water briefing - home - washington county water ... · 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030...

Water Briefing March 27, 2015

• Water Conditions and Availability

• Utah Economy

• Water Resource Risks

• Water Resource Stability

• Lake Powell Pipeline

• Funding

• Q&A

Overview

Water Conditions and Availability Southern Utah

Current Washington County Water Supplies

WCWCD Per Capita Water Use 2010

KCWCD Per Capita Water Use 2010

M&I Water Demand Forecast

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year.

FACT: Utah was the seventh

fastest-growing state in

the nation from 2013-

2014, down from

second fastest the year

prior. North Dakota

continues to hold the

top spot for growth.

Note: Calculations exclude the District of Columbia.

CONSIDER: Due to the relative size of

the state, Utah’s

incremental population

growth from 2013 to 2014

was nearly three times

that of North Dakota’s.

+15,625

+40,115

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year.

Population 2004-2014

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Applied Analysis, Intercensal years have been estimated.

Population 2004-2014

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

+20.4%

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Applied Analysis, Intercensal years have been estimated.

Population Growth State Comparisons | 2013-2014

t Virg

United States: 0.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates as of July 1 of each year, 2013-2014

Utah’s Projected

Population Growth

Utah’s population

is projected to

double by 2060

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2013

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Historic Population Projected Population

Washington County’s population growth

Population is

projected to

quadruple by 2060

Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2013

Historical Projections Washington County

“St. George, Utah set to be one of the

fastest-growing areas.”

Wall Street Journal

Cities in South, West to Grow Faster

Kathleen Madigan

June 22, 2014

Non-Permanent Residents

Entity

Permanent

Population

(% of Total)

Permanent

Population

(% of Total)

Permanent

Population

(2010) (3)

Permanent

Population

(2010)

Population

(2010)

Washington

County

73% 27% 138,530 51,237 189,767

Kane County 41% 59% 6,740 9,669 16,439

Notes: (1)Source of data: (WCWCD 2007b). (2)Source of data: (Noel 2008).Data are for parcels, not population. (3)Source of data: DWRe M&I Supply and Use Reports (DWRe 2013a, DWRe 2013b).

Tourists

County Average Annual Tourist Estimate(1)

Washington County 16,013,000

Kane County 465,000

Notes: (1)Average annual tourists = (# hotel rooms) × (occupancy rate) × (1.5 people per room) × (365 days per year).

Source: Dixie Convention Center 2007; Hallisey 2007.

Employment 2004-2014

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment-Based Employment, Seasonally Adjusted

Employment Growth by Sector Year-over-Year

10,000

11,600

Other Services

Mining & Logging

Information

Manufacturing

Financial Activities

Professional & Business Services

Education & Health Services

Leisure & Hospitality

Government

Construction

Trade, Transportation & Utilities

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2013 vs December 2014, Not Seasonally Adjusted

Net Job Growth:

+50,700

Employment Growth State Comparisons | 2013-2014

United States: 2.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment-Based Employment Growth, December 2013 vs. December 2014, Not Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate 2004-2014

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate State Comparisons | December 2014

t Virg

United States: 5.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Seasonally Adjusted

Personal Income 2004-Q3 2013

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,‘14 is an average of Q1-Q3 2014

Personal Income 2004-Q3 2013

$88.3 B

$110.8 B

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

+25.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,‘14 is an average of Q1-Q3 2014

Personal Income Per Capita State Comparisons | 2013

$36,640

t Virg

United States: $44,765

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Taxable Retail Sales

'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Taxable Retail Sales

$36.5 B

$47.4 B

'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

+30.0%

Source: Forbes Magazine, Online Edition 11/12/2014

Utah Heads the Best States for

Business 2014

“Leading the way is Utah, which

previously ranked first between

2010 and 2012 before dropping

to third last year…Utah’s

economy expanded 2.4% a year

over the past five years—fifth

best in the U.S. It is the only state

to rank in the top 10 in five of the

six main categories we used to

determine the Best States.”

“Twelve years ago, we didn’t see Utah as

a competitor at all.”

- Tom Clark, CEO, Metro Denver Economic

Development Corp.

Source: The Denver Post, Online Edition 10/19/2014

Source: WalletHub.com, 9/23/2014

Utah is the Happiest State in the Country

• #1 in job satisfaction

• #1 in lowest median number of hours worked per week

• #1 for volunteerism

• #1 for lowest divorce rate

Utah’s Competitive Advantage

• Among the strongest economies in the United States

• The most diversified economy of its size in the United States

• Strong cluster development and commercialization of research, with universities being a major driver

• High rates of population growth, but more importantly, population retention

Gallons Per Capita Per Day

Washington County

Water Consumption (Public Supply) vs. Precipitation

Utah Counties

Source: USGS and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Gallons Per Capita Per Day

Source: USGS and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

Washington County

Water Consumption (Domestic Supply) vs. Precipitation

Utah Counties

Major Uses of the State’s Total Precipitation

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources

2.2% 3.8%

Natural Environment/ GroundwaterRecharge

Agricultural Depletions

Municipal & Industrial Depletions

Wetlands/Reservoir Depletions

Net Outflow (includes flow to GSL)

Potential Developable Supply

Water Productivity (in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

$37 $39

World Utah Nevada United States California

Source: The World Bank, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, Applied Analysis

Water Productivity – Exc. Irrigation (in GDP Per Cubic Meter of Freshwater)

United States Nevada Utah California

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, Applied Analysis

Use of Diverted Water

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources

Agriculture

Residential indoor use

Residential outdooruse

Commercial, industrial,institutional

Utah is one of the

driest states in the

nation and currently

consumes 253 billion

gallons of water

each year.

Source: The Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and Applied Analysis

CONSIDER:

With the state’s population

expected to grow by

another 2.9 million people

by 2060, the state will need

to be able to deliver an

additional 244 billion

gallons of water.

CURRENT

CONSUMPTION

DEMAND

BY 2060

INCREMENTAL

WATER REQUIRED

Future Water Demand In Billons of Gallons

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Water Supply for Utah Water Demand for Utah

Forecasted Water Shortfall 2000 - 2060

Water Supply

736,300

Water Shortfall

749,700

Required Water Resource Investment

$14.7 Billion

New Resource Development

$17.9 Billion

Repair and Replacement

$32.7 Billion

Required Investment

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

State Water Infrastructure Plan

• $32.7 billion needed by 2060

New Development

$14.8 billion Repair & Replacement

$17.9 billion

Utah’s Economic Potential

Current Values (253 BILLION

GALLONS)

Potential in 2060 (WITH ONLY

EXISTING WATER

RESOURCES)

Conservative

Scenario (10% CONSERVATION)

Mid-Case

Aggressive

Gross State

Product $136 Billion $202 Billion $355 Billion $407 Billion $492 Billion

Population 3.1 Million 3.3 Million 5.2 Million 6.0 Million 7.2 Million

Households 701,281 1,039,745 1,830,279 2,098,412 2,534,233

Personal

Income $112.1 Billion $166.1 Billion $292.3 Billion $355.1 Billion $404.7 Billion

Private

Businesses 86,402 128,102 225,501 258,536 312,233

Employment 1.4 Million 2.1 Million 3.7 Million 4.2 Million 5.1 Million

Visitation 11.3 Million 16.3 Million 28.7 Million 32.9 Million 39.8 Million

Potential With Comprehensive Water Resource

Development and Conservation in 2060

Mid-Case Scenario (25% Conservation)

• Growth in Utah’s Total Economic Output for Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$6.27 : $1 GROSS PRODUCT

• Growth in Utah’s Personal Income for Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$5.17 : $1 PERSONAL INCOME

• Estimated Cost per Permanent Job Created by Additional Water Supply

$15,472 COST PER JOB

• State and Local Tax Collections For Every $1 Spent on Water Infrastructure

$0.41 : $1 STATE TAXES

One-Time Construction Benefits (Mid-Case Scenario)

Person Years of Employment

(Thousands) Labor Income Output

Additional

State Tax

Direct 194 $12.5B $32.7B $547M

Indirect 103 $4.9B $16.6B $812M

Induced 118 $4.7B $15.3B $795M

TOTAL 415 $22.1B $64.5B $2.1B

One-time benefits to the state from implementing a $32.7 billion statewide

water resource stability master plan will create jobs for Utah families, and

stimulate economic activity statewide by relying on in-state vendors for

materials, goods and services.

Source: The Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and Applied Analysis Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Utah’s $136 billion

economy is remarkably

complex and

interwoven. The outputs

of one industry become

the inputs of another.

Water resource

instability in one sector

runs the very real risk of

destabilizing others.

DIRECT IMPACT INDIRECT IMPACT

Water resources are an essential element of economic development and diversification.

Ensuring water resources is critical to protecting the state’s economy.

A comprehensive, master-planned approach is necessary and appropriate.

• A 138-mile pipeline

with pumping stations

and hydropower

plants from Lake

Powell to Sand

Hollow Reservoir

• Estimated annual

yield 86,249 acre feet

• Scheduled to start

construction in 2020

• Estimated cost:

$1.064 billion* ($12,336 per acre foot)

*2008 estimate prepared by the Utah Division of Water Resources

http://www.water.utah.gov/lakepowellpipeline/projectUpdates/June2008OPCCSummary%20r1.pdf

Lake Powell Pipeline

Project Flyover Video

Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act

Preliminary design and environmental

Begin environmental study process

2017-2018

NEPA record of decision and permits

2018-2019

Final design

Construction begins

2025-2030

Water delivery

Project Timeline

Need for Additional Water Supplies Projected water demand without the Lake Powell Pipeline

Need for Additional Water Supplies Projected water demand with the Lake Powell Pipeline

Virgin RiverColorado River

Average

Colorado vs. Virgin River

District Funding

Utah’s water conservancy district’s have three

legislatively-approved sources of capital and operating

funds that will be used to repay the state:

Water rates Property taxes Impact fees

Funding

Fund Allocation

Water rates fund on-going operation and

maintenance of existing water deliveries

Property taxes fund public services (fire

protection, etc.)

Impact fees assist in the capital costs of

new infrastructure

How will we pay for the Lake Powell Pipeline?

• Some variation of water rates, property taxes and impact

• The district is working with state representatives, financial

analysts and economists to create a financial model for

water infrastructure costs in Washington County

• There are many variables. Additional information will be

shared as the project’s environmental studies are

completed and a final design is approved.

$30,000,000

$101,000,000

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

GO Bond Value Total Taxable Value

GO bond 30%of total

taxable property tax values

Water Project Financing Quail Creek Reservoir

In 1983, residents voted for a $30 million bond to fund Quail Creek

Reservoir when total taxable property values were $101 million

Quail Creek Cost

GO Bond 8%of total

Taxable Property Tax Values

$2,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$12,000,000,000

GO Bond Value Total Taxable Value

$912,500,000

Lake Powell Pipeline

Water Project Financing Lake Powell Pipeline

Washington County’s state-estimated project cost is $912.5 million;

2014 total taxable property values are $11.15 billion

$11,150,160,581

Q&A Q & A Thank you for your time.

water briefing - home - washington county water ... · 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030...

Documents

pc(v2)-49 washington general population characteristics

population density - home - lewis county washington

washington water law primer

population genetics - school of biological sciences |...

sustainability, environment, water, population and

chapter 3 population and water demand projections · pdf...

washington water - global learning circles€¦ ·...

global population and water: access and sustainability -...

population demographics affecting washington higher · pdf...

rules for water service - washington city

population pressure: land and water

future population and water demand - home | texas …...

water demands, sources and population forecasting...

2. population and water demand projections 2. population and...

urban water management - university of washington

tutorial on theoretical population genetics - university of...

david valdez diana rodriguez. university of washington ...

surface water design manual - renton, washington

washington multicultural health communications...

1.2 water quality - king county, washington