a tested
customer’s meter, at the customer’s
request.
Actual labor costs with a one hour minimum
The costs incurred for these requests
will be paid within thirty days. If that
bill is not paid, the water will be turned
off until the debt is satisfied, and a
reconnect charge (1/2 hour minimum)
during regular hours or reconnect
charge (2 hour minimum) after hours,
will be applicable.
During regular working hours, actual labor costs with
a ½ hour minimum
after hours, actual labor costs with a 2-hour
minimum
If the problem proves to be the city’s
responsibility, there will be no charge
to the customer.
There is a space on City bills for a small message, which can be anything from information
about the new rates to conservation messages. Currently, the City is sending out the
Sustainability website address as a place for water conservation tips and resources. There is
current information maintained on that site as well as links to other water conservation
resources and programs. In the future, the City is contemplating bill restructuring to include
conservation goals and measurements aimed at such.
SECTION 6: WATER CONSERVATION
6.1 Introduction
The City of Moab is interested in a nuanced approach to conservation that does not simply
focus on up-and-coming technologies and strategies alone (which are often the
rediscovered practices of yesteryear's farmers anyway). The multi-pronged approach described
in this Water Conservation Plan is comprised of policies, infrastructure improvements,
investment in technologies and incentive programs, outreach and education, coordinated
resource management, and on-going research and data refinement.
The ultimate goal is to better define and achieve conservation as a term and set of practices
which become embedded in the community ethos and carry forward to a sustainable future.
6.2 Water Use Reduction Goal
In 2000, Governor Levitt proclaimed a conservation goal of 25% in gallons per capita day (GPCD)
by 2050 using 2000 water use as the indexing year. The conservation proclamation was aimed
at municipal and industrial (M&I) users, agriculture was intentionally omitted from the goal. A
few years later Governor Herbert decreased the timeline and proclaimed a conservation goal of
25% by 2025 using the same year, 2000, as the indexing year. The goals were not intended to
reduce the total demand for M&I water, they were established to make room for new growth
because a fair number of regions were reaching the limit of their water resources.
Since then, the Utah Legislature began getting involved which led to a 2015 Legislative Audit,
followed by a 2017 Follow-up Audit, then a Third-Party Review, and finally a 2017
Recommended State Water Strategy. Those efforts recommended the State develop regional
water conservation goals. The Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWR) was tasked with the
project and developed the latest goals in their document Utah’s Regional M&I Water
Conservation Goals. Grand County was put in the “Upper Colorado Region” which also includes
Carbon, Emery and San Juan County.
The draft recommendations were for the Upper Colorado Region to reduce their per-capita
water consumption by another 17% and the final recommendations were for 20% reduction
from average regional 2015 usage (333GPCD) by 2030. The 20% reduction for the region
resulted in a recommended goal of 267GPCD. Moab is currently at 278GPCD (depending on
accurate population data) and has set a new goal of 230GPCD by 2030. The table below shows
the percent reduction from the year 2000 as per the original call from Governor Levitt, which
Moab would meet with the 267GPCD regional goal, and exceed with a new goal of 230GPCD.
Year Population Total AF gallons per
capita day
% change
from 2000
2000 4779 1926.63 359.9 0.0%
2015 5251 1657.96 281.9 21.7%
2020 5341 1667.31 278.7 22.6%
2030 N/A N/A 267 25.6%
2030* 5906* 1667* 230* 36%
6.3 Water Conservation Metric
The State has determined the metric for conservation goals at gpcd, or gallons per capita per
day. The metric is a reasonable measure if you were only measuring municipal use. The concept
being we are measuring household use and the number of people in households affects that
number. However, adding commercial, industrial, and institutional into the metric is
problematic because the people who are supported by that water use may not be living in the
area where the water is being used. Furthermore, differing industrial and commercial uses may
not have any relationship to the number of people being served by the water provider.
Furthermore, trying to determine whether metrics represent conservation or a change in
economy are not represented using the current measurements.
The City of Moab has a tourism economy. There are between 1.6 and 2.6million visitors in our
community per year. As such, the metric per capita does not include the numbers of visitors our
municipality supports, who use at least 16% of all commercial water, or 95AF, just on overnight
accommodations. This does not include the amount of water used in other businesses catering
to visitors such as restaurants, washing of off highway vehicles, etc. The City of Moab is
interested in considering other metrics to determine their conservation goals. One which has
potential is an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). It is already used for a variety of requirements
associated with water supply and could be a metric which allows a comparison between
economies and water conservation strategies.
6.4 Current Conservation Measures
Leak protection program / rebates
The leak protection program provides a rebate for the amount assumed to be lost due to a leak
after the customer has fixed it. This is intended to provide an incentive for fixing leaks.
New Water Treatment Facility
The new Wastewater Treatment Facility uses only 20,000 gallons of water per month whereas
the old one used 2 million gallons per month. This saves the City over 23.5million gallons of
water per year.
Outreach, Education
The City of Moab maintains a column in the Moab Happenings and the monthly City Newsletter
devoted to issues of Sustainability. Water conservation is an important and frequent topic in
these articles.
6.5 Current Conservation Ordinances and Standards
The City of Moab does not currently have any ordinances or standards addressing water
conservation directly. However, the WaterNOW Alliance just awarded the City a grant for
technical assistance to develop three things: 1) a greywater ordinance, 2) a landscaping
ordinance, and 3) new development standards, which will be completed in early 2022. The City
is looking forward to working with WaterNOW Alliance as well as USU Extension experts to get
smart, relevant, and up-to-date ordinances adopted as soon as possible. The City will also be
working on an Emergency Drought Management Plan.
6.6 New Conservation Measures for the Next Five Years
6.6.1 Planning Efforts**
• Water Resource Management Plan (Moab Spanish Valley Water Providers Coalition)
• USGS monitoring and research
6.6.2 Ordinances and Policies
A. Landscape Ordinance
The Water Board recommends developing a landscape ordinance which would have three main
components. 1) Requiring new development to use waterwise landscaping principles, limit or
omit turfgrass, and design in conjunction with greywater systems (see below), 2) Instituting
outdoor landscape watering rules for all residents during times of drought (see Drought
Management Plan), and 3) Developing a recommended/required species list for any new
development in Moab. This effort will be particularly helpful in conserving culinary water
supply, which is currently being used as irrigation water on most properties in the City for lack
of a secondary irrigation system.
A key component to the success of the landscaping ordinance is outreach to current residents
and businesses to encourage adoption of waterwise landscaping and abandonment of unused
turfgrass. City staff is working on opportunities to improve existing demonstration landscaping
around City Hall, as well as removing turfgrass and installing waterwise landscaping in
prominent location. These demonstration areas will serve to encourage current residents to do
the same in their own homes and will provide inspiration and education to current and future
residents.
This ordinance is planned for development in 2021 and adoption by 2022.
B. Grey Water Ordinance
Residents of the City of Moab (City) began installing grey water systems a couple of years ago as
pilot projects with the Southeast Utah Health Department (SEUHD). The projects were
successful and with the new information SEUHD collaborated with the Utah Division of Water
Quality to re-write the rules associated with permitting grey water reuse in Utah. Since then,
the SEUHD has permitted several residential homes including affordable housing projects. The
systems are relatively easy to install compared to most landscaping irrigation systems and
inexpensive if installed during the building of a new home.
The City plans to take advantage of the local expertise and the willingness of new homeowners
to embrace these systems. This effort will make the City more resilient to drought and conserve
water by reusing grey water to irrigate landscapes instead of sending it to the Wastewater
Reclamation Facility and discharging it out of the area. It is estimated that new residences with
lots less than .25 acres could save 50% of the water they would have used for outdoor
irrigation.
The City is developing ordinances that would require the indoor plumbing associated with grey
water systems be installed during the construction or re-construction of new single family and
multi-resident housing. The City also intends to encourage the use of these systems by
refunding some of the impact fees associated with new construction to home and multi-
housing units if they complete the installation with outdoor grey water irrigation.
The City is also looking to make the City’s water portfolio more resilient by developing grey
water ordinances for new commercial developments. The ordinance would require new
commercial buildings to install either grey water or rainwater catchment systems that would
provide all the water required for the landscaping associated with the new development.
C. New Development Standards
In conjunction with the landscaping and greywater ordinances, the City will implement
standards for new development that incorporate waterwise landscaping principles and water
saving construction features. Landscaping will be required to be waterwise, using a
recommended list of plants and features, as well as a limitation on turfgrass area. New
construction will be required to use WaterSense labeled fixtures and appliances, and stub for
greywater.
D. Emergency Drought Management Plan
The City intends to develop and adopt an Emergency Drought Management Plan to prepare for
a situation of actual shortfall in water production. With thoughtful pre-planning, the City will be
able to take the time needed for calculations, engage the public, and decide what measures
make the most sense to conserve water when a drastic situation arrives. This may involve
recommendations to install infrastructure for emergency shut-offs or secondary lines in all new
construction so irrigation may be divorced from culinary uses. The City aims to adopt this plan
within the next five years.
6.6.3 City Facilities Improvements
There are opportunities to improve municipal water efficiency which the City intends to
complete as funds become available, beyond the infrastructure improvements bonded for and
contained within the Capital Improvements Plan (mentioned in Section 1). There are three main
City parks that use water for irrigating turfgrass – Rotary Park, Swanny Park, and Old City Park.
In addition, the City maintains the ballfields outside City Hall and various other smaller areas.
Improvements to the system involve four things:
1) installing smart timers and moisture meters for more efficient watering
2) removing grass where it is not needed
3) evaluating and fixing old systems to water where needed and not where it’s not
4) replacing plants which have died and are still being irrigated, allow them to establish,
and re-evaluate and reduce irrigation appropriately
In addition, there are opportunities to install green infrastructure and improve stormwater
management to facilitate more infiltration and less runoff, as well as contribute to a greener
streetscape. As City drainage features are renewed or repaired, green infrastructure can be
incorporated into new designs and implemented where possible. If funding becomes available,
the City will be able to develop a green infrastructure plan for areas where projects would be
possible. The proposed greywater ordinance could work in concert with green infrastructure
between residential property and City streets.
6.6.4 Outreach and Education
Successful water conservation in Moab will depend on both tangible and intangible elements.
Efforts like replacing old fixtures and repairing leaks are opportunities to passively conserve
water by updating systems. Behavior change is the intangible piece of the puzzle which will
require a different approach. The City of Moab values the impact of education and outreach on
water conservation and will be continuously working to develop a community spirit of water
conservation without sacrificing quality of life or economic opportunities.
Planned outreach efforts include articles in the local newspaper, the City Newsletter, and Moab
Happenings, changing the design of the water bill to include conservation-oriented metrics,
creating and distributing door hangars at properties with inefficient watering systems to offer
consultation and resources, educational mailings with best practices and goals, and providing
resources from local landscape designers, USU extension, and other knowledge holders to
assist residents and businesses in their water conservation efforts. Keeping the community
informed about progress towards our conservation goals is a key component of the outreach
and education effort, and an essential piece of meeting our water conservation goals.
6.6.5 Programs
If funding becomes available, the City can invest in programs to accelerate landscaping
conversion and outdoor irrigation water savings. These may include the following:
• Turfgrass buy-back / rebate: providing cash payments or rebates for property owners to
replace lawn with water wise landscaping (this is a common program to encourage lawn
conversion)
• Conservation rebates: direct water-bill rebate rewards for meeting conservation goals
on top of the tiered rates
• Free smart timers and moisture meters: providing smart technologies to assist property
owners with efficient watering
• Penalty for failing to fix leaks: adopting a penalty in addition to the rebate for failing to
fix a leak in a timely manner
6.7 Responsibility for Meeting Conservation Goals
Chuck Williams, City Engineer: cwilliams@moabcity.org
Levi Jones, Public Works Director: ljones@moabcity.org
Mila Dunbar-Irwin, Sustainability Director: sustainability@moabcity.org
Carly Castle, Assistant City Manager: ccastle@moabcity.org
6.8 Action and Implementation Timeline
Year Action
2021 • Water-wise landscaping guide sent to all addresses in Moab City including
information on watering turfgrass, resources for xeriscaping, and other ways to
reduce use of water outdoors
• Establish Moab/Spanish Valley Water Providers Coalition
2022 • Adopt Landscaping Ordinance and Greywater Ordinance
• Adopt new development standards including water wise elements
• Adopt Moab/Spanish Valley Water Providers Coalition Water Resource
Management Plan
• Inform community of the newly adopted Water Conservation Plan Update
2023 Implement incentive programs (when / if financially feasible):
o promote fixture replacement and inventory old fixtures where possible;
o campaign to reduce water waste in the home and improve efficiency;
o offer smart timers;
o implement turfgrass buyback program
2024 Update landscaping guide and outreach regarding landscaping and greywater
ordinances and new development standards
2025 Work with USU Extension to develop demonstration xeriscape garden in Moab
SECTION 7: ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
7.1 Introduction
The Mill Creek Watershed, its creeks and the wetlands they are connected to at the Colorado
River’s edge, are critical components of not only a functional watershed and sustainable
aquifer, but also have importance to community residents. It is critical to include functional
riparian corridors and wetlands while exploring ways to ensure sustainable water for the Moab
and Spanish Valley communities. Not only are the riparian corridors important for wildlife, but
they also are important transportation and natural corridors through the town. Springs and
smaller wetlands within the system arguably act as indicators of overall water quantity in the
system in a qualitative way.
Water Conservation and Drought Management in the Moab Valley needs to include
maintenance and enhancement of the ecological components as well as water delivery to
residents and businesses.
7.2 Matheson Wetlands
The Matheson Wetland is a unique and rare wetland in the American Southwest along
the Colorado River. The wetlands are not incorporated into the City of Moab’s town limits, but
they are sandwiched between the City of Moab and the Colorado River. They are effected by
the City of Moab and the entire Mill/Pack Creek hydrobasins surface and groundwater
practices. The wetlands are owned by the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources and
The Nature Conservancy in approximately 50/50 split. The Wetlands are co-managed by the
same two agencies.
The wetlands have had difficulty maintaining hydric vegetation during the previous two
decades due to several anthropogenic and natural impacts. Climate change and drought have
reduced the regularity of high seasonal flows in the Colorado that would flood the wetlands.
Mill Creek historically provided some surface water and maintained the groundwater table but
currently it is entrenched and several feet below the surface area of the wetlands. Increased
domestic use of springs on the Northwest portion of the valley has also altered the water
budget. There is also some concern that decreases in the freshwater layer by any of the
previously stated means could affect the level of the brine layer under the freshwater layer and
allow it to reach the surface or leach to the Colorado River.
This conservation plan suggests that the City of Moab support the wetland monitoring
plan being developed by the State of Utah Division of Water Rights and management agencies
of the wetlands. It is further suggested that the City of Moab and other Spanish Valley
institutions pursue stormwater management plans the slow water down as opposed to
diverting directly to Mill and Pack Creek.
7.3 Mill Creek
See Section 2.2.1 on Moab Irrigation Company.
7.4 Pack Creek
Pack Creek is a small stream that runs through Moab and Spanish Valley. Although Pack Creek is
not a source of culinary water the aquifer below it is used for culinary and irrigation purposes.
The aquifer has relatively high total dissolved solids (TDS) and the creek is not meeting the
beneficial use standards for TDS, temperature and E. coli. However, the creek and the aquifer
still provide irreplaceable environmental goods and services to Spanish Valley and its residents.
The water quality in Pack Creek is very good above its diversions near the USFS boundary. The
water is used to irrigate a small community there. The creek is generally dry from the USFS
boundary until ½ mile above Spanish Trail Road where the groundwater table becomes shallow
and recharges the creek. The valley is somewhat pinched there, and several springs of varying
water quality add volume to the creek. From there till the confluence with Mill Creek, Pack
Creek and the underlying aquifer are responsible for a verdant riparian area that has several
human benefits. During the irrigation season Pack Creek is responsible for most of the water in
Mill Creek below their confluence due to withdrawals on Mill Creek. In the Mill Creek the Pack
Creek water and the underlying valley fill aquifer also provide water to the Matheson Wetlands.
The environmental concerns with the wetlands were discussed earlier in this document.
The growing population, development plans and long-term drought have made the valley fill
aquifer a target for new water development. The aquifer itself is temporal with a relatively
small amount of annual recharge. There are concerns that continued development of the valley
fill aquifer will result in lower water tables, reduced or ceased recharge to Pack Creek,
deterioration of water quality and subsequent termination of the environmental goods and
services the residents of Spanish Valley and Moab currently profit from.
SECTION 8: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Colorado River
Moab City has water rights out of the Colorado River, and could potentially change some of
their unusable groundwater rights to increase the rights out of the Colorado. This water has
been contemplated for use as an eventual secondary irrigation system, relieving some of the
pressure of the culinary water drawn from the aquifer and allowing for a more ready method of
regulation should the need for outdoor watering restrictions arise. Developing this system
would require a large amount of funding and infrastructure, however, and is not currently
feasible.
In the more immediate future, it would be possible to shift non-potable water, such as that
used for construction sites, to surface water from the Colorado rather than culinary
groundwater. Setting up a metered pump station would not be exceedingly onerous, and the
City just needs to identify a suitable location. There is already a construction water pump
station at the boat ramp at the 191 bridge, which is owned by Le Grand Johnson, a construction
and paving company.
8.2 Water Banking
Water banking is adding water to an aquifer for later use, putting it “in the bank” so to speak,
either literally or figuratively through water rights. The banked water is allowed to percolate
down into the aquifer where it then disperses and is available for later use. In concept, this can
either be done at the surface level, and recharge goes to shallow aquifers, or via deep injection
wells to access deeper aquifers.
In Moab, water for recharge could come from the Colorado River, storm water, or future flash
floods generated by increasing monsoonal storms predicted by climate change models.
Untreated Colorado River water could be pumped up the valley, used for purposes mentioned
above, and eventually be emptied into designated recharge areas such as Kens Lake, flood
irrigated fields, or purpose-built shallow ponds or wells. This could be a way for the City to
“use” water that is currently considered lost from the system due to variations in seasonal
needs and continuously flowing springs. There are about xx acre feet of water the City does not
actively put to use each year that instead of running off to the river, could conceivably be
banked for future withdrawals.
Developing a water bank is not currently on the City’s priority list, however, it is something to
keep in mind for the future.
0
2016
Moab Water Conservation Plan
Update
Photo Courtesy of Steve Mulligan
Moab Water Conservation Plan 2016
City of Moab, Utah
12/13/2016
Page intentionally blank]
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
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 1
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Moab Population
Figure 2. Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped) Compared
Figure 3. Moab Area Watershed
Figure 4. Moab area watershed boundaries as defined by the hydrological unit codes for Mill
and Castle Creek
Table 1. Projected Population at Build-out (Moab and Grand County)
Table 2. Municipal Springs
Table 3. Municipal Wells
Table 4. 2011 and 2015 Annual Water Production and Utilization by Source
Table 5. Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped)
Table 6. Water Production Trends 2010 - 2015
Table 7. Per Capita Water Consumption Trends
Table 8. Average Water Consumption Residential versus Commercial 2011-2015
Table 9. Average Water consumption in AF and percent by type (not including winter overflow)
Table 10. Table showing adjustments to include winter overflow volumes in Water System totals
and per capita estimates, 2011- 2013
Table 11. Retail Water Deliveries (Shop Water)
Table 12. Build-Out Water Demand, as a percentage of Paper Rights and reported 2010 Potential
Production, based on 2015 Per Capita
Table 13. Maximum Population of Moab at current rates of consumption, based on potential
production and paper water rights
Table 14. Current Water Rate Structure for the City of Moab (Revised 7/1/2016)
Table 15. Estimated Conservation Rates to Match Build Out Projections
Table 16. Water Falling on Moab City at different precipitation levels
Table 17. 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.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 2
CHECKLIST for Moab City 2016 / Water Conservation Plan
Current population: 5235 (per census.gov for 2015)
Number of M&I water connections, categorized by type:
Residential 1575
Commercial & Industrial 414
Institutional 84
Total water deliveries, categorized by type: See Table 11.
Current water supply, categorized by source: See Table 4.
Projected needed supply to Build-out: see Table 12.
Projected supply that can be delayed by implementing conservation programs and practices.
This is not fully defined in our report. See Tables 13 and 15.
Current per capita water use in gallons per capita per day (gpcd), categorized by type:
See Table 7.
Compare to state’s 2010 average (potable 185, secondary 55 gpcd).
Residential Potable 127 gpcd, Residential Secondary 40 gpcd) See Table 8.
Conservation Goals: See Table 15 and “Conservation Goals” chapter.
Your current metering situation and replacement schedule.
All but 20 meters are now radio-read, on track to replace all manual-read.
Your current pricing and rate structure: See Table 14.
List any water conservation ordinances currently implemented :
See “Water Conservation Policies/Ordinances”
List any conservation measures currently implemented: See “Current Water Conservation”
Do you have a Water Conservation Coordinator on your staff? No
Proposed conservation measures: See “Water Conservation Goals”
Plan adopted by Moab City Council December 13, 2016 Resolution #35-2016
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 3
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, capit alizing 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 4
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 ”1 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.2
The format of this Plan includes data required by the Utah Department of Natural Resour ces 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.
1 Vision 2020: A Sustainable Moab Plan (2008). MoabCityResolutionAdopting2020VisionSustainableMoabPlan.pdf
2 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 5
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
Population data from Census.gov and Grand County Community Development
The City’s build-out is projected as the City’s full growth potential, which is based on existing zoning.5
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 6
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 6 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.7 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.8
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
6 Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA) Water Conser vation Plan for Spanish Valley, Utah (2014) p.5.
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/2014%20Conservation%20Plan%20System%2010023%20Final.pdf
7 GWSSA Culinary Water Master Plan (2016) p.16.
http://www.grandwater.org/Portals/0/Website1/Web%20Docs/Water%20Master%20Plan%202016.pdf
8 Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/documentcenter/view/383
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 7
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 Geor ge
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 wer e 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 8
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 9
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
10 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 10
Drought conditions beginning in 1998 with a shift in the Northern Pacific Decadal Oscillation system 11
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.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 11
Figure 2. Total Water Production (Gravity and Pumped) Compared
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 12
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 o riginal 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
12 Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/documentcenter/view/383
13 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 13
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 approxim ately
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 14
Figure 3. Moab Area Watershed (Courtesy of Canyonlands Watershed Council)15
15 http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/farcountry/Graphics/MoabAreaWatershedGraphic.jpg
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 15
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 16
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 17
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 18
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 19
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
20 Moab Water Conservation Plan Update 2011. https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/383
21http://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 20
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%20Plan%202016.pdf
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 21
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-Top25, 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 22
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 23
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.28
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 )
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 24
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
30 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 25
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 relate d 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 26
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, incorporatin g
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 201 4-2016, 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 27
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
35 Annual water use for 1,000 houses in each of 12 cities. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/local/heaney.html
36 Crossroads Utah p.16. http://utahrivers.org/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 25th day of August, 2009.
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 28
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 29
Table 15. Estimated Conservation Rates to match Build Out population
projections
Potential Production* Paper Rights
Conservation Rate to achieve
Build-Out population: 51.87% 15.94%
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 30
Adopt a green infrastructure ordinance for stormwater management to protect wate r quality,
increase localized groundwater recharge and off-set landscape irrigation through matching
plantings with green infrastructure treatments.
Prohibit outdoor watering between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm. and introduce
practical solutions for staff to enforce corrections for over-watered lawns, poorly maintained
systems with unnecessary overspray, and etc. More research is needed to determine what
level of water savings can be realized if all irrigation is shifted to night.
Ensure all City-owned facilities adhere to the Governor’s Executive Order No. 2015-4 and
encourage all governmental facilities located within Moab City limits (Federal, State, and
County) to adhere to the same39.
Study feasibility and effectiveness of allowing winter overflow to recharge the aquifer as high
as possible.
Pursue implementation of a secondary water system for outdoor watering and other
secondary uses to preserve pristine groundwater.
Update Vision 2020 to acknowledge what has been accomplished, and reset targets as part of
the revised General Plan.
The City should work with other governmental users in taking measures to reduce application
of culinary water to large lawn and other planted areas.
In addition to work already done by the City’s Water Department staff, The City should
conduct water usage audits of City and other facilities to determine more efficient water
application and lawn maintenance practices. In addition, the City should continue to consider
alternatives to grass and other high water plants when developing new parks and to re-
landscape “wasted turf” (not playing fields and etc.) in existing park areas. In addition, the City
should work with Moab Irrigation to determine if it is feasible for the City to acquire water
shares. This could potentially reduce the City’s reliance on culinary water for City use, and
add more City control over the use of runoff water for irrigation purposes.
The long-term viability of the Moab Irrigation Company (MIC) should be of concern to the
Council. It has been mentioned several times that the ability of city residents to use MIC water
is important for preservation of culinary water for indoor use. It is important to maintain a
positive relationship with MIC to ensure continued operation of the irrigation system within
city limits. It is also important to recognize that the MIC system, while recently upgraded to a
pressurized system, is an old system with constant maintenance challenges.
Integrate water conservation with issues at the Wastewater Treatment Plant – include
education on composting to minimize use of garbage disposals and create a soil amendment
that helps with landscape water retention, and promote composting toilets. The State of
Arizona has been a leader in innovation in this area.40
39 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
40 Arizona code on “maximum water conservation:”
https://legacy.azdeq.gov/environ/water/engineering/download/rules/oss_403.pdf )
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 31
As stated earlier, 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-Top41, 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 perco lating
into the aquifer, including oil and gas drilling, and vegetation management.
41 A Look at Johnson’s Up-On-Top. http://www.livingrivers.org/pdfs/Johnsons.pdf
MOAB WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2016 32
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
AF/YR
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
square 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 33
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 W orster. 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%20Plan%20System%2010023%20Fina l.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/EPAFinalMoabMemo30September2008.pdf
Water Conservation Plan Update 2021
Proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs
Below is a summary of the proposed goals, policies, programs, and investments contained in
the Water Conservation Plan Update, which comprises the next five years, and sets a
conservation goal to be achieved by 2030. These items are not a hard commitment, but an
intention by the City Council to set a goal and a priority list of actions to achieve it. Water
conservation is a concept with a moving target. As more data becomes available and the effect
of policies becomes apparent, both the goals and the methods can be adjusted accordingly.
GOAL
• Use the same total volume of water in 2030 as we used in 2020
o The City of Moab provided 1,667AF of water in 2020 across all categories
(residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial). Residential outdoor
irrigation used approximately 500AF of the total water use. If this volume were
cut by 50%, even accounting for projected increases in population, the current
water use volume would stay the same as it is in 2020 by 2030.
• This amounts to a goal of 230GPCD by 2030
POLICIES
• Landscaping Ordinance – set water wise landscape standards for new developments
• Greywater Ordinance – require all new buildings be stubbed for greywater re-use
• Emergency Drought Management Plan – strict water-saving measures for extreme
drought situations already in place for when needed
• Water-wise Development Standards – set water-wise building standards for new
development, including renovations and re-development
PROGRAMS
• Turfgrass buy-back – pay residents to replace their turfgrass with water-wise landscape
• Conservation rebates – water bill rebates based on various levels of conservation either
year over year or at set volumes / property (with allowances for special circumstances)
• Offer smart timers and / or moisture meters for residential irrigation systems
• Adopt a leak-fixing penalty in addition to the current leak-fixing incentive
• Proactive outreach and education including changing water bill design, door hangars for
inefficient watering, educational mailings, close coordination with USU extension,
information and resources from local landscape designers, etc
INVESTMENTS
• Invest in smart technologies for City properties including moisture meters and smart
timers for all irrigation systems
• Change all fixtures and appliances on City properties to WaterSense fixtures
• Upgrades / repairs in Capital Improvement Plan & new well development
Page 1 of 5
June 22, 2021
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING
June 22, 2021
The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date. An audio recording of the
meeting is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDW5SoKFL4E.
Joint Moab City Council/Grand County Commission Pre-Council Workshop:
Mayor Emily Niehaus called the workshop to order at 6:00 p.m. In attendance were
Councilmembers Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Mike Duncan, Rani Derasary and Karen Guzman-
Newton. Councilmember Kalen Jones was not present. City staff in attendance were City
Manager Joel Linares, Assistant Manager Carly Castle, Attorney Laurie Simonson, Recorder
Sommar Johnson, Administrative Assistant Kelley McInerney and Finance Director Ben
Billingsley. Also in attendance were Grand County Commission Chair Mary McGann and Grand
County Commissioners Kevin Walker, Trisha Hedin, Jacques Hadler, Gabriel Woytek, Evan
Clapper and Sarah Stock. Grand County Council Administrator Chris Baird also attended.
Kara Dohrenwend from Rim to Rim Restoration presented an update on behalf of the Mill Creek
Community Collaborative (MCCC). A brief history of the group described the need for action to
address impacts from increasing recreational use in Mill Creek Canyon. Dohrenwend explained
the mission of the group to examine and recommend steps to facilitate a quality experience for
Mill Creek canyon visitors in a way that protects the natural and cultural resources of the area
and addresses impacts to nearby neighborhoods. Dohrenwend presented statistics on visitation
and described increased rescue incidents. An overview of outreach and community engagement
was discussed, as well as the results of 2019 and 2020 user surveys to determine community
views regarding the Mill Creek area. Various options were presented as well as suggestions from
MCCC. Dohrenwend explained the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to complete
a separate public process, which could take up to two years. The recommendations of the MCCC
group included a bike path connecting the Mill Creek Parkway to the Sand Flats road,
connection to a proposed shuttle system, construction of a pedestrian bridge, designation of a
trail system within the canyon and completion of archaeological, traffic and law enforcement
assessments. User fees, pipe safes and fee booths were discussed as well as participation on
behalf of the off-road community. Dohrenwend also explained that hydrological elements of Mill
Creek, including water quantity and quality, were not considered as part of the MCCC process.
County Commissioner Stock pointed out none of the management options considered limiting
capacity and Dohrenwend explained the lack of ability to actively enforce capacity limits as well
as the existence of too many access points to the area. County Commissioner Walker brought up
the transfer of ownership of the property from the BLM to mitigate complications due to various
agencies owning parts of the canyon. Parking lots and paving were discussed and
Councilmember Derasary asked about next steps. It was explained that a BLM process would
ensue.
Regular Meeting Call to Order and Attendance:
Mayor Niehaus called the regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. In attendance were
Councilmembers Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan, Jones, Derasary and Guzman-Newton. City staff in
attendance were City Manager Linares, Assistant Manager Castle, Attorney Simonson, Recorder
Johnson, Finance Director Billingsley, Public Works Director Levi Jones, Planner Nora Shepard,
Administrative Assistant McInerney, Arts Director Liz Holland and Parks, Recreation and Trails
Director Annie McVay. Mayor Niehaus led the Pledge of Allegiance. Eighteen members of the
public attended.
Page 2 of 5
June 22, 2021
Citizens to be Heard:
Sara Melnicoff read from a prepared statement about the Mill Creek Community Collaborative
process. She said she appreciated the work of the group. She spoke about the stewardship Moab
Solutions and others have done over the years to protect Mill Creek from overuse. She referred
to an action alternative she called “A+” with recommendations for the future of the Mill Creek
area and emphasized the importance of keeping the area free and open to the public.
Public Hearing:
Councilmember Jones moved to open a public hearing regarding Proposed Resolution 23-
2021: A Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget. Councilmember Derasary
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary,
Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye. Mayor Niehaus opened the public
hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no comments and Mayor Niehaus closed the public hearing.
Administrative Reports:
City Manager Linares discussed options for calling a Special Meeting concerning the Walnut
Lane affordable housing project. Annie McVay was introduced as the new Parks, Recreation and
Trails Director. Arts Manager Holland presented an update of July Fourth events. Public Works
Director Jones presented the 2020 City water quality report. Discussion with Councilmembers
ensued regarding peak demand for water and related supply. Assistant Manager Castle gave a
brief update on House Bill 411 and Moab’s role as an anchor community for renewable energy.
She said Councilmember Jones and Sustainability Director Dunbar-Irwin represent the City.
Mayor and Council Reports:
Mayor Niehaus welcomed City Manager Linares back from leave. She said she was grateful to
staff for the big year they had endured during the pandemic. She touched on several meetings
and activities in which she had participated, including a ground-breaking for the new Four
Corners Behavioral Health campus and an in-person meeting with National Park Service
personnel regarding the timed-entry proposal.
Councilmember Derasary reported on an art project supervised by Bruce Hucko and Arts
Manager Holland which involved children painting a crosswalk with dinosaur footprints near
the school on 400 North. She mentioned several questions the children asked about running the
City government. She also reported that the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) calls continue
to have record-breaking months. She said the EMS department would be converting several
part-time positions into full-time positions. She reported on progress regarding the new EMS
building construction and noted that more ambulance transits were going to Salt Lake City
rather than Grand Junction due to staff shortages in Colorado. Councilmember Derasary
concluded with a report that she had been apprising constituents about the Pack Creek Fire and
remarked that flying drones in an active fire area is illegal and firefighters have to stand down
whenever a drone is in the area. She spoke about fire restrictions and mentioned she was
looking forward to discussions about water.
Councilmember Duncan reported on a proposed large recreational vehicle park on Kane Creek
Road near the river. He said the area is zoned Highway Commercial and the proposed
development would install its own sewer plant. He also mentioned a Utah State University
(USU) advisory committee on which he serves. He said the group has proposed sessions at the
high school to recruit students for “Life After High School.” Duncan concluded with an update
on the cell phone app he is developing to meter noise levels of vehicles.
Page 3 of 5
June 22, 2021
Councilmember Knutson-Boyd mentioned he was interviewed by KZMU radio and the Times-
Independent. She gave an update on the Museum including expanding storage and office space,
a financial plan for the museum and recent upgrades to the facility, which is now open to the
public without reservations. She also mentioned a meeting of the Canyonlands Health Care
Special Service District and noted the track record of no COVID-19 infections amongst the
residents of the Care Center.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported she participated in a rehearsal of the Mill Creek
Community Collaborative presentation. She also reported she attended a presentation about the
Pack Creek Fire and thanked the firefighters. She spoke about pedestrian safety and fatality
rates as they relate to the recent consideration of speed limits. She brought up the Utah League
of Cities and Towns regarding water information and the Governor’s executive order regarding
drought and reduction of water consumption. She mentioned the possibility of getting rebates
for home irrigation controls.
Councilmember Jones reported on a meeting he attended with personnel from the National
Park Service regarding timed entry and traffic congestion. He said the intention was to improve
the visitor experience. Mayor Niehaus asked about a discussion related to local political will to
encourage a timed entry program and Councilmember Jones said the status quo is not tenable
and local impressions have changed toward more acceptance of the program. Councilmember
Duncan asked about staff morale at Arches National Park and Jones said he understood staff
were overwhelmed early in the season. Jones concluded with mention of a Dark Skies meeting
he attended with Sustainability Director Dunbar-Irwin at which strategies for compliance with
the outdoor lighting ordinance were discussed.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Duncan moved to approve minutes from the June 4 and 11, 2021, Special
Meetings and the June 8, 2021, Regular Meeting. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded
the motion. Councilmember Derasary noted edits. The motion passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Duncan, Derasary, Guzman-Newton and Knutson-Boyd voting aye.
Old Business:
Property Tax—Presentation and Discussion
Finance Director Billingsley updated Council on the timeline for the proposed property tax
including public notices, advertising, an informational open house, a Truth in Taxation hearing,
and final budget adoption. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd and Mayor Niehaus asked for
clarification regarding whether taxpayers would see an increase in their November, 2021
property tax bill and the answer was yes. Billingsley offered scenarios for funding levels and
proposed priorities including police, capital improvements and a contingency fund. He also
mentioned the potential to match funds from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) for
public works capital projects such as improvements to Kane Creek Road, 400 East, and the Pack
Creek Bridge on 400 East. Councilmember Jones asked what value of home was being presented
as the “average taxable value” for citizen education examples and Billingsley explained the
taxable value being presented was $150,000. Mayor Niehaus briefly outlined the history of
Moab’s municipal sales tax and Councilmember Derasary requested that questions from the
community be forwarded to the Finance Director prior to the planned open house.
Councilmember Duncan suggested that the public should be apprised of what would be given up
if the property tax is not adopted. Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked for clarification
regarding whether Moab is the only municipality in the state that does not assess a property tax
and it was explained that Moab is the only city that does not fund its police departments from
property tax. Councilmember Derasary brought up other priorities for spending that were
Page 4 of 5
June 22, 2021
suggested in past meetings, including additional planning staff, a shuttle service, sustainability
projects and affordable housing. Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked about establishing a
special service district to fund the police department and City Manager Linares presented pros
and cons.
New Business:
Fiscal Year 2021 Fraud Risk Assessment—Presentation
Finance Director Billingsley explained the State Auditor’s Office requirement for each entity to
complete a self-assessment to form an objective measurement of risk, and that it be presented to
the legislative body in a public meeting. He outlined some minor shortcomings and concluded
by stating the City is at a low level of risk for fraud.
Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget—Approved
Presentation: Finance Director Billingsley presented details of the budget amendment. He
explained impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, grant revenues and accounting adjustments.
Council asked about the USU set-aside, art funding and expenses for the lobbyist.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve Resolution 23-2021 amending
the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and
Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Fiscal Year 2021 Audit Contract—Approved
Presentation: Assistant Manager Castle briefly presented the audit contract process.
Councilmember Derasary noted the EMS audit was recently completed by the proposed firm.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to award the financial audit
services contract to Gilbert and Stewart for fiscal year 2020-2021, not to exceed a maximum of 5
years. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Thompson Townhomes Plat Application—Approved
Presentation: Planner Shepard presented Proposed Resolution 24-2021: A Resolution
Approving a Townhome Plat Application for the Thompson Townhomes, Property Located at
246 E 200 S, Moab. Councilmember Jones noted the plat identified a significant portion for
shared ownership and he asked what role the City would have. Shepard explained the planning
department would review the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve Resolution #24-2021, A
Resolution Approving the Townhome Plat Application for the Thompson Townhomes, property
located at 246 E 200 S, Moab UT. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-
Newton voting aye.
Outdoor Dining Ordinance Amendment—Tabled
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd recused herself and left the Chambers.
Presentation: Planner Shepard presented Proposed Ordinance 2021-13: An Ordinance
Amending the Text of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to Add Regulation for Outdoor Dining
by Amending Sections 17.21 C-2 Commercial Residential Zone, 17.24 C-3 Central Commercial
Zone, 17.27 C-4 General Commercial Zone and 17.31 RC Resort Commercial Zone and by
allowing consideration of parklets in the City Right-of-Way (ROW) by amending Section17.24 C-
3 Central Commercial Zone. Associated definitions will be added to MMC Section 17.06
Definitions. Discussion ensued regarding amendments to the proposed ordinance including
parklets on street corners utilizing the less busy street only, as well as edits to redundant
Page 5 of 5
June 22, 2021
language and considerations, if any, for food trucks and including additional zones in the
ordinance. It was agreed that more clean-up of the proposed ordinance was required and could
be completed quickly.
Motion: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to table Proposed Ordinance 2021-13: An
Ordinance Amending the Text of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to Add Regulation for
Outdoor Dining by Amending Sections 17.21 C-2 Commercial Residential Zone, 17.24 C-3
Central Commercial Zone, 17.27 C-4 General Commercial Zone and 17.31 RC Resort Commercial
Zone and by allowing consideration of parklets in the City Right-of-Way (ROW) by amending
Section17.24 C-3 Central Commercial Zone. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion to table passed 4-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Duncan and
Guzman-Newton voting aye. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd returned after the vote.
Visitor Use Study Matching Grant—Tabled
Presentation: Wayne Freimund from USU presented a grant request for a Visitor Use Study.
He explained the research would inform the area’s leadership regarding how many visitors come
to Moab, what they do here, and where they stay. Mayor Niehaus asked if some of the study
objectives could be amended. Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked if the requested amount
of $36,000 could be negotiated. Councilmember Jones suggested Transient Room Tax (TRT)
funds may be able to pay for the study and requested that the County be asked. Councilmember
Duncan asked for clarification regarding which other entities had been asked to fund the
research and asked what would come of the study results, such as using the data to influence
legislative changes. Councilmember Jones clarified that the proposed matching funds from the
Public Lands Initiative differs from the controversial federal legislation of the same name. After
discussion, it was determined Dr. Freimund should pursue funding from the Travel Council or
County and revisit the proposal to the City at a later date.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to table the requested matching support
grant in the amount of $36,713.53 for Utah State University—Moab’s Visitor Use Study.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion to table passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab:
Motion and vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve bills against the City of
Moab in the amount of $118,229.41. Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-
Newton voting aye.
Adjournment: Councilmember Jones moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember
Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and Mayor Niehaus
adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Page 1 of 1
June 30, 2021
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--DRAFT
SPECIAL MEETING
June 4, 2021
Moab City Council held a Special Meeting on the above date. An audio recording of the meeting
is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPc3L0SamI.
Call to Order and Attendance:
Mayor Emily Niehaus called the Special Meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. In attendance were
Councilmembers Rani Derasary, Karen Guzman-Newton, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Mike Duncan
and Kalen Jones. Staff in attendance were City Manager Joel Linares, Assistant Manager Carly
Castle, Recorder Sommar Johnson, Senior Project Manager Kaitlin Myers, Planner Nora
Shepard, Engineer Chuck Williams, Attorney Laurie Simonson and Finance Director Ben
Billingsley. One member of the media was in attendance.
Walnut Lane Update:
Senior Projects Manager Myers provided an update on the Walnut Lane affordable housing
project. She explained concerns about the contractor, Indie Dwell; due to COVID-19, bonding
issues and supply chain problems, the contractor has been unable to meet the contractual
requirements. Attorney Simonson also briefed Council on options moving forward if there is a
contractual default. It was explained that the City has three years to spend the money bonded
for the project. It was also pointed out the project is eligible for funds designated by the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Workforce affordable housing and the need for City
employee housing in particular were brought up and deliberated. Ongoing maintenance of
existing dwellings at Walnut Lane was remarked on. It was determined the City would allow
Indie Dwell thirty days to cure bonding, performance and other matters before action is taken.
Outdoor Dining and Parklet Code Amendment—Approved
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd recused herself and left the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Presentation: Planner Shepard presented an updated version of Proposed Ordinance
2021-13, an Ordinance Amending the text of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to add
regulation for outdoor dining by amending sections 17.21 C-2 Commercial Residential Zone,
17.24 C-3 Central Commercial Zone, 17.27 C-4 General Commercial Zone, 17.30 Neighborhood
Commercial Zone, and 17.31 RC Resort Commercial Zone and 17.36 Industrial Zone and to allow
consideration of parklets in the City Right-of-Way (ROW) by amending Section17.24 C-3 Central
Commercial Zone. Associated definitions will be added to MMC Section 17.06 Definitions.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve Proposed Ordinance 2021-13,
an Ordinance Amending the text of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to add regulation for
outdoor dining by amending sections 17.21 C-2 Commercial Residential Zone, 17.24 C-3 Central
Commercial Zone, 17.27 C-4 General Commercial Zone, 17.30 Neighborhood Commercial Zone,
and 17.31 RC Resort Commercial Zone and 17.36 Industrial Zone and to allow consideration of
parklets in the City Right-of-Way (ROW) by amending Section17.24 C-3 Central Commercial
Zone. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Adjournment: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to adjourn. Councilmember Jones
seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn was unanimous and Mayor Niehaus adjourned the
meeting at 5:08 p.m.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Page 1 of 1
July 7, 2021
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--DRAFT
SPECIAL MEETING
July 7, 2021
Moab City Council held a Special Meeting on the above date for the purpose of convening an
Executive (Closed) Session.
Mayor Emily Niehaus called the Special Meeting to order at 12:13 p.m. In attendance were
Councilmembers Rani Derasary, Karen Guzman-Newton, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Mike Duncan
and Kalen Jones.
Motions and Votes: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to enter an Executive (Closed)
Session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual or individuals. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0
aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton
voting aye. Mayor Niehaus convened the Executive Session at 12:14 p.m. Councilmember
Guzman-Newton moved to close the Executive Session. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary,
Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye. Mayor Niehaus ended the Executive
Session at 1:32 p.m.
Adjournment: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to adjourn. Councilmember Jones
seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn was unanimous and Mayor Niehaus adjourned the
meeting at 1:32 p.m.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Title: Ordinance 2021-14: An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code, Section 10.04.090 Pertaining To Prima Facie Speed Limits
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s): - Attachment 1 - Ordinance 2021-14 - Attachment 2 – Map of Prima Facie Speed Limit Sign Locations
Recommended Motion: “I move to adopt Ordinance 2021-14, which amends City of Moab Municipal Code section 10.04.090 pertaining to prima facie speed limits.”
Background/Summary: City Council previously directed staff to evaluate speed limits on City roads. Staff then provided several options to adjust and optimize speed limits at two subsequent Council meetings. Many possible actions were discussed at the most recent of the two meetings, held on June 8th. From this meeting, Staff understand that Council’s preferred action was to lower the prima facie speed limit to 20 MPH. Council may still consider other options and direct further action at a later date. The relevant section of City Code currently prescribes a prima facie limit of 30 miles per hour. Ordinance No. 2021-14 will change the text of this code section to lower the prima facie speed limit to 20 miles per hour. Staff has prepared a signing plan (Attachment 2) that will be implemented to advise the travelling public of the changes if Council passes the 20 mph prime facie speed limit. The signing plan adds new signs at 14 key locations advising drivers that the City speed Limit is 20 mph unless otherwise posted.
1
CITY OF MOAB ORDINANCE #2021-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MOAB MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION
10.04.090 PERTAINING TO PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS
The following findings describe the intent and purpose of this ordinance:
a. The heretofore prima facie speed limit was thirty miles per hour.
b. There exist City streets with no posted speed limit.
c. Council desires to set the speed limit of these streets to twenty miles per hour.
Therefore, the City of Moab enacts as follows:
The City Council replaces the following language in the Code:
10.04
Vehicle Code
10.04.90 Prima facie speed limit.
B. In the absence of any speed limit sign designating a speed limit applicable thereto, the prima
facie speed limit shall be twenty miles per hour.
PASSED AND APPROVED by a majority of the City of Moab City Council. This ordinance
shall take effect immediately upon passage.
SIGNED:
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Date
ATTEST:
Sommar Johnson, Recorder
D
o
c
A
l
l
e
n
D
r
.
He
l
l
'
s
R
e
v
e
n
g
e
J
e
e
p
T
r
a
i
l
Pear Tree La
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
Murphy
L
n
O
l
d
D
u
m
p
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
L
n
Sa
n
d
F
l
a
t
s
R
d
Pa
r
k
R
d
W 200 South St
Nob Hill
Ki
v
a
D
r
.
Bowen Cir.
Nichols Lane
Sundial Drive
Westwood Dr
Au
s
t
i
n
D
r
.
Arc
h
e
s
D
r
Park Dr
Pa
r
k
A
v
e
Palisade Dr
Williams Way
Ov
e
r
l
o
o
k
R
d
Jefferson St.
Gala Ave.
Bartlett St
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
D
r
Mc Gill Blvd
An
t
i
q
u
i
t
y
L
n
Mulberry Ln
Chinle Ave
Sa
g
e
A
v
e
Wingate Ave
Juan Ct
10
0
W
e
s
t
S
t
D
a
v
i
d
C
t
.
Grand Ave
C
a
n
o
n
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
.
Dogw
o
o
d
A
v
e
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
.
Pueblo Ct.
Bartlett Cir
Carlos Ct
Ra
i
n
b
o
w
D
r
400 East St
Red Devil
D
r
Andrea Ct
Op
a
l
A
v
e
Du
c
h
e
s
n
e
A
v
e
200 North St
300 South St
Moenkopi Ave
Wa
s
a
t
c
h
A
v
e
Ar
n
e
l
L
n
Cedar
A
v
e
Uraniu
m
A
v
e
Mc
K
a
y
P
l
.
Oliver St
West Center St
L
a
s
a
l
A
v
e
Bo
w
l
i
n
g
A
l
l
e
y
L
n
Minor Ct
Rosalie Ct
Pack Creek Dr.
S
a
n
M
i
g
u
e
l
A
v
e
Jo
n
n
y
W
a
y
Hillside Dr
St
e
w
a
r
t
C
y
n
.
Al
b
e
r
t
a
C
t
Ro
w
e
n
a
C
t
Orchard Way
Loveridge
Dr
Sinda C
i
r
c
l
e
Sage Val
l
e
y
C
i
r
N. Mi Vida Dr.
Cr
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
Ta
y
l
o
r
A
v
e
Red Valley Ct.
C
e
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
T
o
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
Nava
j
o
C
i
r
Madison
W
a
y
Adams
Ave.
Ute
Cir
Apa
c
h
e
C
i
r
W. Hale Ave
Sh
i
e
l
d
s
L
a
Maxine Ave
Cottonwood Ln
Emma Blvd
Gr
a
n
d
C
i
r
Cer
m
a
k
R
d
M
i
V
i
d
a
D
r
Oak St
Power Hou
s
e
L
n
Holyoak Ln
50
0
W
e
s
t
S
t
400 North St
Sand Flats Rd.
40
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
Locust Ln
Marcus Ct
Park Dr
10
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
-
U
S
H
w
y
.
1
9
1
Birch
A
v
e
Rose Tree Lane
Aspe
n
A
v
e
20
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
Kane Creek Blvd
40
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
100 South St
200 North St
Walnut Ln
La
n
c
e
A
v
e
Bittle Ln
Park Dr
10
0
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
u
n
t
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
U.
S
.
1
9
1
100 North St
Hel
l
'
s
R
e
v
e
n
g
e
J
e
e
p
T
r
a
i
l
U
S
H
w
y
.
1
9
1
30
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
H
o
b
b
s
S
t
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
D
r
.
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
/
U
.
S
.
1
9
1
La Sal
R
d
200 South St
200 South St
Pack Creek
D
r
.
50
0
W
e
s
t
S
t
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
Wa
l
k
e
r
S
t
Wa
g
n
e
r
A
v
e
.
Center St
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
D
r
Tu
s
h
e
r
S
t
Kachina Way
Rockridge Access Rd
San Juan Dr
H
u
n
t
r
i
d
g
e
C
i
r
.
Topaz Cir
Sunsh
i
n
e
C
i
r
Colorado Ave.
Mc
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
B
l
v
d
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
Ct.
Gr
a
n
n
y
C
t
.
Winesap Cir
Po
r
t
a
l
V
i
s
t
a
L
o
o
p
Em
m
a
B
l
v
d
C
l
i
f
f
v
i
e
w
D
r
10
0
E
a
s
t
S
t
Bo
u
l
d
e
r
A
v
e
Mill
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
N. M
i
V
i
d
a
D
r
.
U
S
H
w
y
.
1
9
1
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
Bl
u
e
H
e
r
o
n
C
t
Byrd Ave
Care Campus Dr
Or
c
h
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
L
n
S
e
c
r
e
t
C
o
v
e
C
t
Dr
a
g
o
n
f
l
y
T
r
l
Peacock L
n
Pe
a
c
h
P
a
t
h
Ma
r
i
p
o
s
a
C
t
Bonita
S
t
.
Re
d
S
a
n
d
s
R
d
A
-
1
A
v
e
Lo
o
k
o
u
t
C
t
Tin
a
L
n
200 South St
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
C
t
.
Dream Dr.
Didar Charles 6/30/2021
Credit:Moab City
100 North
200 North
300 North
Draft Prima Facie Speed Limit Signs City Limits
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Title: Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the City Planning Commission
Staff Presenter: n/a
Attachment(s): - Letter of intent
Recommended Motion: I move to confirm the mayoral appointment of Brityn Ballard to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Her term will expire December 31, 2024.
Background/Summary: Per Title 2 of the Moab City Code, the Mayor appoints, and the Council confirms the members of the City’s Planning Commission.
Brityn P. Ballard
24 June 2021
Planning Commision Letter of Interest
My name is Brityn Ballard and I am interested in being on the Moab City Planning
Commission. I am a nursing student and I work at the Canyonlands Care Center, but
my main passion in life is trying to better our community. I talk a lot about issues
concerning Moabs future with my friends and family, but it is time to actually do
something about it. The best way I can think of doing that is by learning as much as I
can and providing quality input.
I recognize the big and small dilemmas we have as a community, some of the
main ones being affordable housing, sustainable living, and responsible touring. I would
also like to focus on helping small businesses thrive, and the management of traffic. I
take my time listening and gathering all the information I can from as many people as
possible before I make decisions. And I think that is crucial when dealing with situations
that affect so many people. I am beyond grateful for this opportunity to be a part of
Moabs future, and I will strive to be a valuable member of the commission.
Thank you so much for your time,
Brityn P. Ballard
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Title: Possible Award of a Contract for Construction of the Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s): -Attachment 1 – Bid Opening Summary Sheet and Recommendation
Recommended Motion: “I move to award the Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project construction contract to Harrison Field Services in the amount of $2,416,528.03”
Background/Summary: The City solicited bids for construction of the Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project, for which staff received three bids on the due date of July 1st. The lowest bid was submitted by Harrison Field Services in the amount of $2,416,528.03. Funding for this project is from the Water Bond that Council approved earlier this year. Staff and consulting engineering firm Civil Science, Inc. have reviewed the bid and determined it to be fair and reasonable, and recommend award of the construction contract to Harrison.
Pa
g
e
1
www.civilscience.com
July 7, 2021
Chuck Williams
City of Moab
217 E. Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
RE: Engineer’s Recommendation for Award of Bid
City of Moab – Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
Dear Mr. Williams,
After reviewing the Bids received on July 1, 2021, for the City of Moab – Mill Creek Drive Water
Improvements Project it was determined that Harrison Field Services was the low responsible, responsive
Bidder for the Project per the Instructions to Bidders. We therefore recommend award of the Project to
Harrison Field Services in the amount of $2,416,528.03 as Contractor for the subject Project with the
understanding that there will be an initial project Change Order to reduce the project scope and cost.
I have attached the Bid Tabulation, an evaluation of the Bidder’s Documents, and a Notice of Award, as
outlined in the Contract Documents for the Project.
If City of Moab chooses to accept our recommendation, please execute copies of the Notice of Intent of
Award and we will forward them to Harrison Field Services for acknowledgement.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Kelvin C. Smith, P.E.
Project Engineer
Civil Science
Lehi, UT ● St. George, UT ● Salt Lake City, UT ● Las Vegas, NV ● Twin Falls, ID ● Dickinson, ND ● Williston, ND ● Wooster, OH
CITY OF MOAB
MILL CREEK WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Bid Opening Date:
UNIT COST AMOUNT UNIT COST AMOUNT UNIT COST AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS 40,769.72$ 40,769.72$ 334,000.00$ 334,000.00$ 323,866.24$ 323,866.24$
2 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS & SIGN 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 9,013.27$ 9,013.27$
3 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 68,280.00$ 68,280.00$ 227,500.00$ 227,500.00$ 411,548.27$ 411,548.27$
4 TEMPORARY CONTROLS 1 LS 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 45,305.74$ 45,305.74$
5 QUALITY CONTROL & TESTING 1 LS 40,250.00$ 40,250.00$ 33,650.00$ 33,650.00$ 37,014.42$ 37,014.42$
6 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT & STAKING 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 43,556.52$ 43,556.52$
7 UTILITY COORDINATION 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 12,274.72$ 12,274.72$
8 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 17,284.57$ 17,284.57$
9 PAVEMENT REMOVAL (PLAN QTY)77345 SF 0.50$ 38,672.50$ 0.60$ 46,407.00$ 0.53$ 40,992.85$
10 CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL 531 LF 9.60$ 5,097.60$ 15.00$ 7,965.00$ 5.18$ 2,750.58$
11 SIDEWALK REMOVAL 1987 SF 2.25$ 4,470.75$ 4.00$ 7,948.00$ 1.35$ 2,682.45$
12 6" PVC C900 WATER MAIN 305 LF 36.50$ 11,132.50$ 70.00$ 21,350.00$ 61.94$ 18,891.70$
13 8" PVC C900 WATER MAIN 439 LF 63.50$ 27,876.50$ 90.00$ 39,510.00$ 90.00$ 39,510.00$
14 12" PVC C900 WATER MAIN 11758 LF 90.00$ 1,058,220.00$ 88.00$ 1,034,704.00$ 93.75$ 1,102,312.50$
15 INSULATED WATER MAIN WITH BRIDGE SUPPORTS 1 LS 168,739.52$ 168,739.52$ 57,500.00$ 57,500.00$ 120,897.79$ 120,897.79$
16 6" GATE VALVE 12 EA 2,856.00$ 34,272.00$ 1,825.00$ 21,900.00$ 1,575.54$ 18,906.48$
17 8" GATE VALVE 8 EA 2,614.00$ 20,912.00$ 2,350.00$ 18,800.00$ 2,084.00$ 16,672.00$
18 10" GATE VALVE 1 EA 3,587.00$ 3,587.00$ 3,363.00$ 3,363.00$ 3,176.76$ 3,176.76$
19 12" GATE VALVE 35 EA 4,082.00$ 142,870.00$ 3,900.00$ 136,500.00$ 3,521.57$ 123,254.95$
20 WATER MAIN LINE LOOP (CONTINGENCY ITEM)6 EA 6,459.00$ 38,754.00$ 11,000.00$ 66,000.00$ 8,358.32$ 50,149.92$
21 CONNECTION & TIE IN 1 LS 2,760.00$ 2,760.00$ 60,200.00$ 60,200.00$ 8,671.03$ 8,671.03$
22 3/4" SERVICE TAP 41 EA 380.00$ 15,580.00$ 750.00$ 30,750.00$ 931.55$ 38,193.55$
23 1" SERVICE TAP 2 EA 407.00$ 814.00$ 800.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,000.17$ 2,000.34$
24 3/4" POLYETHYLENE SERVICE LINE 1730 LF 12.50$ 21,625.00$ 22.00$ 38,060.00$ 16.12$ 27,887.60$
25 1" POLYETHYLENE SERVICE LINE 65 LF 13.00$ 845.00$ 24.00$ 1,560.00$ 26.67$ 1,733.55$
26 3/4" METER AND BOX 37 EA 820.00$ 30,340.00$ 1,500.00$ 55,500.00$ 786.27$ 29,091.99$
27 1" METER AND BOX 2 EA 1,090.00$ 2,180.00$ 1,900.00$ 3,800.00$ 789.75$ 1,579.50$
28 FIRE HYDRANT 12 EA 4,750.00$ 57,000.00$ 5,800.00$ 69,600.00$ 5,607.02$ 67,284.24$
29 FROST FREE HYDRANT 1 EA 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,625.92$ 1,625.92$
30 6" PRV W/ 2" BYPASS 1 EA 45,514.00$ 45,514.00$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00$ 42,171.61$ 42,171.61$
31 AIR RELEASE ASSEMBLY 1 EA 7,642.00$ 7,642.00$ 9,400.00$ 9,400.00$ 9,500.30$ 9,500.30$
32 FLOWABLE BACKFILL (CONTINGENCY ITEM)32 CY 140.00$ 4,480.00$ 200.00$ 6,400.00$ 161.85$ 5,179.20$
33 IMPORT PIPE ZONE MATERIAL (CONTINGENCY ITEM)800 CY 22.92$ 18,336.00$ 32.00$ 25,600.00$ 64.33$ 51,464.00$
34 2.5' TYPE A CURB & GUTTER WITH BASE 531 LF 39.00$ 20,709.00$ 40.00$ 21,240.00$ 96.04$ 50,997.24$
35 SIDEWALK WITH BASE 1987 SF 10.92$ 21,698.04$ 8.00$ 15,896.00$ 33.73$ 67,021.51$
36 WATERWAY WITH BASE 210 SF 22.85$ 4,798.50$ 22.00$ 4,620.00$ 52.12$ 10,945.20$
37 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT T-PATCH (PLAN QTY)77135 SF 5.04$ 388,760.40$ 5.60$ 431,956.00$ 5.37$ 414,214.95$
38 PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT 1 LS 23,862.00$ 23,862.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 11,286.28$ 11,286.28$
39 RESTORE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS 17,600.00$ 17,600.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 95,602.88$ 95,602.88$
TOTAL 2,416,528.03$ TOTAL 3,017,279.00$ TOTAL 3,376,512.62$
QTY
July 1, 2021
TOTAL
HARRISON FIELD SERVICES SILVER SPUR CONST. HANK WILLIAMS INC.ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT
BID TABULATION
7/7/2021
CITY OF MOAB - MILL CREEK DRIVE WATER
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Bid Opening Date:
July 1, 2021
Bid Form X Acknowledged Addendum #1 X Acknowledged Addendum #1 X Acknowledged Addendum #1
Bid Bond X Westfield Insurance Company on
Cicular 570 List X Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company
on Cicular 570 List X United Fire & Casualty Company on
Cicular 570 List
Contractor's
License No. X 6588796-5501 (E100) X 5841209-5501 (E100) X 6396264-5501 (E100)
Moab Business
License X Submitted Grand Co. Business Lic. - Previously Held
WIP Limit / WIP X 6M / 1M X 20M / 4M X 9M / 2.2M
Previous
Experience X Included X Included X Included
List of
Subcontractors X
Asphalt - LeGrand Johnson
Concrete - Wall Contractors
Concrete - Jaric Robinson
Striping - Peck Striping
Boring - HDDWILLCO
Core Bridge Abutment - Kleen Kut
Concrete
X
Traffic Control - Barricade Services
SWPPP - Horizon Environmental
Services
QC & Testing - Rocky Mt QC
Survey - Flint Land Surveying
X
Paving - LeGrand Johnson
Traffic Control - Barricade Services
Survey - Jones & DeMille
QC - Yeh & Associates
Concrete - Wall Contractors
List of Suppliers X
Pipe & Fittings - Mountainland
Aggregate - LeGrand Johnson
Pre-Cast - Geneva Pipe
X
Pipe, Fittings, Valves - Core & Main
Backfill, Pipe Zone, Road base, Asphalt -
LeGrand Johnson
X Pipe - Grand Junction Winwater
Aggregate - LeGrand Johnson
Pre-Bid
Attendance X X X
BIDDER DOCUMENT REVIEW
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
HARRISON FIELD SERVICES SILVER SPUR CONSTRUCTION WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION
CONTRATORS
SUBMITTED / COMMENT SUBMITTED / COMMENT SUBMITTED / COMMENT
City of Moab Civil Science Infrastructure, Inc.
Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project Page 22
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD
TO: ____Harrison Oilfield Services, Inc.__________
____PO Box 1087________________________
____Moab, UT 84532_____________________
Project: Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
The OWNER has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above described Work in response to its
Advertisement for Bids called: Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project
You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted for items in the amount of:
$2,416,528.03.
You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice of Intent to Award to the OWNER.
Dated this 7th day of July 2021.
OWNER:__City of Moab_____________________
By:_______________________________________
Title:_____________________________________
ACCEPTANCE OF AWARD
Receipt of the above Notice of Intent to Award is hereby acknowledged on
this _______day of__________, 20___.
By:_______________________________________
Title:______________________________________
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Title: Award of a Task Order for Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project Construction Administration
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s): - Attachment 1 – Construction Administration Task Order
Recommended Motion: “I move to approve the attached Civil Science, Inc. task order for a consulting services agreement to conduct construction administration services for the Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project in the amount of $72,800.”
Background/Summary: Civil Science, Inc. developed the construction documents for the Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project. Since that time, the City has solicited and received bids for the construction of the project. Notice of intent to award for construction is scheduled for this same Council meeting. Due to the scale of the project, staff have asked Civil Science, Inc. to prepare a task order for a consulting services agreement to assist in conducting construction administration services (attached). The task order fee is $72,800.00 for these services. Staff recommend approval of the task order.
Pa
g
e
1
www.civilscience.com
1453 S. Dixie Drive, Suite 150
St. George, UT 84770
Office: (435) 986-0100
Fax: (435) 986-4046
Task Order No. 2021-1
Date June 9, 2021
Project Name Mill Creek Drive Water Improvements Project – Construction Administration Services
This Task Order No. 2021-1 is issued pursuant to our Agreement dated May 28, 2019 and unless otherwise
specified herein, the performance of services hereunder and the payment therefore shall be subject to the
terms and conditions of said Agreement. The services authorized hereunder are described below.
Task Order Fee $72,800.00
Task Order Fee Type: ☐ Fixed Price (Lump Sum) ☒ Hourly (T&M)
Task Order Estimate of Time: From 08/01/2021 to 02/01/2022
This Task Order incorporates the Exhibits noted below:
☒ Exhibit A – Description of Services
ACCEPTANCE OF TASK ORDER:
CIVIL SCIENCE, INC. (Consultant) CITY OF MOAB (Department)
Civil Science, Inc.
Attn: Cody Howick, PE
1453 S Dixie Dr., Suite 150
St. George, UT 84770
(435) 986-0100
chowick@civilscience.com
City of Moab
Attn: Chuck Williams, PE
217 E Center St.
Moab, UT 84532
(435) 259-4941
cwilliams@moabcity.org
BY: BY:
TITLE: Office Manager TITLE: City Engineer
DATE: DATE:
REPRESENTATIVE: Cody Howick REPRESENTATIVE: Chuck Williams
TASK ORDER
Consulting Services Agreement
Lehi, UT ● St. George, UT ● Salt Lake City, UT ● Las Vegas, NV ● Twin Falls, ID ● Idaho Falls, ID ● Williston, ND ● Wooster, OH
Pa
g
e
2
www.civilscience.com
BACKGROUND
Civil Science (CS) completed the engineering design and submitted final construction drawings and the bid
package to the City in April of 2020. Due to various reasons, the project was postponed for a time period.
Most recently the City has elected to move forward with bidding and construction of the project. CS is
currently under contract through the bidding phase and once construction begins the City is seeking
assistance with construction administration of the Project. It is anticipated that the construction period will
be from August 2021 to January of 2022 based on the time periods in the bid documents.
SCOPE OF WORK
Based on the Background outlined above, CS will provide the following professional services where tasks
will include:
1. Provide general administration of construction contract: Consult with the City and act as City’s
representative as provided in the Construction Contract.
2. Receive, review and determine acceptability of any and all schedules that the Contractor is required
to submit.
3. Conduct and attend bi-weekly construction progress meetings to coordinate the work.
4. Provide observation as an experienced and qualified design professional the progress of
Contractor’s executed work and determine in general if the Work is proceeding in accordance with
the Construction Contract Documents.
5. Provide clarifications and/or interpretations to the Contract Documents, Drawings, and
Specifications and answer questions related to the work.
6. Issue and prepare Field Orders requiring minor changes in the work.
7. Recommend and prepare Change Orders, as appropriate.
8. Review and approve or take other appropriate action with respect to shop drawings, samples,
submittals and other required shop drawings, samples, and other required Contractor submittals.
9. Review certificates of inspections, tests, and approvals.
10. Review Contractor’s application for payments and accompanying supporting documentation.
11. Prepare and issue Notice of Substantial Completion.
12. Issue punch lists and notices of defective work as required.
13. Prepare and issue Notice of Final Acceptance and recommend final payment to the Contractor.
14. Provide electronic copies of construction phase documents to the City at the conclusion of the
Project in electronic format.
15. Provide other construction phase services requested by the City and as allowed by available budget.
EXHIBIT A
Description of Services
Pa
g
e
3
www.civilscience.com
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions apply to the terms and conditions of this proposal:
1. The construction period will comprise of approximately 180 days.
2. The City will be responsible for all on-site inspections.
3. CS will work with City Engineer and staff to assist with various aspects of construction administration
and documentation, any work produced by the City staff will be reviewed by CS prior to issuance to
the Contractor.
4. Site visits and observations by the Project Manager/Engineer during progress meetings are not
intended to be exhaustive or to extend to every aspect of the Work or to involve detailed inspections
of the Work, but rather are to be limited to spot checking, selective sampling, and similar methods
of general observation of the Work based on professional judgment.
5. The Project Manager/Engineer will attend and conduct a bi-weekly construction progress meetings
where the meetings will be on site once per month and the other will be held virtually.
6. It is assumed the Project Manager/ Engineer will make eight (8) trips to the site (pre-construction
+ 1 per month + final inspection)
7. The fee shown above is based upon approximately 500 man hours of work. See attached Exhibit C
for breakdown of hours per task.
FEE
CS proposes to complete the Scope of Work outlined above as follows:
Task Description Fee Fee Type Comments
Construction Administration $72,800 Hourly
Fee given as a budgetary amount
based upon the anticipated level of
effort (~ 500 man-hours)
Professional fees shown are not to exceed unless upon written authorization from the City. Professional
services rendered for the Hourly Fee Type will be completed by CS at the rates and fees given in the attached
Exhibit B.
Pa
g
e
4
www.civilscience.com
LABOR RATES – Services provided by CS personnel will be invoiced at the unit rates identified below:
Labor Category Hourly
Labor Rate1
Labor Category Hourly
Labor Rate1
Engineer I $96.00 Technician I $79.00
Engineer II $112.00 Technician II $90.00
Engineer III $129.00 Technician III $106.00
Engineer IV $139.00 Technician IV $122.00
Engineer V $152.00 Technician V $133.00
Engineer VI $170.00 Technician VI $140.00
Survey I $74.00 Senior Project Manager I $152.00
Survey II $90.00 Senior Project Manager II $165.00
Survey III $110.00 Admin I $62.00
Survey IV $129.00 Admin II $75.00
Survey V $142.00 Admin III $99.00
Survey VI $155.00 Admin IV $120.00
Survey Crew – 1-Man $118.00 Admin V $150.00
Survey Crew – 2-Man $180.00 Clerical I $56.00
DIRECT REIMBURSABLE RATES:
TIME CHARGES: Time reporting for all office personnel is based upon actual time in office. Time reporting for all field work is based upon actual
field work plus travel time to and from assigned office location. Time billed in 15 minutes increments.
SUBCONTRACTS: General subcontracts, excluding consultant services, will be invoiced at cost plus a 15% handling charge to cover administrative
costs associated with management and processing of the subcontracts.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS: Expenses for in-house services such as computer usage, copying, and reprographics, are billed at a fixed rate or unit prices
whichever is applicable and as agreed upon. Specialized instrumentation, mobile laboratories, and related equipment are billed at fixed daily or
weekly rate depending on the period of usage. Rate schedules are available upon request. Costs for project specific supplie s or travel related
expenses (lodging, meals, airfare, vehicle rental, etc.) are invoiced at the cost plus a 1 5% handling charge or as agreed upon.
AUDIT PRIVILEGES: All job audit privileges of CLIENT will extend only to review, and approval of monthly invoices submitted by CS to CLIENT.
Invoices prepared and submitted by CS will include copies of source documents of all expenditure s including: time, travel, subcontracts, supplies,
equipment, materials, or premiums. The CLIENT may review, debate, or qualify items for payment at the time of invoice review and approval and
payment of invoice. CLIENT waves post job audit privileges beyond invoice approval. CS will not retain job related support documents or any other
billing documents beyond the periodic period, review period, and collection by CS of invoices submitted.
ESTIMATES: Estimates are provided to the CLIENT for budgeting purposes only and are not an agreement by CS to perform the services for a
lump-sum, fixed fee, or not to exceed price unless otherwise provided for in the contract. CS reserves the right to change rates used on rate-
based reimbursable contracts.
Mileage $ 0.56 / mile
Full Day Per-Diem (as necessary and agreed upon) $ 55 / person / day
Partial Day Per-Diem (as necessary and agreed upon) $ 41 / person / day
Lodging (as necessary and agreed upon) $ Cost / Night + 15% Mark Up
Outside Consultants / Subconsultants $ Cost + 15% Mark Up
Other Expenses Occurred $ Cost + 15% Mark Up
EXHIBIT B
CS Standard Unit Rates and Fee Schedule (2/2021)
1 Rates change annually at beginning of year and may change on other occasions
Task
No.Task Description HR $HR $HR $HR $Miles $Night
s $Days $
001 Project Management - Setup, Invoicing, Tracking, Reporting, etc.14 1,700$ 1,666$ -$ -$ -$ 8 1,216$ -$ -$ 6 450$ -$ -$ -$
002 Pre-Construction Meeting 22 3,900$ 3,298$ 647$ -$ -$ 20 3,040$ 2 258$ -$ -$ 700 392$ 1 200$ 1 55$
003 Construction Progress Meetings 156 25,800$ 21,918$ 3,882$ -$ -$ 78 11,856$ 78 10,062$ -$ -$ 4,200 2,352$ 6 1,200$ 6 330$
004 Issue & Administer Contract Documents 9 1,000$ 1,025$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 129$ 8 896$ -$ -$ -$ -$
005 Review & Return Submittals 40 4,300$ 4,320$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 1,032$ 24 2,688$ 8 600$ -$ -$ -$
006 Answer Questions & Issue Clarifications 130 17,400$ 17,368$ -$ -$ -$ 26 3,952$ 104 13,416$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
007 Issue Work Change Directives 64 8,500$ 8,532$ -$ -$ -$ 12 1,824$ 52 6,708$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
008 Review & Submit Partial Pay Requests 18 2,300$ 2,322$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 2,322$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
009 Issue Change Orders 18 2,500$ 2,460$ -$ -$ -$ 6 912$ 12 1,548$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
010 Final Inspection & Issue Punchlist 24 4,200$ 3,556$ 647$ -$ -$ 20 3,040$ 4 516$ -$ -$ 700 392$ 1 200$ 1 55$
011 Project Closeout Documents 13 1,200$ 1,177$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 129$ 4 448$ 8 600$ -$ -$ -$
Total 508 72,800$ 67,642$ 5,176$ -$ -$ 170 25,840$ 280 36,120$ 36 4,032$ 22 1,650$ 5,600 3,136$ 8 1,600$ 8 440$
Mill Creek Drive Waterline Extension
Moab City
Hour Derivation & Cost
Mileage
(per mile)
Lodging
(per night)
Full Per-Diem
(per person
per day)
$ 112.00 $ 129.00 $ 152.00
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
a
b
l
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
a
b
l
e
S
u
b
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
$ 0.56 $ 200.00 $ 55.00
Jodi Bennett
Admin II
$ 75.00
Cody
Howick
Engineer IIIEngineer V Engineer II
Kelvin Smith
BUDGET / FEE SUMMARY
Hours Total
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE
L
a
b
o
r
LABOR AMOUNT
Austin
Wilcox
EXHIBIT C