By Morgan Sjogren for Reasons to be Cheerful.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Utah News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

The Virgin River cuts through a towering red rock gorge flanked by forested plateaus as it meanders through Washington County in southern Utah. The river is the primary source of water for the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States, which includes the city of St. George. Washington County is the largest employment center in southwest Utah, with a population of 200,000 that is expected to double by 2060. 

It’s also the hottest and driest county in Utah, and it’s dependent on a singular water source: the Virgin River Basin. But the Virgin’s waters are thinning from climate-change induced drought and overuse. Water conservation is necessary to meet the increasing demands of growth, and Washington County boasts some of the toughest measures in Utah — including a bold program to “buy” residents’ grass as a way to get them to swap in less water-dependent plants.

Grass is thirsty. Statewide, 70 percent of residential culinary water is used on lawns. By shifting landscaping away from grass and to plants more readily adapted to the climate, the Washington County Water Conservancy District estimates that residents can reduce landscape watering to 11 gallons per square foot annually, compared to 56 gallons for conventional turf.

The Washington County Water Conservancy District began its turf buyback program in December 2022. “Utah is now on the front lines of water conservation,” says Doug Bennett, conservation manager for the district and a leader in developing turf buyback programs across the West. “The turf buyback program is at the forefront of the county’s conservation strategy. Conservation doesn’t require expansion of infrastructure, making it the most cost effective water supply strategy.”

Bennett credits the success of Washington County’s program to a streamlined, incentive-based system. He explains, “I like to say it’s as simple as check in, dig in, cash in.” Residents first register for the incentive program. Next, the conservancy district sends someone to document the square feet of turf to be replaced on the property. Residents then have one year to complete their projects. When the yard is ready, there is one more county inspection. The resident receives a check a few weeks later.

The payout is $2 per square foot of converted turf, up to 5,000 square feet. After that, the rate is $1 per square foot. That money is cost-shared between the Washington County Water Conservancy and the state of Utah, which matches the county dollar for dollar. The Utah Legislature allocated $8 million dollars to launch the program, with $3 million recurring annually. To maintain and grow the program, proponents are requesting an additional $12 million from the state legislature. 

Participants can select from an extensive list of native plants that are adapted to need less water, including fragrant sagebrush, yucca, succulents and wildflowers like the firecracker penstemon. There are some specific parameters to qualify for the program, such as installing drip irrigation. Mulch must be placed on the soil’s surface to reduce evaporation. At maturity, plants must cover 50 percent of the project area. Non-permeable barriers like concrete and plastic are not permitted because they prevent rainfall and air from passing through the soil. Bennett notes, “We want the plants to thrive!” Artificial turf is allowed, so long as it has perforations for water and air. The program also requires a conservation easement for the property, to ensure that current or future residents will never return grass to the project area.

To date, 2,044 applications have been submitted and 918 projects completed in Washington County. “We’re projecting that by the end of 2024, our program participants will have transformed enough nonfunctional lawn to be equivalent to a roll of sod about 280 miles long,” Bennett says. “Collectively, these projects should reach 100 million gallons in annual savings by year’s end.” That is enough water to supply 520 single family households.

Bennett recognizes that increased education will boost public participation. He recalls the slow start when Las Vegas launched a similar program: “In 2000, nobody cared. Then in 2002, the drought was so severe that the Colorado River produced just 25 percent of its typical runoff.” (That same drought across the Southwest has persisted for two decades and is known to be the worst in 1,200 years.) Twenty-two years later, Las Vegas’s daily per capita water use has been cut in half. “It was unprecedented for a community [to] save that much without actually just shutting off the water,” Bennett says.

Since 2000, Washington County has reduced per capita water use by 30 percent, the most significant decrease in Utah. Bennett attributes this success to the realities of living in the desert: “Our residents live on the northern edge of the Mojave Desert, and it’s pretty conspicuous by the native terrain,” he explains. In other words, they have “relatively high awareness of the scarcity of water” they face because the landscape itself provides constant reminders.

That’s not the case elsewhere in Utah. “The other major population centers are in the northern part of the state, characterized by mountain ranges, cold and snowy winters and a perception of water abundance,” Bennett says. “Most recently, drought conditions that affected the Great Salt Lake have escalated awareness of hydrologic conditions in northern Utah.”

Despite Washington County’s per capita water savings, because of its rapid growth and development, its overall water use has still increased by 15 percent since the turn of the century. In short, existing water conservation measures do not fully offset the pressure that growth is putting on the water system. This has pushed the county to set the strictest ordinances for new construction and landscaping in Utah. The county now limits lawns to eight percent of property size on all new residential developments. There is a total ban on “nonfunctional grass” at new commercial, institutional and industrial developments. This even prevents new golf course developments. (The caveat is that golf course developers must come up with their own non-potable water source and secondary recycled water sources for irrigation.) The county also reuses water to irrigate public spaces like parks, schools, golf courses and county facilities. 

Through turf buyback and other conservation measures, Washington County aims to reduce per capita water use by another 14 percent by 2030. The county also has a 20-year plan to diversify and conserve water sources, which includes tiered water rates, water recycling and education.

As part of this effort, the new Chief Toquer Reservoir is under construction 20 miles northeast of St. George. The $75 million project, slated for completion in 2025, includes a 19-mile underground pipeline intended to retain up to 3,500 acre-feet of water that is currently lost to seepage at nearby Ash Creek Reservoir.

Meanwhile, a controversial proposal for a 143-mile Lake Powell pipeline, which would import 86,000 acre-feet of water to Washington County, has not progressed amid ongoing efforts to maintain adequate water levels in the reservoir. This was previously considered the savior of Washington County’s water woes, but the hamstrung project has pushed the region to look toward conservation instead. Despite last winter’s above average precipitation, the Colorado River’s Lake Mead and Lake Powell — the largest reservoirs in the country — are only at 36 and 31 percent of capacity respectively. 

The Colorado River supplies water to 40 million people across its basin. The Virgin, a tributary of the Colorado, cascades from a cave tucked high in the pink cliffs of the Markagunt Plateau, before flowing through Zion National Park on its way to a 500-million-year-old gorge. On its descent, it enters seven reservoirs that distribute water across Washington County. One hundred and sixty miles from its source, the remaining water arrives at Lake Mead in the northern Mojave Desert. 

High demand and aridification have reduced the Colorado River system’s flows — including the Virgin’s. Utah is one of seven states (along with Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming) that must cut down on Colorado River consumption and create a new drought management plan by 2026. While the states don’t yet align on the best approach, there is one water conservation effort they all agree upon: to reduce non-functional turf by 30 percent.

In 2023, the Utah Legislature approved a water-efficient landscaping program as part of the state’s goal to reduce per-capita water use by 25 percent by 2025. Utah is implementing landscaping parameters that restrict lawns to no more than 50 percent of a landscaped area in new residential developments (still much higher than Washington County’s eight percent.) Three other water conservancy districts in Utah have implemented landscaping ordinances, but they are not as expansive as what is included in Washington County’s program. “The state funding may not be used on parks or golf courses, but Washington County’s program includes them,” Bennett notes. “We also rebate conversion of manmade water features such as swimming pools, ponds and ornamental streams.” The county also created its own customer engagement process, which Bennett points to as one reason that participation has been higher here than in the other districts: “It makes it a bit easier for customers to communicate with our program and understand the status of their project.” 

While removing turf can make a big difference in residential water use, that alone cannot shoulder the burden of reducing water consumption. The majority of Washington County water is used for irrigation; statewide, a whopping 68 percent of diverted water is used to grow alfalfa for the beef and dairy industry. This is even higher than other Colorado River states, which utilize an average of 46 percent of water diverted from the river to grow alfalfa and other cattle feed crops. A recent study shows that reducing demand for these products can create some of the biggest water savings from citizens. 

And while turf buyback programs and other water conservation measures are designed to ensure an adequate water supply for a growing population, it’s also important to consider a more fundamental need: to keep water flowing in the Virgin River. The river shapes the iconic landscape of Zion National Park, which draws five million visitors per year, and supports wildlife habitat within the park and beyond. Six native fish call the Virgin River home, two of which are endangered.

“There are tremendous water demands on [this] small river,” explains Elaine York, West Desert regional director for The Nature Conservancy in Utah. York says a significant portion of the river between Zion and St. George is conserved, meaning owned and managed by organizations or government agencies to maintain a relatively natural state and function as part of a healthy river system. This includes two parcels purchased by The Nature Conservancy, which is working with the Virgin River Program — a collaborative effort between local, state, and federal partners — on efforts to balance human water use with conserving the Virgin River ecosystem and protecting native (and some endangered) species. Among these projects, The Nature Conservancy is working with Hurricane, a small city near Zion National Park, to fund and redesign a more efficient water delivery system that reduces water loss during transport.

While grass buyback programs alone won’t save the Virgin or the Colorado River, they are an effective way citizens can cut their daily water use — and a clear demonstration of how successful and lasting changes in water use can begin with government-led incentives that incite broader cultural shifts. For now, Bennett is encouraged by Washington County’s buy-in to rip out turf. “Southern Utah residents have been very receptive to water conservation measures,” he says. “The projects we’re seeing are proof that we can sustain an even higher quality of life while leaving a smaller footprint on our watersheds.”


Morgan Sjogren wrote this article for Reasons to be Cheerful.


get more stories like this via email

A delegation of New Mexico lawmakers is asking the federal government to quickly resolve long-standing litigation affecting water users in the Rio Grande Basin.

In a 2013 lawsuit, Texas alleged New Mexico farmers were using groundwater previously allocated to Texas. Then in 2022, the two states reached an out-of-court agreement. But the federal government objected and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling said government consent was needed first.

Andrew Mergen, visiting assistant clinical professor of environmental law at Harvard University, said a lot has changed since the original water compact was signed in 1939.

"This is, in some ways, about growth in New Mexico that has accelerated groundwater pumping in the Rio Grande," Mergen pointed out. "How are you going to manage that groundwater pumping in a way that the compact terms are met?"

New Mexico's U.S. Senators and Representatives have sent a letter to the Departments of Interior and Justice asking for resolution by year's end. Bergen believes it is unlikely but without it, the states and federal government must argue their case at a trial in federal court.

Mergen noted decades-old water allocations in the West were based on what was known at the time. Parties could only guess about population growth and could not anticipate the advent of more oil and gas drilling, increased groundwater crop irrigation and sustained periods of drought, all amid climate change.

"That's what makes this profoundly difficult," Mergen observed. "That's what the rub of this case is, that the compact was negotiated a long time ago. Things change. How do you account for change?"

The Rio Grande Basin is critical to agriculture, industry and the environment, providing irrigation water for nearly 2 million acres of crop and pasture land, supporting the outdoor recreation economy and providing habitat for fish and wildlife.


get more stories like this via email

Despite some progress, Pennsylvania and other states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are unlikely to meet their 2025 pollution commitments to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. An assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program reveals that more than two-thirds of the Bay and its tidal rivers did not meet clean-water standards between 2020 and 2022.

Harry Campbell, science policy and advocacy director with Pennsylvania office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said pollution levels vary based on land use, local economies and population, and stresses that a stronger workforce is essential for Pennsylvania to meet its goals.

"There simply are not enough scientists, engineers and planners, even in some cases, construction crews and equipment to meet the demands for conservation assistance that landowners, that farmers and communities are asking for and have resources dedicated for the implementation of those practices," he said.

Campbell noted that Gov. Josh Shapiro reaffirmed Pennsylvania's commitment to bay restoration in June. The $220 million Pennsylvania Clean Streams Fund addresses major river and stream impairments and includes a program to help farmers adopt sustainable practices. This year's state budget also allocates an additional $50 million to the fund, ensuring ongoing support for programs like the farmer-focused cost-share initiative.

Campbell said an updated Bay agreement would unify efforts toward healthy rivers, streams and a vibrant Chesapeake Bay by focusing on the performance and cumulative impact of conservation practices. New technologies help identify specific locations for these practices, optimizing their effectiveness in restoring and protecting the ecosystem.

"One of the things is something like the emerging tools that allow us to actually identify on an individual landscape where to put a conservation practice literally down to the foot, instead of five feet over there. In another place, you put that practice in this location, and it has more effectiveness," he continued.

Campbell added that governors and other leaders from the Chesapeake Bay region, will meet on December 10th. The foundation urges in-person attendance from all members, including the governor, to discuss and commit to updating the Chesapeake Watershed agreement by the end of 2025. This update is designed to address new challenges and incorporate the latest science.

New data show lead levels in Syracuse's drinking water are higher than those in Flint, Michigan, and Newark, New Jersey.

The city's tests show lead levels are at 70 parts per billion with more than 14,000 homes containing lead pipes.

Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted along with corrosive lead pipes, other factors make it a precarious situation.

"When cities have not been doing the kind of upkeep that they need to do and pulling out these lead pipes when they come across them, or having an affirmative program to remove them, which some of the cities that are sort of looking forward have been doing for years, what we have is these situations where we are one mistake away from a public health crisis," Olson contended.

To remedy it, Olson feels the city must better inform residents, noting public officials downplaying the severity of this can lead to long-term health impacts. He believes Syracuse should provide residents with certified water filters to remove lead and premixed baby formula so families are not making it with lead-contaminated water.

Another way the city can reduce lead levels is by re-evaluating how it treats water so lead is caught quickly. If there are legal impediments or the city cannot access a home, Olson said Syracuse has to do what places like Newark did in the same situation.

"Adopt a local ordinance that said that any adult occupant of the home can give permission to replace the lead pipe," Olson urged.

He added the city must ensure the water utility picks up the tab since billing homeowners could be an environmental justice issue. Replacing every lead pipe in Syracuse could cost as much as $98 million but the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $15 billion for lead pipe replacement.