This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2014, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Salt Lake City homes on small lots at the city's core may be subsidizing the heavy summertime water use of residents in tonier, greener neighborhoods, according to analyses by University of Utah graduate students.
The report, publicized by Utah Rivers Council Tuesday, weighs water use by ZIP code in Utah's capital city, finding that areas with sprawling yards use far more water at the very times of year when delivering it costs the most.
In effect, Utah Rivers Council Director Zach Frankel argues, residents with a smaller water footprint are — through their property taxes — footing the bill that keeps golf courses, cemeteries and wealthier people's lawns lush and green in August when water demand peaks as supplies run low.
"Peak water use is expensive to deliver for so many reasons. Base load is cheap. Peak demand changes. It depends on how often the sun comes out, whether it's raining," Frankel argued. "Peak water is what drives new development."
Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no taxing authority and covers all of its water costs through rates, noted Laura Briefer, water resources manager.
But it seasonally purchases water from sources that are subsidized by taxpayers, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy and the Central Utah Project. A home valued at approximately $275,000 in the 84105 zip code, which includes Sugar House, pays about $120 a year in property taxes for the two projects.
Frankel argues removing water subsidies would greatly expand Utah's stressed water supplies by shrinking per-capita water use so it's in line with neighboring states. An analysis of residential water use by Robin Rothfeder, a doctoral student in metropolitan planning, supports that argument, Frankel said.
"The water districts talk about how precious water is, but they price it like it doesn't matter. They incentivize people to waste it," Frankel said.
State water honchos angling for taxpayer support for a $32 billion list of new water projects and upgrades say they are needed to meet future water demand in Utah, among the nation's driest, yet fastest-growing states.
Briefer is sympathetic to Frankel's argument, but noted in some circumstances it is more fair to shift the cost of water development off ratepayers.
"We have a mix of fee-based and tax-based [support]. I'm not sure that's an unhealthy mixture," Briefer said.
"We also consider generational equity. Is it fair to require water users to pay 100 percent of water infrastructure that is not going to happen for another generation?" she said. "Taxing helps address that equity issue."
She noted the city is committed to wise stewardship of resources, having already achieved a 25 percent reduction in water use compared to 2000 levels.
Still, Frankel contends that billion-dollar projects, such as the proposed Bear River Project and Lake Powell Pipeline, would not be needed if Utahns had a greater financial reason to rein in their water use.
To illuminate water use patterns in Salt Lake City, Rothfeder analyzed more than 100,000 billing records with an eye toward comparing levels of outdoor watering in different ZIP codes.
He also mined Census data to determine income levels; weather records; assessment records to determine home values; and satellite imagery to determine the portion of the lots covered with water-hungry turf.
Rothfeder found a near perfect correlation between median income and water use. Homes in the wealthier zip codes use more than twice as much water as houses in the low-income ones.
Outdoor watering makes the difference.
"Everybody's burden on the delivery system is not the same. It doesn't make sense that people who burden the system less are paying the same amount as people who are burdening it more," said Rothfeder.
The owner of a pricey home will be charged a higher total sum in taxes for water projects, but the owner of a less expensive home is taxed at the same rate — which requires a larger percentage of that owner's income, for a system he or she uses less, Rothfeder and Frankel reason.
Rothfeder will present his findings later this month at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
Because of limits on satellite data currently available, Rothfeder's study thus far excludes Rose Park and Glendale, lower-income neighborhoods west of Interstate 15, and the Avenues, a higher-income neighborhood with tiny lot sizes.
In its report Tuesday, URC highlighted two ZIP codes representing two extremes. On average, homes in 84111, the eastern edge of downtown, occupy .11 acres and have assessed values of $156,000. Median household income is $26,000.
By contrast, average homes sit on .265-acre lots and are assessed at $413,000 in 84109, an area covering Highland Park, Canyon Rim and Millcreek. Median income here is $70,000.
The inner city home uses 75,000 gallons a year, while the affluent one in the foothills uses 193,000 gallons, Rothfeder found.
Not surprisingly, the disparity is more extreme for outdoor water use: 3,400 per month versus 17,400 gallons per month.
In other words, the Canyon Rim home puts as much water on its lawn and garden in a year as two downtown homes use all year, for all their needs.