Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
EFFECTS OF POPULATION GROWTH, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND INCREASED
WATER REUSE ON WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN UTAH
DEREK BRUTON
This dissertation submitted for the degree of
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
PEMBROKE COLLEGE
August 2014
Supervisor: Dr Richard Fenner

ii
Statement of Originality
This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of
work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text
This dissertation does not exceed the limit of 15,000 words.
X
Signed By Derek Bruton
Date 29 August, 2014

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dick Fenner for supervising me and helping guide and focus my rather
vague initial idea. I also am also extremely grateful to Sian and her patience with my tedious
questions regarding tier 4 visa requirements for students wishing to bring family. Even though
it was a bit of a pain, we made it over legally in the end.
My college, and all those who do so much to make it run, will also be one of my fondest
memories from my time here. Pembroke feels like home, and I hope to come back often.
I also need to mention my parents, Tom and Cindy, without whom I would never have learned
to love reading, math, science, water, and learning in general.
Finally, and most important of all, I need to thank my amazing wife and wonderful little boy.
Henry has let me see the world as new and fascinating, and coming home to his smile after a
long day in the engineering department always brought me joy. Jen, you are my best friend in
the world. This year has been absolutely mad sometimes, but we made it. It is to you that I
dedicate my work. Volim te.

iv
Abstract
Future water shortages have been a major concern as the urban development along the
Wasatch Front continues to swell the demand on Utah’s already limited water supplies. By
taking a broad view and modelling the water sources, uses, losses, and final destinations in the
Utah Lake and Jordan River Basins, it becomes apparent that current state policies, if goals
are met and maintained, should be sufficient to cope with anticipated growth through 2060.
While this is good news for the immediate future, it relies on a potentially serious decline of
agriculture which may impact the food security of the area. Additionally, the pressures which
are causing this water stress will hardly cease to exist beyond 2060, so innovative ways to
either reduce demand or increase available supply still need to be explored. Conservation
efforts and demand focused goals, the primary focus of the state, will buy critical time, but if
Utah continues to grow, finding new water sources may become necessary.
One option in particular has the potential to revolutionize the way water has been managed in
the states (including Utah) along the Colorado River: trading energy for water. This energy
for water exchange would allow landlocked states along the Colorado River to gain part of
California’s share of the river’s water in return for enough electricity (and likely some
financing for the necessary infrastructure) to desalinate an equivalent volume.
The model developed also has the potential to be refined into a powerful water policy impact
and analysis tool and the steps which would be necessary for its further development are
presented.

v
Table of Contents
Statement of Originality .............................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................iii
Abstract......................................................................................................................................iv
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures..........................................................................................................................viii
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................ix
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background..................................................................................................................1
1.2 Key Research Questions ..............................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................2
2 Definition of Study Area ....................................................................................................3
3 Data and Methodology .......................................................................................................5
3.1 Current Land Use.........................................................................................................5
3.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................7
3.2.1 Precipitation..........................................................................................................7
3.2.2 Natural Evaporation and Transpiration ..............................................................10
3.2.3 Groundwater Infiltration.....................................................................................11
3.2.4 Surface Water .....................................................................................................11
3.2.5 Trans-basin Diversions.......................................................................................11
3.2.6 Climate Change ..................................................................................................12
3.3 Municipal and Industrial Water Use..........................................................................13
3.3.1 Per Capita Water Use Trends .............................................................................13

vi
3.3.2 Population...........................................................................................................14
3.3.3 Net M&I Use ......................................................................................................16
3.3.4 Wastewater Recycling and Reuse.......................................................................16
3.4 Agricultural Water Use..............................................................................................17
3.4.1 Agriculture Trends..............................................................................................17
3.5 Model Scenarios ........................................................................................................20
4 Results ..............................................................................................................................21
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................21
4.2 2010 Baseline.............................................................................................................22
4.3 Scenario 1: 2060 with Current Trends.......................................................................23
4.4 Scenario 2: Climate Change.......................................................................................24
4.5 Scenario 3: Failed Conservation................................................................................25
4.6 Scenario 4: Agricultural Protection from 2025..........................................................26
4.7 Scenario 5: Additional Trans-basin Diversion...........................................................27
4.8 Scenario 6: Wastewater to Agriculture Recycling.....................................................28
4.9 Scenario 7: Wastewater to M&I Recycling ...............................................................29
4.10 Scenario 8: Wastewater Recycling split to Agriculture/M&I ................................30
4.11 Summary of Results ...............................................................................................31
5 Discussion.........................................................................................................................32
5.1 General Observations.................................................................................................32
5.2 Current Situation and Trends.....................................................................................32
5.3 Water Policy Options.................................................................................................33
5.3.1 Continued Conservation .....................................................................................33

vii
5.3.2 Protection of Agriculture....................................................................................34
5.3.3 Options for Greater Trans-basin Diversions: Trading Energy for Water...........35
5.3.4 Wastewater Recycling........................................................................................38
5.3.5 Desperate Measures in the Future?.....................................................................38
5.4 Study Limitations.......................................................................................................40
6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................41
6.1 Policy and Administration .........................................................................................41
6.2 Further Research........................................................................................................41
6.2.1 Data Standardization and Completeness ............................................................42
6.2.2 Introduce Multi-year Storage and Use Modelling..............................................42
6.2.3 Create a “Water Web” Model of Catchment Basin............................................42
6.2.4 Generate Water Policy Impact Assessment Tool ...............................................43
References ................................................................................................................................44
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................49

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Overview and Study Boundary ...................................................................3
Figure 2: Geographic Features of Study Area............................................................................4
Figure 3: Current Water Related Land Use................................................................................6
Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Study Region..........................................................8
Figure 5: Monthly Precipitation Overview.................................................................................9
Figure 6: Comparison of Household Daily Water Use per Capita...........................................14
Figure 7: Population Projection through 2060 .........................................................................15
Figure 8: 2010 Population Density...........................................................................................15
Figure 9: Agricultural land loss in the Jordan River Basin (1988-2002) .................................18
Figure 10: 2010 Baseline Scenario Sankey Diagram ...............................................................22
Figure 11: Scenario 1 Sankey Diagram—2060 with Current Trends ......................................23
Figure 12: Scenario 2 Sankey Diagram—Potential Impact of Climate Change ......................24
Figure 13: Scenario 3 Sankey Diagram—Impact of Stalled Conservation Efforts..................25
Figure 14: Scenario 4 Sankey Diagram—Effect of Agricultural Protection............................26
Figure 15: Scenario 5 Sankey Diagram—Securing Additional Trans-basin Diversions .........27
Figure 16: Scenario 6 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling I .........................................28
Figure 17: Scenario 7 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling II........................................29
Figure 18: Scenario 8 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling III.......................................30

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Scenario Definitions..................................................................................................20
Table 2: Key Values for Baseline............................................................................................22
Table 3: Key Values for Scenario 1.........................................................................................23
Table 10: Key Values for Scenario 8.......................................................................................30
Table 11: Summary of Results ................................................................................................31
Table 12: Comparison of Modelled Policies on Water Use ....................................................33

1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
During the summer of 1847, a weary company of migrants were crossing the high plains of
modern day Wyoming as they trekked westward seeking a new home. They were very curious
about the location which they intended to settle in, but they had relatively little knowledge of
what awaited them there. This was not unusual in a time when much of the American West
was still undocumented, and first-hand accounts of what lay ahead were invaluable. Their
thrill at meeting an explorer who knew their destination must have dimmed somewhat as this
already legendary figure gave a less than optimistic opinion about their chances:
‘James Bridger, the well-known mountaineer… when he met President Brigham Young at the
Pioneer camp on the Big Sandy, about the last of June, and learned our destination to be the
valley of the Great Salt Lake, he gave us a general outline and description of this country,
over which he had roamed with the Indians in his hunting and trapping excursions, and
expressed grave doubts whether corn could be produced at all in these mountains… and so
sanguine was he that it could not be done, that he proffered to give a thousand dollars for the
first ear of corn raised in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, or the valley of the Utah outlet, as
he termed it, meaning the valley between Utah Lake and Salt Lake. President Young replied
to him: “Wait a little, and we will show you.”’ [1].
The company of pioneers did settle in the region around the Great Salt Lake and, contrary to
the expectations of the legendary Jim Bridger, established a thriving agricultural community.
Within twenty-four hours of their arrival in the valley they had already dammed one of the
mountain streams and turned the water onto their freshly planted fields [1]. Through hard
work and increasingly intense irrigation practices, corn not only grew that first season, but

2
today accounts for more than 10,000 acres of the 136,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land
in the region. In addition to more than 300,000 total acres of agricultural land, the “Valley of
the Utah outlet” (better known now as the Salt Lake and Utah valleys) is home to more than
1.6 million people and a thriving economy [2]. While Bridger’s fears that crops were unlikely
to grow in the region have been proven false, several major concerns remain about how much
more development can be supported in the area.
1.2 Key Research Questions
There are several key research questions being investigated:
1. What is the current water supply and demand in the Jordan River and Utah Lake
basins?
2. To what degree will the balance of supply and demand be altered by 2060 if current
trends continue?
3. How would preserving agricultural production, implementing wastewater recycling,
and additional trans-basin diversion impact this balance?
4. What policies should be implemented or emphasized in order to ensure future water
supply exceeding demand?
1.3 Objectives
The study has two main objectives: 1) Create a model of water supply and demand in the
selected region which looks at both the current situation and allows for the investigation of
various future scenarios and 2) Investigate which technical or administrative alternatives
could be used to alleviate water stress in the future.

3
2 Definition of Study Area
Since water is the key resource in question, water was used to define the boundaries of the
study region. Specifically, the Jordan River and Utah Lake catchment basins are of primary
interest because they contain the primary population core of the state as well as a non-trivial
amount of agriculture. These basins form the core of Utah’s municipal and industrial water
demand, as well as the location of the majority of projected future urban development [2].
Figure 1: Regional Overview and Study Boundary
Data: Utah AGRC, USGS [4][5][6][7][8]
Cartography: DJ Bruton

4
Geographically these basins are in a semi-arid region along the eastern edge of the endorheic
(having no outlet to an ocean) Great Basin region. Major geographic features in the area
include the Utah and Great Salt Lake Valleys, bounded by the Oquirrh and East Tintic
Mountains to the west and the Wasatch Mountains to the east. The Utah Lake basin also
includes the Provo River catchment which juts out through the Wasatch Range eastward into
the Uinta Mountains. The Wasatch and Uinta mountains are particularly critical to the
hydrology with the significant annual snowpack which accumulates in the upper reaches each
winter [3].
Figure 2: Geographic Features of Study Area
Data: Utah AGRC [4][5][6][8]

5
3 Data and Methodology
The basic model is fairly straightforward and broad: an overview of total inputs, uses, losses,
and outflows from the study region. This is in order to provide an easily understood graphical
representation of the overall system using a Sankey diagram, a new way of looking at this
particular collection of data. The model could be easily used to communicate how current
trends and future policies could affect the overall balance between water supply and demand
in this critical region.
In order to analyse both current and future water use, an understanding of the hydrology, land
use, population trends, development patterns, and existing water-related infrastructure is
required. Due to the varied nature of this information, a wide variety of sources were required
and the results are an amalgamation of the best available data sets. While the author
recognizes that a more complex model would be feasible, the limited time and resources
available for this dissertation necessitated a relatively broad approach at the moment.
The primary hurdle faced in modelling current and future water supply and demand was the
lack of standardized data. While there is an abundance of information, it tends to be
compartmentalized according to the remit of whichever government body is publishing the
data. While the cause of this is understandable, it necessitated several significant assumptions
and extrapolations which will be addressed in this section.
3.1 Current Land Use
Overall land use in the study area is divided into four categories: undeveloped land (mostly
mountainous or desert) currently accounts for 62%, water bodies 11%, agriculture 13%, and

6
urban uses the final 14% (see Figure 3) [9]. These different land uses correlate with the
different types of water use upon which this model is based.
Figure 3: Current Water Related Land Use
Source: Utah AGRC [4][5] [6][8][9]

7
The data used for the model can be split into three major categories: 1) Hydrology, 2)
Municipal and Industrial Water Use, and 3) Agricultural Water Use. The data and
assumptions regarding these aspects will be detailed in this section, the resulting model which
they create will be presented in chapter 4, and those results analysed in chapter 5.
3.2 Hydrology
The basis of any analysis on water budgeting depends on a reliable estimate of annual water
availability. This requires information regarding total average precipitation, groundwater
infiltration, and natural evaporation and transpiration losses.
3.2.1 Precipitation
Determining the average total volume of precipitation which falls into the study area annually
was the first step in creating the water budget. Due to the topography of the region, the annual
precipitation ranges from less than three inches per year in some of the western valleys to
more than sixty-six inches per year on some mountain peaks (see Figure 4) [8]. Coupled with
the seasonal variations—cold, wetter winters and hot, very dry summers (see Figure 5)—this
non-uniform precipitation distribution has significant implications for water storage and
management strategies. It is also important to note that Utah historically experiences regular
periods of extended drought [12]. Due to time and data constraints, neither drought conditions
nor seasonal variability will be addressed in this study at this time.

8
Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Study Region
Data: Utah AGRC, OSU [4][5][6][8][10]

9
Figure5:MonthlyPrecipitationOverview
Data:UtahAGRC,OSU[4][5][6][8][11][10],Cartography:DJBruton

10
The nature of this study—the broad overview of supply and demand trends—requires one key
value: total average annual precipitation in the study region. In a 2007 study of watershed
basins in Utah it was calculated that 25 inches per year fall in the combined Utah Lake and
Jordan River Basins [3]. Geospatial analysis of the precipitation data used to create Figure 4
and Figure 5 supports this value and 25 inches per year which will serve as the baseline
average precipitation for this study.
To get the total precipitation volume from this annual precipitation rate is a straightforward
multiplication of rate and area, or 25 inches per year covering 2,502,664 acres [3]. This gives
a calculated total volume of approximately 5,200,000 acre-feet (AF) of water (6.4 million
cubic metres) per year. What is more difficult is determining how much of this water is
returned back to the atmosphere though natural evaporation and transpiration, how much
infiltrates into the ground, and how much remains as surface water in streams, lakes, and
reservoirs.
3.2.2 Natural Evaporation and Transpiration
To know how much water is lost it is easiest to measure the amount of water which is
accessible and assume that the difference between that and total precipitation is the natural
depletion. A report from 2001, using data from 1961-1990, provides the estimated water
supplies for each basin. The average amount of water available for use in the Utah Lake and
Jordan River basins comes to 1,275,000 AF/year, or 24% of the total precipitation
volume[13]. This loss of 76% seems reasonable compared to the state-wide average of 86%
evaporation and transpiration losses given in the same report.

11
3.2.3 Groundwater Infiltration
In addition to the natural losses back into the atmosphere, a significant proportion of the total
precipitation infiltrates into the region’s aquifers. Due to the surrounding mountains the
aquifers are wholly contained within the study basins, meaning that it can reasonably be
assumed that the only source of groundwater is the rain and snow which falls in the basins of
interest [14].
For this model, data on infiltration rates was taken from two reports from the Utah Division of
Water Resources on water plans for the Utah Lake and Jordan River Basins from 1997 and
2013(respectively) [15][16]. This gives a combined total infiltration of 1,000,000 AF/year for
the study area.
3.2.4 Surface Water
Unlike groundwater quantities and flows, surface water flows are fairly simple to assess.
According to the Utah Division of Water Resources, the average total amount of precipitation
that becomes available as surface water is around 450,000 AF/year [13][15][16].
3.2.5 Trans-basin Diversions
Water resource planners and engineers have not been content to rely solely on precipitation
which falls within the natural catchment of this region. As part of the Central Utah Project, a
series of reservoirs and tunnels divert water from the Colorado River Basin in Eastern Utah
though the Wasatch Mountains for use in the study area [17]. The total amount of water which
can be legally transported away from the Colorado River for use in Utah is determined by the
Colorado River Compact and in practice, this means a current limit of 162,900 AF/year
[18][19]. The technical capacity of the existing trans-basin water infrastructure (which is all

12
gravity driven) is 920,000 AF/year [20][21][22]. This means that if Utah were not legally
bound to release 535,000 AF/year of Colorado River water, which originates in the Utah
mountains, a much larger amount of water could technically be transported into the study area
with little additional infrastructure [13].
In modelling an additional trans-basin diversion it was assumed that approximately 230,000
additional acre-feet of water could be diverted annually into the study area if an equal amount
of water were somehow available to be traded to a state lower along the Colorado
River(Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, or California). Establishing an actual amount feasible
would require additional hydrological analysis of the Western Colorado River Catchment
Basin and further research into how Utah could realistically trade its available resources
(primarily energy) for more water rights. While an in depth hydrological study will not be
addressed in this study, the potential for resource exchange will be discussed in chapter 5.
3.2.6 Climate Change
One potentially major factor in the future water supply for Utah is the complex issue of
climate change and the degree to which it will alter the water cycle in the state. While it is
currently uncertain what the precise impacts will be, there is general consensus that Utah is
likely looking at increases in both total precipitation and evaporation [29][30][31][32].
Assuming an average temperature increase of 2ºC, precipitation looks to be increased by
about 10% on average, but with potentially significant shifts to shorter, warmer winters with
less snowpack and more rainfall and hotter, drier summers [29][31]. When looking back at the
historic monthly precipitation averages in Figure 5, it becomes apparent that while this net
increase would be welcomed, the future implications of summers with even less rainfall are
not appealing. While increased precipitation may rise the supply of available water, drier

13
summers will definitely increase the demand for agricultural and residential water use barring
a major shift in lifestyle.
Just looking at the precipitation, though, is not sufficient for modelling the possible impact on
the water supply and demand. Already it has been calculated that this area loses 76% of the
total precipitation to natural evaporation and transpiration, and this number will only rise with
increased temperature. While there is no definite figure for how much this increase will be,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th
Report calculates the region of
interest will experience around a 5% increase in evaporation [29]. Assuming that this proves
to be correct, the total natural evaporation losses shifts to 79%.
The calculated cumulative effect is a slight decrease in the available water supply. It should
be noted that this effect relies on several layers of assumptions and is not a meant as a
prediction, but a reasonable estimate of what the future may look like.
3.3 Municipal and Industrial Water Use
3.3.1 Per Capita Water Use Trends
Within urbanized areas, water is typically considered in terms of municipal and industrial
(M&I) use. The data collected by the Utah Division of Water Resources regarding M&I usage
in the study area further breaks this down into six subcategories: residential outdoor,
residential indoor, commercial, institutional, industrial, and secondary [23]. In 2000, the
average user was responsible for 321 gallons of water per day, the second highest per capita
demand in the United States (only Nevada consumes more) [24]. By 2010 this figure had
fallen to 301 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) [9]. This means that in the first decade of the
twenty-first century, per capita M&I demand has already fallen 6.2%. This is in line with the

14
state goal of reductions of 12.5% by 2020 and 25% by 2050 relative to 2000
[24][25][26][27][33][34]. The continuation of this trend will is a critical assumption for
forecasting future demand and will be a key variable in creating future scenarios.
Of these 301 gallons, approximately 130 are directly
used in households (residential indoor and outdoor
usage) [23]. When this 130 GPCD for household
consumption is viewed in comparison with the US and
UK averages for daily household use (90 and 40 GPCD
respectively, see Figure 6), it becomes apparent that
there should be significant opportunity for demand
reduction through conservation [23][26][28]. While it
must be noted that there are significant climatic
differences between Utah and much of the US (or the
UK for that matter), it is not very sensible for arid Utah
to continue to consume so much more per capita. When
looking at the broader picture of both per capita use and
population growth, how long such high consumption
can be sustained becomes a critical concern in planning
for the future.
3.3.2 Population
In addition to having the second highest per capita water consumption, Utah also holds the
title of the third fastest growing state in the US [35]. The Utah Lake and Jordan River basins
account for 57% of the total population of the state on less than 5% of the state’s total land
area, and is expected to continue to experience a large portion of future growth [2][35].
Figure 6: Comparison of Household Daily
Water Use per Capita
[23] [26] [28]

15
Currently the total population of the study area is 1.6 million, but this is projected to increase
to around 3 million in 2060 (see Figure 7) [2].
Figure 7: Population Projection through 2060
Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Budget and Planning [2]
Figure 8: 2010 Population Density
Source: US Census Bureau

16
3.3.3 Net M&I Use
With projections for the population levels and per capita M&I consumption it is a simple
matter of multiplication to obtain a likely total demand for municipal and industrial water use
in future years.
One important assumption made with regards to M&I usage is the relative weight of each of
the six subcategories. In projecting future demand it has been assumed that the current
balance will remain even as the total magnitude changes. This would rely on conservation
efforts to be equally effective for all the uses (which is unlikely), but the exact future split is
beyond the scope of this study to predict. In modelling these uses the total daily per capita
water use and total population are used to generate a total M&I demand, which is then divided
into the subcategories according to the 2010 proportions. The ratio of each of these categories
which then enters the public sewers as wastewater has also been assumed to remain constant
into the future.
3.3.4 Wastewater Recycling and Reuse
One area which is widely recognized as a promising (although typically unpopular)
unexploited source of water is the effluent of wastewater treatment plants [36] [37]. This
water may have a ‘yuck factor’ associated with it, but it represents a potentially significant
amount of water. While only about 35% of M&I water ever reaches the sewers, the rest being
lost primarily due to evaporation and transpiration as potable water is used for landscape
irrigation, it is technically feasible that all of this could be treated to a standard where it could
at least be used for irrigation purposes [38]. For the purpose of this study it was assumed that
all of this return water could, by 2060, be recycled.

17
3.4 Agricultural Water Use
While agricultural has historically been the major source of water demand in Utah, it’s
significance in this area is diminishing as population growth drives increased urbanization (or
suburbanization, as the case may be).
3.4.1 Agriculture Trends
The Jordan River Basin already provides and interesting example of the decline of agricultural
water use. In 1979 there were over 51,000 acres of irrigated land, which had fallen to 14,000
(a 73% loss) by 2002 (see Figure 9) [16]. This loss has been directly effected by rapid growth
of suburban communities in the valley in direct relation to the rapid population growth. It is
projected that this trend will continue until there is effectively no significant agricultural
activity in this part of the study area [16].

18
Figure 9: Agricultural land loss in the Jordan River Basin (1988-2002)
Source: Utah Division of Water Resources [16]
While the Utah Lake Basin is not yet as urbanized, the downward trend of agriculture in the
area has also been observed and projected [13]. Using data from the Utah Division of Water

19
Resources, a picture of the water demand in the combined study area was created and
extrapolated to 2060 assuming a continued linear trend. 2010 agricultural water demand stood
around 560,000 AF/year, but this could fall to as low as 310,000 AF/year by 2060 based on
these data. This would represent a decrease of 55%, much of which would be a result of
decreased agricultural production.
While this somewhat relieves the stress that a growing population incurs on the available
water supply, it raises questions about the security of a local food supply. The risk inherent in
an increase in dependency on imported food products was sufficient to prompt the
formulation of one forecast scenario looking at how protecting agricultural land and water
rights would impact the overall demand on the water supply. This protection was set with the
assumption that a policy restricting the development of productive agricultural land were to be
implemented in 2025 which would roughly lock in agricultural water demand at that level
indefinitely.

20
3.5 Model Scenarios
One of the most critical parts of the model is selecting reasonable combinations of future
water use patterns. A baseline for 2010 serves as the foundation for future projections and was
the first scenario completed in this study. Eight other scenarios have been established to
provide an overview of how general water trends will impact the overall water stress of the
region. They are all set in the year 2060 and Table 1 lays out which factors were included in
each scenario.
Table 1: Scenario Definitions
Scenario
Defining
Feature
Year
Conservation
GoalMet
Climate
Change
Agricultural
Conservation
from2025
Additional
Trans-basin
Diversion
Wastewater
Recycling
Baseline 2010 NA NA NA NA NA
1
Current
Trends
2060 Y N N N N
2
Current w/
Climate
Change
2060 Y Y N N N
3
Failed
Conservation
2060 N Y N N N
4
Agricultural
Protection
2060 Y Y Y N N
5
Additional
Trans-basin
Diversion
2060 Y Y N Y N
6
Recycle to
Agriculture
2060 Y Y N N Y
7
Recycle to
M&I
2060 Y Y N N Y
8
Recycle
Ag/M&I Split
2060 Y Y N N Y

21
The aim of laying out the scenarios in this manner is to allow comparisons of how changing a
single factor would affect the overall balance of supply and demand. First, the baseline
provides a snapshot of the current state of affairs. Following that, Scenario 1 projects current
usage trends out to 2060 to see how demand will change. Scenario 2 follows with adding what
current studies predict the probable impact of climate change to the available water supply
will be. Scenario 3 then looks at the eventuality that conservation efforts stall and water
demand per capita remains near 2010 levels. Scenario 4 assumes that conservation has been
successful, but concerns about food security and disappearing farmland prompt a policy
protecting agricultural production from 2025 onward. Scenario 5 investigates how diverting
additional water from the Colorado River could impact water availability. Scenarios 6, 7, and
8 then address to what degree recycling wastewater could supplement the existing supply.
4 Results
4.1 Introduction
Sankey diagrams1
of each scenario are presented in this chapter. For ease of comparison, style
and scale are kept constant for all the diagrams. Additionally, a table with several key values
is given for each scenario as well as well as one summary table (see Table 11) for overall
comparison. Discussion of these scenarios will be presented in chapter 5. A complete table of
all values used in all scenarios is available in Appendix A.
1
Sankey diagrams (named after Captain Matthew Sankey who is credited with creating the first in 1898 to show
the energy efficiency of a steam engine) are a value-weighted flow diagram useful in visualizing complicated
systems [36].

22
4.2 2010 Baseline
Figure 10: 2010 Baseline Scenario Sankey Diagram
Table 2: Key Values for Baseline
Category Value Unit
Precipitation 5,214,000 AF/year
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Available Water 1,450,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
558,000 AF/year
M&I Demand 531,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
75%
Wastewater
Treatment

23
4.3 Scenario 1: 2060 with Current Trends
Figure 11: Scenario 1 Sankey Diagram—2060 with Current Trends
Table 3: Key Values for Scenario 1
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
77%
Wastewater
Treatment

24
4.4 Scenario 2: Climate Change
Figure 12: Scenario 2 Sankey Diagram—Potential Impact of Climate Change
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
82%
Wastewater
Treatment

25
4.5 Scenario 3: Failed Conservation
Figure 13: Scenario 3 Sankey Diagram—Impact of Stalled Conservation Efforts
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
M&I Demand 1,008,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
97%
Wastewater
Treatment

26
4.6 Scenario 4: Agricultural Protection from 2025
Figure 14: Scenario 4 Sankey Diagram—Effect of Agricultural Protection
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
484,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
95%
Wastewater
Treatment

27
4.7 Scenario 5: Additional Trans-basin Diversion
Figure 15: Scenario 5 Sankey Diagram—Securing Additional Trans-basin Diversions
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
400,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
70%

28
4.8 Scenario 6: Wastewater to Agriculture Recycling
Figure 16: Scenario 6 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling I
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Recycled 233,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
65%
Wastewater
Treatment

29
4.9 Scenario 7: Wastewater to M&I Recycling
Figure 17: Scenario 7 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling II
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
65%
Wastewater
Treatment

30
4.10 Scenario 8: Wastewater Recycling split to Agriculture/M&I
Figure 18: Scenario 8 Sankey Diagram—Wastewater Recycling III
Category Value Unit
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
310,000 AF/year
Percentage of
Available Water
Used
65%
Wastewater
Treatment

31
4.11Summary of Results
Table 11: Summary of Results
Scenario
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Description
2010
Baseline
Current
Trends
Climate
Change
Failed
Conservation
Agricultural
Protection
Additional
Trans-basin
Diversion
Wastewater
RecyclingI
Wastewater
RecyclingII
Wastewater
RecyclingIII
Precipitation
5,214,000 5,214,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000 5,735,000
AF/year
Trans-basin
Diversion
173,000 173,000 173,000 173,000 173,000 400,000 173,000 173,000 173,000
AF/year
Available
Water
1,450,000 1,450,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,589,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000
AF/year
Agricultural
Demand
558,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 484,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000
AF/year
M&IDemand
531,000 807,000 807,000 1,008,000 807,000 807,000 807,000 807,000 807,000
AF/year
Recycled
0 0 0 0 0 0 233,000 233,000 233,000
AF/year
Percentageof
Available
WaterUsed
75% 77% 82% 97% 95% 70% 65% 65% 65%
Note: Percentage of Available Water Used should be treated carefully in comparing
scenarios. Scenarios 0, 1, and 2 are to look at how current trends and climate change impact
the water supply/demand balance. The values for scenarios 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 should primarily
be compared with scenario 2 as they are calculated using the same water budget. Scenario5
increases the budget by bringing more water into the study area.

32
5 Discussion
5.1 General Observations
This is the first time that water budget data has been presented in this way for Utah. Sankey
diagrams have been used to show average surface water flow rates for rivers and streams in
the area, but this is the first time all uses have been visualized together for the catchment
basin as a whole. While there is room to make the model more sophisticated, the overall effect
is very informative and allows for quick and intuitive comparison of the effects of policies on
water stress.
With this in mind, it is important to note that while all of the projected scenarios are thought
to be reasonable, they are intended to spark discussion regarding which approaches to
reducing water stress should be pursued. Many more variants were explored (typically
involving the process of looking at two or more of the policies and seeing cumulative effects
for different years), but this was impractical to include in a paper report. Ideally this model
lends itself to an interactive user interface where both time and policy option inputs can be
altered and the resulting changes displayed.
5.2 Current Situation and Trends
Overall the situation in the study area seems less severe than initially expected. Currently,
water demand is about 75% of the water budget of a year with average precipitation, which
can be anticipated to rise to around 82% in 2060 if conservation efforts are successful (Figure
10, Figure 11, Figure 12, and Table 11).

33
The most strikingly unanticipated, although in retrospect not unintuitive, result is that the
primary total percentage of available water used in 2060 is projected to be comparable to that
of 2010. While at first this appears to be positive news, upon further review it is less
appealing. The primary reason that water demand in 2060 is unexpectedly low is that
agriculture is anticipated to be severely curtailed as urban sprawl pushes out into farmland.
5.3 Water Policy Options
While the overall situation for 2060 may not be as stressed as was anticipated, it could easily
be made either better or worse by how water is acquired and used in the area. The specific
policies illustrated in scenarios 4 through 8 (water conservation, agricultural protection,
additional trans-basin diversion, and wastewater recycling) and their impacts on the overall
water balance influence merit further discussion.
Table 12: Comparison of Modelled Policies on Water Use
Water
Conservation
Agricultural
Protection from
2025
Additional
Trans-basin
Diversion
100%
Wastewater
Recycling
Relative Impact
on Usage of
Available Water
-15% +13% -12% -17%
5.3.1 Continued Conservation
Water conservation is, for very good reason, the primary focus of current policy in Utah to
facilitate continued development [12] [13] [15] [16] [23]. If the goal of 25% reduction
compared to 2000 use is reached by 2050, and thereafter maintained, the reduction in demand
compared to a scenario where per capita consumption remains at 2010 levels is around

34
200,000 AF/year (see Figure 12, Figure 13, and Table 11). This represents a difference of
15% of the total water available for use. This conservation trend, reported to be on track by
the major water suppliers in the region, is one of the key factors which indicates that water
stress in 2060 may not be much more than today [33][34].
5.3.2 Protection of Agriculture
Another trend which will, if allowed to continue, cause a very significant impact in reducing
water demand is the projected decline of agriculture in the study area. While this is good for
reducing water stress, it seems to be a major concern when looking at the wider system. By
outsourcing food production, the cities in the study area will be increasing the amount of
water embodied in the increased volume of imported crops and goods.
In 2007 Utah already imported over a quarter (26% by weight) of the agricultural products
used in the state [47]. With the Utah Lake Basin being one of the most productive regions of
the state, accounting for a total of 14% of the agricultural production by value in 2012, the
projected loss of 53% of the agricultural land in the study area could have appreciable impact
on both the economy and food security of the region [13] [48].
Based on these concerns scenario 4 (see Figure 14) illustrates how preserving the amount of
water available to agriculture at the level projected for 2025 would impact the overall water
use balance (this date was chosen to be far enough in the future to be feasible, but close
enough to still have a considerable water demand). The outcome was an increase of 13% in
how much of the available water was used. Water stress begins to become a major issue if
agriculture is preserved in this region alongside continued population growth.
This assumption that agricultural protecting is both feasible and possible does not look at how
better irrigation practices could increase the total yield per acre-foot. It also relies on

35
anecdotal evidence to establish 2025 as a reasonable date for implementation. Future research
into the agricultural laws, trends, practices, politics, and demands would be necessary to
provide any sort of recommendations about the specifics of what sort of policy could work to
provide this sort of protection of local agricultural production.
5.3.3 Options for Greater Trans-basin Diversions: Trading Energy for Water
Realistically, there is only one way to increase the supply of water in the study area:
increasing trans-basin diversions from the headwaters of the Colorado River. This is neither a
new idea nor untried, but it remains the only realistic option if conservation and wastewater
recycling prove to be insufficient. As was mentioned earlier, the existing tunnel network
which brings water under the Wasatch Mountains was built to be able to convey far more
water than is currently legal under the Colorado River Compact. This coupled with the fact
that the state currently releases 535,000 AF/year to the states lower down the Colorado River
makes it technically feasible to trade for water rights from a lower state, such as California,
but legally complicated and financially questionable.
It should be noted that trans-basin diversion should be viewed as at most a supplementary
component of a larger water security scheme, not as a way to avoid the difficulty of
implementing water conservation initiatives. That being said, it seems logical that the
population of Utah will continue to grow beyond 2060, so there may well be a point where all
reasonable demand reduction efforts have been made and increasing the supply is the only
way to ensure water security.
In terms of scenario 5 it is important to note that one of the interesting aspects of this sort of
trade is scalability of a solution. Simply put, for any reasonable amount of water which Utah

36
could secure rights to, the infrastructure is in place to transport it to where it is needed to
provide relief from water stress. With the value chosen for modelling, an additional 230,000
AF/year being brought in, the amount of available water increases and the percentage being
used drops by 12% (compare Figure 12 and Figure 15). The actual quantity here mainly
depends on what Utah could trade with its downstream neighbours. What could convince
these states, which face worse water stress than Utah, give up any of their portion of the
Colorado River? One resource in particular may hold the key to facilitating an exchange:
energy.
Utah is an energy rich state, both in terms of fossil fuels and solar insolation [49]. Perhaps,
then, this energy could be converted into electricity which could be exchanged with California
for an increased portion of the Colorado River. Already Utah has a goal of generating 25%
more electricity than it consumes and exporting the excess [50]. The prospect of Utah (or
other arid areas in the Southwest such as Nevada) using water security as a motive to invest in
(hopefully) sustainable energy generation technologies and trade the electricity to California
for desalination in return for the right to retain an equivalent volume of water is intriguing and
merits further investigation.
The proposal of desalination is a very familiar, albeit complex and sometimes controversial,
solution for 21st
century water shortages. One of the critical shortcomings of desalination is
the very high energy cost which is inherent in removing dissolved salt from water. This
daunting energy demand, coupled with a high capital cost, means that currently desalination
struggles to produce fresh water at a competitive cost to more traditional methods for
developing water supplies [36].
Currently California is constructing fourteen large scale desalination plants to combat the
extended drought and projected future demand growth for water in the state [49]. The largest

37
of these is located in Carlsbad and has a design capacity of 50 million gallons a day (56,000
AF/year). Upon completion, it will be the largest desalination plant in the western
hemisphere. This plant has a reported cost of about $1 billion and a projected power
requirement of around 3 kWh per m3
, or 207 GWh per year [53]. While this is a substantial
initial price tag and serious energy demand, it can be expected that economies of scale will
bring the cost down and technological advances will reduce the power consumption closer to
the theoretical limit of 0.86 kWh per m3
.
Utah currently generates around 41,600 GWh of electricity per year, so the prospect of
powering five desalination plants like that at Carlsbad (giving a total water production similar
to that used for scenario 5) with a total power demand of 1,035 GWh does not seem an
unreasonable goal. Ideally, this energy could come from developing the solar power potential
of the state, with a guaranteed demand for the electricity. This could provide a major step for
large scale solar installation in the United States as it would have the three aspects which are
necessary for a solar energy to be viable: a good location, a guaranteed purchaser of the
electricity, and a developer (the state, most likely) providing support in financing and
development [51].
There would be many legal and administrative issues to sort out in determining who pays for
which bits of the new infrastructure, how water is exactly allocated, and what environmental
flows need to be maintained in the Colorado River, but the concept merits further
development and research. There are definite concerns (such as the environmental impact of
the massive solar farms this would necessitate, whether or not it would be ethical to use
electricity from coal fired power plants, and how to avoid increased per capita consumption if
water is felt to be plentiful) but overall, it seems to be a realistic way for the Colorado
Compact states to work together to ensure continued water security.

38
5.3.4 Wastewater Recycling
The scenario variable which gave the most significant impact in terms of reducing water
stress proved to be wastewater recycling. If 100% of effluent streams from wastewater
treatment plants in the study area were to be treated so as to be suitable for reuse, it could
provide a reduction of around 17% in the percentage of available water used.
The reason that three very similar recycling scenarios were included was to highlight the fact
that regardless of how the recycled water is used, the overall impact of recycling water is the
same. This emphasizes the somewhat unintuitive consequence that wastewater recycling
reduces the percent of available water used without altering the end result of discharges to the
Great Salt Lake (compare Figure 13 with Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 ). It does have a
significant impact on the balance of surface water to groundwater entering the lake, which
could have considerable impacts on the salinity of critical wetland shoreline habitat, meaning
the environmental impact of wastewater recycling would need to be fully investigated before
committing too fully to this course of action.
5.3.5 Desperate Measures in the Future?
Beyond the rather traditional methods of conservation, reuse, and trading for additional water
shares, there are also more extreme measures to ensure water security. One of these which
became apparent in this study was the potential that land reclamation in Utah Lake could both
significantly decrease natural evaporation losses and provide potentially valuable land for
agriculture or settlement.
Currently, evaporation from Utah Lake surface is around 350,000 AF/year which, for a lake
with a capacity of 870,000 AF, is a substantial loss (~40% annually) [19] [40]. For
comparison, thirty miles to the east of Utah Lake, Strawberry Reservoir has a capacity of

39
1,106,500 AF, but only loses 22,740 AF/year to evaporation (~2% loss annually) [19]. This is
partly due to Strawberry being higher in the mountains, but primarily because of the
difference between the surface areas and depths of the two bodies of water. Utah Lake covers
a total of 151 mi2
with a maximum depth of only 14 feet, while Strawberry Reservoir has a
maximum surface area of less than 27 mi2
and a max depth of 200 feet [40][41][42].
With Utah Lake being so shallow the feasibility of land reclamation is something that will
likely be discussed sometime in the future as water and land both become scarcer. The water
impact alone is quite significant: around 3.6 Acre-feet would become available for every acre
of the lake reclaimed. When this is viewed in light of the amount of water an acre of various
crops requires the appeal become readily apparent. The thirstiest crops in this exact area need
around 2.7 (alfalfa) to 3 (orchard) acre-feet per year, while grain and corn need about 1.7 [46].
This means that it for every unit of land created from Utah Lake there would be enough water
to not only irrigate that land, but also make available extra water for other uses.
As interesting as this option seems, though, it will most likely never happen. There are three
major issues preventing it: environmental concerns, public opinion, and safety risks. First,
Utah Lake is the sole natural home to an endangered species: the June sucker (Chasmistes
liorus). The prospect of causing major disturbances in an area where an intense recovery
programme is under way is so extremely unlikely that this factor alone would make land
reclamation here unfeasible. Coupled with it the strong public opposition to any changes to
the lake (such as the outcry in 2009 over a bridge was proposed to connect towns on opposite
sides of the lake), it is apparent that there is little chance of something this drastic in the
foreseeable future [44]. Finally, there is the concern that the land fill used for typical land
reclamation projects is prone to liquefaction, which is a significant risk with the proximity of
the lake to the Wasatch Fault [45].

40
Overall the option represents an interesting potential source of water availability, but is not
worth pursuing in the near future. This option may need to be investigated after all other
options have been exhausted, but it is difficult to argue that such a dramatic and permanent
impact on the environment and natural landscape will ever be desirable.
5.4 Study Limitations
While this study has provided interesting results and allowed for better policy comparison, it
does have several major limitations which must be acknowledged.
First off, the data and time available necessitated a simple basin wide model, neglecting the
complexity of the real water use picture of the area. To provide any sort of meaningful
recommendations at a level appropriate for operational decisions a similar analysis would
need to be performed on individual river/aquifer levels and a complicated regional water web
would need to be constructed.
Additionally, the actual impact of climate change in 2060 (with regards to both new averages
and variability) is currently unknowable. As more data is gathered and climate change models
are refined, the impacts assigned to this may change slightly or drastically, and this model
would need to be updated accordingly.
Overall, as has been mentioned before, the strength of this study is in comparing broad policy
options. It has potential to become a more refined and useful tool for evaluating specific plans
and policy options, but needs considerable further development.

41
6 Recommendations
6.1 Policy and Administration
Four main recommendations can be made from this study:
1. The state should aggressively continue conservation efforts.
2. Losing agricultural production, though good for water security, is likely undesirable
and merits further study into its protection.
3. Wastewater recycling could have a significant impact on reducing water stress, but
could also have unintended consequences due to reducing the amount of surface water
entering the Great Salt Lake
4. Increasing the water supply through additional trans-basin diversion is technically
feasible though an energy for water exchange, but should be pursued as a policy of last
resort due to its high cost and energy demand.
6.2 Further Research
The most important result to come from this study is the potential for further development
into a comprehensive water policy analysis and recommendation tool. This would require
creating a standardized data format for water use in Utah (or another study area as the case
may be), extending both the breadth of the model to encompass the complexity of multi-year
precipitation and storage, increasing the depth of the model to look at water extraction and
returns to individual water courses, and formatting the entire body of work in such a way that
policy proposals could be modelled to look at specific geospatial impacts on water systems.

42
6.2.1 Data Standardization and Completeness
The first step needed to improve the model created for this study is standardizing and
organizing all water supply and demand data for the region. A single database, with
standardized data collection intervals, would need to be developed in partnership with the
state agencies, municipal and regional water providers, industrial water users, and farming
associations.
Efforts are already being made with these goals in mind, primarily by a coalition called
‘iUtah,’ composed of research teams from the state’s three major research universities and
backed by government grants [54].
6.2.2 Introduce Multi-year Storage and Use Modelling
In order to better represent the real world, the model needs to be adapted to account for the
interaction between wet and dry years and the impact of water storage. Better information
about water use behaviour during particularly wet or dry periods would need to be available to
look at how both agricultural and M&I water demand fluctuates based on precipitation
conditions, but that could likely be obtained from existing data. While not particularly
difficult, it would allow the model to be applied to extended drought conditions which would
be extremely useful in projecting future worst-case scenarios for water availability.
6.2.3 Create a “Water Web” Model of Catchment Basin
In order to capitalize on the potential which this modelling presents, the resolution at which it
is done also needs to be increased. This means moving beyond catchment wide numbers to
focus in at the level of individual water courses and aquifers. If the inputs and extractions
were modelled for all significant water systems, with all of the complicated interconnections

43
between them mapped out, a powerful water management tool could be created. This would
resemble a hierarchical web which could allow for both real-time data inputs from gauging
stations as well as future projections based on specific geographical development patterns.
While many of the components which such a model would be made up of are already
available (flow readings on streams, surveys of groundwater conditions, snowpack levels,
extraction rates for public water supply, etc.), the current lack of standardization and the
fragmented nature or water management and oversight in Utah have prevented such a model
from being created.
The benefit of such a complicated model would be to provide water resource planners with a
complete overview of the choices and actions of all the concerned players (citizens,
businesses, local, state, and federal government) interact and affect each other as well as
providing the underpinnings for a more complete policy impact assessment tool.
6.2.4 Generate Water Policy Impact Assessment Tool
The most useful development would be to expand and refine this model to the point of being
able to quantify and visualize the impacts of specific land development and planning
decisions, as well as wider regional water management policies. This would likely require a
massive amount of data and development and the support of all the municipal and regional
water associations to create, but would allow for a holistic simulation of how the development
plans of the entire region would interact and impact water availability.

44
References
[1] Snow, E. (1913, May). Excerpt from the Diary of Erastus Snow. Improvement Era, XVI,
pp. 751-67.
[2] Utah Governor's Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). DEA Population Projections.
Retrieved February 12, 2014, from Governor's Office of Management and Budget:
http://governor.utah.gov/DEA/popprojections.html
[3] Ramsey, R. D., Banner, R. E., & Mcginty, E. I. L. (2007). Watershed Basins of Utah (pp.
29–38). Retrieved from
http://extension.usu.edu/utahrangelands/files/uploads/RRU_Section_Four.pdf
[4] USGS, Utah AGRC. (n.d.). Lakes, Rivers, Streams, Springs. Retrieved May 26, 2014,
from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/water-
data-services/lakes-rivers-dams/
[5] USGS. (n.d.). 90 Meter USGS DEM (Utah Statewide). Retrieved June 16, 2014, from
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/elevation-
terrain-data/10-30-90-meter-elevation-models-usgs-dems/
[6] U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Utah AGRC. (n.d.). Watershed Areas. Retrieved May
26, 2014, from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:
http://gis.utah.gov/data/water-data-services/watersheds/
[7] USGS. (n.d.). US Geological Survey, North America Political Boundaries. Retrieved
July 3, 2014, from geocommons: http://geocommons.com/overlays/2264
[8] Utah AGRC. (n.d.). City, County, and State Boundaries. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:
http://gis.utah.gov/data/boundaries/citycountystate/
[9] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2011). Water
Related Land Use. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from Utah Automated Geographic
Reference Center: http://gis.utah.gov/data/planning/water-related-land/
[10] Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University. (2010). Average Annual
Precipitation 1981-2010: Utah. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from USDA Geospatial
Data Gateway: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState
[11] Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University. (n.d.). Average Monthly
Precipitation 1981-2010: Utah. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from USDA Geospatial
Data Gateway: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState

45
[12] From, L., Past, T. H. E., For, P., & Future, T. H. E. (2008). Drought in Utah: Learning
from the Past-Preparing for the Future.
[13] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2001). Utah’s
Water Resources: Planning for the Future 2001.
[14] Burden, C. B., & U.S. Geological Survey. (2011). Groundwater Conditions in Utah:
Spring 2011 Cooperative Investigations Report No. 52.
[15] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (1997). Utah State
Water Plan: Utah Lake Basin.
[16] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2010). Jordan
River Basin: Planning for the Future. Retrieved from
http://www.water.utah.gov/Planning/SWP/Jord_riv/Jordan River Basin
Final0610t.pdf
[17] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2009, August 25). Project Details- Central Utah Project.
Retrieved August 7, 2014, from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Utah+Project
[18] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2008, December). Hoover Dam Frequently Asked
Questions: The Colorado River. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/riverfaq.html
[19] Central Utah Water Conservancy District. (2004). Octopus Chart.
[20] U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). CUPCAO. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office: http://www.cupcao.gov/
[21] U.S Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Diamond Fork System. Retrieved August 7, 2014,
from CUPCAO: http://www.cupcao.gov/bonneville/dfs.html
[22] Provo River Water Users Association. (n.d.). Duchesne Diversion. Retrieved August 7,
2014, from Provo River Water Users Association: http://www.prwua.org/provo-
river-project-features/duchesne-tunnel-system/duchesne-diversion.php
[23] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2013). State of
Utah Municipal and Industrial Water Supply and Use Study Summary 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/PDF/2010 M_I Statewide Summary
Final.pdf
[24] U.S. Geological Survey. (2005). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

46
[27] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2003). Utah’s
M&I Water Conservation Plan.
[28] Waterwise. (n.d.). Water-The Facts. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from Waterwise.org.uk:
http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/25/Water_factsheet_2012.pdf
[29] Kimoto, M., Vecchi, G., John, J., Slater, A., & Zwiers, F. (2013). Near-term Climate
Change: Projections and Predictability. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
[30] Shi, D., Devineni, N., Lall, U., & Pinero, E. (2013). America’s Water Risk: Water Stress
and Climate Variability.
[31] Berghuijs, W. R., Woods, R. A., & Hrachowitz, M. (2014). A precipitation shift from
snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow, (May), 18–21.
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2246
[32] Bardsley, T., Wood, A., Hobbins, M., Kirkham, T., Briefer, L., Niermeyer, J., & Burian,
S. (2013). Planning for an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment
toward Adaptation Planning for Public Water Supply. Earth Interactions, 17(23), 1–
26. doi:10.1175/2012EI000501.1
[33] Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. (2014). JCWCD Service Area Population and
Water Usage.
[34] Wilson, M. (2014). MWDSLS Consertation Trends.
[35] U.S. Census Bureau; Utah AGRC. (2010, May 26). 2010 Demographic Data. Retrieved
2014, from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center:
http://gis.utah.gov/data/demographic/2010-census-data/
[36] Prud'Homme, A. (2011). The Ripple Effect. New York: Scribner.
[37] Rogers, P., & Leal, S. (2010). Running Out of Water. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[38] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2005). Water
Reuse in Utah.

47
[39] Phineas. (n.d.). A Sankey Diagram is Worth a Thousand Pie Charts. Retrieved August
21, 2014, from Sankey Diagrams: http://www.sankey-diagrams.com/
[40] Psomas and SWCA, “Utah Lake TMDL: Pollutant Loading Assessment & Designated
Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment,” 2007.
[41] WolframAlpha. (2014). Utah Lake. Retrieved from WolframAlpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Utah+Lake
[42] Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2013) Strawberry Reservoir and Valley Statistics,
Retrieved from http://wildlife.utah.gov/strawberry/straw4.php
[43] June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program. (2014) Retrieved from
www.junesuckerrecovery.org.
[44] Meyers, Donald. (2009) “Bridge over Utah Lake? Support is scarce,” The Salt Lake
Tribune, 15 November 2009. Retrieved from
www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_13793302.
[45] USGS Earthquake Glossary-liquefaction. (n.d.) Retrieved from
earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=liquefaction
[46] Hill, R. W., Miner, D., & Hinton, A. (2002). Sprinklers, Crop Water, and Irrigation
Time: Utah County, 1–10.
[47] United States Department of Transportation. (2009) “Inbound Shipment Characteristics
by State of Origin for State of Destination: 2007.” Retrieved from
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow
_survey/2007/states/utah/html/table_08.html.
[48] United States Department of Agriculture. (2012) “USDA Census of Agriculture State and
County Profiles, Utah: 2012.” Retrieved from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profil
es/Utah/
[49] Utah Office of Energy Development. (2014) Utah’s Energy Resources. Retrieved from
http://energy.utah.gov/resource-areas/
[50] Utah Governor’s Office. (2014), Energy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.utah.gov/governor/priorities/energy.html
[51] Friedman, Gabe. (2014), “Sun Land,” The New Yorker, 6 August 2014, Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/sun-land-solar-power-development
[52] Young, Angelo. (2014) “California Sand Fire: Desalination Plants May Be State’s Only
Solution Despite Environmental, Energy Concerns.” 27 July 2014, International

48
Business Times, retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/california-sand-fire-
desalination-plants-may-be-states-only-solution-despite-environmental-1640292
[53] Desware. (2014) “Energy Requirements of Desalination Processes,” Encyclopedia of
Desalination and Water Resources. Retrieved from www.desware.net/desa4.aspx
[54] iUtah. (2014), About iUtah, Retrieved from iutahepscor.org/about.html
Additional Resources:
[55] Richardson, G. B. (1906). Underground Water in the Valleys of Utah Lake and Jordan
River, Utah.
[56] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2000). Municipal
and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah and East Juab Counties Area: Data
Collected for Calendar Year 1998.
and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah Lake Basin: Data Collected for
Calendar Year 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/utaheastjuabcounty/Utah Lake 2003 M&I.pdf
and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Jordan River Basin: Data Collected for
http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/lowerjordan/Jordan 2003 M&I Rpt.pdf
and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Utah Lake Basin: Data Collected for
Calendar Year 2005, (May).
and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Jordan River: Data Collected for
http://www.water.utah.gov/m&i/pdf/lowerjordan/Jordan 2005 M&I.pdf
[61] Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2012). The water-
energy nexus in Utah 2012.

49
Appendix A
Water Use Model for Utah Lake and Jordan River Basins
DJ Bruton
Aug-14 Case Name 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Year2060 Wastewater Split 2010 2060 2060 & CC
2060
Failed
Cons
WC: 2060,
Cons, CC, Ag
Protection
after 2025
Full
Transbasin
Diversion
2060
Wastewa
ter to Ag
2060
Wastewa
ter to
M&I
2060
Wastewa
ter Split
From literature
Projections/Calculations Inches Precip 27.5 25 25 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Inches
Copy of Previous Total Study Area 2502664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 2,502,664 Acres
Summation Natural Evap % 0.79275 76% 76% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79% 79%
Water Budget 1188635 1,277,401 1,277,401 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 1,188,635 AF/year
Sources: Natural Evap 4546637 3,936,482 3,936,482 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 AF/year
1 CUWCD Octopus Chart Population 2988420 1,576,280 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 2,988,420 AF/year
2 Watershed Basins of Utah Total Agricultural Water 310370 558,395 310,370 310,370 310,370 483,988 310,370 310,370 310,370 310,370 AF/year
3 JRB Planning 2007 Ag Return 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 AF/year
4 Utah 2010 M&I Irrigation GW Return 0.19 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%
5 Utah Lake Planning M&I GPCD 241 301 241 241 301 241 241 241 241 241 GPCD
6 Utah Planning 2001 Total M&I 806733 530,695 806,733 806,733 1,007,579 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 AF/year
7 Groundwater Conditions 2011 Surface/Groundwater Split 0.25 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
8 Water Related Land Use Transbasin Diversion 172900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 400,000 172,900 172,900 172,900 AF/year
9 Utah Gov. Office % Wastewater Recycled to M&I 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50%
% Wastewater Recycled to Ag 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 50%
Total Available Water 1361535 1,450,301 1,450,301 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,588,635 1,361,535 1,361,535 1,361,535
From Flow To Process Status
BOUND 1 A Process: Input: Output: 7 0 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 Description:
BOUND 2 A A 1 5735272 5,213,883 5,213,883 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 5,735,272 Total Precip
A 3 BOUND 2 172900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 172,900 400,000 172,900 172,900 172,900 Transbasin Diversion
A 4 B 3 4546637 3,936,482 3,936,482 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 4,546,637 Evap Losses
A 5 C 4 363285.1 452,051 452,051 363,285 363,285 363,285 590,385 363,285 363,285 363,285 Surface Water 1
B 6 D 5 998250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 Groundwater 1
B 7 M B 4 363285.1 452,051 452,051 363,285 363,285 363,285 590,385 363,285 363,285 363,285 Surface Water 1
B 8 E 6 48463.88 139,599 77,593 77,593 77,593 120,997 77,593 19,335 77,593 48,464 Ag from SW
C 9 D 7 142266.5 179,779 172,776 84,009 33,798 40,605 311,109 142,267 142,267 142,267 Surface Water Less Ag & M&I
C 10 E 8 172554.6 132,674 201,683 201,683 251,895 201,683 201,683 201,683 143,426 172,555 M&I from SW
C 11 N C 5 998250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 998,250 Groundwater 1
D 12 N 9 145391.6 418,796 232,778 232,778 232,778 362,991 232,778 58,006 232,778 145,392 Ag from GW
D 13 BOUND 10 517663.9 398,021 605,050 605,050 755,685 605,050 605,050 605,050 430,278 517,664 M&I from GW
D 14 M 11 335194.5 181,432 160,423 160,423 9,788 30,210 160,423 335,194 335,194 335,194 GW less Ag & M&I
E 15 F D 6 48463.88 139,599 77,593 77,593 77,593 120,997 77,593 19,335 77,593 48,464 Ag from SW
E 16 G 9 145391.6 418,796 232,778 232,778 232,778 362,991 232,778 58,006 232,778 145,392 Ag from GW
E 17 H R2 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 0 116,514 Recycled to Ag
E 18 I Ag Subtotal 310370 558,395 310,370 310,370 310,370 483,988 310,370 310,370 310,370 310,370
E 19 J 12 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 Ag return to GW
E 20 K 13 249059.1 448,089 249,059 249,059 249,059 388,380 249,059 249,059 249,059 249,059 Ag Depletion
F 21 BOUND 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ag return to SW
F 22 N E 8 172554.6 132,674 201,683 201,683 251,895 201,683 201,683 201,683 143,426 172,555 M&I from SW
G 23 BOUND 10 517663.9 398,021 605,050 605,050 755,685 605,050 605,050 605,050 430,278 517,664 M&I from GW
G 24 L R1 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 116,514 Recycled to M&I
H 25 BOUND M&I Subtotal 806733 530,695 806,733 806,733 1,007,579 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733 806,733
H 26 L 15 177769.9 116,943 177,770 177,770 222,028 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 Res Outdoor
I 27 BOUND 16 161457.1 106,212 161,457 161,457 201,654 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 Res Indoor
I 28 L 17 94238.9 61,993 94,239 94,239 117,701 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 Commercial
J 29 BOUND 18 226190.1 148,795 226,190 226,190 282,503 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 Institutional
J 30 L 19 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial
K 31 BOUND 20 97956.87 64,439 97,957 97,957 122,344 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 Secondary
K 32 N F 15 177769.9 116,943 177,770 177,770 222,028 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 177,770 Res Outdoor
L 33 BOUND 21 143993.6 94,724 143,994 143,994 179,843 143,994 143,994 143,994 143,994 143,994 Res Outdoor Depletion
L 34 M 22 33776.28 22,219 33,776 33,776 42,185 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 Res Outdoor to GW
M 35 O G 16 161457.1 106,212 161,457 161,457 201,654 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 161,457 Res Indoor
N 36 O 23 3229.09 2,124 3,229 3,229 4,033 3,229 3,229 3,229 3,229 3,229 Res Indoor Depletion
O 37 BOUND 24 158228 104,088 158,228 158,228 197,621 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 Res Indoor Return
L R1 E H 17 94238.9 61,993 94,239 94,239 117,701 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 94,239 Commercial
L R2 D 25 20355.64 13,391 20,356 20,356 25,423 20,356 20,356 20,356 20,356 20,356 Com Depletion
26 73883.26 48,603 73,883 73,883 92,277 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 Com Return
I 18 226190.1 148,795 226,190 226,190 282,503 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 226,190 Institutional
27 181857 119,631 181,857 181,857 227,133 181,857 181,857 181,857 181,857 181,857 Inst Depletion
28 44333.18 29,164 44,333 44,333 55,370 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 Inst Return
J 19 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial
29 49120.11 32,313 49,120 49,120 61,349 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 49,120 Industrial Depletion
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial Return
K 20 97956.87 64,439 97,957 97,957 122,344 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 97,957 Secondary
31 79345.06 52,196 79,345 79,345 99,099 79,345 79,345 79,345 79,345 79,345 Secondary Depletion
32 18611.8 12,243 18,612 18,612 23,245 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 Secondary to GW
L 24 158228 104,088 158,228 158,228 197,621 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 158,228 Res Indoor Return
26 73883.26 48,603 73,883 73,883 92,277 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 73,883 Com Return
28 44333.18 29,164 44,333 44,333 55,370 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 44,333 Inst Return
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial Return
33 43415.47 28,560 43,415 43,415 54,224 43,415 43,415 43,415 43,415 43,415 Wastewater Treatment Losses
R1 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 116,514 Recycled to M&I
R2 116514.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 233,029 0 116,514 Recycled to Ag
34 0 153,294 233,029 233,029 291,044 233,029 233,029 0 0 0 Wastewater to SW Return
M 7 142266.5 179,779 172,776 84,009 33,798 40,605 311,109 142,267 142,267 142,267 Surface Water Less Ag & M&I
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ag return to SW
34 0 153,294 233,029 233,029 291,044 233,029 233,029 0 0 0 Wastewater to SW Return
35 142266.5 333,073 405,805 317,038 324,842 273,634 544,138 142,267 142,267 142,267 SW to Outflow
N 11 335194.5 181,432 160,423 160,423 9,788 30,210 160,423 335,194 335,194 335,194 GW less Ag & M&I
12 61310.91 110,306 61,311 61,311 61,311 95,608 61,311 61,311 61,311 61,311 Ag return to GW
22 33776.28 22,219 33,776 33,776 42,185 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 33,776 Res Outdoor to GW
32 18611.8 12,243 18,612 18,612 23,245 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 18,612 Secondary to GW
36 448893.5 326,201 274,122 274,122 136,530 178,205 274,122 448,893 448,893 448,893 GW to Outflow
O 35 142266.5 333,073 405,805 317,038 324,842 273,634 544,138 142,267 142,267 142,267 SW to Outflow
36 448893.5 326,201 274,122 274,122 136,530 178,205 274,122 448,893 448,893 448,893 GW to Outflow
37 591160 659,274 679,926 591,160 461,372 451,839 818,260 591,160 591,160 591,160 Total to GSL

Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (9)

En vedette

En vedette (12)

Similaire à Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation

Similaire à Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation (20)

Bruton DJ MPhil Dissertation