Weber Basin officials tell planning commission local water supply is limited; conservation and conversion key

Scott Paxman and John Perry of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District told Weber County planning commissioners on April 15 that long-planned large imports from the Bear River are uncertain and that the district's near-term supplies are limited.

The discussion at a county work session focused on where future municipal water for western Weber County would come from as new subdivisions and a proposed master-planned community seek supply. Paxman, introduced as the district's general manager and CEO, answered commissioners' questions about available sources and conservation options. "I can do our best," Paxman said when asked to estimate availability.

The district officials said reliance on the Bear River project has become doubtful in light of regional hydrology and the Great Salt Lake situation. John Perry, the district's assistant general manager, described the infrastructure that would be required for the Bear River plan: "So there would be at least 1, possibly, 3 reservoirs up in Box Elder and Cache County," plus large downstream pipelines and a major treatment plant intended to serve Weber Basin and other retail systems.

With that project uncertain, district staff said the remaining near-term supply is limited. Officials put the district's dry-year yield from Willard Bay at about 10,000 acre-feet and said average-year yield might be roughly 20,000 acre-feet, numbers they described as small relative to growth forecasts. They warned that a multi-year dry stretch in 2022 left the district with minimal carryover storage and prompted large irrigation restrictions.

District staff and commissioners spent most of the session on two themes: (1) managing demand by requiring stronger water-efficiency standards in new development and (2) converting agricultural (irrigation-company) supplies to municipal or municipal-and-industrial (M&I) use where feasible. Paxman and Perry emphasized that conversion typically requires cooperation from irrigation companies and sometimes legislative or contractual changes; they said those conversions are possible but logistically and politically difficult.

Officials outlined conservation goals that would make existing supplies go farther. They said an aggressive target that Weber Basin has discussed is an overall average of about 175 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) across a service area, which they equated roughly to 0.5 acre-feet per housing unit (indoor + outdoor) in planning models. Perry and staff said that outdoor use accounts for the majority of residential demand and that tighter limits on turf and a shift to warm-season grasses and drip irrigation could cut outdoor water use substantially on typical lots.

The district described existing incentive programs and meter-based rate structures as helpful but noted they have so far saved small volumes relative to overall need: staff estimated roughly 60 acre-feet saved to date from recent landscape-change incentives. They also said recent state policy changes affect reuse and mitigation obligations for indoor water that ultimately flows toward the Great Salt Lake and that legislative direction is shifting how saved or reclaimed water can be counted.

Planning commissioners and staff asked how many homes a given volume of water could support under different development patterns. Perry said 10,000 acre-feet under historic, high-turf development standards might support roughly 10,000 homes, but the same water could support many more dwellings if new construction is required to meet much stricter outdoor-use and density standards: for example, the district estimated 10,000 acre-feet could support roughly 30,000 homes with aggressive water-efficiency standards, and higher-density mixes could raise that figure further.

County staff said the general plan must include a water component by the end of the year; commissioners discussed forming a water steering committee involving district staff, service providers and private-sector developers. Paxman and Perry agreed to provide district data and modeling to county staff; commissioners asked for those materials and follow-up sessions.

The officials said there is no single quick technical fix: large imported projects take years to build, conversions depend on irrigation-company cooperation, and conservation must be both a developer and an existing-customer effort. Perry summarized the district's approach: push new development to much higher efficiency standards, continue incentives for existing customers and pursue irrigation-to-M&I conversions where feasible, while engaging with state policymakers on larger supply options.

Commissioners directed staff to continue work on general-plan water policy, to convene a steering group with district and service-provider participation, and to schedule follow-up briefings with Weber Basin staff.

Ending: County staff said they will ask Weber Basin for data and return the district to a future planning commission meeting; commissioners flagged the general plan water element and steering committee as priorities in coming months.