Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
41 of 2025 - Plan Update - 2025 Water Conservation
RESOLUTION NO. 41 OF 2025 (2025 Water Conservation Plan) A resolution adopting the 2025 Water Conservation Plan, as required by Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code requires that water conservancy districts and retail water providers adopt water conservation plans and update such plans no less frequently than every five years; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 73-10-32(3) of the Utah Code, the City Council provided notice and held a public hearing to receive community input on the proposed 2025 Water Conservation Plan, and has considered such input in determining that adoption of the Plan is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recognizes that water conservation is essential to sustaining the City’s long-term water supply reliability, protecting the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, and ensuring that future generations benefit from responsible and equitable water management; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City supports the efforts to reduce water demand and improve water efficiency that have occurred and were outlined in previously adopted water conservation plans; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Water Conservation Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Water Conservation Plan identifies updated strategies and measurable objectives for reducing per-capita water demand, increasing water-use efficiency, and expanding public outreach and education; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is concerned about future efforts for further water conservation and has determined that it would be in the best interest of the community to adopt the 2025 Water Conservation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City that: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the 2025 Water Conservation Plan, attached hereto as Attachment A, as Salt Lake City’s plan for water conservation, demand management, and water-use efficiency. 2. The Department of Public Utilities is directed to implement the goals, objectives, and actions outlined in the 2025 Water Conservation Plan. 3. The City Council encourages continued collaboration with regional, state, and federal partners to secure funding, technical assistance, and community participation in achieving the Plan’s conservation objectives. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 2nd day of December, 2025. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: _ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Resolution Adopting 2025 Water Conservation Plan 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: By: Carly Castle, Senior City Attorney Carly Castle (Dec 11, 2025 17:17:55 MST) Carly Castle 12/11/25 Chris Wharton (Dec 16, 2025 17:57:34 MST) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Landscape Efficiencies Commercial Programs Education and Outreach Demonstration Gardens Environmental Stewardship Landscape Transformations Landscape Efficiencies Commercial Programs Education and Outreach Demonstration Gardens Environmental Stewardship Landscape Transformations DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-1 PLAN SUMMARY DRAFT PLAN SUMMARY I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department) has completed an update of its water conservation plan (Plan). Working with Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc., the Department has prepared this Plan in accordance with the State of Utah Conservation Plan Act 73-10-32, as well as under guidelines outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual M52: Water Conservation Programs and the State’s Regional Conservation Goals. At its simplest, water conservation is the effort of learning to use less water while maintaining quality-of-life standards. There are many reasons to conserve water, and for a community, it makes sense to plan that conservation effort. Planning helps quantify water supply and assess historical demand so that conservation goals may be established that help us live within and sustain limited water resources. Planning helps ensure that water conservation programs are adequate to achieve established goals. Planning helps communicate complex issues that affect short- and long-term conservation efforts, such as climate change and growth. And finally, conservation planning can convey the need to conserve, identify tools and resources available to the community for use in their conservation efforts, and build a shared water steward ethic that motivates us all to achieve the desired, and necessary, conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-2 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-3 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT CHAPTER ONE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE AREA........................................... 1-2 1.2 DEMANDS ON THE WATER SYSTEM ........................................................... 1-2 1.3 SLCDPU WATER SUPPLY ....................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1 Existing Sources...................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Future Sources ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.3 Total Annual Water Supply .................................................................... 1-6 1.4 WATER SYSTEM RISK ............................................................................ 1-7 1.5 FUTURE ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS COMPARED TO FUTURE DEMAND 1-9 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 1-10 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL WATER USE 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 TOTAL WATER USE ............................................................................... 2-2 2.2 PER CAPITA USE .................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 SYSTEM LOSSES ................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 USE BY CLASSIFICATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION ........................................ 2-5 2.5 INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATER USE ........................................................ 2-7 2.6 CONSERVATION PROGRESS TO DATE ....................................................... 2-12 CHAPTER THREE: CONSERVATION GOALS 3.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 CONSERVATION GOALS .......................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Governor’s 2001 Statewide Water Conservation Goal .......................... 3-2 3.1.2 Central Utah Project Conservation Agreement (Utah Lake System Conservation Goals) ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Recommended State Water Strategy, July 2017 ................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals, November 2019 And June 2025 ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.5 Water Conservation And Great Salt Lake............................................... 3-4 3.1.6 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Conservation Goals ............................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.7 Comparison Of Conservation Goals ....................................................... 3-4 3.2 DETAILS OF SLCDPU CONSERVATION GOALS .............................................. 3-5 3.2.1 Overall Conservation Goal ..................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Conservation Goal by Customer Classification .......................................3-5 3.2.3 Conservation Goals By Sub-Classification ...............................................3-9 3.2.4 Five- And Ten-Year Conservation Goals ...............................................3-13 3.2.5 Additional Conservation Potential For Great Salt Lake ........................3-14 CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES 4.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS ........................................................ 4-2 4.1.1 Criteria ....................................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Evaluation ...............................................................................................4-2 4.1.3 Resource allocation ................................................................................4-2 4.1.4 Terminology............................................................................................4-2 4.2 CONSERVATION BY CONNECTION ............................................................. 4-3 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONSERVATION ............................................ 4-4 4.4 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES ................... 4-5 4.4.1 Programs ................................................................................................4-5 4.4.2 Practices and Measures ..........................................................................4-6 4.4.3 Program Tables .......................................................................................4-6 4.5 OUTREACH......................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.1 Demonstration Gardens And SLCGARDENWISE.COM [0-3, 0-4, 0-5] .....4-9 4.5.2 Public Access, Cloud-based Portals [0-17] ............................................4-10 4.5.3 Conservation Learning Labs [0-14] .......................................................4-10 4.5.4 School Classroom Program [0-10] ........................................................4-11 4.5.5 Water Week and other Events [O-10, O-18] ........................................4-12 4.5.6 Conservation Action Plans [O-9, U-6] ...................................................4-12 4.6 ECONOMICS ..................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.1 Rebates, Micro-Grants, and Incentives [E-4, E-6, E-7, E-8] ...................4-18 4.6.2 CII Audits and Direct Installs [E-10] ......................................................4-18 4.7 UTILITY OPERATIONS .......................................................................... 4-21 4.7.1 Evaluate Data-Mining Opportunities of AMI Technologies [U-7, U-9] .4-22 4.7.2 Landscape Upgrades and Maintenance [U-2, U-10, U-11] ...................4-22 4.7.3 Leak Detection and M36 Audit Outcomes [U-3] ..................................4-23 4.7.4 City-Wide Water Efficiency Study [U-2, O-7] ........................................4-23 4.8 LAW AND POLICY ............................................................................... 4-27 4.8.1 Evaluate Ordinances and Policies [LP-4, LP-7, LP-8] .............................4-27 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.9 RESEARCH AND METRICS ...................................................................... 4-32 4.9.1 Conduct AWWA M36 Study [R-19] ...................................................... 4-33 4.9.2 Establish Metrics, Benchmarks, and Goals for Conservation Programing [R-1, O-6] ....................................................................................................... 4-33 4.9.3 5- and 10-Year Proposed Water Conservation budget ....................... 4-33 4.9.4 Landscape and Turf Conversion Impacts ............................................. 4-33 4.9.5 SLCDPU/USU Collaboration [R-1, R-5, O-6, O-16] ................................ 4-34 4.9.6 SLCDPU/CVWCD Landscape Transformation Analysis [R-] .................. 4-38 4.9.7 CII Water Depletion Evaluation and Conservation/Great Salt Lake Impacts [R-20, R-21] ..................................................................................... 4-39 4.9.8 CII Analytics [R-20] ............................................................................... 4-39 CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN 5.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... 5-1 5.2 STAKEHOLDERS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS ..................................................... 5-2 5.3 MEDIA AND SOCIAL PLATFORMS .............................................................. 5-2 5.4 AVENUES OF COMMUNICATION ............................................................... 5-2 5.5 ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH ............................................ 5-2 APPENDICES A. SLCDPU WATER SERVICE AREA MAP ..................................................... A-2 B. MWDSLS ULS REPORT 2024, TABLE 4: SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS ...................................................................... A-3 C. STATE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 2025 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN CHECKLIST ........................................................................................ A-4 D. ANSI/AWWA G480-13 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARD, FIRST EDITION. JULY 1, 2013 ............................ A-8 E. WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET 2025/26 ............................................ A-14 F. 17.16.092: WATER SHORTAGE MANAGEMENT POLICY ............................. A-16 G. SALT LAKE CITY CODE 21A-48-055 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ................................................................................................... A-17 H. PUBLIC UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES/WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DISCUSSION .................................................................................... A-18 I. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY BOARD MINUTES/WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ........... A-19 J. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL FORMAL MEETING ..................... A-20 K. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL, MINUTES, AND RESOLUTION ............ A-21 L. M36 WATER AUDIT SUMMARIES ......................................................... A-22 M. SLCDPU DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN SUMMARY ................................. A-23 N. IMPACTS OF WATER CONSERVATION ON RATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, 2025 .. .................................................................................................... A-24 O. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION .................. A-25 P. CONSERVATION ACTION PLANS ............................................................ A-26 Q. RESIDENTIAL WATER SALES TARGETS ..................................................... A-27 R. LINKS AND REFERENCES ...................................................................... A-29 S. GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS ............................ A-30 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1-1 Water System Service Area.......................................................................1-2 1-2 Demographic Factors Predictive Of Demand ............................................1-3 1-3 Projected SLCDPU Service Area Annual Production Requirements ..........1-4 1-4 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Supply and Demand .................1-7 1-5 Little Cottonwood Creek-Annual Flow Volume at LCWTP ........................1-8 1-6 Projected SLCDPU Annual Production Requirements vs. Supply (Dry Year) With Supply Redundancy Buffers .............................................................1-9 2-1 Water Sales (gpd) .....................................................................................2-2 2-2 Salt Lake City Per Capita Water Use (gpd) ................................................2-3 2-3 Water Use Classification and Sub-Classification .......................................2-5 2-4 Volume of Use by Classification (AF/Year) ................................................2-6 2-5 Volume of Use by Sub-Classification (AF/Year) .........................................2-6 2-6 Seasonal Water Use, Single Residence (2022-2024) ................................2-7 2-7 Location of Use by Classification ..............................................................2-8 2-8 % Total Indoor Use by Classification .........................................................2-8 2-9 % Total Outdoor Use by Classification ......................................................2-8 2-10 Location of Use by Sub-Classification .......................................................2-9 2-11 % Total Indoor Use by Sub-Classification ..................................................2-9 2-12 % Total Outdoor Use by Sub-Classification ...............................................2-9 2-13 Volume of Use by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year ..............2-10 2-14 Volume of Use by Location and Sub-Classification (AF/Year) .................2-10 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 2-15 Per Capita Water Use by Classification (gpd) ......................................... 2-11 2-16 Monthly Conservation, Average of All Connections............................... 2-12 2-17 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-13 2-18 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-14 2-19 Volumes of Conservation Since 2001 by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year) ................................................................................................ 2-14 2-20 Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Per Capita Peak Day Water Use (GPD) ............................................................................................... 2-15 3-1 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals ...................................... 3-3 3-2 SLCDPU Service Area Conservation Trend ................................................ 3-4 3-3 Additional Conservation by Month Averaged Across All Connections ..... 3-6 3-4 Estimated Additional Percentage to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Customer Classification ............................................................................................ 3-7 3-5 Volume of Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ........................... 3-8 3-6 Volume of Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Sub-Classification (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ................... 3-9 3-7 Hotel and Motel Total Annual Use ......................................................... 3-10 3-8 Finance and Insurance Total Annual Use ............................................... 3-10 3-9 Hospitals Total Annual Use ..................................................................... 3-10 3-10 Real Estate and Rental Leasing Total Annual Use ................................... 3-10 3-11 CII Mean LIR ........................................................................................... 3-11 3-12 CII LIR by Service Connection ................................................................. 3-11 3-13 Conservation Alternatives ...................................................................... 3-14 4-1 Average Residential LIR Ranges .............................................................. 4-36 4-2 Residential Categorization by LIR and Water Volume ........................... 4-36 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1-1 Projected Annual Yield of SLCDPU Surface Water Sources.......................1-5 1-2 SLCDPU Projected Dry Year Production Existing and Future Sources ......1-6 2-1 Water Sales in Acre-Feet ..........................................................................2-2 2-2 Estimated System Losses 2021-2024 ........................................................2-4 2-3 Total Connections .....................................................................................2-6 2-4 Reported Water Sales to Division of Water Rights (Acre-Feet) ................2-6 2-5 Updated Water Sales Data (Acre-Feet) .....................................................2-6 2-6 2024 Per Capita Water Use By Classification (gpd).................................2-11 3-1 Long-Term Conservation Goals Expressed as Per Capita Use (Gallons Sales Per Day) ....................................................................................................3-5 3-2 Percent Reduction In Per Capita Sales To Achieve Long-Term Goals ........3-5 3-3 Recommended Per-Household Interim Conservation Goals for Single Family Residential Customers ...................................................................3-8 3-4 Long-Term (2060) Conservation Goals by Sub-Classification .................3-12 3-5 Recommended Interim Conservation Goals ...........................................3-13 3-6 Interim Conservation Goals By Classification (af/year) ..........................3-13 3-7 Long-Term (2060) GSL Conservation Alternative Goals ..........................3-14 4-1 Additional Reduction In Per Connection Use Needed (Gpd/Connection) 4-3 4-2 Outreach .................................................................................................4-13 4-3 Economics ...............................................................................................4-19 4-4 Utility Operations ...................................................................................4-24 4-5 Law and Policy ........................................................................................4-29 4-6 Research and Metrics .............................................................................4-40 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-1 DRAFT SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019 CHAPTER ONE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 1.0 I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department or SLCDPU) retained Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to complete a supply and demand master plan for its water system1. The purpose of that study was to compare the availability of water supplies to the existing and future demands on the system. The results of that study are meant to guide the Department’s decisions regarding supply management and development, as well as inform the Department’s decisions regarding demand management, including the establishment of conservation targets. Key elements of that study are summarized here to ensure consistency within the Department’s multiple planning processes. The details contained in this chapter are derived nearly entirely from the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, 2019 (Supply and Demand Plan), including service area, demand projections, current and future water supplies, water supply risks, and recommended actions. As summarized in the highlights to the left, future demand (without additional conservation) will outpace future supply by approximately 14 percent, owing in part to anticipated growth. A number of potential risks have been identified, though impacts from climate change bring the widest range of variables and may alter both water supply and demand projections. A number of strategies have been identified to meet this potential water supply shortfall. One strategy already in place is to plan for reserve water supplies through the use of operational and planning practices. Continued research related to climate change will improve our understanding of supply and demand impacts, lessening uncertainty. Lastly, and the subject of this plan, is to expand an already robust conservation program by improving our understanding of water use behaviors and patterns to further enhance water conservation efforts and meet newly established demand reduction goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.1 S ALT L AKE C ITY P UBLIC U TILITIES S ERVICE A REA Salt Lake City (City) currently provides all retail water service within Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. It also provides retail service to portions of other communities on the east side of the Salt Lake Valley. This includes portions of South Salt Lake, Mill Creek, Holladay, Murray, Cottonwood Heights, and unincorporated Salt Lake County. The service area is shown in Figure 1-1 with a larger, more detailed map included in the appendix to this plan. The Utility service area is shown in pink. It should be noted that there are two private water providers completely surrounded by the City’s service area. The University of Utah (shown in red) and Holliday Water Company (shown in blue) have their own sources and distribute water within their respective service areas. They also purchase water from the Utility, with that purchased water included within this analysis. 1.2 D EMANDS ON THE W ATER S YSTEM When discussing water demand, system water volume is measured either as production or water sales. Water supply needs are typically discussed in terms of production, where water demand is assessed by analyzing water sales. Water Sales. Water sales (sometimes referred to as “water use”) refers to the amount of water metered at the point of connection to customers. This total amount is reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights and Central Utah Project (CUP) annually for tracking water use and conservation progress. Because of the more detailed information available regarding individual water customers, water sales are used for calculating use and reduction values in Chapters 2 and 3. Production. Evaluation of supply is based on demands on the water system expressed in terms of production requirement. The production requirement is the amount of water that must be produced at wells and treatment plants, and be purchased from wholesale providers, in order to meet the entire water supply and water storage needs of the system and our customers. Water sales do not represent the full volume of water within the system. Inherent in any system is water loss, which is the difference between produced water and authorized consumption. This water loss may be real losses (such as leakage, unmetered authorized uses such as firefighting water, and storage tank overflows) and apparent losses (such as meter inaccuracies at the point of delivery, data errors, or theft of water). FIGURE 1-1 WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-3 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE As future production requirements are evaluated, there are limitations in making these projections. We cannot predict actual demand, but we can project future use by evaluating select demographic factors. This information then informs projections of total water use. Water production requirements in the service area were estimated by first developing projections for the four characteristics predictive of demand as shown in Figure 1-2: 4.1 Residential Population to predict residential indoor use; 5.1 Employment Population to predict commercial and institutional indoor use; 6.1 Industrial Area to predict industrial uses; and 7.1 Irrigated Area to predict outdoor use for all water user classifications (residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial). The water production for each characteristic was projected with respect to anticipated growth and development. The predictions of system growth are based on planning data (e.g. SLC zoning maps), regional planning data (e.g. U.S. 2010 census and Wasatch Front Regional Council growth projections), and coordination with City officials. For additional detail, please refer to the Supply and Demand Master Plan. With growth in each component projected, it is then possible to model future indoor and outdoor water use: Indoor Use. For most indoor use, it was determined that water demand could be reasonably estimated using residential population (to project residential water use) and employment projections (to project commercial and institutional water use). The only type of indoor use that did not appear to be well represented by these two parameters is industrial use. For industrial demands, water use was projected based on total developed industrial area. Outdoor Use. Outdoor use was determined by evaluating estimated total irrigatable area multiplied by historical outdoor water use. This was initially estimated to be 3.5 AF/acre (or 42 inches of water per season) in 2001,2 but 2 Per 2001 irrigation water use data. See Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, p2-9 has gradually decreased to an estimated current use of 2.66 acre-feet (32 inches of water per season).3 The final step of projecting demands is to combine the projected indoor and outdoor water demand. 3 Per recent water use data (2022-24). See Chapter 2. Please note that these values are for water production. Actual application rate at the point of delivery (including system losses) will be 10 to 12 percent less. FIGURE 1-2 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS PREDICTIVE OF DEMAND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE The outcome of this analysis is displayed in Figure 1-3, which shows the historical and projected water production requirements in terms of annual production. This projected water production is based on expected demands if no additional conservation is achieved beyond what has been accomplished to date. Without increased levels of conservation, required production is expected to increase from 87,000 acre-feet today to about 127,200 acre-feet by the year 2060, or roughly a 34% increase in production to meet population growth over the next 40 years. 1.3 SLC DPU W ATER S UPPL Y The City has a number of existing water sources and is also planning future supplies. Like nearly all water sources, the water produced is tied to precipitation. As intuition would suggest, in years with above average snow and rainfall, sources almost always produce more, and sometimes a lot more. Conversely, in dry years, sources usually produce less water. Consecutive dry years can exacerbate pressures on supplies and result in reduction in source water. This reduction can then be compounded by increased demands due to hotter and drier periods. Water demand management during times of drought is addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which can be found on line at www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation. Available water associated with both existing and future sources for both average and dry water years is summarized in the following sections. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 An n u a l P r o d u c t i o n ( a c r e -fe e t ) Historical Production Projected Production Without Additional Conservation FIGURE 1-3 PROJECTED SLCDPU SERVICE AREA ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-5 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.3.1 EXISTING SOURCES The existing water supply comes from a number of different sources, and for planning purposes, have been grouped into three categories: Surface Water Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of surface water sources. This includes surface water treated at the following utility-owned and operated treatment plants: Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (BCWTP), Parleys Water Treatment Plant (Parleys WTP), and City Creek Water Treatment Plant (CCWTP). This category also includes portions of surface water in Little Cottonwood Creek. This water is treated at Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (LCWTP), a plant owned and operated by Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Expected yields for each source based on historic flow records, available storage, and available treatment capacity at each of the plants are summarized in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 PROJECTED ANNUAL YIELD OF SLCDPU SURFACE WATER SOURCES Source Average Year Yield (acre-feet) Dry Year Yield (acre-feet) Comments BCWTP 22,000 18,900 Dry Year in 2015 Parleys WTP 11,200 3,100 Dry year based on firm yield of Little Dell Reservoir CCWTP 5,950 4,500 Dry Year in 2015 LCC (LCWTP) 20,350 14,320 Dry year in 2015 Total 59,500 40,820 Groundwater Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of groundwater sources. For evaluation purposes, groundwater sources have been broken into two categories: Base Wells and Springs. The City has several springs and artesian wells that require little or no pumping. Water from these sources is used year-round. The estimated average production of these sources is 7,500 acre-feet per year. This is for both average and dry water years. Peaking Wells. All remaining ground water sources are generally used only during the summer months to meet peak demands. Annual water production from these wells will vary significantly based on needs, but has an estimated maximum of 10,400 acre-feet. Preferred Storage Rights through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). This category of supply consists of water received through membership in MWDSLS. This includes water stored in Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs and comes in two components as follows: MWDSLS Provo River Project (PRP) Storage. The average year production of this source is 53,760 acre-feet. This is based on the full MWDSLS allotment of 61,700 acre-feet less 7,940 acre-feet of preferred storage reserved for Sandy City. Dry year production from this source has been estimated at 18,900 acre-feet. This is based on a 43.5% percent allotment from Deer Creek Reservoir as was experienced during the recent drought (2013). MWDSLS Central Utah Project (CUP) Storage. The available supply from this source is assumed to be 20,000 acre-feet in both average and dry years, which is the contractually defined amount. Utah Lake System Water. The City petitioned Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) for Central Utah Project (CUP) water through the planned Utah Lake System (ULS). This system was completed this year and is expected to supply 3,100 acre-feet going forward. 1.3.2 FUTURE SOURCES Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). In conjunction with Sandy City and MWDSLS, the City is currently investigating the utilization of aquifer storage and recovery. This option will utilize high spring runoff from surface water sources to be injected or infiltrated into the aquifer and documented with the State Engineer. Then, in dry years, this water would be available for extraction through wells. It is estimated that potential dry year yield of this source will be 5,900 acre-feet. This amount could be greater depending on sustained conservation efforts, as reduction in demand would reduce extraction volume. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-6 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE New Well Development. Development of additional groundwater has been planned to meet future growth and estimates development of current rights could yield up to 12,000 acre-feet additional groundwater. Wastewater Reuse. Opportunities for wastewater reuse have been studied. Initial plans for wastewater reuse would produce approximately 4,200 acre -feet annually. Additional Surface Water Development. Another potential supply is the development of a treatment plant to treat water from Millcreek Canyon or from other surface water sources. Based on historic flow records for Millcreek, potential yield from this source is estimated to be 3,970 acre-feet in an average year and 3,300 acre-feet in a dry year. Secondary Water. Recently, an analysis of potential opportunities for using secondary water on City properties within its service area4 was completed. While there are some limited opportunities for the use of secondary water, the analysis concluded that most of these opportunities were not viable at this time. The analysis also concluded that nearly all of the secondary water rights woul d be needed for other purposes in a dry year and correspondingly would not add appreciably to the reliable annual water supply of the City. A final consideration is that within the City watershed, secondary water is generally derived from the same sources as is culinary water, that is, from snow melt from the Wasatch Mountains. With this in mind, secondary water does not offer a new or discrete supply and so does not fully alleviate culinary demand burdens. 1.3.3 TOTAL ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY The total projected production of each category of supply described above is summarized in Table 1-2. For dry year conditions, annual supply is expected to increase from its existing yield of 97,620 acre-feet to a total future yield of 126,120 acre-feet. 4 Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019. TABLE 1-2 SLCDPU PROJECTED DRY YEAR PRODUCTION EXISTING AND FUTURE SOURCES Supply Category Projected Average Year Production (acre-feet)1 Projected Dry Year Production (acre-feet) Existing Surface Water Sources 59,500 40,820 Existing Groundwater Sources 7,500 17,900 Existing Storage Sources 73,760 38,900 New Wells 0 12,000 Additional Surface Water (MCWTP) 3,970 3,300 ULS 3,100 3,100 ASR2 -5,900 5,900 Additional SLC Surface Water 4,200 4,200 Total3 146,130 126,120 1. New Wells are projected at no production in the average year not because they are not available, but because they are not needed during average (or wet) years. 2. ASR is shown to have a negative production in the average year to represent the use of excess surface water source in the spring for injection into the aquifer. Thus, it will be a new demand, represented here as a “negative” source. This activity will occur in average years to make water available for extraction in dry years. 3. Secondary water supply is not included in this table as it is already being used for other purposes or was determined to not be a viable source of water at this time. Refer to Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-7 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.4 W ATER S YSTEM R ISK When planning for water supply, it is important to prepare for uncertainty by identifying and addressing risk and vulnerability to water supplies and within the system infrastructure. Regardless, if these uncertainties take the form of extreme weather conditions, system interruptions or failures, or other events, careful analysis and planning can mitigate or ameliorate negative outcomes. Four important questions were considered when analyzing long-term water supply projections in relation to mitigating risk: A. Is the historical data an appropriate indication of future source performance in the critical planning scenario (i.e. the “dry year”)? The last 30 years have been drier than the long- term measured period of record.5 However, this 30-year dry period is typical of dry periods in the paleo record.6 Therefore, the use of historical data (over the past 30 years) to describe future source performance appears to be an appropriate starting point. B. Are there factors (such as climate change) that would cause water supplies to perform differently than in the past? There are several conceivable events that might affect future supplies in such a way that would cause future performance to be different than the historical record might suggest. These events can range from temporary supply interruptions (with causes such as sudden equipment failure, earthquake, or wildfire) to long term changes to supply performance (with causes such as climate change). 5 See Figures 4-2 and 4-3 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 6 See Figures 4-4 and 4-5 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Climate change analysis is incorporated into long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability are addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day -to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only to supply, but also to demand as conceptually shown in Figure 1-4.7 The EPA Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. 7 Climate Resilience Approaches in Salt Lake City. May 16, 2018. Laura Briefer. American Water Resources, Utah Section. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CURRENT AVERAGE MAKEUP WATER CURRENT AVERAGE SUPPLY FUTURE AVERAGE DEMAND? FUTURE AVERAGE SUPPLY? CURRENT AVERAGE DEMAND MET FIGURE 1-4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE C. What level of system redundancy is reasonable to address possible supply interruptions, such as a source failure or outage? As part of its Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, several supply redundancy criteria have been adopted to address potential supply interruptions. This includes different levels of redundancy for single source loss and catastrophic loss of water supplies. Additional details regarding these redundancy criteria are contained in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. (See Figure 1-5). D.How can demand management and conservation proactively reduce potential impacts to supply or system as a result of risk? Demand management can be an effective tool in ameliorating future potential negative impacts related to risk and vulnerability of supply. This is the primary topic of this plan and is addressed in Chapter 4. Relative to risk, it should be noted that all practical and necessary steps are undertaken to minimize these types of risks. This includes regularly scheduled maintenance, regular inspections of key equipment, advanced asset management tracking, and rehabilitation and replacement planning. Additional discussion pertaining to risk, vulnerability, and potential mitigation can be found in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 19 1 2 19 1 4 19 1 6 19 1 8 19 2 0 19 2 2 19 2 4 19 2 6 19 2 8 19 3 0 19 3 2 19 3 4 19 3 6 19 3 8 19 4 0 19 4 2 19 4 4 19 4 6 19 4 8 19 5 0 19 5 2 19 5 4 19 5 6 19 5 8 19 6 0 19 6 2 19 6 4 19 6 6 19 6 8 19 7 0 19 7 2 19 7 4 19 7 6 19 7 8 19 8 0 19 8 2 19 8 4 19 8 6 19 8 8 19 9 0 19 9 2 19 9 4 19 9 6 19 9 8 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 4 20 1 6 Average Flow Volume FIGURE 1-5 LITTLE COTTONWOOD CREEK-ANNUAL FLOW VOLUME AT LCWTP SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-9 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.5 F UTURE A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS C OMPARED TO F UTURE D EMAND Figure 1-6 compares the total dry year water supply (including new supplies that have not yet been developed) with SLCDPU’s recommended supply planning demand scenario (including applicable provisions for risk). The scenario assumes that: 1. Conservation will, minimally, continue to maintain pace with recent levels and the current regional Conservation goal (15% reduction in per capita water usage by 2040). 2. The new conservation goals (see Chapter 3), which meet or exceed the State’s newly adopted regional conservation goals; and 3. Required production will include provisions to meet levels of supply risk as described in the previous section. 4. Reuse water is no longer a projected water source, as the Utility is making that water available to Great Salt Lake. As can be seen in Figure 1-6, as long as the conservation goals are met by the end of the planning window, current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient for long term projected system demands. However, the figure also shows that there will be very little excess capacity when supply risk and recommended redundancy is considered. This means that failing to meet the conservation goals could result in risk of inadequate water supply for projected FIGURE 1-6 PROJECTED SLCDPU ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS VS. SUPPLY (DRY YEAR) WITH SUPPLY REDUNDANCY BUFFERS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-10 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE demands. Reviewing and reevaluating these goals to lessen risk, decrease pressure on reserved water, improve supply redundancies, and optimize changes in technology and behavior related to demand management is recommended. 1.6 R ECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis summarized above, the following actions identified in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan are recommended for inclusion in the SLC Water Conservation Plan: Increase Efforts in Water Conservation Programming to Achieve Short - and Long-term Goals. Water supply challenges will occur if conservation programming efforts and outcomes to achieve the recommended planning scenario goals defined in this report (see Chapter 3) are not reached . Details of the conservation program proposed to meet these goals are discussed in Chapter 4 of this plan. Protect and Manage Water Supply. The City will require all identified water supplies to accommodate future growth with adequate buffer to address reasonable risk to the water supply. This includes: • Developing an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program (Estimated completion time =2025) • Developing new groundwater wells (gradually added between 2026 and 2036) • Plan to dedicate water previously planned for reuse to the Great Salt Lake. • The City should continue to monitor supplies and demands into the future and refine project timelines accordingly. Monitor Effects of Climate Change. Climate change impacts analysis should continue to remain a component of long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability can be addressed in the Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (2019), increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day -to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only on supply but also demand. The US Environmental Protection Agency Climate 8 Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. US-EPA 2019 Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. Continued monitoring of the water supply and demand is recommended, modifying this plan as necessary to address changing circumstances associated with climate change.8 Review and Reevaluate Conservation Goals. Regular review of conservation goals and outcomes will help to reduce risk, increase resiliency, and improve the ability to respond to changes in demand and supply, particularly in light of impacts to supply of increased reduction in use for Great Salt Lake. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-1 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO DRAFT CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL WATER USE 2.0 I NTRODUCTION Measuring water demand in terms of water production is the common practice for supply planning; however, water sales can be a more useful measurement when considering water use by connection and customer. This measurement is useful because water delivery meters are tied to specific end users. As discussed in Chapter 1, water use data reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights is based on water sales. The service area has been fully metered at the customer connection for nearly one hundred years. Meters are read every month and bills are issued to every water customer, including city and other government entities. This depth of metering history and data informs planning processes, and in particular, shapes the nature of water demand management and conservation planning. To analyze historical water use, we consider not only total water sales, but also general characteristics of those using the water, as well as the nature of water use patterns. Identifying types of customers and aggregating them into groups– classifications–helps us more effectively analyze water use, recognize patterns, chart trends, and anticipate future water needs based on the characteristics of our customers (user classifications) and the numbers of customers within each classification. This analysis informs planning across all aspects of the Department and is particularly useful in conservation planning. This chapter documents historical water use based on total water sales, water sales in several classifications and subclassifications, water sales as expressed as gallons per capita day (gpcd) and impacts of historical water conservation. Additionally, water loss–the difference between water produced and water sold–is also discussed, as well as an overview of water conservation program impacts. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-2 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.1 T OTAL W ATER U SE Water sales data has been collected, analyzed, and reported for many years. A summary of the reported sales since 2000 is shown in Table 2-1 and plotted in Figure 2-1. TABLE 2-1 WATER SALES IN ACRE-FEET Year Total Sales Reported to DWRi 2000 89,138 2001 91,712 2002 85,306 2003 80,641 2004 78,900 2005 71,297 2006 76,645 2007 87,190 2008 75,843 2009 74,697 2010 75,755 2011 70,130 2012 83,611 2013 80,196 2014 75,300 2015 72,722 2016 75,261 2017 78,310 2018 77,867 2019 69,299 2020 78,713 2021 68,767 2022 69,523 2023 69,134 2024 77,901 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p d ) DWRi Records FIGURE 2-1 WATER SALES (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-3 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.2 P ER C APITA U SE The primary way in which the State has chosen to measure water use and conservation progress is based on per capita water sales. Per capita water sales are calculated by dividing total water sales by a census-based population, a simplistic statistical analysis representing complex use characteristics. Per capita water sales for the service area over the past 18 years is shown in Figure 2-2. The per capita measuring approach is commonly used by the State of Utah as it provides a uniform methodology that can be applied to the many water systems it regulates. Unfortunately, there are also a number of weaknesses associated with measuring water and conservation progress based on per capita water sales. System Losses. Basing calculations on water sales rather than water production does not capture the effect of system losses on water consumption. Consequently, elimination of leaks and other system losses has no effect on per capita water sales even though these kinds of savings are an important part of overall conservation efforts. This may also result in undervaluing water loss programing as an effective conservation tool, as this method of calculation does not account for water loss and therefore reducing water loss do es not alter gallons per capita calculations. Effects of Land Use. Per capita water sales can be misleading because it does not adequately communicate the effects of density and other land use aspects on water use. For example, if a community significantly increases its population density, the amount of outdoor water use associated with each person may go down. This may result in lower per capita water sales even if the actual efficiency of water use does not improve. While this type of decrease in per capita water sales may reduce peak demand, it may not reflect overall changes in water use as a result of densification. Demand Forecasting. Frequently used to forecast future water demand, the use of per capita consumption assumes that water use increases in a predictable manner as population grows. This, however, ignores a number of national trends important to determining use levels, including but not limited to drought, recession, changes in demographics, changes in household or lot size, changes in commercial and industrial profiles, and improvements in technology. 9Water Conservation Programs M52, page 41 Additionally, assuming use increases with population ignores the role of conservation planning, education, and improvements in efficiencies related to use.9 Misinterpretation. Per capita consumption may also be misinterpreted to mean “volume of water used per person,” when in fact, it includes much more than direct use by individuals. As noted above, it also includes water use from all other classifications (commercial, institutional, and industrial) averaged across the population. Comparing gallons per capita of communities with differing 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p d ) DWRi Records FIGURE 2-2 SALT LAKE CITY PER CAPITA WATER USE (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-4 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO demographics or commercial and industrial bases can lead to misleading comparisons or characterizations of how water is actually being used. This may also affect an individual’s response to calls to conserve as they may not relate to the volume of water described in the gallons -per-capita statistic. When looking at residential use only, use per person in 2024 was only about 81 gpd (indoor and outdoor use). Adjustment for Equivalent Employment Population. While the weaknesses above are universal to all water providers, there are also some other weakness to using per capita water sales that are unique to the situations of individual water providers. One of these weaknesses is the impact of daytime employment population on water demand. Salt Lake City has a larger daytime worker population compared to other cities in Utah. Not only is the total magnitude large, but the ratio of workers to permanent population is also much larger than most other communities, even when compared to similarly sized communities across the country. This was demonstrated as an outcome of the 2000 US Census. The consequence of this larger-than-average worker population is that, in calculating per capita water sales, the standard calculation does not account for a daytime population surge of nearly 50 percent of the residential population. This in turn could result in under-projecting daytime water needs and distribution capacity. Additionally, this daytime surge may result in inflated daily per capita calculations. To account for this issue, a revised methodology has been developed which calculates per capita water sales based on a revised population number .10 This revised population number includes both permanent residents and an equivalent residential population representing the higher than average worker population. This revised population has been used to generate the results in Figure 2-10. Because of these weaknesses, tracking water use and conservation on a per capita basis does not provide as complete a view of actual water use patterns as is necessary to properly analyze and evaluate water use patterns and trends for planning purposes. However, since this is the method traditionally used by the State to track water use, it will continue to be referenced here. Additional metrics will also be added where useful to help define and clarify water use and conservation within the service area. 10 Documentation of MWDSLS Conservation Performance – ULS Supply Petition, Bowen Collins & Associates, April 28, 2006 2.3 S YSTEM L OSSES As discussed in Chapter 1, water use (as measured through sales at individual delivery points), does not encompass all of the water held or consumed in the water system. Water loss is defined as the difference between water produced and authorized consumption (such as metered water sales or fire protection). The resulting “unaccounted for” water may be apparent loss, such as theft or data analysis errors, or real losses, which consist of water lost through all types of leaks and breaks within the water infrastructure system. Understanding the nature of system loss is critical to developing effective management and mitigation strategies, with the goal of reducing system-wide losses. A comparison of water sales to metered production can identify the magnitude of water losses in the system. This is summarized in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 ESTIMATED SYSTEM LOSSES 2021-2024 YEAR Sales (Acre-feet) Production (Acre-feet) System Losses (Acre-feet) System Losses (%) 2021 68,767 85,473 16,706 19.54% 2022 69,523 81,634 12,111 14.84% 2023 69,134 83,813 14,679 17.51% 2024 77,901 89,939 12,038 13.38% To verify and address system losses, a water loss and control audit in accordance with AWWA M36 recommendations has been conducted from 2000 to 2024.11 More details of these programs can be found in Chapter Four: Water Conservation Programs. 11American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2017. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual, Second Edition. Denver, Colorado. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-5 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.4 U SE BY C LASSIFICATION AND S UB -C LASSIFICATION To provide additional background and context for developing, evaluating, and ultimately implementing conservation measures, it is useful to understand the details of how water is used within the service area. The figures and tables contained in this section have been assembled to provide additional detail regarding the breakdown of use by customer classification. These same classifications and sub-classifications will be used in the discussion of conservation programing in Chapter 4. Customers have been organized into a number of classifications based on shared characteristics such as use patterns and costs of service. This includes both broad classifications (residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) and more narrowly defined sub-classifications (single-family residence, triplex, hospital, restaurant, etc.). The classifications and sub-classifications used for this analysis are summarized in the corresponding graphic (Figure 2-3). Total numbers of existing connections by classification as reported to the DWRi are summarized in Table 2-3. Reported use by classification is summarized in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5. Table 2-4 includes a long-term record of use by Residential Single Residence Duplex Triplex Fourplex Commercial Business Hospital Hotel or Motel Restaurant Apartment Miscellaneous Institutional School Church Parks Government Industrial Industrial customers of all types FIGURE 2-3 WATER USE CLASSIFICATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-6 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO classification as reported to the DWRi. Table 2-5 includes records from 2021- 2024 based on improved customer classification data as discussed previously . Total use by classification and sub-classification are shown graphically in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. TABLE 2-3 TOTAL CONNECTIONS YEAR Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Total 2024 73,256 9,322 272 1,332 84,182 TABLE 2-4 REPORTED WATER SALES TO DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS (ACRE-FEET) YEAR RESIDENTIAL2 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL1 TOTAL 2010 43,283 17,584 3,397 11,491 75,755 2011 40,703 16,534 2,688 10,205 70,130 2012 48,611 18,813 3,331 12,856 83,611 2013 44,454 19,078 3,459 13,205 80,196 2014 42,283 18,587 3,699 10,731 75,300 2015 40,702 17,723 3,474 10,823 72,722 2016 42,695 17,858 3,527 11,181 75,261 2017 43,534 20,313 3,662 10,801 78,310 2018 44,272 18,792 3,627 11,176 77,867 2019 38,642 17,145 3,745 9,767 78,867 2020 46,294 16,881 3,693 11,845 69,299 2021 39,543 16,228 3,690 9,306 78,713 2022 36,817 15,996 3,870 12,840 68,767 2023 36,817 17,616 4,118 10,583 69,523 2024 39,914 18,921 5,577 13,490 69,134 1.In 2005 and 2006, a portion of SLC water use was reported under a customer class labeled as “Other”. This use has been included under the institutional classification in Table 2-4. 2. For purposes of this table and consistency with State reporting documents, apartments are included in the residential classification. However, apartments will be considered commercial for all subsequent portions of this report. TABLE 2-5 UPDATED WATER SALES DATA (ACRE-FEET) YEAR Residential Commercial1 Institutional Industrial Total 2022 29,522 29,658 7,713 4,076 70,969 2023 29,567 28,959 7,194 4,161 69,882 2024 32,177 31,555 8,152 4,378 76,261 1. Including apartments. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 FIGURE 2-4 VOLUME OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-5 VOLUME OF USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-7 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.5 I NDOOR AND O UTDOOR W ATER U SE Water meters are read and recorded every month (or more factually, by a range of days approximating a month). Understanding not only how much water is used, but also when it is used helps in both supply planning and demand management. One way to evaluate water use is to consider whether the water is being used indoors or outside. As this region has a distinct winter season, some inferences can be made regarding water use based on the time of year of the use. With this in mind, it is assumed that water use which occurs in winter months (November through March) is used indoors. Water use during the months of April through October (approximating the landscape irrigation season) is a combination of outdoor and indoor use. Outdoor use, (assumed to be water primarily used to support landscapes) is therefore determined to be the volume of water use during the irrigation season, less the volume of water during the winter months. This process has shortcomings, in that other water use patterns may alter with shifts in the season, but it represents the best estimate based on available data and is accepted industry practice. Figure 2-6 illustrates this analysis within the single-family residential classification. While the reasonableness of this assumption might make sense with residential properties, it is less certain that the same assumption can be made for commercial, institutional, and industrial customers. However, to simplify the discussion of seasonal water use and for purposes of this plan, outdoor water use is water used during the non-winter months and is assumed to be used on landscapes. As installation of AMI technology (Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or smart meters), CII analysis, and WaterMAPS™ is completed, this analysis will greatly improve in accuracy. Estimates for winter and summer usage by customer classifications follow. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) Outdoor Use Indoor Use FIGURE 2-6 SEASONAL WATER USE, SINGLE RESIDENCE (2022-2024) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-8 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Classification (Figures 2-7 through 2-9). When looking at the broader classifications, the two largest water users are the residential and commercial classifications. Residential use accounts for about half of all outdoor use and a third of all indoor use. Conversely, commercial water accounts for about half of indoor use and a third of the outdoor use. Because more water is used outdoors than indoors, residential water use is greater overall. The percentage of water used indoors and outdoors varies significantly between the various classifications. Almost 80 percent of institutional water use occurs outdoors while industrial outdoor use is less than 20 percent. This makes sense, given that institutional users include parks, schools, and other sub-classifications that are responsible for and maintain outdoor public spaces. Overall, about 46 percent of the water is used indoors and 54 percent is used outdoors. 37.6% 55.3% 20.5% 82.5% 51.7% 45.8% 62.4% 44.7% 79.5% 17.5% 48.3% 54.2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor 35% 50% 5% 10%Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial 48% 34% 16% 2% Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial FIGURE 2-7 LOCATION OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-8 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-9 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-9 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Sub-Classifications (Figures 2-10 through 2-12). Water use varies between sub-classifications. The sub-classification of single-family residence uses more water both indoors and outdoors than other sub-classifications. While the total portion of indoor water use by single-family customers is slightly more than indoor use by businesses, it is more than double the outdoor use of any other sub-classification. This may not be due to overuse but may be a result of property characteristics unique to this sub -classification. Analyzing use at this level, for instance, through programs like WaterMAPS™, can improve conservation programming design, and therefore, effectiveness. This in turn will help to assure that conservation goals are achieved in a manner that is timely, cost effective, and fair. Water use also varies within larger classifications. Residential outdoor use varies from 65 percent for single-family residential use to 31 percent for higher density properties. Among commercial users, Miscellaneous uses more water outdoors, while restaurants and hotels use more indoors. It is not unexpected that Parks has their highest percentage of use outdoors, and should not in itself be interpreted as overuse, but may indicate opportunity to conserve. 58.2% 78.2% 82.5% 72.9% 38.9% 67.4% 3.7% 24.2% 68.3% 69.0% 54.7% 53.4% 83.2% 35.4% 41.8% 21.8% 17.5% 27.1% 61.1% 32.6% 96.3% 75.8% 31.7% 31.0% 45.3% 46.6% 16.8% 64.6% HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & MUNICIPALS MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS MIXED USE SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor 1% 3% 10% 1% 4% 0.5% 0.4%3% 1% 16% 3%26% 0.3% 30% Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church Triplex 1%1% 2% 0.3% 6% 0.2% 10% 7% 1%6%2% 19%0.1% 45% Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church FIGURE 2-10 LOCATION OF USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-11 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-12 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-10 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Total Volume of Indoor and Outdoor Use (Figures 2-132 and 2-14). Figures 2-13 and 2-14 summarize indoor and outdoor water use by classification and sub- classification in terms of total volume (based on 2024 water use data). This provides some perspective on the total potential for conservation savings in each area. Consistent with previous conclusions, these figures confirm that much of the volume of water saved through conservation will need to come from single- family residences. However, the combined volume of other user types is also significant and cannot be overlooked. Detailed analysis for the commercial, industrial, and institutional classifications will ensure a clearer picture of water use patterns within these sectors. Understanding how businesses, offices, and industry use water helps identify opportunities for conservation, facilitating the development and implementation of effective demand management strategies. Commercial, industrial, and institutional customers are integral partners in the community, and helping them become better water stewards while not imperiling the economy benefits everyone. - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII Indoor Outdoor - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & GOVERNMENT MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-13 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR FIGURE 2-14 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-11 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Summary of Per Capita Use by Classification (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15 summarize use by classification on a per capita basis as requested in the State’s guidelines for conservation plans. Results are shown for 2024 water use. It should be noted that the per capita calculation has been based on the same equivalent population as used for generating Figure 2-1. As a result, while the figure and table are consistent with previous per capita calculations and may be useful in visualizing the ratio of use between the various classifications, they should not be interpreted as an accurate calculation of per person water use on a residential basis. Additionally, the range of characteristics within the commercial and industrial classifications is far greater than those within other classifications, making evaluations of per capita use by classification dubious in value. For example, commercial classifications contain small clothing boutiques (low water users) and large, many-tabled restaurants (high water users). Oil refineries are included in the industrial classification (high water user), but so are retail shipping warehouses (low water users). Even the residential classification is diverse, including single-family homes and multistory apartments with hundreds of units. Advances in metering technology, improvements in data and records keeping, and continued CII and WaterMAPS™ analysis will refine the data and bring more relevance to this particular statistical report. TABLE 2-6 2024 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) Residential 12 Commercial Institutional Industrial Total Indoor 28 41 4 8 82 Outdoor 47 33 15 2 97 Total 76 74 19 10 179 12 It should be noted that values in this table are based on the State of Utah’s methodology for calculating per capita water use (use per category divided by total permanent population). As a result, calculations may appear different than those in the Historical Use and Demand chapters. For example, the reported “Residential” indoor use of 28 gpcd includes single-family household indoor use divided by the total population. The State’s methodology separates single -family residential from apartments and other multiunit housing, placing these classifications in the “Commercial” category. This can result in an underrepresentation of the actual indoor use of residential customers. For purposes of this plan, indoor use of residents is 54 gpcd, and includes single family, duplex, triplex, and multiunit customers. Residential Indoor, 28 Residential Outdoor, 47 Commercial Indoor, 41 Commercial Outdoor, 33 Institutional Indoor, 4 Institutional Outdoor, 15 Industrial Indoor, 8 Industrial Outdoor, 2 Total All Classifications = 179 gpd FIGURE 2-15 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) FIGURE 2-15 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-12 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.6 C ONSERVATION P ROGRESS TO D ATE Significant progress has been made in improved efficiencies and conservation over the last two decades. While detailed records are not available for 2000, detailed analysis of water use patterns for each subsequent year was conducted. To evaluate where and how water was conserved, the water use patterns from 2001 have been compared to water use patterns over the 2022-24 period. The results are shown in Figures 2-15 through 2-18. Monthly Conservation Averaged Across Connections (Figure 2-16). Figure 2-16 shows estimated indoor and outdoor water use in the service area over the course of the year for both recent (average of 2022-24) and historical (2001 and 2016-18) water use patterns. As can be seen in the figure, the community has done an excellent job in saving water both indoors and outdoors and throughout recent years. This seems to indicate that the conservation program and messaging has been helpful in increasing overall awareness of the value of water, the importance of conservation, and implementing effective strategies for accomplishing sustained water use reductions. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) 2022-24 Total Use 2022-24 Indoor Use 2001 Total Use 2001 Indoor Use 2016-18 Indoor Use 2016-18 Total Use FIGURE 2-16 MONTHLY CONSERVATION, AVERAGE OF ALL CONNECTIONS FIGURE 2-16 MONTHLY CONSERVATION, AVERAGE OF ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-13 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-17). Figure 2- 17 shows the percent reductions by customer classification since 2001. These results have been calculated based on the reduction in water sales per connection. A few interesting trends can be observed in this figure: i. Conventional thinking has been that conservation will need to come primarily from outdoor water use. However, the percent savings between estimated indoor and outdoor water since 2001 is about the same. There is slightly more savings outdoors than indoors (28.4% vs. 24.2%), but the difference is less than might have been expected. ii. Commercial savings are a little less than half of the savings observed for residential customers since 2001. This does not necessarily indicate that commercial customers have not reduced water use appropriately. Further analysis is required to determine the capacity to reduce water use based on current practices and technologies. Continuing efforts to disaggregate water use within all CII classifications will improve understanding of water use patterns and enhance programing opportunities. iii. Institutional customers have seen the largest reduction in total use of all classifications. This demonstrates the efforts of large property managers in golf, parks, and other open spaces to reduce water use. While there is always more to do, this means institutional users have taken a good first step in conserving water on its properties. iv. Industrial customers appear to be showing an increase in indoor water use since 2001. In considering this result, it should be emphasized that the values reported here are based on sales per connection. While it is possible that per-connection water use has increased since 2001, it is also possible that new industrial connections have been added since 2001, accounting for the apparent increase in average use per connection. Ideally, these results could be presented in a format that only looked at water used by industrial customers that existed in 2001 to see how their actual water use has changed. Unfortunately, the data does not exist to make this distinction. Work is on-going to clarify water use within this classification. For more detailed information, refer to Chapter 4. Industrial customers, however, had the greatest reduction in outdoor use between classifications. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Total Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-17 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-17 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-14 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent of Water Use Reduction by Sub-Classification (Figure 2-18). Figure 2-18 shows the percent of water use reduction by sub-classification. This provides some additional detail regarding where reductions in per connection water use have occurred since 2001. Similar to what was observed for industrial customers in Figure 2-16, the “negative savings” observed for hospitals, hotels, and apartments are not believed to be per capita increases in water use, but a function of an increase in the number of connections or expansion in service within these sub-classifications since 2001. The conservation reported for indoor use in the miscellaneous classification may not be representative of actual savings, but a function of change in how customers in this classification are being reassigned to other classifications. As work continues in CII analysis, understanding of water use patterns and actual use reductions will improve. Volume Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-19). Figure 2-19 shows the estimated volume of water saved each year by each customer classification as a result of conservation. These results are an approximation of water volume use reductions as calculated by multiplying the percent reduction per connection by the average use per connection. As a result, it continues to reflect the same problem with industrial use as noted previously. However, it does provide some indication of the magnitude of reductions in various areas. As can be seen in Figure 2-19, use reductions outdoors accounts for slightly more than 54% of the total reduction. While the percent reduction of indoor use to outdoor use is comparatively similar (as noted previously), the larger total volume of water used outdoors results in a greater volume of conservation reductions. A similar conclusion can be made regarding residential water use reductions. About two-thirds of the total decrease in use is derived from residential customers. This is not because residential customers are saving at substantially higher rates, but simply because they, as a classification, use more water than other classifications. Research being conducted utilizing WaterMAPSTM, the CII Analytics Tool, and other methodologies will help to increase understanding of water use, demand reduction, and capacity to conserve across all classifications. See Chapter 4: Water Conservation Practices for program details. -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Total Indoor Outdoor - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-19 VOLUMES OF CONSERVATION SINCE 2001 BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-19 VOLUMES OF CONSERVATION SINCE 2001 BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-18 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-18 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-15 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Peak Day Water Use Reduction (Figure 2-20). All of the previous figures have focused on reductions in the volume of water used annually. However, significant strides have been made in reducing peak demands. This is important because most of the water infrastructure facilities must be sized to meet peak demands. Reducing these demands translates to significant savings for the service area. In system-wide numbers, peak day demand has been reduced from 216.3 million gallons per day (mgd) to 160.0 mgd in 2024. This is a reduction of 26 percent. While this is impressive in itself, the reduction is even greater when growth is taken into account. If peak day demand is converted into a per capita value following the same procedure described for total annual demands (see description of Figure 2-1), the observed reduction increases to 38 percent. Figure 2-20 shows how the reduction in per capita peak demand has occurred over time. Water savings associated with this reduction in demand are sizable, as identified in the recently completed storage and conveyance plan. When this new plan13 (using updated demand projections with conservation) is compared to the previous plan14 (based on historical demands without conservation), several projects are now able to be eliminated or decreased in size or scope because of reduced peak demands. Estimated savings associated with downsized or eliminated conveyance project resulting from recent and projected conservation exceed $20 million.15 When considering avoided costs of water supply, storage, and conveyance, the cumulative cost savings associated with water conservation between 2000 and 2024 is approximately $420 million (see Appendix P). 13 Salt Lake City Water Storage and Conveyance Plan, BC&A, 2020 14 Major Conveyance Study, BC&A, January 2007 15 Based on elimination or downsizing of projects identified in the 2007 Major Conveyance Study that are no longer needed. This includes elimination of the 4500 South Transmission Main and Storage Tank (Project 3.3B), 7800 South Low Improvements (Projects 3.6A, 3.6B, 3.6C, and 3.12B), and adjustments to the size of the East-West Aqueduct (Projects 3.1A and 3.1B). 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p c d ) FIGURE 2-20 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PER CAPITA PEAK DAY WATER USE (GPD) FIGURE 2-20 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PER CAPITA PEAK DAY WATER USE (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-1 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE DRAFT CHAPTER THREE: CONSERVATION GOALS 3.0 I NTRODUCTION As discussed in Chapter 1, conservation is an essential part of water resource planning to meet the future water needs of its community. The purpose of this chapter is to articulate and describe the goals for conservation that will: • Keep on track to meet its long-term water supply needs. • Facilitate efforts to increase resource and system resilience in the face of identified risks, including climate change. • Encourage the continued wise use of an important limited resource; and • Be consistent with conservation goals established by the State, Central Utah Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, US-Environmental Protection Agency, and this plan. This chapter highlights historical and proposed goals from various sources that are relevant to current conservation planning efforts. Included are discussions of specific goals articulated in the Governor’s Water Conservation Goal, the Utah Lake System contract with the Central Utah Project, and the recently updated State Regional Conservation Goals. Also included is a discussion of the relationship between conservation goals and the ongoing need to support efforts to protect Great Salt Lake. Unless explicitly stated, all goals are listed in terms of customer sales. Achievements towards programmatic goals are also discussed in this chapter, such as those outlined in the Governor’s Strategic Water Plan, American Water Works Association (AWWA) G-480 Checklist, Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Landscape Guidelines, and the State Division of Water Resources Water Conservation Plan Checklist. Additionally, the Appendices contain these guidelines and goals in checklist format. Central to this chapter and the discussions contained are these newly developed established conservation goals. These goals have been developed based on outcomes of the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan and reflect current and future projections of both supply and demand within the service area. While not identical to the State Regional Goals, these goals meet or SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-2 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE exceed these regional goals and are more in keeping with our own system, resources, and characteristics. 3.1 C ONSERVATION G OALS 3.1.1 GOVERNOR’S 2001 STATEWIDE WATER CONSERVATION GOAL In 2001, Governor Mike Leavitt published a statewide conservation goal to reduce per capita water use by 25 percent (as compared to water use from the benchmark year of 2000). Governor Gary Herbert later enhanced that goal by reducing the timeline to be met by 2025. While the conservation goals over the years have been guided by supply and demand, as well as climate and drought concerns, the Governor’s Statewide Goal has been used as a benchmark for measuring program achievements. Additionally, the statewide goals were incorporated into the water supply plan as part of the SLCDPU’s 2007 Major Conveyance Study. As documented in Chapter 2, water users within the service area have thus far stayed significantly ahead of this goal in its efforts to reduce water use. 3.1.2 CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (UTAH LAKE SYSTEM CONSERVATION GOALS) As part of its request for water from the Utah Lake System (ULS), the City has entered into an agreement (through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy) with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) to achieve a minimum level of conservation. This conservation requirement specified a reduction in per capita water use (from year 2000 levels) of 12.5 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2050. While this is an important goal from a contractual standpoint, it has not been the driver of conserva tion programming goals as internal conservation goals have been more aggressive. However, achieving this goal results in avoided additional cost on water purchased through these agreements, adding to the value of the conservation programming beyond the achievement of water use reduction goals. 3.1.3 RECOMMENDED STATE WATER STRATEGY, JULY 2017 In 2013, Governor Gary Herbert convened a group of stakeholders with extensive backgrounds to form the State Water Strategy Advisory Team. Out of this process, a diverse group of water practitioners, advocates, and academics were asked to help devise a state water strategic plan. Stephanie Duer, the City’s water conservation manager, participated in this process, representing both Salt Lake City specifically, and municipal interests in general. The group examined a range of issues, including, but not limited to conservation, competing demands on water, the roles of technology and science, how law and policy affect our relationship with water, and sustainability and the environment. The outcome of this process is the Recommended State Water Strategy, published in 2017. Strategies were organized into eleven categories, with the first being the role of conservation in supporting a sustained water supply. Conservation, demand management, demand reduction, improvements in efficiencies, and the role of technology and science also appear in each of the other ten strategies. Though this strategic plan does not articulate specific goals, it does outline ideas and approaches to enhancing and building on conservation efforts. Those strategies pertaining most closely to urban demand management and conservation have been collected and organized in a list in the appendices. These strategies were tracked as part of the development of this plan a nd have also been integrated into day-to-day programming as appropriate. 3.1.4 UTAH’S REGIONAL M&I WATER CONSERVATION GOALS, NOVEMBER 2019 AND JUNE 2025 Over the last several years, efforts have been made to better understand how the State of Utah manages water conservation efforts in the state, including the process for identifying and assigning water use reduction goals. These efforts include a legislative audit completed in 2015 and the Recommended State Water Strategy completed in 2017 by the Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team (GSWAT) (see Section 3.1.3). One of the major conclusions of both documents was the need to update the State’s conservation goal to make it more regionally appropriate and relevant. One of the limitations of the historical statewide water conservation goal is that it failed to integrate the effects of regional climate, local and discrete supply, and water use pattern differences. Utah is a large state with diverse terrain, climates, populations, development patterns, and attitudes that affect what water is available and how it is used. With this in mind, the State commissioned a study to reevaluate the statewide conservation goal, and to establish water conservation goals that reflect each region’s characteristics, challenges, and SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-3 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE opportunities as related to water. The result is Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. The goals established in the Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals are shown in Figure 3-1.16 For the Salt Lake region (consisting of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties), the new goal was to reduce per capita water use to 187 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), an additional 11% reduction from the average use in the region observed in 2015. In 2025 (during the preparation of this plan), the Division of Water Resources presented a few modifications to this goal. The major proposed changes included moving from 2015 as a baseline to the average of 2015 to 2019 and changing the goal for a specific gpcd value for each region to a percentage reduction to be applied evenly to all entities. In other words, the new regional goal for SLCDPU would be an 11% reduction from their average water use from 2015 to 2019. While not official “goals”, the study also identifies some projected future levels of conservation. This includes achieving a cumulative 15% reduction in use by 2045 and 19% by 2065. The existing SLCDPU service area is contained in the Salt Lake Region, which also includes all of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties. 16 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. Utah Division of Water Resources. November 2019. FIGURE 3-1 UTAH’S REGIONAL M&I WATER CONSERVATION GOALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-4 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.1.5 WATER CONSERVATION AND GREAT SALT LAKE Salt Lake City is committed to doing what it can to support efforts to support and restore Great Salt Lake. As part of that effort, additional conservation scenarios are being evaluated that might achieve goals beyond those stated in Chapter 3. Part of this evaluation is the role of depletion in achieving additional water savings for Great Salt Lake. This task has been added to ongoing research relating to refining projected demand reductions (see Table 4-6, R-17). 3.1.6 SALT LAKE CITY WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MASTER PLAN CONSERVATION GOALS As part of its water supply and demand study, a number of conservation scenarios were considered. These scenarios parallel similar scenarios developed for the State’s regional conservation goals. Ultimately, a scenario was selected (referred to as Scenario 2 in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan)17 that both achieves the goal of continuing to reliably supply water for long-term needs and is slightly more aggressive than the new state regional goals. This scenario is the new conservation goal moving forward. 3.1.7 COMPARISON OF CONSERVATION GOALS Historical and proposed water conservation goals are summarized and compared in Figure 3-2. All values are shown in terms of per capita water use, based on equivalent population adjusted for employment (see Chapter 2). As shown in the figure, the proposed conservation goal for this plan is consistent wit h the State’s regional conservation goals and meets or exceeds all other historical goals. Included in the figure is also the observed per capita water use in the service area. From the figure, it can be seen that cu stomers within the service area are meeting or exceeding all of its previously established goals. There was a slight rebound in per capita water use last year. Even with the excellent results achieved to date, this emphasizes the need for continued and increased efforts in the promotion of long-term conservation, including enhanced education and outreach efforts. 17 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, page 2-11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Pe r C a p i t a W a t e r U s e ( g p c d ) Year Metered Per Capita ULS Conservation Goal (12.5% reduction by 2020, Trend Line of Actual Historic State Conservation Goal (25% reduction by 2025) New City Conservation Goal in Supply and Demand Master Plan (Scenario 2) Utah's Regional Conservation Goal 11% by 2030 Future Regional Conservation Goal Projections 15% by 2040 19% by 2065 FIGURE 3-2 SLCDPU SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION TREND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-5 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2 D ETAILS OF SLCDPU C ONSERVATION G OALS While an overall conservation goal is an important first step in planning, it will be difficult to turn the goal into reality unless we understand the individual components of the goal, that is, who is using the water, and how and when they are using it. The purpose of this section is to provide additional information regarding the conservation goals so that more detailed plans can be developed to achieve discreet components of the goal. 3.2.1 OVERALL CONSERVATION GOAL For the planning window of the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, the long-term conservation goal can be expressed in the following metrics summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. TABLE 3-1 LONG-TERM CONSERVATION GOALS EXPRESSED AS PER CAPITA USE (GALLONS SALES PER DAY)18 2015-19 SLCDPU Observed Regional M&I Conservation Goal for 2024 2022-24 SLCDPU Observed Utah’s Regional M&I Goal Long- term (2065) SLCDPU Long-term Goal (2060) 195 182 171 158 146 TABLE 3-2 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PER CAPITA SALES TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOALS State Regional Long- term Goal from 2015-29 Observed (2065) SLCDPU Historic Long- term Goal from 2015-19 Observed (2060) SLCDPU Long-term Goal from 2022-24 Actual 19.0%19 25.1% 14.6% As can be seen in the tables, long-term goals exceed Utah’s Regional M&I Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake region. 18 Based on equivalent population adjusted for employment as described in Chapter 2. 3.2.2 CONSERVATION GOAL BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION As a starting point, it is useful to define the water use characteristics that will need to be achieved in order to reach long-term water use reduction goals. Changes in per capita water demands may result from a number of factors, not all of which are the result of more prudent water use. For example, increases in density (and the corresponding decrease in average lot size) may significantly decrease per capita outdoor water use, even if water use patterns do not otherwise change. Economic growth and socio-economic conditions, improvements in fixture and appliance efficiency, and climate change are examples of other factors that may, for better or worse, affect demand. To better measure where savings will be derived through conservation activities, we need first understand the who and how of water use. Besides the factors mentioned above, it is also helpful to examine water use by grouping customers together that exhibit similar characteristics, demographics, or water use behaviors. For example, homeowners use water differently than do businesses, and both have water use patterns different from schools. By grouping water users into classifications with similar characteristics, we can improve water use analysis and enhance programing to achieve demand reduction. Setting conservation goals for water use reduction in specific water use areas will enhance our opportunities to successfully achieve our conservation goals. For conservation planning purposes, customers have been disaggregated into the primary classifications of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial, which are the same classifications used in Chapter 2 to facilitate analysis of historical water use. These groups have been further divided into subclassifications (see Section 2.3). 19 State Regional Goals measured as reduction from average 2015 to 2019 water use. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-6 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE The analysis of historical use and projected future growth presented in Chapter 2 is used here to estimate how much savings may come from each classification and subclassification based on the following general assumptions: • Residential indoor water use to be reduced to 49 gpcd • Outdoor water use to be reduced to 22.8 inches average irrigation • CII indoor reduction to be determined For Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII), it has been assumed that outdoor conservation will occur at the same rate as in the residential classification, but indoor water use will be reduced in an amount equal to approximately 50 percent of the reduction observed in residential use.20 This is based on maintaining the same ratio of conservation between residential and non-residential classifications as observed in the past (see Chapter 2). As work continues in evaluating water use in CII sectors, enhanced understanding of disaggregated water use patterns will facilitate establishment of more meaningful goals within the CII sector. For more details, see Chapter 4. Based on these assumptions, projected conservation by classification and season of use is summarized in Figures 3-3 through 3-5. Additional Conservation Throughout the Year (Figure 3 -3). Figure 3-3 shows current indoor and outdoor water use over the course of the year, as well as projected demand reductions needed to attain the planned long -term conservation goal. As seen in the figure, additional conservation is needed both indoors and outdoors, as well as throughout the course of the year. 20 The exception to this is the apartment sub-classification where it has been assumed that indoor water savings will be the same as residential. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) 2022-24 Total Use 2022-24 Indoor Use Total Use - Conservation Target Indoor Use - Conservation Target FIGURE 3-3 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION BY MONTH AVERAGED ACROSS ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-7 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Estimated Additional Conservation by Customer Classification (Figure 3-4). Figure 3-4 provides estimated, disaggregated conservation targets for both indoor and outdoor water use by customer classification. Target outdoor conservation on a percentage basis is identical for all groups. Indoor targets vary depending on the estimated potential conservation for each group based on historical average use by classification. Note that indoor industrial conservation is indicated as only about half of what is expected for other CII customers. This does not mean that industrial users are not expected to make the same effort to conserve water as other CII customers. An active conservation program among industrial customers is recommended and necessary. All industrial users are expected to look for ways in which they can improve their water use. The lower indoor conservation target at this writing is a recognition that there is a great deal of variability in the nature of industrial water use that makes the establishment of a single, aggregate reduction goal difficult. Further analysis is necessary to better understand water use patterns and the capacity to conserve within this and other CII sub- classifications. 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% 7.9% Combined Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-4 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-8 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Estimated Additional Conservation Per Classification by Volume (Figure 3-5).21 In addition to considering percent reductions, it is often useful to understand the accompanying volume of water that will need to be reduced within each classification. Figure 3-5 provides perspective in this regard. As can be seen in the figure, most of the water reduction in the service area will need to come from residential customers. This is not a conscious attempt to target these customers but simply a reflection of the size of this customer classification, its current volume of use, and the estimated capacity to conserve within this classification. To aid the residential customers conceptualize the level of conservation proposed in this plan, Table 3-3 identifies target conservation on a per-household basis over time. Even though other customer classifications may currently appear to have lower reduction demands expressed, conservation will be needed in all areas to reach planned short- and long-term goals. Also, as understanding and evaluation of water use continues, with the accompanying analysis of the capacity to conserve, these conservation targets should be reviewed and refined. TABLE 3-3 RECOMMENDED PER-HOUSEHOLD INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS 2024 10-year Long-Term Total Per-Household Use Target (gpd) 389 377 359 Per-Household Indoor Use Target (gpd) 138 134 127 Per-Household Outdoor Use Target (gpd) 251 244 232 21 Water use reduction for industrial customers will be more clearly defined as CII analysis continues. - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-5 VOLUME OF CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-9 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.3 CONSERVATION GOALS BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION As with analysis of historical water use, conservation goals may also be divided into sub-classifications, a practice helpful in the design and implementation of conservation strategies. The result is highly targeted, efficient programs. The limitation is that there is a great deal of difference between customers within the classifications, and so a stated reduction goal that is averaged for the larger classification may not align reasonably with specific water patterns of discrete customers within a classification. For example, while the residential classification generally has similar patterns between its sub-classifications, commercial and industrial classifications are very diverse, from art galleries to grocery stores and bottling plants to oil refineries. Being aware of these variabilities highlights the need for further analysis. With these caveats in mind, projected conservation by sub -classification and season of use is summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6. Figures 3-7 through 3- 10 further highlight the differences in water use patterns across various industries. It should be emphasized that savings in each sub-classification are an estimate for planning purposes only. As additional information and insight is gained, modifications to these numbers will occur and it may be determined that more conservation is appropriate for some groups and less in others. These types of adjustments are expected and to be encouraged, as conservation programing is adjusted to optimize its program impacts while ensuring water use reduction “burdens” are shared equitably between all water customers. It should also be noted that total volumes contained in Table 3-3 are for existing customers only. As future customers are added, these new customers, whether residential or CII, will also need to contribute toward achieving water conservation goals. Although not a true “reduction” in water use (since they have not yet used water), future customers will contribute to reducing per capita water use as they implement the same improvements in water use efficiency as is being pursued by existing customers. When the efforts of both existing and future users are combined, the total volume of reduced water use (compared to existing water use patterns) is expected to be an additional 16,100 AF/year over the current annual use levels. When considering only the new reduction goal and not what has already been achieved, approximately 6,800 AF/yr of this total is expected to come from residential customers with the remaining 9,300 AF/yr. coming from CII classifications. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & MUNICIPALS MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-6 VOLUME OF CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-10 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 11,490 10,667 8,637 7,686 9,048 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 390 443 353 444 379 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 17,154 16,902 14,082 16,863 15,467 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 738 679 577 760 698 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% FIGURE 3-7 HOTEL AND MOTEL TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-8 FINANCE AND INSURANCE TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-9 HOSPITALS TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-10 REAL ESTATE AND RENTAL LEASING TOTAL ANNUAL USE SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-11 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE When analyzing water use, particularly when it comes to setting water use reduction goals, it is not enough to consider total water use, or even estimates of seasonally driven water use. More relevant are estimates that consider the efficiency of that water use and if there exists a capacity to conserve. In 2019, in conjunction with USU/CWEL, the Utility launched the WaterMAPS™ program. The WaterMAPS™ program integrates parcel data, land cover data, water meter data, and weather data to calculate what is called the “Landscape Irrigation Ratio (LIR).” LIR values indicate how efficiently water is being used to maintain a landscape and whether the water use is outpacing the water need. LIRs are calculated on both an annual and a monthly basis. Figure 3-11 shows the mean LIR for all evaluated CII connections; Figure 3-12 shows the LIRs by CII sub-classifications. This analysis helps to refine outdoor water conservation goals within the various CII classifications. FIGURE 3-11 CII MEAN LIR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR FIGURE 3-12 CII LIR BY SERVICE CONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-12 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE TABLE 3-4 LONG-TERM (2060) CONSERVATION GOALS BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION Location of Use Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School or Church or Charity Triplex Parks & Government Miscellaneous Fourplex Apartment Duplex Business Single Residence Total Cu r r e n t An n u a l Us e (AF ) 22 Total 757 1,449 4,378 510 3,977 250 4,175 4,074 721 7,850 1,920 16,729 29,286 76,076 Indoor 441 1,134 3,611 372 1,548 168 154 987 492 5,419 1,049 8,928 10,373 34,675 Outdoor 316 316 767 138 2,429 82 4,020 3,087 229 2,431 870 7,802 18,913 41,401 Da i l y U s e P e r Co n n e c t i o n ( g p d ) Total 16,093 9,656 14,369 1,566 6,432 433 5,049 5,218 603 4,166 382 2,300 389 66,656 Indoor 9,370 7,554 11,851 1,141 2,503 292 186 1,264 412 2,876 209 1,227 138 39,022 Outdoor 6,722 2,102 2,518 425 3,929 141 4,863 3,954 191 1,290 173 1,073 251 27,634 Go a l f o r F u t u r e An n u a l U s e (A F ) Total 700 1,342 4,056 472 3,675 230 3,850 3,762 665 7,237 1,770 15,471 27,000 70,229 Indoor 409 1,051 3,348 345 1,435 155 143 915 454 4,995 967 8,278 9,562 32,057 Outdoor 292 291 707 128 2,240 75 3,707 2,847 211 2,241 802 7,193 17,438 38,172 Re q u i r e d Re d u c t i o n i n An n u a l U s e (A F ) Total 57 107 323 38 302 20 325 313 56 613 150 1,258 2,286 5,848 Indoor 32 83 263 27 113 13 11 72 38 424 82 650 811 2,618 Outdoor 25 25 60 11 189 6 314 241 18 190 68 609 1,475 3,229 % S a v i n g s Total 7.5% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.5% 7.8% 7.7% Indoor 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 6.7% 7.3% 7.3% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.3% 7.8% 7.6% Outdoor 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% Sa v i n g s P e r Co n n e c t i o n (g p d ) Total 1,207 714 1,059 116 489 34 393 400 47 325 30 173 30 5,124 Indoor 682 550 863 83 182 19 14 92 32 225 16 89 11 2,947 Outdoor 524 164 196 33 306 11 379 308 15 101 14 84 20 2,155 22 For the purposes of this table, all volumes are shown for existing customers only. As future users join the system, it is ass umed that they will use water at the same reduced level as identified in the conservation goals. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-13 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.4 FIVE- AND TEN-YEAR CONSERVATION GOALS As noted previously, current goals are ahead of the Governor’s Water Conservation Goals and ULS Goals. With this in mind, it is not enough to meet the new Regional goals; more aggressive goals will be important–both to keep pace with long-term supply plans and to model good water resource stewardship. Correspondingly, this conservation plan has identified 5 - and 10- year conservation goals as summarized in Table 3 -4. These goals follow the overall structure of the regional goals23 but are more aggressive to account for conservation reductions already achieved and the need to both sustain those achievements and meet additional water use reductions. To assist Department personnel in identifying and implementing the practices and programming needed to meet these goals, Table 3-6 provides the estimated water use reduction need of the various classifications. This table calculates the needed reduction in total volume required to reach the goals, along with disaggregation of how this reduction might be divided between indoor and outdoor use. While it is not necessary to achieve the exact mix of conservation shown in this table, and it is certain that these volumes will need to be revised over time as more information is collected, this table provides staff with a starting point to estimate how and where conservation efforts should be initially focused. Additional break-downs of recommended residential conservation goals are also included in appendix Q. 23 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake Region indicates that just over half of the long-term goal should be achieved in the next ten years (234 gpcd to 201 gpcd [2030 Goal] vs. 169 gpcd [2065 long-term TABLE 3-5 RECOMMENDED INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS 2024 5-year 10-year Long-Term Per Capita Use (gpcd) 179 174 166 146 Percent Reduction Per Capita - 2.9% 7.4% 18.7% Percent Reduction Indoors - 1.2% 3.0% 7.6% Percent Reduction Outdoors* - 1.2% 3.1% 7.8% Percent Reduction Total Use - 1.2% 3.0% 7.7% *Represents reduction in total outdoor water use for existing customers TABLE 3-6 INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS BY CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 1,033 1,704 3,356 Outdoors 1,714 2,828 5,569 Total 2,746 4,532 8,926 Commercial Indoors 1,407 2,322 4,574 Outdoors 1,202 1,983 3,906 Total 2,609 4,305 8,479 Institutional Indoors 135 224 440 Outdoors 550 908 1,788 Total 686 1,131 2,228 Industrial Indoors 287 474 934 Outdoors 65 108 213 Total 353 582 1,147 All Classifications Indoors 2,863 4,724 9,305 Outdoors 3,531 5,826 11,475 Total 6,394 10,550 20,780 projection]). This same ratio has been assumed for the 10-year goal, adjusted to account both the lower initial starting point and more aggressive goal. The 5 - year goal has been similarly interpolated. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-14 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.5 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION POTENTIAL FOR GREAT SALT LAKE The Utility recognizes that more water conservation than the proposed conservation goals may be needed in the future to maintain and improve water levels of Great Salt Lake. With this perspective, two additional conservation scenarios have been developed for consideration which would reduce outdoor water demands by 10% and 15% more than the proposed conservation scenario. These additional water demand savings would allow the Utility to dedicate more water to bolstering the health of Great Salt Lake. These additional scenarios are referred to as GSL Alternative 2 and GSL Alternative 3. The resulting water reduction requirements of these alternatives are shown in Table 3 -6. Additionally, the estimated impacts to long-term water demands are shown in Figure 3-13. TABLE 3-7 LONG-TERM (2060) GSL CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVE GOALS 2024 Proposed Goal GSL Alternative 2 GSL Alternative 3 Per Capita Use (gpcd) 179 146 139 136 Indoor Per Capita Use (gpcd) 82.0 79.5 79.5 79.5 Outdoor Irrigation Application Rate (inches/yr)* 24.1 22.8 20.5 19.4 Percent Reduction Outdoors from Existing - 5.3% 15.3% 20.3% Percent Reduction from Total use - 18.7% 22.4% 24.3% *Represents the reduction in outdoor irrigation application rate 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Pe r C a p i t a W a t e r U s e ( g p c d ) Year Metered Per Capita Water Use Trend Line of Actual Conservation New City Conservation Goal in Supply and Demand Master Plan (Scenario 2) GSL Alternative 2 GSL Alternative 3 FIGURE 3-13 CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 4-1 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR DRAFT CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES 4.0 I NTRODUCTION Few resources are as critical to a community’s health, well-being, or economy as water. Over the duration of its history, the Utility has protected its water resources, from critical watersheds, through urban riparian corridors, in the stormwater system, its water rights, and, of course, by practicing and promoting the wise and efficient use of water. This plan not only reflects that history of conservation; it demonstrates the continued commitment to lead through example. With reliance on research, science, and experience, and in partnership with the community, academicians, and stakeholders, the Utility strives to achieve sustainable reductions in water use to ensure a reliable and secure water supply today and for the future. For us, water is not just a r esource; it is a responsibility. The first steps in developing effective programing are to understand how much water there will be, who the customers are and how they use water, and what future water use will look like to ensure a sustained supply and fair access. Chapters One, Two, and Three address these questions, respectively. This chapter describes the programming that will help maintain a sustainable, reliable supply and achieve the goals described within this plan. Programs, and practices need to consider short- and long-term conservation goals and improve water efficiency or reduce water waste, all while maintaining quality-of-life standards. Programs must be relevant to how water is used or wasted, present meaningful opportunities for engagement to all customers, and be equitable in reach and access. Foremost, conservation programming must move attitudes, behaviors, practices, and actions in such a manner as to facilitate meaningful, measurable, and sustained conservation. This chapter focuses on the programs initiated or proposed that meet the above criteria and support and facilitate short- and long-term water use reductions that will help to meet the conservation goals outlined in Chapter 3. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-2 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 C ONSERVATION P LANNING P ROCESS There are many manuals, texts, and papers describing methods for successful conservation planning and programming, and this planning process has been informed by and benefited from those resources. The first steps in program planning involve assessing supply and demand, evaluating historical use, and establishing water use reduction goals, both systemwide and by the customer classifications described in previous chapters. This chapter addresses the discussion of program selection criteria, description of programs, summary of evaluation processes, and program outcomes where available. Though these steps are identified here linearly, the process is fluid and iterative, reflecting both the nature and dyn amics of planning processes, and the shifting nature of our relationship to water. 4.1.1 CRITERIA The criteria for program selection are simple; programming should: • Help to reduce water use or water waste, • Enhance water stewardship ethos, • Have community and political support, • Be equitable and fair, and • Provide a cost-benefit to the Utility and its rate payers. Though not all programs exhibit all these criteria, all programs have most of these criteria. 4.1.2 EVALUATION Program evaluation is not as straightforward as identifying a quantity of water saved. Some programs, such as outreach, may be difficult to measure in terms of gallons saved, but they bring a high degree of community benefit and add to our understanding of water. Research and metrics, on the other hand, present ample opportunity for measuring program outcomes, either through gallons saved or participants reached. Every effort was made to identify some method of measurement and provide a benchmark or metric to facilitate program evaluation; these measures are provided in Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6. Other methods for evaluation include industry best practices or regulatory frameworks for plan development. The appendices include checklists that informed the development of this plan and against which it is compared. • EPA WaterSense Program • ANSI/AWWA G480 Conservation Program Operations and Management • Utah DWRe Water Conservation Master Plan Checklist • State of Utah Regional Goals 4.1.3 RESOURCE ALLOCATION A necessary step in this process is the establishment of fiscal and staffing resource budgets. Fiscal year 2025 allocations for specific program measures are included in this plan and are included in program measure focuses where available and listed in Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. More extensive future budget planning is a component of the Research and Metrics Program. Combined program budget allocation for the 2025 fiscal year is approximately $672,000. This does not include program measure funds derived from partnerships, grants, or other sources. 4.1.4 TERMINOLOGY Within this chapter and throughout the plan are various terms used to express conservation planning, goal setting, and program development. Some terms used extensively in this chapter follow: Water conservation. Those practices, techniques, and technologies that reduce water consumption, water loss, and water waste, or improve the efficiency of water use. Program. A set of conservation practices and/or measures planned to be implemented together. Practice. An action, procedure, or method that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost-effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Measure. A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water. Measures may be a component of a specific practice. For example, maintaining an irrigation system in working condition is a practice; installing high efficiency nozzles is a measure, and offering irrigation system evaluations which assist in improving practices and identify measures, such as the Water Checks, is a program. For a more extensive glossary, please refer to the Appendices. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-3 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.2 C ONSERVATION BY C ONNECTION To identify the water conservation goals expressed in this plan, projections of future reliable water supply coupled with the optimal strategy to plan to not use every drop (reserved water) were analyzed through the lens of historical water use patterns and future predicted growth. These goals are expressed in terms of millions of gallons and acre feet by classifications and subclassifications. While these expressions meet the language of various standards for conservation planning, they hardly meet the intent, which is to derive meaningful, actionable goals to guide and measure conservation programs and outcomes for actual water users. It is this level of conservation goal setting that is attempted here. Using population and economic growth indicators, the number of service connections, and historical use by classification and sub -classification, along with future supply and demand projections, we derive water use reduction goals within classifications by connection as summarized in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN PER CONNECTION USE NEEDED (GPD/CONNECTION) There are limitations to these calculations. As mentioned previously in earlier chapters, while the customers in some classifications are relatively uniform in use characteristics (residential), others are much more diverse (commercial and industrial). Even within the residential classifications, there are distinctions in use patterns. The differences in water use patterns between single-family homes and multi-family units, small urban and large suburban lots, owners and renters, are examples of the complexity of this task. Another limitation is that the assumption of future use based on historical practice does not account for innovations in technology that will inevitably change how water is used or measured, nor can it account for changes in population or development projections. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) will greatly enhance our understanding of water use and waste at the connection-level, study is ongoing to determine how this technology will impact use as an influencer of behavior. Assumptions made regarding landscapeable area and irrigation requirements described in Chapter 2 (see Figure 1-2) depended on data from the year 2000. But we know from observation, turf studies conducted by the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (USU/CWEL), as well as initial findings derived from WaterMAPS™ that those estimates are likely unnecessarily generous. As research continues, we will gain insights into the capacity to conserve in landscapes and thus inform that area of programing and also future planning scenarios. The limitations become more obvious when CII classifications are evaluated. Landscape nurseries, laundromats, and breweries are all classified as Commercial, though it is apparent they have vastly different water use profiles as well as different needs when addressing conservation. Industries range from shipping warehouses with little water demand to oil refineries, much greater consumers of water by comparison. The CII analytics project, as well as AMI will greatly enhance understanding of water use by discreet commercial and industrial profiles. Collaboration with Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), US - EPA WaterSense, CalWEP, and others will help identify benchmarks and standards by which to evaluate these sub-classifications and enhance meaningful programming. Even with these limitations, the value of moving towards goals of this nature should not be ignored or overlooked. As understanding of water use patterns is deepened, these initial estimates for water use reduction will be refined and made even more relevant. Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 14 23 46 Outdoors 10 17 34 Total 24 40 79 Commercial Indoors 314 517 1019 Outdoors 214 353 695 Total 527 870 1714 Institutional Indoors 36 59 117 Outdoors 121 199 393 Total 157 259 509 Industrial Indoors 159 262 516 Outdoors 35 57 112 Total 193 319 628 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-4 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.3 S OCIOECONOMIC I MPACTS OF C ONSERVATION Effective conservation programming considers the characteristics of the customers using water, both as individuals and within user classifications. While it is commonplace to consider characteristics such as “single-family residence”, “apartment”, or “restaurant”, less common is the integration of demographics and socioeconomic characteristics into the analytical and programing framework. According to Beecher, et al,24 neglecting the unintended effects of conservation programming on socioeconomic groups can result in unexpected analytical, practical, and political consequences, which may undermine desired program outcomes and have negative impacts on some customer groups. The service area is a diverse community in both its characteristics and its water needs. Understanding, and being responsive to this diversity helps to build positive relationships and ensure we meet our long-term goals of a resilient water supply. Income, household composition, housing, language and ethnicity, education, and special needs are all important characteristics that may affect water use. Businesses, too, have characteristics that need to be identified and analyzed so that programing builds partnerships and increases participation. As conservation programming is developed, understanding the relationship between water use and socioeconomic and other demographic characteristics enhances program outcomes while ensuring that the end user has the tools and support necessary to make good choices regarding water use. Additionally, this understanding also helps to identify potential barriers to participation, improving overall program design, reducing unintended consequences, and increasing participation. Conservation programing can be an effective tool to mitigate the impact of inevitable price increases across all user classifications and socioeconomic characteristics. Helping customers understand their relationship with water and providing meaningful and actionable tools and knowledge to make better choices helps customers manage water costs while also reducing their water footprint. The Utility recently completed a technical memorandum which provides an analysis of the relationship between water conservation and water rates. This analysis showed significant savings attributed to a sustained 24 Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. reduction in water use in the avoided costs associated with developing new water supply, water storage, and capital improvement costs when compared to water demand without conservation. Communicating these savings to customers may enhance general understanding of the value to conserve, as well as conveying the practical outcomes of a robust conservation program. To be successful and sustainable, everyone—every person, business, industry, school, church, government agency—needs to be engaged in reducing water demand and protecting our water resources. Effective programing should facilitate water demand reduction across all sectors and user classifications, without placing the burden for conservation on one group, or excluding any group. Striving for equity and fairness in program implementation, whether through well-thought-out pricing structures, availability of product and behavioral incentives, or access to educational materials and classes will help to remove barriers to participation, improve program reach, and avoid unintended consequences that limit access or unfairly shift the burden of conservation. In addressing these variables, conservation programming can: • Improve affordability for customers; • Enhance customer relationships; • Respond to environmental justice concerns; • Manage risk and uncertainty of water supplies; • Achieve enhanced water efficiency; • Decrease costs by reducing opportunity costs; and • Reduce water utility revenue losses. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-5 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.4 W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAMS , P RACTICES , AND M EASURES Water conservation is a critical component of water resource management and should not be viewed as a temporary measure or as a public relations tool. Effective water conservation can sustain and extend water supplies; alleviate infrastructure capacity issues; mitigate impacts to supply and demand due to weather and climate variability; address affordability; and foster a sense of community-shared stewardship. To achieve this, conservation programming needs to provide the necessary tools to achieve and sustain these effects, and therefore, needs to fully address the how, who, when, and where of water use. At the core of this conservation plan are the programs, practices, and measures supported and funded through the water conservation program. For conservation programming to achieve and sustain the necessary water use reductions, it needs to address the diverse nature of water use within the service area. To ensure programming reflects the complexity of the water infrastructure and the diversity of end users, practices have been organized into five program focuses: Outreach, Economics, Utility Operations, Law and Policy, and Research and Metrics. Within each of these programs is a selection of practices and measures that meet the criteria identified on page 4.2. Some, like lawn watering guides and Water Check, have been active since the conservation program was created in June 2001. Other practices, such as WaterMAPS™, the CII analytics tool, and SLC TurfTrade are more recent and still evolving. There are also practices new to the program planned for the coming years, including landscape assessments and elementary school curricula. Though the practices are varied, they all meet some, if not all the criteria of providing targeted, meaningful, and equitable programing that will facilitate meeting and sustaining short- and long-term water conservation goals. 4.4.1 PROGRAMS The water conservation program is comprised of dozens of practices and measures organized into one of five programs: Outreach. Education, information, and community engagement are how we inform and encourage the adoption of practices, behaviors, and technologies that reduce water use and water waste. Sometimes considered “soft” practices, due in part to the difficulty of isolating and quantifying practice outcomes and effectiveness, none the less, these practices are typically simple to enact and have limited barriers to customer participation. This program focuses on conveying information and engaging in community dialogue that facilitates the meeting of conservation goals. And though difficult to measure, they are informed by the outcomes of the Research & Metrics program and so are based in actionable science. Economic. The price of water is an important mechanism through which to convey the value of water. Though, to clarify, it is not merely the rate at which water is charged, but also the other information that is conveyed in a water bill. Even more fundamentally, that meters are read, and bills are generated and SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-6 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR provided in a timely manner also help to inform the customer and convey the value of this limited resource. There are other ways, too, that economics can play a role in water conservation. Illustrating avoided costs can also be an incentive to reduce water use, whether it is the avoided costs associated with water use in a higher tier, or the avoided costs of not having to develop new sources of water. More direct incentives, in the form of rebates, can also help to reduce water use and offer the added benefit of potentially providing measurable outcomes. Utility Operations. To be a leader in water conservation, it is not enough to have a plan, but to integrate that plan into daily operations, maintenance, and capital programs. This program focuses on identifying and implementing opportunities to integrate conservation best practices into all aspects of department functions. From landscape management to construction of stormwater wetlands and street-side biofiltration; water supply planning to distribution system operations, conservation can and does support broader Department functions. Law & Policy. Salt Lake City has landscape code provisions that proactively encourage the implementation of best practices in landscapes; periodic review of these provisions ensures that the City continues to meet the inten tion of these provisions. Currently lacking are codes that clearly state water use prohibitions. Though codes exist that allow the regulation of water use, the codes as currently written do not clearly address water waste, so review will facilitate addressing this lack. There are also codes that support a variety of planning processes, including conservation and drought planning. City policy can also support conservation efforts by addressing the adoption of actions internally to City departments and divisions which support conservation. Ongoing review of City codes and policies that support conservation is an iterative process that is most successful when other City stakeholders are engaged in partnership, as demonstrated in the City’s participation of Growi ng Water Smart, which still brings together Planning, Utility, and other City staff to more fully integrate water and planning. Research and Metrics. Fundamental to the implementation and effectiveness of conservation programming is the adoption of programs that provide the necessary outcomes. Science, research, and analytics are at the core of conservation programming, ensuring that all other programs and practices have a basis in knowledge, research, and science. 4.4.2 PRACTICES AND MEASURES Within each program is a selection of practices and measures designed to facilitate the achievement of short- and long-term water conservation goals. These practices and measures are directed at specific end users to address various types of water use. They are designed to be implemented alone or in combination and all meet one or more of the identified criteria. For practice and measure details, see the corresponding practice tables. 4.4.3 PROGRAM TABLES Each practice and measure are listed in one of the following tables (Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6), with select practices receiving more detailed coverage in section focuses. Within the tables, practices are generally described by title, target audience, practice timeline, project cost, metric or measurement, and partnership. Number (No.). Each practice is assigned a number within its program. This is useful when identifying practices relevant to specific documents, grant applications, and similar circumstances where space constraints limit the full title of description of a practice. Practice Title. The name of the practice, which is sometimes broadly descriptive, as in the case of “Brochures,” and sometimes specific to a single practice, such as “WaterMAPS™” customer reports. Effort has been made to keep the names descriptive and brief. Classification. Not all practices are for every customer. This column organizes and identifies practices by classification. These classifications correspond to the classifications described and used throughout this plan. They include Residential (Res), Industrial (Ind), Commercial (Com), and Institutional (Inst). (See Figure 2 - 2). Brief Description. Generally, an expansion on the practice title or a broader, though short, description. Practice Timeline. Timeline details may range from a single event, for instance, the development of a study or plan, to ongoing practices such as meter replacement or monthly billing. “Active” column indicators include “√’ (Active), “ID” (In Development), TBD (To Be Determined), or NA (Not Applicable or Not Active). Implementation indicates when the practice was active or is planned to be active. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-7 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Cost/Funding. Costs mostly reflect current budget allocations or future planned allocation estimates. Costs over the practice lifetime have not been calculated, unless noted. In some cases, funding has been provided in the form of grants, memorandum of understanding, or as a component of partnership, which have been noted accordingly. The development of recommended five- and ten-year budgets is a component of the Research and Metrics program and is currently underway. Reach/Metrics. Measuring practice effectiveness helps determine if resources (staff time or budget) are being allocated in a manner that supports program goals or allocated sufficiently to ensure practice success. Some of these measures are soft, such as the number of visitors to a garden, brochures mailed, website visits; some are hard, as in the number of Water Checks performed, metered water use reduction, or commercial audits completed. Not all programs should be measured by the same metric; for one thing, that isn’t practical or pragmatic. A demonstration garden may serve multiple purposes but how do you measure how much water has been saved due to its existence? How much water is saved when schoolrooms are visited, or when phone calls are answered? This is where the measurement of reach helps to inform practice evaluation: how many visitors, how many classrooms, how many brochures. These practices bring value, even if the measure of success is knowing the reach, as they have value in the relationships built, the assistance provided, and opportunity for inspiration. Partnerships. The Utility has been fully vested in conservation programing for decades. And while Utility staff have accomplished a great deal towards implementing conservation programs, partnerships have been instrumental to the ongoing success and will continue in importance as work towards achieving current and future water use reduction goals continues. Some partnerships are more singular and tied to specific practices, such as the contract with Utah State University Climate Center to operate and maintain research quality weather stations within our service area. Other partnerships revolve around funding, particularly grants, as is the case of drought planning and the Bureau of Reclamation. Other partnerships are ongoing, such as the work with CUWCD and DWRe pertaining to CII studies. Some partnerships, such as the one with Utah State University (USU), have relevance beyond the scope of specific practices, informing conservation efforts across the reach of programing and providing invaluable collaboration. However, th e most valued partner is the community; the people, businesses, industry, and institutions served who do the work of saving water every day. Savings. Ideally, every conservation practice or measure has demonstrable water savings. This is, however, difficult to assess for most practices. Improvements in metering technology and the integration of GIS/IT technologies in conservation programing will improve this moving ahead. In the meantime, where possible, historical and projected water savings have been provided. Not every practice can be described with all these details, but every effort has been made to provide as much detail as possible within these pages. Where details are either not available or not relevant, it has been so indicated. For instance, some programs have no direct cost, such as developing internal City department conservation plans. In other cases, practice metrics may be difficult to determine; how, for instance, do we measure the impact of a garden or brochure? Within each program there are summaries of select practices and measures, intended to offer more detail, including timeline, budget, and desired outcomes. These select practices represent current and proposed programming that is reflective of short- and long-term conservation goals, as well as the needs and interests of water customers across all classifications. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-8 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5 O UTREACH Education and public outreach are a necessary component of successful conservation programing. Though the types of programing vary, they share the common attributes of informing and educating customers of the needs and benefits of conservation; the risks to the community and environment in not conserving; and actions to take to achieve water conservation goals. Outreach initiatives are characterized as being customer-focused, low-input programs with an emphasis on education and information to motivate changes by either adopting or abandoning general or specific practices. These initiatives are thought of as “soft programs,” in that they depend on behavioral changes and not changes to fixtures or infrastructure. Programs can generally be organized by those designed to change behavior or to encourage the adoption of new methodologies and techniques. Outreach also includes education and messaging campaigns, designed to provide actionable, proven techniques and methods for reducing water use. Such campaigns include “Never Waste,” “Rain On/Sprinklers Off,” and “7 Gallon Challenge,” to name a few. And while actual water savings may be difficult to measure, metrics of site visits, shares, and “likes” helps us know if the messaging is on track. Outreach practices also create opportunities for reciprocal, iterative dialogue, leading to community engagement and acceptance, critical for program success and the achievement of short- and long-term conservation goals. It is in classroom settings, community gatherings, and social media that we, as practitioners, can hear and learn from the customers for whom these programs are designed, to make programming accessible, meaningful, and actionable. Outreach isn’t “just talk.” The Water Check program provides site-specific guidance to assist property managers or homeowners in improving irrigation efficiency. WaterMAPSTM delivers relatable and actionable information to property owners to enhance understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics and water need. Providing actionable information commercial, industrial, and institutional customers will enhan ce engagement by those sectors in conservation efforts and deliver meaningful resul ts in demand reduction. Residential leak detection programs inform homeowners of indoor water loss, while delivering messages of the importance of managing all water use and waste. Learning labs offer education, advice, and guidance in improving landscape practices, leak detection and repair, and other areas of conservation. The following are details of select conservation programs which reflect short- and long- term goals as outlined in Chapter 3 and address community feedback on existing programming. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Outreach Programs •Demonstration Gardens and slcgardenwise.com •Public Access Cloud -based Portals •Learning Labs •School Programs •Water Week SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-9 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.1 DEMONSTRATION GARDENS AND SLCGARDENWISE.COM [0-3, 0-4, 0-5] Timeline: 2005 to present 2025 Budget: $14,500 Partners: TBD Reach: Across all customer classifications Savings/Metric: Number of visitors; events While it may be difficult to measure the worth of public gardens, water conservation gardens bring value to conservation programming as well as to the neighborhoods where gardens reside. Offering information, education, and inspiration of best practices in landscaping methods and plant selection, demonstration gardens provide self-directed as well as led experiences. These spaces also create opportunities for volunteering, bringing value to the program and making learning a hands-on experience. Demonstration gardens also create opportunities to bring value to neighborhoods by providing beautiful and sustainably managed landscapes to enjoy and inspire. For example, the 900 South Stormwater Wetland and Demonstration Garden is located along a former storm drain ditch and abandoned railroad corridor. The conversion of this space into a stormwater wetland and conservation demonstration garden created multiple values for the City and the neighborhood. The Greater Avenues Conservation Garden sits on what was once an abandoned lot in the Avenues neighborhood. Its location adjacent to urban -wildland interface areas presented an opportunity to demonstrate not only water -wise techniques, but also how site sensitive landscaping can support wildlife and community aesthetic values. And lest there is concern that a formerly un - watered site is now receiving previously undelivered resources; Greater Avenues Garden has not been irrigated since 2015. As enjoyable as actual demonstration gardens can be, weather or other impediments may discourage visitors. Learning opportunities may also be limited as it is impossible to include every plant or incorporate multiple design concepts. Slcgardenwise.com provides an alternative visitor experience, offering examples of water-wise gardens from throughout the service area. Virtual tours, landscape solutions, and an extensive and locally developed plant database makes slcgardenwise the next best thing to actual garden tours. Future focus for the demonstration gardens and slcgardenwise is to upgrade landscape features and irrigation systems, update learning materials, and create on-site learning opportunities. www.SLCgardenwise is scheduled and budgeted for an update in the current fiscal year. This will include updated landscapes, expanded plant data base, and enhanced functionality. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-10 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.2 PUBLIC ACCESS, CLOUD-BASED PORTALS [0-17] Timeline: 2018 - current Budget: TBD Partners: Utah State University, EWIG Reach: Residential and CII customers Savings/Metrics: Number of visitors; change in individual and average LIR Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Water Checks, WaterMAPS TM, and CII Analytics are providing data that not only informs conservation programming but offers opportunities to provide timely and action able information directly to water customers. Older methods of communicating information, such as brochures and even web-based communication, are giving way to up-to-the- moment, customer-targeted information via cloud-based communications applications. Water Checks, a well-established, proven program, has benefited from recent technological advances. With funds received through Extension Water Initiative Grants (EWIG), USU, conservation programming, and Department GIS/IT staff, Water Check reporting added cloud-based reporting, messaging, and mapping capabilities. Water Check participants now receive GIS-generated irrigation zone maps with site details, online reports, tips, and support via direct messaging. This portal will also support efforts to promote other conservation programing, as well as to facilitate pre-qualification and post-verification of program measure implementation, where appropriate. Homeowners are not the only customers with the capacity to conserve water in their landscapes. WaterMAPSTM, a USU-developed program, helps identify our capacity to conserve in the landscape. Getting this information to the customer requires a cloud-based communications system. Homeowners and landscapes are not the only customers with the capacity to conserve. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII) are also an important part of our water conservation strategy. While these customers’ water use profiles can be more complex than that of residential users, they have the same need for timely, meaningful, and actionable information. Improving the depth and range of information to CII customers will enhance engagement in conservation programing and increase opportunities to successfully achieve stated conservation goals. 4.5.3 CONSERVATION LEARNING LABS [0-14] Timeline: 2026 Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense Reach: Residential Savings/Metric: Number of participants Research indicates that Utah residents, including those within the service area, believe in the need for, and are committed to water conservation. What is lacking is not the will, but the knowledge of the best, most effective ways to reduce water use. Homeowners want to know how best to water to support conservation while sustaining a landscape, such as: how to select plants, plan the landscape, or convert sprinklers to drip. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-11 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Homeowners also have questions about water efficiency indoors, and ask about toilets, the best way to wash dishes, and how to find and repair leaks? In short, customers have a lot of questions. We have answers. Improving access to solid, up-to-date information and strategies to help homeowners make sensible, sustainable choices will help achieve current and long-term water use reduction goals. Lectures, hands-on labs, and how-to webinars offer in-person and interactive opportunities to convey useful and relevant information. This program will focus on maximizing existing resources to deliver high -quality learning experiences focused on water conservation. Partnerships with USU/CWEL, University of Utah’s Lifelong Learning, and US-EPA WaterSense will ensure quality instruction and content. Conservation education must be an essential, if not always quantifiable, part of any conservation plan. As noted in the State of Utah Regional Water Conservation Goal Report25, “When projecting future water use and conservation potential, it is important to understand that water users’ choices regarding water use will be influenced by a complicated combination of factors…” Thus, even though specific water savings may not be directly attributable to a given conservation program or practice, conservation education and outreach through learning labs and other educational venues is a necessary component of the “combination of policies” that must be in place to motivate and facilitate the ultimate conservation actions. 25 Regional Water Conservation Goal Report, Hansen Allen & Luce and Bowen Collins & Associates, November 2019, p. 16 4.5.4 SCHOOL CLASSROOM PROGRAM [0-10] Timeline: curriculum developed 2022. Relaunch 2026 Budget: NA Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense, AWE Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Number of events, participants Curriculum was developed in 2022 in partnership with Salt Lake School District 4th grade teachers to introduce water conservation concepts, values, and activities into a classroom setting. Program focus was on grades 4 and 9, to reflect state curriculum, with classroom events occurring that fall and into 2023. With planned increase in conservation staff, this program has a planned relaunch in 2026. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-12 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.5 WATER WEEK AND OTHER EVENTS [O-10, O-18] Timeline: On-going. Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense, AWE Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Number of participants, partners, and related events In 2007, the State of Utah adopted the first full week in May as State Water Week, thanks to the efforts of the conservation staff and then-legislator Ralph Becker. Though inspired by American Water Works Association Water Week, the event expanded on that concept to include stormwater, waste water, watershed, and water conservation topics along with culinary water. Using art, film, poetry, and even dance to convey the complexity, value, and beauty of all things related to water, the goal of Water Week is to foster a deeper understanding and build stewardship of this incredibly critical resource. The success of this effort is reflected in the number of water agencies across the state that celebrate Water Week with tours, library readings, and other events. In the coming years, the conservation program will re -focus energy to promoting Water Week, as well as other nationally and internationally recognized water - related events, such as Fix-a-Leak Week, Global Water Week, and a Day Without Water. These events are also incorporated into the classroom program and general conservation messaging. 4.5.6 CONSERVATION ACTION PLANS [O-9, U-6] Timeline: On-going. Budget: NA Partners: Internal and external stakeholders; CII customers Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Water savings with implementation; Number of plans Though this plan is comprehensive, covering the entire Utility service area, it cannot address every opportunity or circumstance of how and where water efficiencies can take place. With that in mind, the conservation team is working directly with internal and external stakeholders, as well as with CII customers, to formulate and implement customer-specific conservation action plans. These plans will include 2 to 5 actionable and measurable goals, timelines for implementation (not to exceed five years), metrics, and an on-site team. Action plans have been completed by SLC Sustainability and SL County Sustainability, with plans in process from SLC Parks, SLC Golf, and SLC Facilities. Completed plans can be found in Appendix P. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-13 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-1 Brochures √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute brochures relating to water conservation and best practices TBD 2001 - ongoing $14,000 per mailing/service area Quantities mailed. Spikes in visits to related websites NA NA NA O-2 Water Stewardship Calendar √ √ √ 12-month calendar with information and tips covering a variety of water issues. TBD 2007 - 2020 $30,000 for 25,000 copies. Distributed to SLC schools, SL City and County Libraries NA NA NA 0-3 Demonstration Gardens √ √ √ √ Design and install demonstration gardens throughout service area C varied NA TBD NA NA 0-4 SLCTV 17 GardenWise √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute water conservation- focused programming for SLC TV17 C 2001 - 2014 NC Site visits and other web metrics SLC-IMS NA NA O-5 SLC Gardenwise: Virtual Water Conservation Garden tours √ √ √ √ Develop virtual garden tours on web site, include plant data bases, design tips, watering/maintena nce guidance. Incorporates several past program initiatives. √ 6/2014 (SLC Gardenwise) $25,000 for site upgrade. $2,500 for licensing. Site visits Initially partially funded through a Bureau of Reclamation grant NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-14 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-6 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU one- time funding of additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($22,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S 557 AF 47,000 gallons per residential participant annually O-7 SLC Landscape BMPs: Design, Planting and Maintenance Guide √ √ √ √ Develop guide to support best practices in landscape design, implementation, and maintenance to support conservation, stormwater protection, and riparian corridor health. C 10/1/2011 (see E-8) Part of in-kind contribution for BoR Grant TBD SLC Code Enforcement; Northern Colorado Water District; Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCO); UNLA NA NA O-8 Commercial and Industrial Certification √ Develop and implement a water- wise certification program for commercial and institutional water customers ID TBD, in conjunction with CII Tool and CII audits/direct installs TBA Audit and track use of participants TBA NA NA O-9 Conservation Action Plans √ √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans √ In Process NC Track achievements and water use reductions NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-15 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-10 Classroom Programs √ Develop package programs and activities to facilitate classroom learning focused on water conservation ID 2026 TBD Track classroom visits and students TBD NA NA O-11 Landscape Assessment and Check-ups √ Provide residential landscape assessments to enhance water efficiencies ID Some landscape assessment is included in Water Check. Expansion contingent on staff capacity. TBD Map and track use TBA NA TBD O-12 Private Garden Project √ √ √ √ Promote institutional, commercial, and residential properties to be water-wise demonstrations ID Dependent on staff capacity TBD. Cost may involve media outreach, yard signs, and other support materials. Map with public access TBD NA NA O-13 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA Ave. 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility O-14 Learning Labs √ √ √ √ Workshops on water conservation techniques and strategies √ Intended start date of 2020; canceled due to Covid-19 outbreak. To be resumed contingent on staff capacity. TBD Track participation rates TBD NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-16 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-15 CitySourced App √ √ √ √ Mobile app allowing users to submit notifications of observed water waste and other water issues √ Ongoing NC - Program supported thru GIS/IT functions Track number of reported incidents. NA NA NA O-16 WaterMAPS™ √ √ √ √ Outreach focused on WaterMAPSTM outcomes √ Development began in 2018. Public launch June 2023. $100,000 Customer response; target survey; track use USU/CWEL; EWIG grant NA TBD O-17 Cloud-based Public Portals √ √ √ √ Provide cloud- based, secure access of water use analytics to customers across sectors ID In development TBD Visitors; customer response TBD NA NA O-18 Water Week and other Events √ √ √ √ Utilize recognized events to promote understanding and foster stewardship √ 2011 - Ongoing $ Participant levels TBD NA NA O-19 Strategic Communications Plan √ √ √ √ √ 9/2025 $50,000 NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-17 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6 E CONOMICS Economic initiatives are focused on pricing, rebates, and other programs that offer financial incentives to customer participation or offer services that provide economic value to customers. These programs encourage changes in behavior or upgrades to fixtures, while generating opportunities to measure program effectiveness by monitoring and analyzing water use pre- and post-product or fixture installation, or before and after changes in pricing signals. The targeted nature of these programs will also assist in the challenges of meeting specific, short- and long-term conservation goals. Financial incentives may either be built around avoided costs, such as inclining tiered rates leading to larger bills for more water use; or they may encourage improvements to landscapes or indoor fixtures through product or service discounts or rebates. All conservation incentives should be designed and implemented in such a way as to help to achieve water use reduction goals in a manner that is transparent, cost-effective, and fair, all while ensuring that such programs do not place any undue burdens or create unintended costs for some customers. When creating programs with financial incentives, there are several key issues to keep in mind, whether the signal is a carrot or a stick. If using pricing signals, they need to reflect the cost of water and all that it takes to acquire, treat, and deliver that water; the structure should provide some level of revenue stability; and rates should be fairly and equitably set so as to encourage appropriate use while also making essential water affordable. It is important to note that billing messages may be as important as the bill itself in driving and reducing demand. Rebates and cost-sharing may help reduce water use by encouraging customers to use improved technologies, install better fixtures, renovate landscapes, or otherwise change behavior. As with pricing signals, product or service rebates and cost-shares should provide incentives for a range of customer classifications, help achieve meaningful and sustainable use reductions, demonstrate measurable outcomes, and be equitable. According to a recent Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) study, the most effective and efficacious rebate programs are targeted to specific user classifications or uses (residential or commercial, indoor or outdoor); and have clearly stated pre-qualifications and post-evaluation components. This is to ensure that the rebate provided achieves the desired goal for both customer and utility. When used appropriately, incentive pricing and rebates can be highly targeted tools for achieving short- and long-term water use reductions goals while providing value and benefits to customers. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Economic Programs •CII Audits and Direct -Installs •Rebates, Microgrants, and Other Incentives SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-18 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6.1 REBATES, MICRO-GRANTS, AND INCENTIVES [E-4, E-6, E-7, E-8] Timeline: TBD Budget: TBD Partners: TBD Reach: Residential Savings/Metric: Acres altered; meter-use comparisons. NOTE: this metric only considers know participants in programs and does not include reductions in water use derived from non-participant landscape transformations. Customers within the service area have done a remarkable job reducing water use. Since 2001 and the beginning of the water conservation program, total water use has reduced nearly 28%, and residential household use has reduced by 29%. As good as these numbers are, there is still more to do as indicated in the Water Supply and Demand Study. To sustain future supplies and live within our water means, residential water users will need to reduce an additional 14% indoors, and as much as a third of our outdoor use. Up to now, conservation has been achieved primarily through voluntary actions as home and property owners adopt better practices or make improvements to homes and landscapes. To meet new water conservation goals and to support homeowners in their efforts, a series of pilot rebate programs have been proposed. Irrigation spray heads, rain sensors, lawn trades, and low-flow fixtures are being considered. Additionally, this program will also work to increase consumer awareness of existing rebates available through partnership with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). Recently published studies by the AWE indicate that program success depends on proper customer vetting, prequalification, and post -engagement verification. WaterMAPSTM and Water Check programs are well suited to provide the necessary quality control measures to ensure rebate program effectiveness. Not all customers have issues with outdoor watering, but rather, need to manage general use or bill amounts. Rebate programs focused on leak detection and repair, and fixture replacement will help qualifying households reduce water use and waste, and reduce their water bills, keeping essential indoor water use affordable. Directed at both indoor and outdoor water use, these programs should help customers achieve greater levels of efficiency and reduce waste. Following water use of participating households will provide greater insight into residential water use patterns, which will inform future programs, and building relationships within the community will further enhance conservation efforts. 4.6.2 CII AUDITS AND DIRECT INSTALLS [E-10] Timeline: 2020 Budget: Phase I $95,000 Partners: CUWCD Reach: CII Savings: TBD Though conservation practices have historically focused on outdoor single- family residential water use, that use reflects roughly one-fourth of all use. Though comprising only 12 percent of water connections, CII water use (both indoors and out) accounts for more than half of all metered water sales. With this in mind, programing in the CII sector has increased to include enhanced analytics, identification of sector-specific water use standards, and establishment of preliminary water use reduction goals. One way to assist select CII customers in reducing water use is to identify inefficient practices or fixtures and to incentivize changes. This project proposes audits of select CII accounts including assessment of water use records and trends, review of standard practices, and inventory and measurement audits of appliances and fixtures. Phase I of this project will focus on small hotels and motels, restaurants, and public and assisted housing. Sites have been selected through water use analytics, identifying properties that show higher than average water use within each sector. After conducting initial assessments, recommendations will be made for fixture, appliance, and practice changes. Some fixture and appliance practices may provide incentives or rebates through matched funding. Besides directly assisting participating CII customers in reducing water waste and overall water use, this project will provide invaluable data regarding common practices within specific CII sectors, as well as building relationships between CII customers and conservation program staff. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-19 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected E-1 Irrigation Meters and Budgets √ √ √ √ Establish budgets for accounts with dedicated irrigation- only meters √ 2003-Current NA Map and track use. Map eligible sites not currently using irrigation meters; chart potential savings/budget impacts NA NA NA E-2 Rate Structuring √ √ √ √ Utilize a rate structure to encourage responsible use of water √ Periodic NA Track water use through various tiers over time. NA NA NA E-3 Volumetric and loading Sewer Charge √ √ √ √ Base sewer rates on metered winter water usage √ Periodic TBD Track use and discharge over time NA NA TBD E-4 Rebate: Irrigation Rain Sensors √ √ √ √ Incentivize installation of irrigation rain sensors through rebates ID TBD TBD Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use TBD NA TBD E-5 Rain barrels √ Provide for purchase rain barrels to homeowners √ 2015-Current Potentially no cost to Utility dependent on selected vendor Map barrel locations. Track water use. Can we identify locations of barrels purchased elsewhere? NA TBD TBD E-6 Rebate: HE Irrigation Spray Heads √ √ Incentivize installation of high- efficiency irrigation spray heads through rebates ID TBD TBD Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use USU Water Check NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-20 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected E-7 Turf Trades √ √ √ √ Incentivize utilization of low-water, low- input turf grasses, either as seed or sod, in new landscape or as retrofits. √ 2022 – current Program is direct funded by program participants Track participant water use USU/CWEL and TWCA TBD 2.3 AF per acre of turf conversion E-8 Rebate: Pressure Regulators √ Incentivize installation of pressure regulation devises to improve indoor and outdoor efficiency and enhance product/appliance wear. ID TBD TBD Track water use TBD NA TBD E-9 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households; fixture replacement. ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility E-10 CII Audits and direct installs √ Conduct audits and provide direct- installs on select CII properties. 2023 focus on City properties. ID 2022 - Current Pilot: $200,000 Track water use $50,000 NA TBD E-11 Rebate: Landscape Transform- ation √ √ √ √ √ 2020 – Current NC Acreage converted; metered-use analysis CUWCD TBD TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-21 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7 U TILITY O PERATIONS The City is committed to be a leader in water conservation. With that in mind, these initiatives represent adopted actions and practices that will help ensure infrastructure is built and maintained in a manner which optimizes water efficiency, minimizes or eliminates waste, and demonstrates best practices. Salt Lake City has been fully metered since the 1920s, making it one of the earliest and longest running metered water systems in the Western United States. Historically, meters have been read monthly (or more technically, each meter is read roughly every 28 to 31 days), and from those readings’ bills are generated and mailed. Until recently, meter technology has not changed a great deal; Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) profoundly changes both when and the how of meter reading. Utilizing long-range radio systems, AMIs record and report water use more accurately and with much greater frequency than has been possible. Utilizing this new technology, water use can be monitored in increments as small as 15-minute intervals. Work has begun to replace all meters (roughly 92,000) with AMIs. Outdoor water use, specifically, landscape water use and waste, is an important component of managing and reducing our water footprint. While it may seem that conservation and landscape programs focus on single-family residential customers, every landscape can be more efficient. Last year, a comprehensive audit of Department landscaped properties was conducted, with the intent to develop a strategy to increase outdoor water use efficiency. This program aims to reduce water use and greenhouse gas emissions while demonstrating best practices. The Residential End Uses of Water26 estimated that an average of 12 percent of residential indoor water use is lost to leaks. This water loss can account for as much as 10,000 gallons per year. Imagine then, how much water is lost within an entire water system. According to the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, water loss within the water infrastructure system is estimated to be between 10 to 12 percent, an amount over 11,000 AF of water annually. Implementation is planned for conducting water system audit modeled after 26Footnote: DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water 2016. Water research foundation. Denver, Co AWWA-M36 methodologies to identify the volume of water loss, determine what proportion of this water is apparent or real loss, and identify appropriate steps and practices to address this loss. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Utility Programs •Evaluate Data -Mining Opportunities of AMI Technologies •Landscape Upgrades and Maintenance •Implement M36 Findings •Implement City -Wide Water Efficiency Study Findings SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-22 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7.1 EVALUATE DATA-MINING OPPORTUNITIES OF AMI TECHNOLOGIES [U-7, U-9] Timeline: TBD Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Efficacy of data extraction Utilization of water meters, coupled with regular readings and billing statements, helps to manage water supplies and convey specific and critical information to water users. Water users can then use this information to make good decisions regarding future water use. Since the 1920’s, water use has been metered, read, and billed throughout the service area. Outside of the computerization of meter and billing data functions, this practice has seen little change over its history. Though this process might have been adequate, it did present shortcomings for conservation programming. Receiving regular meter billing data helps inform customers, but it is a snapshot of past behavior and lacks immediacy. The development of advanced metering infrastructure technologies (AMI) has revolutionized this process. Currently, residential and CII mechanical meters are being replaced with AMI technology. This will provide daily information to water managers and water customers, enhancing resource management response and improving customer understanding of water use. AMI technologies are providing live-time water use data, improving leak detection, and enhancing understanding of water use patterns, all of which is informing current and future water conservation programs. A better understanding of the data available and how to use that data will enhance technology impacts. 4.7.2 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES AND MAINTENANCE [U-2, U-10, U-11] Timeline: 2020 to current Budget: $100,000 (proposed annually) Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 480 AF/year for upgrades to City properties including Parks and Golf properties Approximately 55 percent of water use within the service area is used to maintain landscapes, and landscape and irrigation design, installation, and maintenance affect water use. Improving site management helps to reduce water waste. With this in mind, a comprehensive practice has been established for landscape and irrigation design and management that addresses existing properties and to-be-developed properties. For newly developed properties, staff engineers and consultants work with water conservation staff on site design, ensuring that best practices are followed, and new landscapes are efficient, sustainable, and attractive. Existing properties are also a component of this program. Properties have been catalogued and are being evaluated for irrigation and landscape characteristics, maintenance histories, as well as water use. After completing the WaterMAPS™ assessments, landscapes will be classified and prioritized for improvements, including irrigation and landscape improvements. In the meantime, water conservation staff are working closely with the stormwater and distribution divisions to enhance site management, ensuring reduction in water use and other inputs. Additional to proposed and planned landscape upgrades, conservation and stormwater staff are collaborating to develop specifications and guidelines for implementation of biofiltration and other Low Impact Design (LID) infrastructure. The purpose will be to facilitate the construction of biofiltration retention and other green infrastructure in order to improve and protect stormwater quality. The synergistic collaboration between stormwater and conservation programing will ensure that future LIDs support both stormwater and conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-23 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7.3 LEAK DETECTION AND M36 AUDIT OUTCOMES [U-3] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: 1,450 AF/year This assumes that system losses can be reduced from 12% to 9% (see R-19) and that 50 percent of the saved system losses come from leak detection and repair. Public Utilities began its leak detection program in 2005 with the purchase of one correlator. Currently we have 2 full-time employees, 2 correlators, and 10 portable loggers dedicated to leak detection. The program pinpoints leaks that are surfacing away from the actual break, helping crews to identify and locate leaks more quickly. We also use a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of failure to determine the best areas to survey. We are hoping to enhance the program with new technology such as AI, more loggers, satellite, and ground penetrating radar. In 2025, the Utility completed the AWWA M36 water audit, a robust top-down evaluation to identify and address non-revenue water. Over the next five years, the Utility will develop a strategy for evaluating and, as feasible, implementing the findings of that study. Additionally, now that the baseline has been set, the conservation office will update the findings annually 4.7.4 CITY-WIDE WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY [U-2, O-7] Timeline: 2023 - ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: Maddaus Water Management, USU/CWEL/ CUWCD, DWRe, Salt Lake County Reach: City properties Savings/Metric: At least 5 MG annually In 2023, with support from the Utility director, Laura Briefer, Mayor Mendenhall requested the Utility to expand its CII analysis project to focus on City-owned and operated properties. An existing contract with Maddaus Water Management Inc. was amended, and over the next six months, an extensive analysis of City properties was implemented. Assistance in conducting CII audits was provided by Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Utah State Division of Water Resources staff. The project involved evaluating water use through 757 meters, conducting Water Checks at 16 sites, applying WaterMAPS™ to 68 properties, and conducting 14 indoor audits. The report was submitted to the Mayor’s Office December 2023. Findings included: • Identifying 350,000 square feet of un-utilized turf; • Irrigation system issues; • Leaking water-cooled HVAC systems; • Leaking or poorly operating toilets and faucets; and • Large vehicle wash-station hose issues. Some actions have already been taken, including replacing a cooling tower with a high-efficiency air-cooled unit. Bathroom fixture repairs began upon identification, and irrigation system maintenance addressed the following irrigation season. An estimated 5 million gallons of water could be saved annually by addressing the findings in the report; the conservation office is currently working with other city departments on implementation plans and funding mechanisms. (See https://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/2023CityWaterEfficiencyReport.pdf.) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-24 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-1 Customer Use Change Notification √ √ √ √ Notify customers when water usage exceeds winter usage by 20 percent. √ Currently only applied to commercial and industrial customers. NA Map. Compare addresses to home age, frequency of notification. Can we reduce this number? NA NA TBD U-2 Landscape Upgrades √ Inventory and assess Utility properties for water efficiencies and make necessary upgrades. √ Recommendations of practice scope to be derived from updated Supply and Demand Study, and WaterMAPSTM Analysis. Varies Map utility locations, water usage. Assess landscape change potential, ROI. NA NA 480 AF/year (Including Parks and Golf) U-3 Leak Detection and Repair √ Implement program to ensure enhanced distribution system efficiencies; identify and repair system leaks in a timely manner. √ Utility completed AWWA M36 Assessment in 2003. NA Mapped through CityWorks. NA NA 1,450 AF/year U-4 Monthly meter reading and billing √ √ √ √ Provide timely and accurate information to customer to increase awareness of water use. √ 1928 NA Track use NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-25 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-5 Public Utility Advisory Committee √ Standing citizen committee to advise in conservation policy and programming. √ 1930’s NA Board support and engagement in programing. NA NA NA U-6 SLC Dept/Div Conservation and Drought Plans √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans from City Departments and Divisions. √ Some completed as part of 2014 Water Conservation Master Plan Update; planned for 2019 WCMP update. 2019: $75,000 + in-kind match Track response and use levels during drought per drought plan guidelines. 2019 Update funded through Bureau of Reclamation Grant for $75,000 NA NA U-7 Universal metering and meter replacement √ √ √ √ Each account is metered and meter replacement program in place. √ 2000s Cost Varies Map meter replacement locations? Map different types of meters? Measure pre/post change usage. NA 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered U-8 Water Re-use Study √ Study feasibility of water re-use pilot project. C Study completed in 2015 - See study outcome recommendati ons. NA NA NA U-9 Advanced Meter Technologies √ √ √ √ Adopt new technologies that allow for instant reading of meters while facilitating data analysis √ Utility implementing AMI installation for residential and CII customers. Cost Varies Map locations; meter use analysis. NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-26 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-10 Landscape Specifications √ √ Update landscape and irrigation specifications for inclusion in SLCPDU construction projects. ID 2020/21 TBD TBD NA NA NA U-11 Landscape Maintenance √ Implement BMPs for maintaining SLCDPU properties to enhance conservation and sustainability. √ Contract implemented 2019 Varies Track water use on sites. NA NA NA U-12 EPA WaterSense Partnership √ Become a partner in EPA WaterSense. √ 2025 NA NA US-EPA NA NA U-13 AWWA/AWE Program Certification √ Submit documentation for review and scoring of conservation program. √ 2026 NA NA AWWA, AWE NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-27 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.8 L AW AND P OLICY Since the inception of the conservation program, the City has depended predominantly on volunteer engagement to achieve its water use reduction goals. There are examples of ordinances and policies that support conservation, including landscape codes and the billing rate structure. In order to achieve the next level of goals, there are ordinances and policies that would support further conservation by codifying some best practices and addressing egregious water waste. 4.8.1 EVALUATE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES [LP-4, LP-7, LP-8] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: NA Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: TBD Squandered Water Ordinance [LP-8] Even before the creation of the water conservation program, water customers acted promptly and appropriately to calls for temporary reductions in water use. As a result of this long history, the conservation program has come to depend on this volunteer spirit to facilitate our initial water use reductions. However, after nearly twenty years, not everyone is part of the solution. Usually, when asked to change or correct a behavior, requests are positively received; sometimes they are not. Sometimes, property owners insist on watering daily; an absentee owner won’t repair a leaking swamp cooler; or a remote corporate office isn’t concerned with the broken and geysering spray head at a grocery store, miles, or states away. This disregard for a limited and valued resource is the definition of squandering and is why it may be time to consider such an ordinance. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Law & Policy Programs •Evaluate Ordinances and Policies o Squandered Water o Clarification of Irrigation - Only Meter Ordinance o Evaluation of Irrigation Only Budgets o Review Existing Landscape Ordinances SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-28 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Clarification of Irrigation-only Meter Ordinance In 2003, a seasonal tiered rate structure was adopted as a means to enhance the message of the value of water and to ensure that those who use the most water pay the most for that water. Along with establishing rates for residential and CII customers, irrigation-only meter accounts were also established. These meters are intended to service outdoor water use during irrigation season months. Each account receives site-specific, monthly water budgets based on landscapeable area and modified evapotranspiration equations. Staying in budget means water is charged in the second tier, identified as reasonable outdoor use. Occasionally, a property owner or manager doesn’t turn off their irrigation system and the irrigation-only meter continues to be used. Owing to v ague language in the rate ordinance, this un-authorized winter use of irrigation-only meters has been billed in the first tier, as is all other winter water use. Evaluation of Irrigation-only Meter Budgets [LP-12] As mentioned above, irrigation-only meters and budgets were established in 2003 to encourage responsible outdoor water use while maintaining landscape health, support efforts to sustain water supplies for necessary and beneficial uses, and to help achieve both overall water use reduction as well as reduction of peak water demand. These budgets, developed in conjunction with Utah State University Plants, Soils, and Climate Department, consider irrigated areas, reference evapotranspiration, and irrigation efficiencies of 60 percent. Since then, through continued research, understanding of actual turf water need has grown, and adequate science exists to indicate that it is time to review and reassess these budgets. Additionally, better technology helps deliver water more efficiently. Given the new goals as outlined in the Water Supply and Demand Study and articulated in Chapter 3 of this plan, it is important to align irrigation-only budgets with current science and long-term outdoor water reduction goals. Review Existing Landscape Ordinances and Policies Salt Lake City Planning Department conducted a rigorous evaluation of landscape codes over the past several years, including Salt Lake City’s Code 21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping, which establishes best practices to help reduce water waste in landscapes and park strips. This evaluation was conducted, in part, to ensure city code met the recommendations of Central Utah Water Conservancy District in order to continue participation in landscape transformation programs. As a part of this evaluation, the City clarified the intent of existing landscape code that prohibits the use of artificial turf in park strips, front yards, buffer zones, and parking lots. The reasons for this prohibition are based on research identifying negative impacts of artificial turf on heat-island effect and storm water quality. Research conducted by the conservation office supported this review and takes the position that, while artificial turf might seem to use less water during commissioning, its manufacturing, cleaning, and disposal may negate those seeming benefits. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-29 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-1 Graywater √ √ √ √ Research issues regarding Graywater use and establish appropriate policy. C Initial research completed 2017 NA Is there a way to identify where graywater is being used? USU NA NA LP-2 Irrigation Audit Policy √ √ Develop and adopt an ordinance requiring Irrigation Audits on all new commercial and institutional properties, and accounts which exceed target or set CCF. C 7/2014 Can be compelled through Landscape Ord NA Number of audits and report outcomes NA NA NA LP-3 Irrigation Efficiency Standards √ √ √ Develop and adopt Irrigation Efficiency Standards for all commercial and institutional properties. C 7/2014 Landscape Ord/new construction NA NA Irrigation Association NA NA LP-4 Landscape Ordinance √ √ √ √ Amend existing landscape code to accommodate and encourage water- wise landscaping in front yards and to be consistent with CUWCD model ordinance. C 2022 NA NA SLC Planning NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-30 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-5 Parkstrip Code √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance to accommodate and encourage non- traditional, lower water plantings. C Adopted 2004 (currently in review) NA NA NA NA NA LP-6 Rainwater Harvesting √ Research issues relating to rainwater harvesting and support appropriate legislation. C Adopted by State 2010 (SB 32) Initial investment of $14,000. Barrels sold at cost sustains program. Track water use of known participating households. NA NA NA LP-7 Rain Sensor Ordinance and Policy √ √ Require all properties with automated outdoor sprinkler systems to be fitted with rain sensors. C A component of 2014 water efficient landscape code NA NA NA NA NA LP-8 Squandered Water Ordinance √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance prohibiting the squandering of water. ID TBD NA NA NA NA TBD LP-9 Sub-surface or Low- impact Irrigation for Small Areas √ √ Require sub-surface or low-impact irrigation on medians, park strips, and in parking lots. C Landscape code prohibits standard irrigation in these areas NA NA NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-31 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-10 Water Shortage Contingency Plan √ √ √ √ Identify specific calls for action during water shortages and emergencies. C 2025 $75,000 WaterSmart grant with $78,000 in- kind match. See Plan for monitoring details. Funded through grant from Bureau of Reclamation NA NA LP-11 Irrigation- only Meters √ √ √ Review existing policy and make recommendations. √ Review existing policy NA Map: locations, meters that exceed target/frequenc y by user class; potential sites not currently metered NA NA NA LP-12 Sub- metering on New Multi- Family Dwelling Units √ Explore requiring all new multi-family dwelling units to be sub-metered and address metering in mixed use development ID TBD TBD Identify and map submeters NA NA NA LP-13 Alternative Water Sources Use Recommen- dations √ Establish guideline for implementation pertaining to alternative water sources, including secondary water C Study on secondary water sources for park sites was completed 2018. $62,500 See study NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-32 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9 R ESEARCH AND M ETRICS Successful conservation programs require an understanding of the community served, including the relationship of the end water user to their water use. Continuing research helps to identify the ways in which water is used; how it may be over- or misused; and the best means for altering behavior or practices to improve use efficiencies and reduce or eliminate waste. It is also crucial to understand program efficacy and effectiveness. In this regard, identifying meaningful benchmarks and metrics is key to program evaluation, review, and improvement. The value of research and establishment of metrics should not be underestimated; the Governor’s 2017 Recommended State Water Strategy27 devotes an entire chapter to the role of science and technology in enhancing our understanding as well as to develop practical and actionable steps to meet our future water needs. According to the strategic plan, science, technology, and innovation are crucial components of meeting water needs, now and in the future. Fortunately, conservation staff have developed collaborative and cooperative relationships with many academic institutions and professional organizations that offer opportunities to extend knowledge, build understanding, and devise meaningful strategies to move towards water conservation goals. Internally, the water conservation program works with team members from GIS/IT, finance, billing, metering, and engineering to identify areas of study and meaningful benchmarks. For example, through the Water Check program, we know that, while residential property owners tend to apply nearly twice as much water as is necessary to support lawns, commercial and institutional users may irrigate three to four times as much as needed. Though the overall footprint of landscaped areas of non-residential property is less than that of residential property, this represents a great opportunity to reduce water waste, given the degree of overwatering. Applying WaterMAPS™ to commercial and institutional properties will help to quantify the potential water savings, while surveys and focus groups will identify how best to capture that savings. Research into emerging technologies and 27 https://envisionutah.org/utah-water-strategy-project practices will continue as a critical component of effective conservation programing in order to achieve newly established water use reduction goals. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Research & Metrics Programs •Conduct AWWA M36 Study •Establish Metrics, Benchmarks, & Goals •5 - and 10 -year Program Budget •CII Analytics •SLC D PU/USU Collaborative Research SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-33 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.1 CONDUCT AWWA M36 STUDY [R-19] Timeline: 2020-2025 Budget: $125,000 Partners: NA Reach: all Savings/Metric: 2,900 AF (900 million gallons) per year if system losses are reduced to 9%. Note that these savings are not associated with the audit alone, but with the actions taken to eliminate system loss as a result of the audit. Currently, a leak detection program and water data analysis programs are underway. The water conservation office led undertaking the AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices: M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Program . This comprehensive study will facilitate improvements in water resource management, optimize revenue recovery while promoting equity among rate payers, minimize distribution system interruptions, enhance system integrity, and reduce water waste through identification of metering and system losses. Over the last five years, system losses have averaged approximately 12 percent. While it is not reasonable to expect zero system losses, it is believed that system losses could be reduced to somewhere between 8 to 10 percent with proactive leak detection and repair. Thus, potential water savings could be estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of gallons per year. Next steps include evaluating study recommendations for feasibility of implementation. 4.9.2 ESTABLISH METRICS, BENCHMARKS, AND GOALS FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMING [R-1, O-6] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: Reach: all Savings/Metric: TBD Over the lifetime of the conservation program, 16,000 acre-feet of water have been saved annually. Establishing metrics, benchmarks, goals, and potential water savings for conservation programing will facilitate understanding how those savings were achieved, and how best to sustain and enhance those savings. Not all metrics and benchmarks will be identical; for instance, the impact of a brochure or demonstration garden cannot be measured in the same manner as would the effectiveness of rain sensor rebates or Water Checks. Reliance on industry best practices, research by AWE, US-EPS, and AWWA, as well as efforts by other conservation programs to identify benchmarks and metrics will facilitate this program measure. 4.9.3 5- AND 10-YEAR PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET Timeline: 2020-2030 Budget: NA Partners: Internal Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: NA Continued program continuity and success depends on the ability to plan ahead. The establishment of 5- and 10-year budget proposals will facilitate program planning, support partnership arrangements, and optimize grant opportunities. Past budget and program performance, future stakeholder and partnership opportunities, outside conservation program examples, and AWE and AWWA program estimate costs will be consulted in establishing proposed budgets. 4.9.4 LANDSCAPE AND TURF CONVERSION IMPACTS Timeline: Ongoing Budget: NA Partners: CUCWD and Internal Reach: Utility Wide Savings/Metric: Acres of traditional turf converted into alternative landscaping. Beginning in 2022 SLCDPU began offering a low-water grass seed alternative for customers to purchase, referred to as “SLC TurfTrade”. CUWCD also began a landscape transformation rebate program within its entire service area in August 2021. Since that time, many customers within SLCDPU have taken advantage of one or both of these programs, or have independently adjusted their landscaping to be more water conscience. These landscape conversions need to continue for SLCDPU to reach their ultimate goal of outdoor use water reduction. The table below illustrates the acreage of traditional turf that would need to be converted to alternative landscaping to meet interim and long-term conservation targets. The landscape conversions considered were the SLCDPU SLC TurfTrade, a very high water efficiency Waterwise landscape, and a typical CUWCD landscape transformation. Note that the targets shown in this table represent three separate scenarios in which all landscaping is converted into only one alternative; in reality, a mixture of all three landscaping conversions will need to occur to achieve the long-term stated application rates. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-34 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR LANDSCAPE CONVERSION (ACRES) TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM (2060) GOAL* SLC TurfTrade Conversion Only Waterwise High Efficiency Conversion Only Landscape Transformation Conversion Only Resulting Application Rate (in/yr) 2020 0 0 0 24.7 2025 150 477 718 24.1 2035 2,715 1,599 2,569 23.6 2045 3,839 2,067 3,368 23.3 2060 5,619 2,809 4,633 22.8 * ET Rates: Standard turf =24"; Turf trade = 18"; Waterwise High Efficiency = 12.3"; Landscape Transformation = 20" Application Rates: Standard turf = 34.3"; Turf trade = 25.7"; Waterwise High Efficiency = 13.7"; Landscape Transformation = 22.2" 4.9.5 SLCDPU/USU COLLABORATION [R-1, R-5, O-6, O-16] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: Varies Partners: Varies Reach: Service-wide Savings/Metric: Varies Water Check [R-1, O-6] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: $18,000 (proposed) Partners: USU, MWDSLS, Sandy City Reach: Residential, CII Savings/Metric: 577AF To Date Landscape irrigation accounts for almost 25% of water use within the service area. Understanding how water is used and communicating better practices to home and property owners supports long-term water use reduction goals. The Water Check irrigation audit program was created in 1999 and is provided by Utah State University and the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping, with financial and technical support from department conservation staff and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Typical Water Check participants know they have a problem but don’t know what to do about it. The Water Check program provides recommended site - specific irrigation schedules as well as irrigation system and landscape action items to help increase their landscape irrigation efficiency. By comparing pre and post Water Check water usage, we know that having a Water Check typically results in a 30% reduction in water use in subsequent years. It’s important to note that audits need to be done regularly to maintain efficiency. Water Check will also be incorporated into future landscape incentive programs. Studies indicate landscape program success depends on pre-qualification and post-verification to ensure landscape interventions are appropriately implemented. Water Check will assist in providing those functions, ensuring that program goals for incentives are met. GIS technology has been integrated with the Water Check application for enhanced data accuracy including use area, asset location, attributes (nozzle spray pattern, etc.), and condition (broken, tilted, etc.). A further benefit is that property owners now receive, along with an electronic report, a site map indicating location, zone, and condition of spray heads. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-35 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Water MAPSTM [R-5, O-16] Timeline: 2018-current Budget: $70,000 annually Partners: USU/CWEL, EWIG Reach: Utility-wide Savings: TBD WaterMAPSTM is a collaboration between the WaterMAPS™ team in USU’s Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (CWEL) and the Water Conservation Program of SLCDPU. WaterMAPSTM provides SLCDPU with technical assistance and science-based analysis to locate and quantify additional landscape water conservation potential so it can determine when, where, and how to deliver current and future outdoor-focused water conservation programs. Besides providing detailed information on outdoor water use to customers, this project will help to effectively utilize existing programs such as Water Check and optimize implementation of new programs such as landscape incentives. How much water conservation potential exists within the landscapes of the service area and how are those potential savings captured? What tools are most effective with any given group of water users to eliminate waste, increase efficiency, and reduce use? The answers to these questions will enable SLCDPU to prioritize delivery of future outdoor water conservation programs and help the community to be adaptive and responsive in its relationship with water in order to create a more sustainable water supply now and for the future. However, we do not know how much water is actually being wasted on existing landscapes. Analysis of city meter data can provide clues as to watering practices, but the question remains: How much irrigation water currently being applied is not necessary to support existing urban landscapes? Application of USU Water Management Analysis and Planning Software (WaterMAPS™) addresses this specific information need. WaterMAPS™ is a custom software application that has been developed by an interdisciplinary team of USU researchers for the purpose of promoting urban landscape water conservation (visit watermaps.usu.edu). WaterMAPS™ integrates water meter data with property records, weather data, and landscape classifications into one database, then enables different time-step calculations of site-specific Landscape Irrigation Ratios (LIRs) that compare landscape water use to landscape water need. The LIRs represent an efficiency standard, with values under 1 indicating efficient use and increasingly higher numbers indicating “capacity to conserve” (or water waste). Various patterns in how LIRs change over time can signal the need for delivery or refinement of conservation messaging and programming. In this project, several different innovations will be implemented in the application of WaterMAPS™ to help SLCDPU meet the challenge of refining and focusing outdoor water conservation programs in the future. From water meter data and Water Checks reports, we “know” many households over water their landscapes. And now, through their WaterMAPS™ reports, homeowners can also understand how they water and identify their own capacity to conserve. But WaterMAPS™ also performs analytics that helps to inform conservation programming. Figure 4.1 shows the number of households in each LIR category over a ten-year period, the majority of which are within the lowest LIR Ranges. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-36 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Within the WaterMAPS™ analysis, we came to recognize four distinct categories of water users: low use and low LIR; low use and high LIR; high use and low LIR; high use and high LIR (see Figure 4.2). This helps in directing programming to more specifically address water use patterns. For example, a house with a low LIR but high use might have completed a landscape transformation but haven’t yet adjusted the watering schedule to reflect the new landscape; they may just need information on watering a new plant palette. Conversely, a house with a high LIR and high-water use might be a good candidate for the landscape transformation program. FIGURE 4-1 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LIR RANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME FIGURE 4-2 RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIZATION BY LIR AND WATER VOLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-37 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Golf Course Turfgrass Study Timeline: 2018-2022 Budget: $45,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: CII Savings/Metric: 30-80% Reduction in water use In 2018, conservation programs began working collaboratively with Salt Lake City Golf (SLC-Golf); Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils, & Climate (USU/CWEL); and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Forage and Range Research Laboratory (USDA -FRRL) to find solutions that reduce water demand and eliminate water waste while supporting the golf division in enhancing long-term sustainability of its courses by managing fiscal impacts of increasing water costs, all while supporting playability and economic viability of City courses. Conservation staff, SLC-Golf, USU/CWEL, and USDA-FRRL devised field-based research in the areas of drought tolerant grass research, soil surfactant application, water conditioning evaluations, and soil temperature measurement. Outcomes from these studies will not only provide actionable information for SLC-Golf but is already influencing landscape management decisions at department sites and is helping to inform incentive and rebate program planning. This study has been recommended for an additional two-year extension. Alternative Turfgrass Study Timeline: 2020-2023 Budget: $25,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 1.67 AF/43,500SF Outdoor water use has been an important focus of water conservation efforts locally and statewide over the last twenty years, and in the center of this focus sits Kentucky Blue grass. Over the last fifteen years, USU has conducted field studies of Poa species (blue grass), as well as other grass species and varieties with the intent of identifying alternative turfs to traditional lawn grass. The outcome of these studies has been the identification of turfs requiring fewer inputs while still delivering on the aesthetic and environmental qualities that make lawns so compelling a landscape choice. Conservation staff propose to work with USU and other partners to increase the use of these turf grasses within the service area as well as regionally, through a number of strategies. These will include turf demonstration areas, installation of these turfs on department properties, development of educational and promotional materials, collaboration with seed and sod growers, and consideration for inclusion in incentive programming. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-38 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR An outcome of these ongoing studies was the identification of a low-water residential quality turf grass that requires 30 to 40% less water than the typical Kentucky bluegrass Lawn. In 2022, the Utility launched the SLC TurfTrade program, making available a low-water seed mix at cost to customers within the service area. The success of this project was immediate, with over 2,000 households purchasing and planting SLC TurfTrade grass seed. The program has now spread to Colorado, Arizona, California, and even to communities in Ontario, Canada. Synthetic Grass Study Timeline: 2026 Budget: $25,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: All Savings/Metric: Completed white paper It is commendable that we strive to identify new ways to reduce water use and eliminate water waste. As part of this search for solutions, however, it is also important that impacts to other areas of environmental concern are incorporated into decision making. It is also important that as best as possible, unintended consequences are also considered. Synthetic grass has been presented as a solution to reducing water use in landscapes. When lifecycle water use is calculated, this premise seems more tenuous. Research provides information regarding impacts to human health, urban heat island effects, and water quality. USU, working with conservation staff, conducted a metastudy on research pertaining to artificial turf, with a desire to identify any potential negative impacts to soil health, surrounding landscape health, surrounding landscape water demand, and insect populations. Study outcome indicates there is little or no scientific research pertaining to these questions. As a result, a collaborative research study is being designed and proposed to conduct field and modeling studies to measure impacts, if any, of synthetic turf on landscape, soil, and beneficial insect health. Irrigation-Only Meter Budgets Review Timeline: 2026 Budget: $4,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: utility-wide Savings/Metric: TBD In 2003, a seasonally tiered rate structure was adopted. A component of those rates was the establishment of rates specific for those properties with meters that serviced only outdoor, landscape water needs. Those accounts are referred to as Irrigation-Only Meter Accounts. In conjunction with USU, budgets based on square footage of landscaped areas and evapotranspiration were established for each property with irrigation-only meters. Improvements in best practices, irrigation system technologies (including irrigation controllers and sensors), and turfgrass may allow for revisions of established budgets without negatively affecting landscapes. Additionally, new conservation goals articulated in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Plan indicate a greater level of outdoor water conservation is necessary to achieve short- and long-term water use reduction goals. Accordingly, a review of the landscape water budgets is in order. 4.9.6 SLCDPU/CVWCD LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMATION ANALYSIS [R-] Timeline: 2020 to present Budget: NA Partners: CUWCD Reach: Service area Savings/Metric: Acreage converted; metered use reductions; reduced LIRs This practice will analyze water use reduction resulting from landscape transformations, including participation in CUWCD Landscape Transformation program, SLC TurfTrade, and non-participant landscape transformations. Working in coordination with CUWCD, team will track acreage conversion, water use reduction, and echo effect (impact of transformations on neighboring properties). SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-39 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.7 CII WATER DEPLETION EVALUATION AND CONSERVATION/GREAT SALT LAKE IMPACTS [R- 20, R-21] Timeline: 2026 Budget: TBD Partners: TBD Reach: service area Savings/Metric: TBD Building on the City and Utility’s commitment to protect Great Salt Lake (GSL), this practice will attempt to determine the impact of conservation on GSL water levels and also measure water depletion of various CII user classifications. 4.9.8 CII ANALYTICS [R-20] Timeline: 2017-2022 Budget: $135,000 Partners: NA Reach: CII Savings/Metric: TBD The service area is comprised of a diverse customer base, from suburban residential properties to high-density urban core dwellings, and from art spaces to tattoo parlors, health food stores to hospitals, model toy stores to airports, and gas stations to oil refineries. While our residential base is rich in its diversity, understanding water demand, use patterns, and barriers to behavioral change seem straightforward when compared to the diversity and complexity of our CII customers. Conservation staff began working on CII analytics in earnest in 2015. Since that time and working with a team of consultants, we have developed a method for gathering, analyzing, and assessing water use within the CII sector. With tools developed by Radian Inc., we can now begin to develop realistic water efficiency targets for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) clients through better understanding of demand patterns, specific CII sector analysis, and comparisons to newly developing national standards data. Through this process advanced and automated reporting queries, automatic updates for consumption, weather, GIS, and AMI data with usage and other predefined alerts have been developed to provide valuable information to conservation program staff. By integrating existing commercial billing data and established NAICS codes with external data sources including GIS, AMI, and weather, a clearer picture of water demand emerges. This in turn helps support water use reduction efforts in the CII sector in a meaningful, actionable way. CII customers comprise roughly 12 percent of the connections within the service area, and their total water demand accounts for half of water use. In order to more fully integrate CII customers with conservation planning, it is necessary to understand how water is used in order to drive sustainable conservation within this sector to achieve long-term water reduction goals while still maintaining a vibrant, healthy economy. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-40 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-1 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU funds additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($45,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S, USU/CWEL 47,000 gallons per participating residential customer annually R-2 EPA Residential Study √ Measure and evaluate water efficiency in newly constructed homes. √ Completed 201128 $20,000/ $360,000 grant and partners Map participating households. EPA Grant; Aquacraft, Inc., 8 participant cities NA NA R-3 Irrigation Controller Study √ √ √ Test and evaluate weather-based irrigation controllers. √ On-going (USU) NA Study outcomes inform recommend- dations USU/CWEL NA NA R-4 Irrigation Intervention Study √ Investigate impediments and barriers for homeowners in correcting irrigation system defects. √ Initial studies conducted 5/2015, 2018 Funded in FY2013-14 cons. budget; matched by USU NA USU NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active 28 DeOreo, William, and Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Analysis of Water Use in New Single-Family Homes. Boulder Co. January 2011 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-41 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-5 WaterMAPS™ √ √ √ √ Utilize technology developed by USU to analyze potential water-use savings in landscape settings. √ Phase1: Study began August 2018. Phase 2: began implementing WaterMAPS™ software over service area. Phase 1: $49,000; Phase 2: $50,000 with EWIG match grant Monitor LIR by parcel, sector USU/CWEL; EWIG NA TBD R-6 Landscape Inventory √ √ √ √ Inventory alternative landscapes and quantify savings. √ 2019 NA Identify, map, measure, compare USU, SL Co Master Gardeners, community citizen scientists NA TBD R-7 Residential Plumbing Fixtures Inventory √ √ √ Inventory upgrades in plumbing fixtures and calculate quantity of remaining, older fixtures. TBD TBD TBD Compare water use between sites; refer to End Water Use Study TBD NA TBD R-8 Water Softener Study √ √ √ √ Research effects on water softener use on waste stream quality and impacts on water re-use water quality. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-42 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-9 Supply and Demand Master Plan √ Analyze the impacts of conservation on the assumptions pertaining to storage and capacity. √ Component of 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan and Storage and Conveyance Master Plan SLCDPU Engineering - Consultant: Bowen Collins NA Since 2007 projected peak demand 270 MGD; current projection 200 MGD R-10 Climate Change, and Resiliency √ √ √ √ Review existing research on climate change; evaluate impacts of conservation on risk reduction and mitigation. √ Study currently being conducted - - NA NA R-11 Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan √ √ √ √ Study availability, quality, and opportunity to use non-culinary water sources. C 2019 Water Resources Division budget and SLC Public Services Map locations using non- culinary water: by customer class and water source. SLC Public Services Consultant: Bowen Collins NA NA R-12 Commercial and Industrial Water Demand Study √ Evaluate C&I was use patterns and water-use reduction innovations. √ 2015 - Ongoing Phase 1 & 2: funded $10,000 each budget cycle 2015/16 and 2016/17 Phase 3 & 4: $50,000 funded in 2017/18 Analysis and monitor CII water use sector, account - NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-43 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-13 Behavior and Policy Study √ Conduct studies linking consumer behavior and policy development. C Completed 2017/18: Can we map participant locations? USU Consumer study and iUtah study. NA NA R-14 Incentives √ √ √ √ Study incentive programs; investigate. ID TBD NA Survey/audit to determine reach/interest/ product. Map and track use. USU/CWEL, AWE, US- EPA, IA NA TBD R-15 Turf Study √ √ √ √ Turf bluegrass and alternative turfs to identify best qualities/applicatio ns. √ 2017/18; Golf Turf Study completed summer 2019 – recommend contract extension. Mapping begun Fall 2019. SLC TurfTrade launch 2022. $50,000 for study. No cost for SLC TurfTrade program Comparative water use Funded $25,000 in 2017/18 budget, with $25,000 match from USU. USDA- FRR NA TBD R-16 Program Effec- tiveness √ √ √ √ Where appropriate, develop methodology to measure practice impact. ID Ongoing TBD varies USU/CWEL NA NA R-17 Projected Demand Reduction √ √ √ √ Develop baseline and projected customer-class water demand. C Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Study (2022) SLCDPU Engineering WaterMAPS™, CII tool Consultant: Bowen Collins - 16,100 AF/ Annually ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-44 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-18 Artificial Turf Study √ √ √ √ Study impacts of artificial turf on landscape water need and soil health √ Metastudy completed 2019; field study proposed TBD - USU/CWEL NA NA R-19 Water Loss Control Study √ Complete loss audit based on AWWA M36 standards and implement findings. C Completed 2025, to be updated annually $70,000 Track percentage loss after implementatio n of plan components. NA - TBD R-20 CII Water Depletion Evaluation √ √ √ Research and evaluate methodologies for determining CII depletion levels. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA NA R-21 GSL √ √ √ √ Evaluate and estimate water demand reductions related to Great Salt Lake TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 5-1 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE DRAFT CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN 5.0 I NTRODUCTION This Communications and Outreach Plan (COP) serves two primary purposes: first, to actively gather input and feedback from customers and stakeholders during the development of the 2025 Water Conservation Plan; and second, to establish a clear, inclusive process for informing and engaging the community throughout the plan’s implementation. The COP outlines strategies designed to promote meaningful participation, transparency, and trust. Engagement efforts will include both in -person and digital tools to ensure broad accessibility. These efforts will be coordinated with key milestones to encourage feedback that can directly shape the plan and its implementation. While digital platforms—such as social media, surveys, and virtual meetings— will play a major role, we recognize that not all community members have reliable internet access. To ensure equitable participation, outreach will also include printed materials and postings at high-traffic public locations such as libraries, recreation centers, parks, and golf courses. By combining modern communication tools with trusted, community-based engagement methods, this plan ensures that all voices have the opportunity to be heard and that the final Water Conservation Plan reflects the shared values and priorities of the community it serves. 5.1 G OALS AND O BJECTIVES To ensure the desired outcomes, the communications and outreach goals are to: • Create meaningful opportunities for community feedback during the development of the Water Conservation Plan; • Identify and involve a wide range of stakeholders, ensuring that all community voices are represented; • Facilitate the transfer of technical information to educate and encourage public engagement; SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 5-2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE • Provide timely and transparent responses to public questions and feedback; • Establish credibility and build trust in the planning process; • Build partnerships with municipalities within the service area; • Achieve public understanding and support for the plan’s adoption and implementation. 5.2 S TAKEHOLDERS AND S PECIAL I NTERESTS Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of this plan. In addition to the general public, special outreach will be made to: • Internal Stakeholders: SLC Parks and Public Lands (Forestry, Open Space, Parks), SLC Golf, SLC Planning, SLCDPU Engineering, Sustainability, etc. • Municipal Partners: Millcreek, Holladay, Murray, South Salt Lake, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake County. • Advisory and Oversight Bodies: Public Utility Advisory Committee (PUAC), Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy. • Political Leadership: SLC Mayor’s Office, City Council, and mayoral offices of partner cities. • Other Agencies and Advocacy Groups: Utah Division of Water Resources, Jordan Valley Water Conservation District, AWWA, USU Extension, environmental nonprofits, and community advocacy organizations. Meetings, presentations, surveys, and regular updates will be tailored to fit the interests and level of involvement of each stakeholder group. A full stakeholder matrix is available in the project documentation. 5.3 M EDIA AND S OCIAL P LATFORMS A multi-channel media strategy will ensure outreach is inclusive, engaging, and far-reaching: • Website: All project information, including draft plans and FAQs, will be posted at slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, with links provided on other City pages. • News Releases: Coordinated with the SLC Mayor’s Office to announce project milestones, draft releases, and public comment periods. • Blogs: Stories and updates will be posted on City and partner blogs to provide both technical content and human-interest narratives. • Facebook / Instagram / X (formerly Twitter): o One post per week over a six-month period. • Content includes project updates, meeting notices, water-saving tips, and community stories. • Interactive Q&A formats and reposting from partner organizations will extend reach. • YouTube / SLCtv Media: Short video vignettes and a 2-minute animated video will communicate plan highlights. A recorded virtual townhall will be posted here. • Community Media: Outreach will include local radio, the Salt Lake Chamber’s “Building Utah” podcast, and communications through schools, libraries, and partner organizations. 5.4 A VENUES OF C OMMUNICATION Community input will be collected via: • Digital surveys (including QR codes on fliers and signs) • Public meetings (in-person and virtual) • Email, phone, and social media messaging • Comment cards and signage at events and public locations All feedback will be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the project team. A final outreach summary will include an executive summary of community feedback, a record of comments received, and a list of outreach activities conducted. 5.5 O NGOING C OMMUNICATIONS AND O UTREACH Strategies employed during plan development will continue over the duration of the plan implementation to enhance public understanding, program acceptance, and active engagement. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-1 APPENDICES APPENDICES SLCDPU Water Service Area Map MWDSLS ULS Report 2024. Table 4: Salt Lake City Water Usage and Conservation Trends State Division of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist ANSI/AWWA GA80 -13 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management Standard, First Edition July 1, 2013 Water Conservancy Budget 2025/26 17.16.092: Water Shortage Management Policy 21A -48 -055 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Public Utility Advisory Committee Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Discussion Minutes of the Meeting of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Board Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Minutes of the Salt Lake City Council Fourmal Meeting Salt Lake City Council Transmittal, Minutes and Resolution M36 Water Audit Summaries (2022 -24) SLCDPU Drought Contingency Plan Summary Impacts of Water Conservation on Rates Technical Memorandum, 2025 Water Conservation Program Manager Job Description Conservation Action Plans Residential Water Sales Targets Links & References Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations & Acronyms A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-2 APPENDICES A. SLCDPU W ATER S ERVICE A REA M AP PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE AREA SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-3 APPENDICES B. MWDSLS ULS R EPORT 2024, T ABLE 4: S ALT L AKE C ITY W ATER U SAGE AND C ONSERVATION T RENDS TABLE 4 - SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS DOCUMENTATION OF CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY Year Without Consideration of Worker Population Population Adjusted Based on Worker Population Relative to WFRC Average ULS Goal (gpcd) State Goal (gpcd) Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) Population Employment Average Employment Based on Population Worker Population Above Averages Total Equivalent Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) New State Goal (gpcd) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 327,542 331,473 335,450 324,022 325,683 327,352 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 22,597,819,761 25,648,647,896 22,407,825,138 22,654,139,073 21,327,273,801 25,384,118,751 310 297 265 247 245 222 243 269 233 229 232 202 240 231 216 208 213 219 215 189 212 183 192 179 212 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 327,542 331,473 335,450 324,022 325,683 327,352 255,161 259,575 264,066 268,634 275,242 280,500 283,762 285,060 285,951 286,582 287,213 283,183 283,844 284,292 284,740 286,633 290,072 293,553 297,076 300,641 304,249 307,899 401,343 407,806 411,821 148,889 148,876 148,862 148,849 148,835 148,821 149,415 150,098 150,568 150,900 151,232 160,406 160,780 160,847 161,132 151,144 152,958 154,793 156,651 158,530 160,433 162,358 147,754 148,511 149,273 106,272 110,699 115,204 119,785 126,407 131,679 134,348 134,962 135,383 135,682 135,981 122,777 123,064 123,444 123,608 135,489 137,115 138,760 140,425 142,110 143,816 145,542 253,589 259,294 262,548 312,192 313,198 314,221 315,263 316,780 317,981 319,748 321,211 322,215 322,926 323,637 338,271 339,061 339,279 339,867 343,850 347,976 352,152 356,377 360,654 364,982 369,362 376,008 378,838 381,174 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 22,597,819,761 25,648,647,896 22,407,825,138 22,654,139,073 21,327,273,801 25,384,118,751 285 273 242 225 222 200 219 242 210 207 209 185 220 211 198 189 193 199 195 172 193 166 165 154 182 285 283 281 280 278 276 274 273 271 269 267 265 264 262 260 258 257 255 253 251 249 248 247 246 245 285 282 279 276 274 271 268 265 262 259 257 254 251 248 245 242 239 237 234 231 228 225 222 219 217 210 209 207 206 204 203 201 200 198 197 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-4 APPENDICES C. S TATE D IVISION OF W ATER R ESOURCES 2025 W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN C HECKLIST State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation System Profile 1 Population, Serive Area, Existing Water Users 1.1 Provide map of current service area. Page 1-2 and Appendix B 1.2 List number of M&I water connections, categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Unmetered) Table 2-3 2 Supply 2.1 Chart current water supply, categorized by source (Wells, Springs, Surface, Purchased, Exchanged) Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 2.2 Describe when applicable, occurrences of groundwater depletion, aquifer recharge (artificial and natural) and storage and recovery practices. No groundwater depletion has occurred. Aquifer Recharge and Recovery program discussed on page 1-5 and 1-6. 2.3 Provide comparison graph, which includes a) reliable supply through 2050, b) current water use projections and c) efficient use. Figure 1-4 2.4 If after reaching conservation targets, use exceeds supply, list future water sources and cost projections. Not applicable. Please see the SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 3 Water Measurement and Billing SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-5 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 3.1 List current water measurement methods and practices. (percent of metered connections by type, reading frequency, calibration schedule, new development laws & replacement schedule) 1) 100% of connections are metered; 2) Meters are read roughly every 30 days; 3) Solid-state multijet and ultrasonic meters are sealed in factory and calibrated to AWWA Standards and not calibrated in field. Flow tests may be conductyed in field. when meters do not perform to AWWA standards they are replaced ; Non-AMI meters 1.5" and up are field tested at a rate of appox 1000 meters per year. 4) All new connections are required to be metered per code; 5) All 3/4" and 1" meters within SLCDPU service area are scheduled to be replaced with AMI within next 6 years.Larger meters are replaced as needed, though 85% of 1.5" meters and up are OMNI C1 or OMNI F2. 3.2 List water (by volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) and revenue losses and the control practices implemented to minimize both. If utilizing the AWWA Free Water Audit Software© please list water audit validity grade. See M36 Summary in Appendices L. Current system loss is estimated to be 11% of production volume, or 8,036 AF. Water audit validity grade is 65/100. Implementation of M36 was completed 2022, 2023, and 2024. 3.3 Include a copy of the system's water rate structure in the WCP. For a retail water supplier, as defined in Section 19 -4- 102, the retail water supplier's rate structure that is: (A) adopted by the retail water supplier's governing body in accordance with Section 73-10-32.5; and (B) current as of the day the retail water supplier files a water conservation plan https://www.slc.gov/utilities/what-new-rates-mean/ 3.4 List leak detection and repair methods, include details on a loss prevention plan if applicable See M36 Water Audit summary pages (Appendices L) 4 Water Use 4.1 Gather 2005-current records of potable and non-potable water use by sector and service area population. Please check for accuracy and consistency with what is submitted to Water Rights at: www.waterrights.utah.gov/wateruse/WaterUseList.asp Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-6 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 4.2 List current total potable and non-potable water deliveries by volume (please specify volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Wholesale and Un-metered). Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. 4.3 Chart current per capita water use in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by type and use: (Total water deliveries/365/Total service area population=GPCD). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-14. 4.4 Graph your water efficiency progress: Take 2005-today, total potable and non-potable water use by sector and population records and go to www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html for a Conservation Goal Calculator and Graph. Then input data and produce graph for WCP. Figure 2-1 and Figure 3-2. Conservation Practices 5 Conservation Practices 5.1 Provide update on ongoing practices and list and detail all ongoing and new conservation practices. When implementing new practices provide costs, partnerships and implementation timeline. (BMP options at www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html) See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 5.2 Provide names and contact information for those responsible for meeting efficiency goals. (i.e. Administrative staff, conservation coordinator(s), conservation committee members, Mayor, town council and/or board members.) Stephanie Duer, SLCDPU Water Conservation Program Manager stephanie.duer@slc.gov 801.483.6860 5.3 Share evaluation of existing water conservation best management effectiveness Over the past 18 years of active program implementation, SLCDPU has seen a 24% reduction in total water use; 26% reduction in peak demand (see Chapter 2 Highlights). Achievements have exceeded goals set by Gov's Office, State regional goals, and CUP Contract. See Figure 3-2. 5.4 List new Best Management Practice(s) and implementation plan(s). See Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. 5.5 List and detail all Conservation Public Awareness practices implemented. See Table 4-2 . SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-7 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 5.6 List and detail all Education/Training practices implemented. See Table 4-2 . 5.7 List and detail all Rebates/Incentives/Rewards currently implemented. See Table 4-3 . 5.8 List and detail conservation Ordinances & Standards currently implemented. See Table 4-5 . 5.9 List water waste prohibition and model landscape ordinances. See Appendices G. 5.10 Include a copy of the system's drought contingency plan. See Appendices F and O. 5.11 List Reviews or Updates to City Codes/Requirements pertaining to Water Waste Prohibition, Model Landscape Ordinance, Water Shortage Plan, Climate Resiliency Plan See Table 4-5. Next Steps 6 Public Meetings and Adoption 6.1 After receiving approval from DWRe to move forward with Public/Board/Council Adoption. Following adoption, please email the follwoin to waterwise@utah.gov: * Final approved Water Conservation Plan * Water Conservation Plan Resolution/Adoption signatures * Public meeting notice & approved meeting minutes See Appendices J and K. 6.2 Post the water conservation plan on a public website. See Utility website: www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-8 APPENDICES D. ANSI/AWWA G480 -13 W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAM O PERATION AND M ANAGEMENT S TANDARD , F IRST E DITION . J ULY 1, 2013 Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.1 Regulatory Requirements 4.1.1 Demonstrate meet or exceed applicable regulatory requirements for jurisdiction: 1) Utah Water Conservation Plan Act 73.10.32: Submit Water Conservation Plan to State DWRe every five years 2) Utah Governor’s Conservation Goal (non-mandatory): reduce water use by 25% from baseline year 2001 (Exceeded) 3) CUP Conservation Goal (Exceeded) 1) Have submitted Water Conservation Master Plans (WCMP) as required and to standards 2) have consistently exceeded State-wide conservation goals (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2 ) 3) Have consistently exceeded ULS Contractual Conservation Goal (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2) 1) 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan in process 1) 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2020 2) See Figure 3-2 3) on-going 4.2 Top Level Organizational Functions 4.2.1 Staff for conservation initiatives 4.2.1 Assign dedicated water conservation coordinator Provide job description of staff person assigned duties, Appendices O June, 2001. Last update 2/15/2024. 4.2.2 Water conservation planning 4.2.2 Create, implement, and maintain a water conservation plan www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025 2025 Plan Update to be completed by Oct 2025 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 , 2020 Plan guided by AWWA M52 – AWWA Water Conservation Programs – a Planning Manual or some other guidance Refer to this list and corresponding references. See Appendices L. 2022, 2023, 2024 Plan must: 1. Address water conservation across all relevant customer categories See 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, and in particular Table 3- 3. See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. See 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan Completed 2025 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-9 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed Plan should include: 1. Clearly defined and measurable program performance goals 2. A suite of benchmarks that can be used to assess progress in implementation of the program 3. A supply assessment 4. Water conservation strategy 5. Water conservation goals 6. Plan evaluation 7. Ongoing plan maintenance See 2025 WCMP 1. Chapter 3, 2. Chapter 3, Table 3-3 3. Chapter 2 4. Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 5. Chapter 3 6. Chapter 4 7. Chapter 4 Ongoing with each Plan implementation 4.2.3 Water conservation in integrated resources planning 4.2.3 Treat conservation equally to other water supply options Water Conservation participated in or led development of the 2022 Major Conveyance Study, Supply and Demand Study, Water Resources Data Study, 2025 Water Shortage Contingency, 2023 40- Year Water Supply Plan, Growing Water Smart (2025) The years these studies were updated or completed varies; engagement in implementation is ongoing. Where appropriate, include water made available through conservation as part of the supply portfolio when conducting supply and demand forecasting analyses See SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, and 2022 WCMP Chapter 2, Figure 1-5 2022 4.2.4 Public information and education program SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-10 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.2.4 Develop or incorporate into existing programs information efforts aimed at: • raising awareness • fostering a culture of conservation and behavior change www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 4, Section 4.5 On-going Components of program should include: • Effectively communicating the value of water • Information on methods and opportunities for reducing consumption • Deliver consistent and persistent messages www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 5. On-going 4.2.5 Water waste ordinance 4.2.5 Develop or support creation, implementation, and maintenance of an enforceable water waste ordinance www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 4, Section 4.8.1 Proposed in 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan. 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements 4.3.1 Metering Practices 4.3.1 Implement metering practices that promote conservation, including metering of: • All water sources • All service connections Salt Lake City has been fully metered on the user side since the 1920s. Monthly billing to all of its customers commenced shortly after. Computerized billing began in the 1970s. Bills are now available as mailing or electronically. Most source waters are metered at treatment locations. Completed 1920, On-going SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-11 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.1.1 Universal metering Move towards implementing universal metering of all service (private and public) connections Metering completed in 1920s. Currently converting to AMI technology. Remaining AMI conversion expected to take 4 to 6 years Fully metered, 1920; On-going for AMI implementation Establish goal to meter 100 percent of all service connections SLCDPU has been fully metered since 1920’s. 1920s 4.3.1.2 Source water metering Implement metering of all sources including: • Groundwater • Surface water • Reclaimed water Water sources are metered. On-going 4.3.2 Rate structures 4.3.2 Use a nonpromotional water rate that provides incentive for customers to reduce water use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 2003 4.3.3 Billing practices 4.3.3 Bill customers based on metered use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.1 Billing frequency Bill at least bi-monthly Billing occurs on monthly basis (see above attachment) http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.2 Reporting Consumption Clearly indicate units for consumption See example bill: 2025-05_UtilityBill-Explanation-presentation-r2 Bills have shown consumption since 2003; Updated 2025. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-12 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.4 Landscape efficiency program 4.3.4 Establish a program to improve and maintain water efficient landscapes and irrigation (See Chapter 4 for program details) Many programs support landscape water efficiency, including: Water Check WaterMAPSTM SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual Landscape Code 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Water Checks since 1998; WaterMAPSTM customer reports since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.1 Design, installation, and maintenance practices Develop program intended to maximize water efficiency through proper design, installation, and maintenance of new and existing landscapes and irrigation systems. Programs may include: • Audits • Financial incentives • Design information • Ordinances • Development standards • Education • Examples of how to properly design and operate irrigation systems Water Check WaterMAPSTM SLC Gardenwise (www.slcgardenwise.com) 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers, parkstrip and front yard codes SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual SLC TurfTrade Learning Labs Rebates Water Checks since 1998; SLC TurfTrade since 2022; WaterMAPSTM since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.2 Irrigation scheduling • Encourage customers to water based upon plant needs • Discourage customers from overwatering or watering during the times of day when water loss to evaporation and wind drift is greatest Plant and Hydrozone list SLC Gardenwise (www.slcgardenwise.com) Code 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers, hydrozoning Lawn watering guide Water Checks WaterMAPSTM Water Waste ordinance Water Checks since 1998; SLC TurfTrade since 2022; WaterMAPSTM since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.3 Landscape water budgets • Where appropriate, implement landscape water budgets to address water use and encourage efficiency See Attachment: Irrigation-Only Meters and Rates https://www.slc.gov/utilities/what-new-rates- mean/ 2003 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-13 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.5 Distribution system and pressure management 4.3.5.1 Water utility audit Conduct an annual audit of the system using AWWA/IWA Water Audit Method, including AWWA Water Audit Reporting Worksheet See Appendices L. 2022, 2023, 2024 4.3.5.2 Water loss control program Develop a water loss control program Leak detection and repair program implemented 2025. See Chapter 4, Section 4.7.3 and Tables 4-3 and 4-4. On-going 4.4 External Policy Requirements 4.4.1 Water efficiency in building codes and standards 4.4.1 Encourage: • adoption of water efficient codes and standards • adoption at both state and local level Provide evidence that water efficiency is addressed in local building codes for new buildings. (5.1.8) 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers 2023 4.4.2 Promote water efficient products and services 4.4.2 Promote the use and maintenance of water efficient: • Products • Practices • Services Water Stewardship Calendar Water Check program CUP Rebates partner On-going 4.5 Wholesale Agency Requirements 4.5 Directly implement: • 4.1 Regulatory Requirements • 4.2.4 Public Information and Education Program • 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements N/A May provide: • Regional coordination on conservation issues and program • Technical assistance to their retail agencies N/A May manage conservation activities that are more effectively implemented on a regional scale N/A SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-14 APPENDICES E. W ATER C ONSERVATION B UDGET 2025/26 Program Cost center Contract Number 24/25 Budget 25/26 Budget Notes Budget Total (excluding personnel) 51701 $ 671,598.00 Public Relations 51701 100,000 $ 100,000 Water Week, plumbing repair how-to guides, Wyland Foundation Mobile Water Learning Lab (grades 3-5), conservation strategic plan, conservation messaging, etc. Other Prof Services 51701 $ 207,000.00 Water Check support team CA-004072 (2024 Water Check Season) 22,000 $ 22,000.00 Agreement with MWDSLS. Perform full audits on all golf sites; ground truth mapping; post-verify SLC TurfTrade; other CI sites. WaterMAPSTM CA-003891 (Dec 2026) 70,000 $ 70,000.00 Perform updated imagery analysis; areas approx. 10sq mi. based on customer tier, customer LIR, or other criteria. Goal is to update all residential properties with updated imagery. Contract is for 140,000, to provide two years of WaterMAPSTM updates. CII Tool In progress 0 $ 45,000 Analytics dashboard upgrades. Conservation Plan In progress $90,000 $25,000 Will also close up M36 and drought plan with parallel data. Conservation Plan In progress $50,000 Funds to hire a consultant to support and facilitate public outreach of conservation plan and water shortage plan. USU/Golf Turf Study CA-003369 (Dec 2025) 50,000 $ 50,000.00 Turf trials; GCSAA grant opportunity. Contract extended one year. GardenWise Website update 0 $12,000.00 Increase functionality; update images; add sites; etc. USU/Climate Center Weather Station Calibration signed, awaiting recording 0 $8,500.00 USU Weather Station Calibration for 5 sites. Completing 10-year contract; these funds will need to be allocated annually for duration on contract. Previously part of the WaterMAPSTM contract. Other Expenses 51701 $ 63,200.00 Grass seed 50,000 $ 23,000.00 1400– 2000 grass seed. Cost returned to utility. Rain barrels 0 $ 40,200.00 600 barrels. This item may not need to be funded if we continue agreement with Upcycle Products as they collect payment and there is no Utility expense. Landscape Transformation Grants $100,000 To facilitate landscape transformations and indoor fixture upgrades for qualifying households. Out Ground Maintenance Supplies 51701 $ 268,000.00 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-15 APPENDICES Program Cost center Contract Number 24/25 Budget 25/26 Budget Notes Landscape Transformations 51701 100,000 $100,000.00 Landscape upgrades to improve efficiencies. Utility sites: 50K sqft of lawn that could be replaced. 20K lawn that could be converted to alternate vegetation (current 100K for lawn and irrigation), and $100K for addition vegetation transformations Landscape Maintenance Contract Completing bid packet for contract 25,000.00 $ 68,000.00 Maintenance for Greater Ave and 900 South (1/2) including mulch and gravel. Line items in Stormwater, Water, and WR for additional sites Landscape Repairs $25,000.00 For unanticipated irrigation and landscape repairs. 900 South Wetland $60,000.00 To remediate damage to site due to unauthorized occupancy Licensing Fees 51701 $ 26,398.00 GardenSoft 2500 $ 2,500.00 License, upgrades, maintenance AWE Home Audit 7500 $ 7,500.00 License, upgrades, maintenance CII Tool Service and Upgrades 12,798 $ 12,798.00 License, upgrades, maintenance (FY21/22 paid thru Scotts Grant) This is not currently under contract and there has been no expenditure. AWE Sales Force Platform 3600 $ 3600.00 Platform to support rebate programs. Small tools and Equipment 51701 500 (also cii audit kits) $ 500.00 Hand tools, audit supplies (measuring cups, flow gauges, etc) Memberships 51701 2300 $ 2,500.00 AWE, UWCF In City Conventions and Workshops 51701 500 $ 500.00 Out of town travel 51701 3500 $ 3500.00 Typically WaterSMART Innovations SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-16 APPENDICES F. 17.16.092: W ATER S HORTAGE M ANAGEMENT P OLICY A. Declaration Of Policy: Given the prevailing semiarid climate of the region, the limited water resources available to Salt Lake City, and the vitally important role an adequate supply of municipal and industrial (M&I) water plays in maintaining a healthy and safe environment in the community, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Salt Lake City that, during times of water shortage caused by drought, facilities failure or any other condition or event, M&I water usage within the city's water service area shall be managed, regulated, prioritized and restricted in such a manner as to prevent the wasteful or unreasonable use of water, and to preserve at all times an adequate supply of M&I water for essential uses. B. Water Shortage Contingency Plan: The director of the department of public utilities shall cause to be prepared and implemented a water shortage contingency plan (the "plan"). Such plan may be included as part of, or prepared separately from, the water conservation master plan provided for in section 73-10-32, Utah Code Annotated, and shall be revised from time to time as conditions and circumstances warrant. The plan shall, among other things: 1) establish graduated stages of water shortage severity, and 2) establish appropriate M&I water use restriction response measures for each stage. The plan shall include guidelines and criteria for determining the appropriate stage to be implemented under various water supply, delivery, and demand conditions. Each plan stage of water shortage, and the accompanying use restrictions, shall be implemented by declaration of the mayor, upon the advice and recommendation of the director pursuant to the plan guidelines. C. Compliance: Compliance with the water use restriction response measures called for under any applicable plan stage may be either recommended or mandatory, as specified in the plan. The plan may not provide for mandatory restrictions on residential or commercial customers until either: 1) the projected water supply from all sources is sixty percent (60%) or less of the average annual water supply, or 2) the director otherwise determines that, in the exercise of his or her best professional judgment, the city is unable to meet anticipated essential water needs without implementing such mandatory measures. D. Enforcement: The director shall enforce compliance with all mandatory response measures set forth in the plan through the imposition and collection of civil fines, as provided in section 17.16.792 of this chapter. Nothing herein or in section 17.16.792 of this chapter shall prevent the city from exercising any other available means, either in law or equity, of enforcing compliance with the plan. E. Plan Nonexclusive: The creation and implementation of the plan shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other steps taken by the city from time to time to conserve water or manage limited water supplies, including mayoral proclamations issued pursuant to section 17.16.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 50-03 § 1, 2003) SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-17 APPENDICES G. S ALT L AKE C ITY C ODE 21A -48 -055 W ATER E FFICIENT L ANDSCAPING S TANDARDS Link to most current code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/saltlakecityut/latest/saltlakecity_ut /0-0-0-70284 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-18 APPENDICES H. P UBLIC U TILITY A DVISORY C OMMITTEE M INUTES /W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN D ISCUSSION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-19 APPENDICES I. M INUTES OF THE M EETING OF THE OF THE M ETROPOLITAN W ATER D ISTRICT OF S ALT L AKE & S ANDY B OARD M INUTES /W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-20 APPENDICES J. M INUTES OF THE S ALT L AKE C ITY C OUNCIL F ORMAL M EETING SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-21 APPENDICES K. S ALT L AKE C ITY C OUNCIL T RANSMITTAL , M INUTES , AND R ESOLUTION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-22 APPENDICES L. M36 W ATER A UDIT S UMMARIES 69,5 2 3 90 428 3,556 8036 Billed M e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( B M A C ) Bille d U n m e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( B U A C ) * Unbil l e d M e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( U M A C ) Unbi l l e d U n m e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( U U A C ) Wate r E x P o r t e d Water U n a c c o u n t e d F o r Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT: 81,633 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 73,597 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,036 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood) Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Wells Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Tunnels and Springs Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDLS Wholesale Purchases 42,666 AC-FT Billed Accounts 69,523 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 90 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 428 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,036 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,556 AC-FTTreatment Plants 33,907 AC-FT 16 Wells 3,869 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 1,191 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,000 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2022 DATA SET Meter & Data Handling Losses Other LossesNon-Revenue Water HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. 90th %ile 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile 10th %ileUnit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses: 75 th % i l e SLC Goal 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e Med i a n Med i a n Med i a n 25th %ile 25th %ile 25th %ile 85.1 gal/conn/day 26.5 gal/conn/day 58.6 gal/conn/day Data Validity Score: 67 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data Validity SLC Goal SLC GoalCurrent SLC Losses Current SLC Losses Current SLC Losses Result is above 90th %ile Result is above 90th %ile What does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Unknown Losses Total Volume of Unaccounted For Water = 8,554 AC-FT/YR Total Value of Unaccounted For Water = $6,389,058/YR Vo l u m e ( A C - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation*Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other LossesNon-Revenue Water Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption Metering Inaccuracies Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,535 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 174 AC-FT Water Theft 174 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,153 AC-FT U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $6 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $0 2,501 $2,586,947 6,053 $3,802,111 8,554 $6,389,058 CRUC VPCBlended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Apparent Losses 27% Water Theft 2% Systematic Data Handling Errors 2% Real Losses 69% Apparent Losses Water Theft Systematic Data Handling Errors Real Losses 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov. com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 wwww.bowencollins.com Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT:83,813 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 75,731 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,082 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood)Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Wells Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Tunnels and Springs Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases 37,344 AC-FT Billed Accounts 69,134 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 800 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 2,500 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,082 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,116 AC-FT Treatment Plants 39,422 AC-FT 16 Wells 4,362 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 2,684 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,100 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2023 DATA SET Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC)(0) Meter & Data Handling Losses Other Losses Non-Revenue Water HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. Unit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses:81.4 gal/conn/day 25.3 gal/conn/day 56.1 gal/conn/day 90th %ile 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile 10th %ile 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e Med i a n Med i a n Med i a n 25th %il e 25th %ile 25th %ile Result is above 90th %ile SLC Goal Current SLC Losses SLC Goal & Current Losses SLC G o a l Current SLC Losses HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? Data Validity Score: 64 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data ValidityWhat does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Total Volume of NRW = 11,357 ACRE-FT/YR Total COST OF NRW = $8,607,563/YR Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation* Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other Losses Non-Revenue Water U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $8.6 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 2,509 $2,699,730 8,873 $5,907,832 11,382 $8,607,562 CRUC VPC Blended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,573 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 173 AC-FT Water Theft 173 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,163 AC-FT Vo l u m e ( A C - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons. Customer Metering Inaccuracies NRW Components Summary Unbilled Unmetered Auth. Cons. 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov.com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 www.bowencollins.com Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT:89,939 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 81,517 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,423 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood) Wells Tunnels and Springs MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases 50,803 AC-FT Treatment Plants 33,525 AC-FT 16 Wells 3,322 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 2,290 AC-FT WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,600 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2024 DATA SET Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) Billed Accounts 75,251 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 650 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 2,000 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,423 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,417 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC)(0) Meter & Data Handling Losses Other Losses Non-Revenue Water HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile Unit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses: 75 th % i l e 75 th %il e Med i a n 25th %il e 25th %ile 87.7 gal/conn/day 28.4 gal/conn/day 59.4 gal/conn/day Result is above 90th %ile SL C G o a l Current SLC Losses SLC Goal & Current Losses Med i a n 90th %ile10th %ile 75 th % i l e Med i a n 25th %ile SLC G o a l Current SLC Losses HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? Data Validity Score: 66 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data ValidityWhat does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation* Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other Losses Non-Revenue Water Unbilled Unmetered Auth. Cons. Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons. Customer Metering Inaccuracies Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,699 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 188 AC-FT Water Theft 188 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,347 AC-FT U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $9 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 2,724 $3,511,795 8,349 $5,836,479 11,073 $9,348,274 CRUC VPCBlended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Total Volume of NRW = 11,052 ACRE-FT/YR Total COST OF NRW = $9,348,274/YR Vo l u m e ( A c r e - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 NRW Components Summary 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov.com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 www.bowencollins.com SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-23 APPENDICES M. SLCDPU D ROUGHT C ONTINGENCY P LAN SUMMARY plan summary drought & water shortage contingency plan Understanding the potential impact of drought on the Salt Lake City water supply and establishing a plan to meet customer needs during periods of drought and water shortage. The Wasatch Front has experienced several drought periods over the past 100 years with typical drought periods extending between 3-5 years. In more recent decades, the frequency and intensity of drought has increased with 2021 being an Exceptional Drought year (highest category of drought conditions) for the area according to the National Integrated Drought Information System. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) recognizes that it has become increasingly important to protect current water sources, plan for future water supply during periods of drought and other water shortage, and improve water reliability. Water shortage may result from a variety of circumstances such as climate change, regular climate variability, water supply contamination, system disruption or interruption, and even unanticipated surges in demand. This Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan is intended as a guide for monitoring, measuring, mitigating, and responding to water supply shortages or disruptions as a result of any of these or other scenarios. DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE PLAN COMPONENTS This drought and water shortage plan consists of four major components. WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING & STAGES Monitoring is needed to detect early warning signs of water shortage and includes indicators such as precipitation defecits, high temperatures, water storage reductions, and low runoff flows. WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE Water storage triggers and stages are developed to identify when projected supplies reach levels where response actions are needed. PUBLIC OUTREACH Response actions are near immediate behaviors triggered by defined water shortage stages with the goal of effecting quick water use reductions. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION To make the City’s supply as reliable as possible, vulnerabilities were assessed and mitigation actions were developed to minimize the potential for impact of each water supply vulnerability. Table 1: Water Shortage Triggers Stage Projected Available Supply as a Percent of Demand Projected Available Stream Flow Yield as a Percent of Historical Average Stage 1 - Watch >100 but NIDIS indicates Drought 87 - 100% Stage 2 - Mild 94 - 100%<87% Stage 3 - Moderate 86 - 94%- Stage 4 - Severe 76 - 86%- Stage 5 - Critical <76%- water shortage MONITORING & STAGES WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING & SUPPLY VULNERABILITY The purpose of water shortage monitoring is to assess and determine projected surface and ground water supply, available storage water volumes, and current and projected water demand in order to predict times of water shortage and initiate response efforts when necessary. It should be emphasized that SLCDPU staff have been tracking and evaluating drought and water shortage for many years. SLCDPU has a number of supplies that contribute to its overall water portfolio and that are included in the City’s water shortage monitoring process. These supplies are shown in Figure 1 along with a typical year’s production. While we may think water supply shortages only relate to drought, each of the supplies shown in Figure 1 is vulnerable to water shortages caused by climate change, water supply contamination, system disruption or interruption, etc. Because of these vulnerabilities, it is important that each supply is continually monitored and measured to ensure that the City’s demands can be met. If a water shortage is determined, then demand reduction efforts will be needed. Figure 1: Typical Year Supply Figure 2: Water Shortage Stages WATER SHORTAGE TRIGGERS & STAGES Water shortage monitoring results can be used to establish and implement water shortage triggers and stages. SLCDPU’s water shortage stages are primarily defined based on projected available supply as a percent of demand. These stages are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 1. As shown in Table 1, a secondary criterion has been included for when stream flows are below average. This criterion is needed for dry years in which storage or other source water may be available to meet demands but management of demand is prudent to prepare for potential extended drought. Stage 5 ‐Critical Stage 4 ‐Severe Stage 3 ‐Moderate Stage 2 ‐Mild Stage 1 ‐Watch 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Pe r c e n t a g e of Av a i l a b l e Su p p l y to De m a n d water shortage RESPONSE PLAN The City has identified actions at each level needed to achieve reductions in demand that will ensure water is available for users in times of shortage. The recommended actions for each water shortage level for outdoor and indoor water use are summarized below. Water Shortage Stages Daily Reduction Goal Water Shortage Response Summary: Outdoors Water Shortage Response Summary: Indoors Single Family Homes Commercial, Industrial, Other Institutional, Business, Multi-Family, & HOAs Parks, Golf, Schools, & other Government Facilities Single Family Homes (per household) Commercial, Industrial, Other Institutional, Business, Multi-Family, & HOAs (percentage across all customers) Parks, Golf, Schools, & other Government Facilities (percentage across all customers) Stage 1 – Watch Avoid Entering Mild Stage • Avoid wasting water • Avoid wasting water • Adhere to best practices • Avoid wasting water • Avoid wasting water • Reduce indoor use by 5% Stage 2 – Mild 10 mgd • Water lawn less often • Water lawn less often • Adhere to best practices • Required to adhere to budget • No lawn watering between 8 AM & 8 PM • Voluntary reduce average gallons per house hold by 3 gallons per day (2%) • Voluntary reduce indoor use by 5% • Reduce indoor use by 10% Stage 3 – Moderate 25 mgd • Water no more than two times per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Adherence to water budget for irrigation-only meters • Water no more than two times per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Adherence to water budget for irrigation-only meters • Adhere to best practices • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Reduce outdoor water use by 15% • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 8 gallons per day (5%) • Reduce indoor use by 10% • Reduce indoor use by 14% Stage 4 – Severe 40 mgd • Water no more than one time per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: 25% reduction of water budget • Water no more than one time per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: 25% reduction of water budget • Adhere to best practices • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Reduce outdoor water use by 25% • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 11 gallons per day (7.5%) • Reduce indoor use by 16% • Reduce indoor use by 21% Stage 5 – Critical 65 mgd • Lawn watering prohibited • No new landscapes • No filling pools, jacuzzies, or hot tubs, etc. • Lawn watering prohibited • No new landscapes • Reduce consumption by at least 35% • Lawn watering not allowed without permit • No new landscapes • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 15 gallons per day (10%) • Reduce indoor use by 21% • Reduce indoor use by 28% Should greater reduction be necessary within a stage, more actions may be required than indicated. For specific guidelines to achieve necessary reductions visit slc.gov/utilities/conservation Vulnerability definitions and impacts associated with each were assessed along with consideration of issues such as probability of occurrence, magnitude of effect on water supply, cost of consequence, and potential mitigations. . MITIGATION ACTIONS: Mitigation actions will become the foundation of the City’s plan to prepare for and respond to future water shortages For each vulnerability included in the categories discussed above, one or more mitigation actions were identified that may be used by SLCDPU to help protect its service area against water shortage. Mitigation activities the City is pursuing to minimize water shortage vulnerabilities are summarized on the City’s conservation website at www.slcgov.com/conservation. Below are a few examples of City Projects that have been completed to help protect against water supply vulnerabilities. PLAN EXECUTION VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION Beyond defining water shortage responses, this plan has also proactively looked for ways to reduce the City’s vulnerability to drought and other water shortages. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notifying and educating SLC water users is critical to the success of this Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. To do this efficiently and effectively, SLC will email customers and send out flyers in the mail requesting voluntary water reduction. Additionally, SLC will request reductions via social media, on their website, and various other digital platforms. WATERSHED PROTECTION GREATER AVENUES WATER CONSERVATION DEMONSTRATION GARDEN Executing the plan will be under the direction of the SLCDPU Director and will occur in three basic steps: WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING STAGE IDENTIFICATION & DECLARATION In order to protect the City’s water supply, the Director will lead efforts to notify the community of the water shortage stage and inform them of ways that they can conserve water and contribute to the success of this plan. The Director uses drought monitoring tools and water supply data to determine if the City is experiencing a water shortage. Once a water shortage is determined, the Director and Mayor will identify and declare which water shortage stage the City is experiencing and required response actions. COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH 1 2 3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT: Several potential water supply vulnerabilities were identified and assembled into the following five categories: • Surface Water Vulnerabilities • Well Water Vulnerabilities • Transmission Vulnerabilities • Increased Water Demand Vulnerabilities • Drought Consequences SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-24 APPENDICES N. I MPACTS OF W ATER C ONSERVATION ON R ATES T ECHNICAL M EMORANDUM , 2025 Below are excerpts from the technical memo: Introduction The 2025 update to the water conservation plan for Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU or the Utility), in combination with recent consumer water rate increases, has created interest in the relationship between water conservation and cons umer water rates. SLCDPU asked Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to complete an analysis to understand this relationship and document our findings in this technical memo. The purpose of this analysis and technical memo is to understand the economic impacts of water conservation on water service and consumer water rates. Methodology Conservation can result in both upward and downward pressure on water rates: • Upward Pressure on Rates – A common complaint about conservation from rate payers is often voiced in this way, “The problem I have with conservation is that, if I am successful in reducing my water use, it results in less revenue for the utility. To make up for lost revenue, the utility then raises my rates. I feel like I am being punished for doing a good job at conserving.” There is some truth to this complaint. Every utility has significant costs that are fixed, regardless of water treated and delivered. Beyond normal utility fixed costs, operating a conservation program within a utility introduces additional fixed costs to the system. When conservation results in less water deliveries, these costs must still be paid for. This means that the average unit cost of water ($/gallon) must increase to account for the lower sales. However, this is only half the picture. • Downward Pressure on Rates – Often less obvious but equally important is the downward pressure conservation has on rates. While some of the Utility’s costs are fixed, other costs increase in proportion to demands in the system. Especially in areas such as Salt Lake City where water resources are scarce, water costs can increase significantly as demands increase. This includes increases in water supply and infrastructure costs. Thus, the challenge of this study becomes to define the magnitude of each of these factors and understand which has a greater impact on rates overall: • Calculating upward pressure on rates can be done relatively easily. Historical annual costs can be adjusted by inflation and then divided by total water sales and/or total ERUs. The resulting unit costs can then be compared from year to year to understand how conservation has increased costs. • Calculating downward pressure on rates is more difficult. This is because it requires calculating avoided costs which (by definition) can’t be directly measured. However, the City does have several tools that can provide a reasonable estimate of these costs including its existing water system model and an understanding of alternative water costs. Once avoided costs are calculated, they can be added to observed costs and then divided by projected sales without conservation to calculate unit costs without conservation. These costs can then be compared to unit costs with conservation to understand the overall impact of conservation on rates. For this study, water rate impacts will be calculated for observed conservation from 2000 to 2024 and project conservation moving forward based on the Utility’s conservation goals. The details of these calculations are summarized in the following sections. Conclusions The analysis described in the technical memo has allowed us to estimate the economic impact of water conservation on water services and consumer water rates. Below is a summary of our conclusions: • Conservation saves the Utility (and therefore customers) money over time by reducing the cost to supply, store, and convey water to consumers. • It is estimated that, between 2000 and 2025, conservation resulted in $468 million in savings to SLCDPU, and that the cumulative savings between 2026 and 2060 will be approximately $1.29 billion. • For a typical residential household in 2025, these cost savings result in an average monthly bill that is approximately $34/month less than it would be without conservation. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-25 APPENDICES O. W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAM M ANAGER J OB D ESCRIPTION 12:20 PM 07/17/2025 Page 1 of 5 Overview Overview Inactive No View As Of 07/17/2025 Date of Last Change 02/15/2024 07:20:04.091 PM Job Profile Name Water Conservation Program Manager Job Code 002784 Include Job Code in Name No Job Profile Summary Reporting to the Water Resource Manager, incumbent plans, develops, organizes, coordinates and executes department water conservation programs and activities. Regularly interfaces with outside agencies, media, and consultants. Provides technical expertise and assistance in landscaping, irrigation, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water use and other approaches to cultivate and foster water conservation. Develops and coordinates dissemination of public education information and materials. Regularly represents the Department at public meetings, technical conferences, and at local, State, and regional stakeholder workshops, panels, etc. TYPICAL DUTIES: Working with department leadership, plans and implements the department’s water conservation program. Monitors water- use records and evaluates program effectiveness. Collects, analyzes, interprets and presents information on water conservation activities to department management, local community leaders, elected officials, special interest groups and customers. Recommends program direction responsive to landscape, horticulture, commercial and industrial needs. • Researches and reports up-to-date information regarding current legislation and/or ordinances related to water conservation issues. Organizes and coordinates a volunteer docent program, workshops, promotional activities, educational tours, and field days to teach and encourage appropriate water conservation methods. Coordinates development of interpretive signs and printed informational materials to reflect proper gardening, landscape and conservation program objectives. Attends and/or participates in meetings and represents the department on water conservation issues. Acts as coordinator to and advisor for citizen advisory committees on special projects pertaining to water conservation issues and program initiatives. • Develops educational and informational brochures, articles, and other media. Provides input for water conservation web site and assists in page maintenance. Coordinates activities with other city departments in providing public information programs, including presentations covering general conservation, residential and commercial programs to schools, civics and other groups. Works with other city departments in developing and implementing water conservation best practices. • Drafts correspondence on behalf of the Department regarding water-conservation-related inquiries and policies. Attends, participates, or conducts meetings representing the Department to the public on a variety of issues. Conducts research to provide information essential for staff decision making on critical issues and existing programs. Assists in the preparation of the Department annual report. Assists in the development of materials for the Department web page and assists in page maintenance. • Reviews interim and final reports for water conservation projects submitted by outside agencies and makes recommendations. Oversees development and administration of a certification program for commercial and industrial • Job Description 12:20 PM 07/17/2025 Page 2 of 5 customers in conjunction with specialists in the community. Assists in development and implementation of model water conservation ordinances. Works with outside agencies and City planning departments in providing training and support for staff, contractors and residents. Assists in research, testing and reporting of new water conservation technologies and joint projects with other agencies and universities. Monitors and advises on landscape conservation research, including research on water conserving plants. Interfaces with others in commercial, industrial, institutional and residential water conservation projects. Participates in pre and post field verifications of landscape water conservation projects. Provides technical review and assistance in landscape water conservation project design and development, and in particular the use of advanced irrigation technology and incentive programs. Reviews irrigation design documents, specifications and ordinances. • Hires, trains, and supervises seasonal, intern or other conservation program staff as needed. Conducts internal training programs to enhance customer service related to water conservation. • Assists in the preparation of annual budget and updates to the department’s conservation plan.• Performs other duties as assigned.• MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in landscape architecture, horticulture, plant or water sciences, environmental planning, education, public relations or related field. Four years’ job-related, paid experience, including two years in public relations type work. • Advanced knowledge of horticulture principles, plant identification, irrigation design, and water-conserving landscaping practices. Also, considerable knowledge of basic conservation methods and techniques, including related engineering, mathematical and economic analytical methods. • Ability to apply common sense, analyze data and interpret results yielding varying outcomes. Ability to communicate and interact effectively with the public, and with employees and representatives of both inside and outside agencies. Ability to operate basic office machines such as computers, copiers, adding machines, printers, phones, and fax. • Demonstrated ability to exercise independent judgment and make sound, logical, well thought out decisions.• Possession of a valid driver’s license or driving privilege card.• Must be able to obtain within 6 months of hire the Irrigation Landscape Auditor certification as administered by the International Irrigation Association. • WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is generally performed in a comfortable office environment. Frequent sitting, walking, standing, stooping and lifting of light to moderately heavy weights. Frequent driving and setting up education materials for informational meetings. Occasional minor climbing. Exposure to outdoor elements, cold, heat, dust and noise. Occasional exposure to hazards associated with construction areas, toxic or caustic chemicals, fumes or airborne particles. May be required to wear a respirator and may occasionally be exposed to wet or humid conditions. • Irregular and extended work hours required to prepare for and attend committee and public information meetings, including • SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-26 APPENDICES P. C ONSERVATION A CTION P LANS SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-27 APPENDICES Q. R ESIDENTIAL W ATER S ALES T ARGETS Note: The following tables are included to provide approximate targets to better inform customers conservation efforts. These values are based on the data available at the time of the conservation plan update, and may change as better or more accurate data becomes available, water use patterns change, residential population patterns in the SLCDPU service area change, and as other factors change over time. Combined Residential Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 171 169 166 164 158 Indoor Household (gal/household) 64 64 62 62 59 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 107 105 103 102 98 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 109 108 104 101 96 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 89 88 86 85 82 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 35 34 34 33 32 Single Family Residential Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 389 384 377 376 359 Indoor Household (gal/household) 138 136 134 133 127 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 251 248 244 243 232 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 187 185 178 173 164 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 151 150 147 145 140 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 98 97 95 95 90 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-28 APPENDICES Duplex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 191 189 185 183 176 Indoor Household (gal/household) 104 103 101 100 96 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 87 86 84 83 81 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 122 121 116 113 107 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 99 98 96 95 91 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 45 44 43 43 42 Triplex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 144 143 140 139 133 Indoor Household (gal/household) 97 96 94 93 89 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 47 47 46 45 44 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 99 98 94 92 87 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 80 79 78 77 74 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 26 26 25 25 25 Four-Plex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 151 149 146 145 139 Indoor Household (gal/household) 103 102 100 99 94 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 48 47 46 46 45 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 98 96 93 90 86 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 79 78 77 76 73 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 25 25 24 24 24 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-29 APPENDICES R. L INKS AND R EFERENCES Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation: Assessment of Water Utility Programs and Market Readiness Evaluation. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation Study2018 Analytics Report: Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2018 Alliance for Water Efficiency. State-Level Water Loss Laws in the United States. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Sustainable Landscapes: A Utility Program Guide. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. The Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard: An Assessment of Laws. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2017. American Water Works Association. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. American Water Works Association. 1993. American Water Works Association. M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges. Sixth Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2012 American Water Works Association. M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. Third Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2009. American Water Works Association. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual. Second Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2017. American Water Works Association. Water Conservation-Oriented Rates: Strategies to Extend Supply, Promote Equity, and Meet Minimum Flow Levels. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2005. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Price and Nonprice Programs . Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1998. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities. Denver, American research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1996. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Public Involvement Impact Strategies: A Manager’s Handbook. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1995. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Residential End Uses of Water. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1999. Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water. Water Research Foundation. Denver, Co. 2016. Recommended State Water Strategy. Salt Lake City, Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team. 2017. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Storage and Conveyance Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2020. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (2019). Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/droughtplan State of Utah. Regional Water Conservation Goal Report. Hansen Allen & Luce, Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. USEPA-832-D-98-001. Washington, D.C. 1998 US Environmental Protection Agency. Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. 2019. Utah Code73-10-31: Water Conservation Plan Required https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title73/Chapter10/73-10-S32.html Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, Waterplow Press. 2001. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-30 APPENDICES S. G LOSSARY OF T ERMS , A BBREVIATIONS , AND A CRONYMS Acre Feet (af): A measurement to describe a volume of water; One acre-foot is the amount of water which would cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot; 325,851 gallons. Action Plan: A more detailed, analytical course of action to implement programs, initiatives, or measures outlined in the Master Plan to achieve specific objectives, typically including information relating to time-lines for implementation, evaluative measures, and costs relating to staffing and/or materials; a component of the Annual Report. Annual Report: This report will provide an evaluative update on existing programs, as well as outlining new conservation initiatives for the coming year, providing initiative timelines, estimated costs, participating groups, and responsible parties. ASR: Aquifer Storage and Recovery BCWTP Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Best Management Practice (BMP): For the purposes of Salt Lake City, a BMP is defined as a policy, program, practice, rule, regulation, or ordinance, or the use of devices, equipment, or facilities that meets either of the following criteria: • An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in the more efficient use of water; or • A practice for which sufficient data are available to indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can be achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out CAP: Water Conservation Action Plan; these are plans submitted by City Divisions and community stakeholders and reflect commitments of actions and goals towards achieving further water conservation. CCF: one hundred cubic feet; a unit of volume equivalent to 748 gallons of water and is the standard of measure used by the Department for billing purposes. CCWTP City Creek Water Treatment Plant Conservation: A set of strategies to solve the dilemma of providing water to people, both through supply and demand management; wise, efficient use of water by suppliers and customers. CUP: Central Utah Project CUWCD: Central Utah Water Conservancy District Demand Management: Methods to encourage customers to reduce water demand, whether through a change in behavior, the implementation of water- saving technologies, or through the reduction or elimination of waste. Evaluation: An overall determination of a conservation program or measure’s effectiveness in achieving an articulated objective. GPCD Gallons per capita per day; a unit of measure typically used to express the average number of gallons of water used by the average person each day in a water system. The calculation is made by dividing the total gallons of water used each day within a water system by the total number of people identified as residing within that water system. This calculation does not account for nor describe the industrial or commercial base within a community, nor does it account for individuals using water within the system, but not counted as residing within the system delivery area, such as commuters. Goals: General statements of purpose for a measure or program; goals should compliment and reinforce other community and Utility goals. Gray Water: wastewater generated in the household or at a place of work, excluding toilet wastes (black water), and including wastewater from bathroom sinks, baths, showers, laundry facilities, dishwashers, assuming there is no fecal material present. JVWTP via Jordan Aqueduct Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant via Jordan Aqueduct LCWTP Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-31 APPENDICES Major Conveyance Study: A study conducted by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities to provide a report on existing and future supplies; major conveyances and storage facilities; and demand projections. Master Plan: A conceptual framework to show direction of intent. Measure: A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water Metrics: a systematic method of measurement or comparison; in relationship to the Water conservation Master Plan, a method to assess program need and effectiveness mg Million gallons mgd Million gallons a day Monitoring: An ongoing process to assess results of an effort; steps in the process might include identifying what will be measured, what assumptions will be held, what estimates are agreed on, and what measuring tools will be used. Multi-family Residential: A planning term used to describe a building where two or more families live in separate units under one common roof; for example, duplexes, apartments houses, townhouses, and condominiums. Parleys WTP Parleys Water Treatment Plant POMWTP via POMA Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant via Point of the Mountain Aqueduct Practice: An action or system that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost- effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Program: A set of conservation practices and measures planned to be implemented together and intended to support water conservation efforts. Project: Systemized efforts to achieve an objective. Projected savings: An estimate of the amount of water which will be conserved because suppliers and/or customers are implementing certain practices. Public Utilities: Refers to the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Retrofit: An umbrella term that refers to the modification of something; in the case of water conservation, retrofit refers to modifications to plumping fixtures or processes to increase efficiencies. Supply Management: Methods by which a utility maximizes the use of available untreated water. Sustainability: A decision-making concept describing development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ULS: Utah Lake system Unaccounted-for water: A term used to describe the various ways water is difficult or impossible to measure due to such issues as the evaporation of water in canals and reservoirs, under-registering of water through aging meters, leaks, fire suppression, and hydrant flushing. Watershed: The major canyons of the Wasatch Mountain Range (the Wasatch Canyons), and their drainages that are a critical source of water for the communities served by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. WCMP: Water Conservation Master Plan URGENT! Resolution 41 of 2025 - 2025 Water Conservation Plan Final Audit Report 2025-12-17 Created:2025-12-12 By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA8HCgNEenZaO36hE4si94IunMtpdLsUVm "URGENT! Resolution 41 of 2025 - 2025 Water Conservation Pl an" History Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) 2025-12-12 - 0:15:55 AM GMT Document emailed to carly.castle@slc.gov for signature 2025-12-12 - 0:17:03 AM GMT Email viewed by carly.castle@slc.gov 2025-12-12 - 0:17:19 AM GMT Signer carly.castle@slc.gov entered name at signing as Carly Castle 2025-12-12 - 0:17:53 AM GMT Document e-signed by Carly Castle (carly.castle@slc.gov) Signature Date: 2025-12-12 - 0:17:55 AM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature 2025-12-12 - 0:17:57 AM GMT Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) 2025-12-12 - 7:43:49 AM GMT Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) 2025-12-16 - 5:59:09 AM GMT Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) Signature Date: 2025-12-17 - 0:57:34 AM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Keith Reynolds (Keith.Reynolds@slc.gov) for signature 2025-12-17 - 0:57:36 AM GMT Email viewed by Keith Reynolds (Keith.Reynolds@slc.gov) 2025-12-17 - 3:42:25 PM GMT Document e-signed by Keith Reynolds (Keith.Reynolds@slc.gov) Signature Date: 2025-12-17 - 3:43:22 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2025-12-17 - 3:43:22 PM GMT