USU Researchers Issue Policy Analysis of Proposed Cache Water District

As Cache County residents cast their ballots for the November 2016 elections, they’re weighing choices faced by voters across the nation — and not just who should be elected president or to a congressional seat. Though Cache County’s ballot includes a ‘yay or nay’ decision about a water conservancy district unique to its region, citizens throughout the United States are being asked to make similar choices about water conservation and management in their own communities.

“That’s a finding that came to light as we began our research of the proposed Cache County Water Conservancy District back in January 2016,” says Utah State University postdoctoral fellow Lisa Welsh. “Local governance in the United States is becoming more specialized, as officials respond to specific issues, including water management, that often require highly technical solutions.”

With Joanna Endter-Wada, professor in USU’s Department of Environment and Society and director of USU’s National Environmental Policy Act program, Welsh, a NEPA instructor, published the policy analysis, Cache Water District: Risks and Opportunities, on Oct. 20, 2016. The 28-page report is available on USU’s Quinney College of Natural Resources website.

In the report, Welsh and Endter-Wada examine operation of conservancy districts around the nation, while focusing on Utah’s 25 conservancy districts. They cite distinctions between rural and urban districts, but also note the western United States, including Utah, is the fastest growing and urbanizing region in the country.

Asked if the proposed Cache Water District would be considered urban or rural, their answer is “transitioning from rural to urban.”

“Cache Valley residents value agriculture and the county has many rural interests,” says Welsh, who earned a doctorate in Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Science and Management from USU in 2014. “But our population is growing and how water is re-allocated is a critical public policy issue.”

Interest in establishing a water conservancy district grows out of multiple initiatives discussed over the past few decades, she says, including the proposed Bear River Development Project and the 2013 Cache County Water Master Plan, as well as Prepare60, a statewide water infrastructure plan promoted by the state’s largest water conservancy districts, to move water to growing urban service areas.

Utah’s legislature gives specific powers to water districts, Welsh says, so establishing a water district gives local government more oversight and flexibility in allocating water.

“Re-allocation of water resources, on a flexible basis, is a big question before the entire state,” says Endter-Wada, who is also affiliated with the USU Ecology Center, USU’s Center for Water-Efficient Landscaping and iUTAH. “Our analysis places this complicated decision-making process in context.”

Welsh says she hopes Cache voters will be motivated to carefully consider both the risks and opportunities of establishing a water conservancy district.

“Whatever the outcome of the election, citizens still have many decisions before them about conservation and management of our valley’s water resources,” she says.