Provo River Water Users Association

2011 Annual Report

Board of Directors Michael L. Wilson - President LeRoy W. Hooton - Vice-President Genevieve Atwood Merril L. Bingham Jeffrey J. Bryant Tom Godfrey John S. Kirkham Donald Y. Milne Jeff Niermeyer Shane E. Pace Christopher R. Tschirki

Employees Gerri Bradford

Jeff Budge Steve Cain Lynn Clark

G. Keith Denos Kerry Durrant

Roger Ford Farrell Hatfield

Troy Heap Charlene Lenkart Gary Muhlestein

Travis Pool Jack Powers Mark Rawle James Reed

John Whiting

Table of Contents

General Manager’s Message 2

Water Supply 4

Provo Reservoir Canal 7

Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project 8

PRCEP - Parallel Siphon 10

Provo Reservoir Canal Trail 11

Maintenance 12

Balance Sheets 14

Administration 16

Water Use Table 17

General Manager’s Message

When I was a young man, I had an opportunity to participate in a 50-mile backpack excursion in the Uinta mountains with the boy scouts. I still recall some of the memories of that adventure – the heavy pack, the steep mountain trails that seemed to go on forever, the heat, the cold, the wind, rain, and even snow in mid-July. I remember that some days it felt like I could see forever from the top of the mountain, and on other days I could barely see to the next bend in the trail because of the dense forest. I also recall the incredible vistas, the camaraderie with my friends, and the feeling of accomplishment once I reached the journey’s end. There are parallels in the Association’s journey to enclose the Provo Reservoir Canal (PRC) over the past 16 years, including significant struggles and some drudgery, but also great successes, with some yet to be experienced. In 1995 the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project (PRCEP) was included in the Association’s first Master Plan of System Improvements. Many at the time felt it was a pie-in-the-sky project that looked good in a Master Plan document but wasn’t really going to happen. Then in 1998 Central Utah Water Conservancy District expressed interest in participating with the Association in the enclosure project. In return for the conserved water that would be generated plus 50 cfs of capacity in the enclosed canal, Central Utah offered to pay up to one-half of the project costs. Over a period of five or six years, numerous studies were undertaken, engineering reports were generated and technical memos were written to better understand what enclosing the canal would entail. The rough cost estimate for the PRCEP in 1995 was $90 million, with the estimate rising to $115 million by 2003. As more detailed engineering and economic data was developed, the price tag continued to inch upward until a hard cap of $150 million was agreed upon by the project stakeholders – the Association, Central Utah, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, and Provo Reservoir Water Users Company. Funding was a huge hurdle. It had long been assumed that this project would have to be funded by some means other than the federal government. However, privately funding the entire project would be too costly, and a loan from the Utah Board of Water Resources would require that water rights and/or facilities be temporarily transferred to the state of Utah as collateral until the loan was repaid. This was not possible while the canal remained in federal ownership. Besides, Water Resources had never previously loaned anywhere near $150 million or even half that amount. In 2002 the Association approached the Utah Congressional Delegation with proposed federal legislation that would authorize the transfer of title of the PRC from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Association. The thinking was once Title Transfer occurred, the Association could pledge title of the canal and canal corridor to Water Resources as collateral to secure the loans necessary to build the project. The Provo River Project Transfer Act was authorized by Congress and signed into law in October 2004.

2 

The federal actions proposed for the PRC corridor required that environmental assessments (EAs) be performed. These federal actions included the Title Transfer legislation, an $11.75 million federal grant acquired by the Association for a recreation trail to be built atop the enclosed canal, and the PRCEP design itself. Within an eight year period the PRC corridor endured three EAs, which must be a national record for the most studied 110-foot-wide parcel in history. Thankfully, there were no adverse impacts to the environment for any of the actions as documented by the EAs. Preliminary engineering design of the PRCEP began in 2006 and final design was completed in 2009. Multiple alternative enclosure options were designed and bids were solicited for steel pipe, reinforced concrete pipe, and precast and cast-in-place concrete box culvert. Initial bids were beyond the $150 million budget ceiling established by the stakeholders, but after a re-bid, Ames Construction, Inc. was selected to build a 21-mile 126-inch diameter welded steel pipeline. In 2006 the Association and Central Utah were both authorized for $60 million loans for the PRCEP from Water Resources. Later, the Association’s authorization was reduced as Jordan Valley and Provo Reservoir Company pursued their own loan arrangements with Water Resources. The stakeholders, Reclamation and the Department of the Interior entered into negotiations on many agreements necessary for the operation, ownership, and management of the pipeline. The Title Transfer legislation required that the PRCEP parties come to agreement on a myriad of issues, and this proved to be a considerable challenge. Ultimately there were over 25 separate agreements identified that were required to be negotiated and executed before the PRCEP and/or Title Transfer could happen. Many of the required agreements were included in an overall “Master Agreement” as exhibits or appendices. Master Agreement negotiations took approximately four years, and many times during this process it felt like we had reached an impasse that couldn’t be resolved. Yet, each time this happened, everyone would step back, take a deep breath, and forge ahead. It definitely wasn’t easy and it wasn’t what most would consider enjoyable, but in hindsight I can now say that it was worthwhile. The PRCEP is nearing completion and is ahead of schedule and within budget. I will admit that I was not too optimistic regarding the feasibility of the PRCEP when it was first proposed. But that 1995 Master Plan document is still sitting on my shelf, with a pie-in-the-sky canal enclosure project on the future projects list. And here we are in that very future that was envisioned over 16 years ago, with a monumental project few thought would ever be built just months away from completion. The enclosure project has been a challenging yet successful adventure. Sometimes the weight has been heavy and the trail has been steep, and sometimes we haven’t been able to see around the next bend. But as we near the end of this journey, that familiar feeling of accomplishment rises. I believe the view from the top of this mountain is sure to be magnificent! G. Keith Denos, PE

3 

Water Supply

Sustained rainstorms in fall 2010 contributed to near-record soil moisture levels in the northern Utah mountains heading into the winter snow accumulation season. This scenario usually translates into a more efficient snowmelt runoff the following spring because a higher proportion of the snowmelt runs off instead of percolating into the ground to replenish soil moisture. Added to this was a winter storm pattern that began in late November and continued through April, bringing a near-constant wave of snow storms to the mountains. As a result, record snowpack levels were seen at many sites, and total precipitation for 2011 was approximately 150 percent of average for the Provo, Weber and Duchesne River basins.

The Provo River flow into Utah Lake during the 2011 water year was 384,339 acre-feet, which is among the highest volumes ever recorded. With high soil moisture levels and record snowpacks remaining well into June, the potential for extreme flooding was very real. However, because of cool spring temperatures the snow melted at a manageable rate, leading to a long, drawn out runoff. Due to the extended runoff and good cooperation among water users and the Provo River commissioner, flooding was significantly less than what had been expected along the Provo River.

4 

2011 2010

True or False — Sulfuric acid is a better solvent than water

5 

In the 2011 water year the Association diverted 10,678 acre-feet from the Duchesne River through the Duchesne Tunnel, which was approximately 50 percent of average. Diversions from the Weber River were approximately 60 percent of normal volume, with 34,339 acre-feet diverted through the Weber-Provo Canal. Working cooperatively with the Weber River and Provo River commissioners, the Association timed Weber River diversions to coincide with the highest peaks on the Weber system to lessen flood impacts on the Weber River yet also avoid problems in the Provo drainage.

False — Water is known as the “universal solvent” because it can dissolve more substances than any other liquid

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

27,42126,325 29,142 28,097

10,678

35,246

66,42264,340

51,808

34,339

DUCHESNE TUNNEL & WEBER-PROVO CANAL

TOTAL ANNUAL FLOW(AC-FT)

Duchesne Tunnel

Weber-Provo Canal

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Tota

l Con

tent

(acr

e-fe

et)

Deer Creek Reservoir2009-2011 Volumes Including Historical Values

WY 2009 WY 2010 WY 2011

Historical Avg. (1949-2008) Historical Max. (1949-2008) Full Reservoir

6 

Extra Allotment

The Association delivered a 100 percent allotment to its shareholders in 2011, and in addition was able to make extra allotment water available during the period from March 3 through August 9. This 160-day period of extra allotment is unprecedented in the history of the Project. Extra allotment water is made available upon approval from Reclamation when Deer Creek Reservoir is declared full, junior water rights have been satisfied and additional water is available under Provo River Project rights. Extra allotment water use is not counted against a shareholder’s annual allotment.

True or False — Rainwater is the purest form of water

Provo Reservoir Canal

Due to the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project (PRCEP) construction, the Provo Reservoir Canal (PRC) was operated as one-third open canal, one-third pipeline, and one-third under construction during the 2011 irrigation season. The challenges related to construction were expected and planned for, but extreme snowpack and runoff conditions contributed to other challenging issues for PRC operation.

Record snowpack levels in the watersheds above the canal led to concerns that some of the streams that the PRC crosses would not be able to handle the high flows expected. Historically, in years of high runoff

the canal has received inflows from some of these streams for short durations. However, with the pipeline construction in 2011, special arrangements had to be made with the PRCEP contractor to accept and manage these additional inflows that might be transported through the canal and pipeline, should they occur. Luckily the runoff period was prolonged due to cool spring weather, which lessened the peak flows

on all streams and rivers to levels that could be managed without undue impact to PRCEP construction.

With the spring rains and the high volume of water in the mountain streams available to farmers and cities, water deliveries through the canal were delayed until May 7 but then continued through October 15. A total of 9,087 acre feet of water was delivered to shareholders through the canal and partially completed pipeline, with an average flow of 70 cfs and a peak flow of 162 cfs on August 23.

7 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

65

28

78

202

178164

183

159

70

169

139 146

171183

174 172158

131

254

46

353368

262

376

350363

162

Provo Reservoir Canal Water Years 2003 - 2011

Average Flow (cfs) Days in Service Peak Flow (cfs)

False — While rainwater is generally very clean, distilled water is more pure than rainwater, which can contain minute amounts of dissolved minerals, dust and gasses

Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project In fall 2010 the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project (PRCEP) contractor, Ames Construction, Inc., mobilized and set up construction offices at the Association’s Pleasant Grove administration location. Pipeline installation began near the groundbreaking site in Pleasant Grove in December and continued through 2011. Due to unusually wet weather, Ames encountered construction slow-downs and severe working conditions through the winter and early spring. A modification to the standard pipeline trench detail allowed Ames to move more quickly through highly saturated soils without compromising the integrity of the pipe installation. Construction was slow through two inverted siphon areas where high water tables caused the pipeline to “float”

out of place before backfilling could occur, requiring pipe sections to be repaired and reset. Another interesting complication encountered was construction work near a mink farm. Ames was required to follow very specific construction windows to accommodate the breeding cycle of the mink.

Ames constructed a temporary screening structure at the entrance to the pipe, and then installed a seal plug at the end of the pipe near SR-92 in Lehi. This temporary screen and plug allowed use of the

open canal and the partially installed pipeline for water deliveries from Orem through Lehi Center Street. Through prior arrangement, there were no deliveries from the canal to water users beyond Lehi Center Street, and construction proceeded through the remainder of the summer in the northern section of the

8 

True or False — Water boils more quickly at Deer Creek Reservoir than in San Diego

canal. Mainline pipe installation reached the Point of the Mountain Aqueduct diversion and I-15 siphon structure by October 2011.

The planned shutdown of the canal from Lehi to the Point of the Mountain resulted in significant impacts to two of the Association’s largest water users. This allowed Ames to complete a large section of the pipeline during the prime summer construction season, and to make up for time lost during the severe winter conditions. The Association recognizes Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District for their cooperation and flexibility in using alternative water sources during the 2011 irrigation season, which allowed the northern section of the PRCEP to be constructed.

9 

True — At sea level water boils at 212 degrees F, but because of lower air pressure at Deer Creek Reservoir (altitude 5417 feet above sea level) water boils at approximately 202 degrees F

Early in the design of the PRCEP it was discovered that a major reason for the massive pipe diameter required for the project was to overcome the significant hydraulic head loss in the existing Provo Reservoir Canal siphon near the mouth of Provo Canyon. The canal in this location is in a concrete pipe that siphons under, over and then under the Provo River before surfacing in an open canal along 800

North in Orem, Utah. It was determined that the design diameter of the main PRCEP pipeline could be reduced as much as 18 inches if a parallel pipeline (or parallel siphon) was constructed from the Olmsted Tunnel under the Provo River to 800 North in Orem.

Budget constraints required that the Parallel Siphon project be segregated from the main PRCEP project and bid as a separate smaller contract. Contractors bidding on the Parallel Siphon were required to provide costs to install 60, 72, 84 and 96-inch diameter pipe. This gave the stakeholders the option to choose the largest diameter pipe the project could afford. During the

bidding process Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) offered to upsize the selected pipe one 12-inch increment. The larger pipe size would benefit the PRCEP stakeholders but would also benefit CUWCD, which could then connect its Utah Lake System pipeline to the Parallel Siphon near the mouth of Provo Canyon rather than connect to the main PRCEP pipeline further downstream, as originally planned.

Budget considerations initially mandated the selection of 72-inch diameter pipe, with CUWCD’s upsize option ultimately allowing for an 84-inch diameter pipe. A contract was signed in July with successful bidder W.W. Clyde and Company, with construction slated to begin in fall 2011 following procurement of pipe and materials. The Parallel Siphon project is expected to be completed in April 2012.

10 

PRCEP - Parallel Siphon

True or False — Raindrops are tear shaped

Provo Reservoir Canal Trail

One of the many benefits of enclosure of the Provo Reservoir Canal (PRC) is the ability to use the canal corridor for a public recreation trail after enclosure. The Association began discussing with Lindon City and Utah County the possibility of a trail along the canal corridor as early as 1997. At that time the Association could not agree to authorize public recreation use along an open canal with steep banks, cold water and inverted siphons. The subsequent development of plans to enclose the PRC heightened hopes that a recreation trail could be compatible with the enclosure project. This proved to be the case, and the local cities lent their support for the enclosure project as well as for federal legislation to transfer title of the PRC corridor from the US Bureau of Reclamation to the Association. The Association spearheaded efforts in 2005 to obtain an $11.75 million grant from the federal government specifically for the development of the trail. Utah County was able to acquire an additional $5.5 million and commissioned a design/build project for what will be called the Murdock Canal Trail. This paved trail, which will be 14.5 miles of the PRC corridor from Orem to Lehi, will have six trailheads and many other amenities. Trail design began in spring 2011, with construction expected to be complete by spring 2013. A license agreement between the Association and Utah County formally authorizes the use of the corridor for the trail, which will be jointly maintained under an interlocal agreement among Utah County and the seven participating cities through which the trail passes.

False — Drops coming out of a faucet stick to the water still in the faucet causing a teardrop shape, but air pushes up on raindrops as they fall, causing them to flatten

11 

Maintenance Maintenance work in 2011 was influenced greatly by the record high snowpack that lasted well into June, and much effort was involved in preparing for, dealing with and cleaning up after the high snowmelt runoff that followed. Maintenance staff coordinated with local jurisdictions and landowners in Utah, Summit and Wasatch Counties to prevent or to minimize impacts from flooding due to the high flows. The runoff brought large trees, rootballs and other debris which lodged in front of the Weber-Provo Canal grating. Maintenance personnel were able to safely and efficiently remove this debris using a long-reach

excavator leased especially for this purpose. Association staff also brokered meetings among the cities of northern Utah County to coordinate the runoff response to the various streams and channels that intersect the Provo Reservoir Canal. This was an historic and beneficial happening for the cities and the Association, and all parties agreed to continue this practice in the future.

12 True or False — The Great Salt Lake is saltier than the ocean

The high spring runoff of 2010 eroded the east bank of the Provo River near the Diamond Bar X Ranch, causing a portion of the river to flow behind a Provo River Project control dike. Among other damage, the high flows threatened a Chevron Pipeline Company buried oil pipeline which crosses the river in this location. Two failures of this same oil pipeline in Salt Lake City in 2009 and 2010, combined with expected high flows in the Provo River during the 2011 spring runoff, provided strong incentive for the Association and others to work cooperatively to prevent damage to the oil pipeline. In November 2010 the Bureau of Reclamation, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Chevron and the Association worked together to extend the control dike to provide temporary protection for the pipeline crossing. The temporary dike performed well during the high flows of spring runoff 2011. The long-term plan to protect the oil pipeline may include a deeper river crossing, a hardened dike, a combination of both, or other solutions.

13 True — The salt content of the Great Salt Lake is approximately 25 percent, compared

with about 3.5 percent for seawater

14 

Provo River Water Users Association

2011 2010Assets

Current AssetsCash and cash equivalents 1,035,579$ 551,889$ Cash and cash equivalents - restricted 12,210,458 11,069,794 Investments 331,768 328,630 Accounts receivable 788,305 841,315 Construction receivable 329,262 152,233 Due from Cental Utah Water Conservancy District 83,804 41,902 Prepaid insurance 96,908 74,316

Total current assets 14,876,084 13,060,079

Fixed assets, net of accumulated depreciation of $4,480,286 and $3,624,389 59,808,701 39,426,218

Other AssetsDue from Central Utah Water Conservancy District

less current portion 502,818 544,720 Beneficial interest in water rights 24,070,460 24,070,460 Bond issuance fees, net of accumulated amortization

of $87,616 and $64,273 416,082 439,425 Total other assets 24,989,360 25,054,605

Total assets 99,674,145$ 77,540,902$

Balance SheetsOctober 31, 2011 and 2010

15 

Provo River Water Users Association

2011 2010

Liabilities and Stockholders' EquityCurrent Liabilities

Accounts payable 20,816$ 75,569$ Construction accounts payable 3,635,451 1,467,007 Accrued liabilities 9,424 21,009 Accrued compensated absences 91,228 78,969 Accrued interest 525,920 218,944 PRCEP deposits 6,191,357 60,000 Current portion due to Summit County 15,082 15,082 Current portion of bonds payable 235,000 220,000 Current portion of notes payable 531,480 531,480 Line of credit 1,017,222 1,017,222

Total current liabilities 12,272,980 3,705,282

Long-Term LiabilitiesAccrued liability due to Summit County, less current portion 20,232 35,314 Retainage payable 3,331,089 666,639 Bonds payable, less current portion 22,730,000 14,965,000 Notes payable, less current portion 7,307,042 7,876,822

Total long-term liabilities 33,388,363 23,543,775

Total liabilities 45,661,343 27,249,057

Stockholders' EquityCapital stock 23,915,867 23,915,867 Future stockholder assessments (4,634,282) (4,957,582)

19,281,585 18,958,285 Retained earnings

Reserved for master plan improvements 32,600,205 29,072,022 Reserved for debt service 235,030 221,080 Designated for reserve 687,500 607,288 Designated for equipment 68,592 (30,056) Unreserved, undesignated 1,139,890 1,463,226

34,731,217 31,333,560

Total stockholders' equity 54,012,802 50,291,845

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 99,674,145$ 77,540,902$

Balance SheetsOctober 31, 2011 and 2010

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

740

883

2,061

2,780

3,140

3,717

3,920

3,812

4,019

3,979

3,427

2,584

Deer Creek Power PlantWater Year 2011 Gross Generation

KWh in thousands

16 

Administration

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year Levied

Provo River Water Users AssociationAssessments

Project O&M Capital Improvements Project Repayment

Bruce Chesnut, Lon Richardson and Richard Bay retired from the Board of Directors in February 2011 after a combined 33 years of service to the Association. Resolutions expressing appreciation for their service were awarded to Richardson and Bay at the Association’s May 2011 Board meeting. Chesnut, the senior member of the Board with 21 years of service at the time of his resignation, was honored at the Association’s August 2011 Board meeting. The Association welcomed new Directors John Kirkham, Jeff Bryant and Christopher Tschirki to fill the vacancies.

True or False — Water contracts as it gets colder

LeRoy Hooton, Bruce Chesnut

Mike Wilson, Lon Richardson

Mike Wilson, Richard Bay

17 

2011 Extra HoldoverTotal Use Allocated Used Allotment Available Used Evap Paper Towards

October 31, 2011 Shares (AF) (AF) (AF) Used (AF) (AF) (AF) Spill 2012MWDSLS Account #1 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Account #2 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Account #3 15,000 855 15,000 855 0 0 0 0 0 14,145 Account #4 46,000 5,594 46,000 0 0 42,221 5,594 0 36,627 46,000Total 61,700 7,149 61,700 1,555 0 42,221 5,594 0 36,627 60,145

Orem MWD Account #1 1,300 512 1,300 0 0 1,300 512 0 788 1,300 Account #2 200 104 200 0 0 104 104 0 0 200 Account #3 754 754 754 0 0 754 754 0 0 754Total 2,254 1,370 2,254 0 0 2,158 1,370 0 788 2,254

Dixon Irrigation Company 300 14 300 0 14 115 0 0 115 300

Provo MWD 8,000 1,612 8,000 1,414 0 6,521 198 0 6,323 6,586

American Fork MWD 500 237 500 213 23 10 0 0 10 287

Beaver/Shingle Creek 900 0 900 0 0 594 0 0 594 900

Diamond Bar X 86 66 86 66 0 0 0 0 0 20

Bar X Mutual Water Company 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

MSH Corporation 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Noblett's Creek Mutual Water 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

Highland Conservation District Highland Conservation Dist. 1,761 1,934 1,761 1,700 235 (280) 0 0 (280) (219) Highland City 2,085 96 2,085 0 96 265 0 0 265 2,085 Lehi City 793 663 793 539 124 408 0 0 408 254 American Fork City 371 17 371 0 17 0 0 0 0 371Total 5,010 2,710 5,010 2,238 472 393 0 0 393 2,491

Lehi City 500 377 500 354 23 9 0 0 9 146

Lindon MWD 200 19 200 10 9 191 0 0 191 190

Pleasant Grove Irrigation Pleasant Grove Irrigation 566 637 566 590 47 566 0 0 566 (24) Pleasant Grove MWD 445 0 445 0 0 138 0 0 138 445Total 1,011 637 1,011 590 47 704 0 0 704 421

Pleasant Grove MWD 300 48 300 34 14 115 0 0 115 266

Provo Bench Irrigation Orem MWD 900 0 900 0 0 415 0 0 415 900 Provo Bench 620 0 620 0 0 620 0 0 620 620 Pleasant Grove MWD 125 0 125 0 0 62 0 0 62 125 Lindon MWD 355 0 355 0 0 327 0 0 327 355Total 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 1,424 0 0 1,424 2,000

Provo Res. Water Users Co. JVWCD 10,217 5,680 10,217 1,817 0 3,776 3,863 0 (87) 8,313 Orem MWD 2,973 507 2,973 411 96 1 0 0 1 2,562 Alpine District 1,398 2,129 1,398 100 2,029 (79) 0 0 (79) 1,219 Pleasant Grove MWD 175 11 175 0 11 26 0 0 26 175 Sandy City 70 59 70 55 5 75 0 0 75 15 Highland City 420 45 420 16 28 10 0 0 10 404 Lehi City 248 203 248 186 17 72 0 0 72 62 Lehi Irrigation 444 223 444 194 30 (91) (91) 160 American Fork City 55 5 55 1 4 21 0 0 21 54Total 16,000 8,863 16,000 2,780 2,220 3,811 3,863 0 (52) 12,964

South Kamas Irrigation 500 270 500 270 0 0 0 0 0 230

Victory Ranches 200 0 200 0 0 200 0 0 200 200

Washington Irrigation 500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 500

Total 100,000 23,371 100,000 9,524 2,822 58,466 11,025 0 47,441 89,939

Project Water Use for 2011 Water Year

2011 Allotment 100% Holdover from Water Year 2010

False — Unusual for liquids, water expands when it freezes, which enables ice to float on water

801.796.8770 285 West 1100 North

Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 www.prwua.org