# Focus on water conservation and GSL



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Happy to see $5 million of some of the surplus money from the American rescue plan/state surplus will be used to protect and preserve the Great Salt Lake. Would loved to have seen more, but it all matters. Another $95 million going towards water conservation measures. I’d love to see more and more of this. The GSL is wilting away and beyond wildlife implications will create plenty of other issues including worse air quality along the Wasatch front if we continue to let it shrink away. Happy to see some funds going towards addressing the issue. Now let’s stop pushing to build any more reservoirs upstream of it. Looks like plenty of water conservation incentives will come next year in the state as well. I plan to remove half my lawn next spring and replace it with a gravel/more natural landscape. I hope all of us will find ways to reduce our water use, with a warmer, drier winter forecasted and the levels of some lakes and reservoirs at the end of this summer….well…..next summer could be pretty dire.









Tax cuts, teacher raises and more broadband — Utah looks to spend some serious cash


Powered by a red hot economy (and billions in federal stimulus dollars), the Utah State Legislature is poised to spend a ton of money.




www.fox13now.com


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Doesn’t matter how much money they throw at the GSL. It’s too late, too many water users with the booming population growth. That lake is “F’d”.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> Doesn’t matter how much money they throw at the GSL. It’s too late, too many water users with the booming population growth. That lake is “F’d”.


Well considering municipal water use isn’t the main issue of why water isn’t going into the lake I’m going to say it’s not a fruitless effort. It is if warming and drying climate trends in the state continue. But if the lakes “F’d” those living in the Salt Lake Valley aren’t going to enjoy the nasty dust. We should always be doing what we can to improve these things, and yes throwing $20 million at improving agriculture irrigation practices makes a pretty big water use-age difference. State law on water use-age also needs some changing. Let’s spend plenty of money trying to save the lake rather than spend millions upon millions trying to keep the dust down all while using a lot of water doing it. If we don’t this is the fate









California's Largest Lake Is Now a Public-Health Threat


The dried bed of the shrinking Salton Sea is a major source of air pollution—and no one seems to know how to stop it from getting worse.




amp.theatlantic.com


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

So what about the entire Great Basin? It was Lake Bonneville at one time. Somehow nature filled in the blanks after it shrunk. 🙄
Throwing money at something seems to be a pattern with government. Rarely does it work. The fact the Utah’s population cannot sustain this irresponsible and destructive growth means everything to this issue. Maybe spend 20 million teaching planning and zoning boards to learn the word no?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> So what about the entire Great Basin? It was Lake Bonneville at one time. Somehow nature filled in the blanks after it shrunk. 🙄
> Throwing money at something seems to be a pattern with government. Rarely does it work. The fact the Utah’s population cannot sustain this irresponsible and destructive growth means everything to this issue. Maybe spend 20 million teaching planning and zoning boards to learn the word no?


Population growth is certainly a complicated issue. Again, municipal water usage is not the main reason for water not flowing into the lake. It’s agriculture. By that same token cowboy, if we can’t sustain human population growth, can we really sustain cows that can drink 20 gallons of water a day each and water sucking alfalfa on a desert landscape? People say throwing money at things doesn’t work, and it’s true, it doesn’t always work, it is however what makes things happen as well. It very literally takes money to accomplish anything these days and a lot of it. Improving irrigation and water conservation practices is a good thing, and I’m not going to hear about population growth when cattle are draining water holes and swamps across the state and alfalfa is sucking reservoirs dry and has no business growing here. Welcome to the desert.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

So those now almost extinct 80-100 million Buffalo never drank any water? 🙄
If you think cows are the problem I doubt I can ever change your mind. The second driest state in the nation has a people problem, plain and simple. I applaud you for vowing to tear out part of your lawn. FYI farming and beef production has improved drastically. In the time from 1960 to 2018 beef has decreased its carbon footprint by 40% while increasing beef per steer by 60%!!!!! In the past thirty years we have used 30% less land to provide more beef than ever. We have used 12% less water while raising more beef in that same time frame. Meanwhile since 1980 Utah’s population has gotten over 2/3 rds larger!!! But by all means blame the cattle!


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

And as far as your sustainability argument, my family has raised cattle in Utah for six generations. That is the definition of sustainable!!!! The cattle numbers in Utah since the Taylor grazing act in 1939 have been cut exponentially while the number of people has skyrocketed.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> So those now almost extinct 80-100 million Buffalo never drank any water? 🙄
> If you think cows are the problem I doubt I can ever change your mind. The second driest state in the nation has a people problem, plain and simple. I applaud you for vowing to tear out part of your lawn. FYI farming and beef production has improved drastically. In the time from 1960 to 2018 beef has decreased its carbon footprint by 40% while increasing beef per steer by 60%!!!!! In the past thirty years we have used 30% less land to provide more beef than ever. We have used 12% less water while raising more beef in that same time frame. Meanwhile since 1980 Utah’s population has gotten over 2/3 rds larger!!! But by all means blame the cattle!


My point is not to say that I don’t support some cattle/alfalfa production in the state. My point is you’re pointing out a problem and blaming it on municipal growth. When a field is subdivided and turned into homes generally it actually uses less water annually than if it were flood irrigated alfalfa. Your argument doesn’t hold. Far and away agriculture is the main water user in the state. Alfalfa is the number 1 crop yielded from the state and it in no way shape or form has any business being grown here in such great quantities. I agree that improvements have been made in agricultural uses of water, so let’s keep making them. Give grants to landowners/farmers to convert from flood irrigation. The amount of water used in flood irrigation is unconscionable and the limiting factor in cost for many to switch is why they don’t convert to sprinkler irrigation. Agriculture uses around 85% of diverted water annually in the state. And yes, this can be drastically improved.








Municipalities and residents should do all they can to save water. The real culprit of ridiculous water use in the state is agriculture and it isn’t close.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> And as far as your sustainability argument, my family has raised cattle in Utah for six generations. That is the definition of sustainable!!!! The cattle numbers in Utah since the Taylor grazing act in 1939 have been cut exponentially while the number of people has skyrocketed.


I understand you don’t like the facts of the situation but Utahs human population is not the real problem. The problem is a warming, drying climate, and the fact agriculture is sucking up 85% of diverted water in a desert landscape where many practices have no business.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

A prime example of how tribalism wantonly ignores complexity of an inherently multifactorial issue.

Simpler: it's rarely so simple as most of us want to claim


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Arguing here is like wresting a pig. Ya both get covered in crap but the pig likes it. I’ll walk away. Not because I’m wrong but because life is much to short to argue with educated idiots who have no experience with farming or ranching. Bless your hearts


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> Arguing here is like wresting a pig. Ya both get covered in crap but the pig likes it. I’ll walk away. Not because I’m wrong but because life is much to short to argue with educated idiots who have no experience with farming or ranching. Bless your hearts


I'm sorry to burst your bubble cowboy, but I have ran a small farm, and around 120 acres of irrigated pasture land. I know how much water flood irrigation uses, and wastes, how flawed water usage laws are in the state and how much more efficient sprinkler irrigation is and the improvements that can be made. I also know how much water cows can use. I'm not against the lifestyle, I'm against many of the practices that take place in the state that are not practical or sustainable given the climate issues going forward, as well as population growth. We still have a few cows, and still operate a around 80 acres of that land. The amount of water usage broken down by category is what it is. Resisting it doesn't change it.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

God I hope folks like you never truly get into power. Your position wants to take valid water rights away from agriculture to continue unlimited and unsustainable growth! Will you give the farmers growing row crops throughout northern Utah a pass or take their lively hood away too? Flood irrigation is not as efficient as sprinkling is. Pivots are even more efficient. Thousands and tens of thousands acres have already been converted. We stopped flood irrigation in 1977. But your type lump all of us producers into the same corner. Your solution is baseless. Taking away valid water rights is your idea of fixing uncontrolled growth? Credibility is falling sir! 🙄 regardless of how many acres or cattle you used to/currently have. You simply cannot double the state population every fifty years and not expect consequences. But cattle are the problem 🙄


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> God I hope folks like you never truly get into power. Your position wants to take valid water rights away from agriculture to continue unlimited and unsustainable growth! Will you give the farmers growing row crops throughout northern Utah a pass or take their lively hood away too? Flood irrigation is not as efficient as sprinkling is. Pivots are even more efficient. Thousands and tens of thousands acres have already been converted. We stopped flood irrigation in 1977. But your type lump all of us producers into the same corner. Your solution is baseless. Taking away valid water rights is your idea of fixing uncontrolled growth? Credibility is falling sir! 🙄 regardless of how many acres or cattle you used to/currently have. You simply cannot double the state population every fifty years and not expect consequences. But cattle are the problem 🙄


Cowboy, that’s not at all what I’ve said. I’ve stated the fact that agriculture uses 85%of diverted water in the state and if you’re going to make meaningful in-roads in water conservation that is where it is going to need to happen. What’s baseless is your claim it’s population growth that is the significant problem. It’s factually not true. If you’re resisting the need for improvement of where 85% of the water is used, you aren’t actually interested in a useful conversation. You’re interested in being stuck in the ways of practices that aren’t sustainable. You may have stopped flood irrigating, but there’s plenty of it left in the state going on still. But yes, if you’re getting 85% of diverted water in the state on one portion of the population for use, I’ll certainly fight for more water to be used for conservation. 85% isn’t enough for the agriculture industry in the state cowboy? When they account for 2% of the economy. I’d say they get well more than their fair share.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I understand you don’t like the facts of the situation but Utahs human population is not the real problem. The problem is a warming, drying climate, and the fact agriculture is sucking up 85% of diverted water in a desert landscape where many practices have no business.


So, how long did it take the "pioneers" to drain the SL valley when they arrived in the late 1840's? It was a swamp, right, just like from where they left?

If memory serves from early US History class in high school, the valley was a parched strip of ground that actually broke plows when they tried to till the soil, so I really don't get the climate change argument that it's a doomsday apocalypse event.

Also, just how much does it take of the plant protein substitute to equal the same of a beef? Plants that provide that protein need water as well, so...


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Cowboy, that’s not at all what I’ve said. I’ve stated the fact that agriculture uses 85%of diverted water in the state and if you’re going to make meaningful in-roads in water conservation that is where it is going to need to happen. What’s baseless is your claim it’s population growth that is the significant problem. It’s factually not true. If you’re resisting the need for improvement of where 85% of the water is used, you aren’t actually interested in a useful conversation. You’re interested in being stuck in the ways of practices that aren’t sustainable. You may have stopped flood irrigating, but there’s plenty of it left in the state going on still. But yes, if you’re getting 85% of diverted water in the state on one portion of the population for use, I’ll certainly fight for more water to be used for conservation. 85% isn’t enough for the agriculture industry in the state cowboy? When they account for 2% of the economy. I’d say they get well more than their fair share.


Fair share????? 😂😂😂 We own the water right. It’s ours. What part of that are ya having trouble with. You say you still own a small farm correct. Well why doesn’t the municipality you live in take your farm and give it to the poor homeless folks. It’s only fair. You don’t need that land. Do what’s fair and donate it. You are sure flippant with others peoples property, let’s see ya out your money where your mouth is???
I am all for conservation. But it’s amazing to me how you just want to supersede centuries of water rights because you and others think unmitigated growth isn’t the problem. Cities and the State of Utah have blown up our population and your solution is taking away water rights from the families who own them? One more little tidbit amigo- 1 in 6 kids in the USA have food insecurity and many go to bed hungry. Taking water from agriculture helps fix that how?


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

cowboy said:


> Fair share????? 😂😂😂 We own the water right. It’s ours.


I am not sure where anybody is looking to take away water rights. Utah water law needs to revised to further define what "beneficial use" actually is in these modern times. The recent agreement between Audubon and Kennecott to divert a portion of Kennecott's water rights to the GSL is uncharted territory and a positive first step to keep the GSL whole and its $1.4-2B economic engine, that by the way greatly benefits agriculture locally and globally.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

#1deer stated plainly- If 85% of the water in the state goes to agriculture I will certainly fight for more to be used for conservation!!!! So how does that water go from Ag producers, who own their rights, to conservation????? We can sell our shares or short sighted folks who showed up late to the party will do their best to take them. It’s only fair 🙄
Pardon me from being skeptical when non agricultural folks start telling me what’s best for my livelihood. And the livelihoods of thousands of Utah families who produce milk, cereal grains, alfalfa, row crops, beef, pork, lamb and food for Utahns and others. #1deer is correct about one thing, 2% of us feed the other 98%. But by all means let’s make it even more difficult for producers. 🙄


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

cowboy said:


> #1deer stated plainly- If 85% of the water in the state goes to agriculture I will certainly fight for more to be used for conservation!!!! So how does that water go from Ag producers, who own their rights, to conservation????? We can sell our shares or short sighted folks who showed up late to the party will do their best to take them. It’s only fair 🙄
> Pardon me from being skeptical when non agricultural folks start telling me what’s best for my livelihood. And the livelihoods of thousands of Utah families who produce milk, cereal grains, alfalfa, row crops, beef, pork, lamb and food for Utahns and others. #1deer is correct about one thing, 2% of us feed the other 98%. But by all means let’s make it even more difficult for producers. 🙄


Whoa Pardner- you obviously have a burr under your saddle are picking a fight where there is not a fight. 

What if there was a mechanism that the person with the water right is able to make an agreement to maintain instream flows for fish or god forbid allow it to go the the GSL (which currently buy law is not an allowable use of a water right). That holder of the water right still maintains their right, but up until now was not deemed a beneficial use. Hell, the right holder may even be able to be compensated for the allocation.

I am a "producer" too, that very sensitive to these issues. We have more in common than not.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

I’m not fighting with you. It’s the other guy who mentioned nothing of fair compensation I have a burr with. I’m all conservation. Did you see the 8000 acre property purchased by the DWR with the financial backing of SFW and the RMEF and others recently? A win win if there every was one. The ranch owner received fair market value and the property was protected for hunting and will become a WMA. What Rio Tinto did was fine, as it was their choice.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Water rights are like land, you don't own it, just renting it with your taxes. The state is already taking back deeded water rights. The state screwed up in the 50's and 60's and over allocated available water. Now they are in the process of taking back those rights. If your water rights weren't granted in the 1930's as of now you will lose them in the future unless something happens to change the drought.

As of right now our water rights were granted in 1953 so we are set to lose them in 40 years, those granted in the 1960's will lose them much sooner. 

If you have water rights make sure you are putting them to beneficial use or you will lose them even sooner.

As for the other argument that is going on, in southern Utah they are trying to get more water for growth not agriculture so to say population growth is not the problem is just not true.

I don't like anyone telling me I should conserve water so more houses can pop up around me. The way building is growing around southern Utah tells me I must have plenty of water for what I want.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Don't get me started on property taxes LOL.

And I think some changes to beneficial use may help the GSL. But to say population growth is not part of the problem is pretty disingenuous.

Can everybody do something to help? Sure it doesn't hurt, but as long as people are here and keep coming there will be pressure to re-allocate water to some use perceived by others to be more beneficial to them rather than those who are already invested.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bowgy said:


> If you have water rights make sure you are putting them to beneficial use or you will lose them even sooner.


This is part of what Daisy was talking about. Our antiquated water laws are such that it makes "common sense" conservation actions more difficult, if not impossible, and as you point out, can even be unfair to the rights holders, especially if novel uses for conservation are considered. 




middlefork said:


> But to say population growth is not part of the problem is pretty disingenuous.


Agree, and arguments to the contrary come off as fairly silly.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The challenge here is to find how all interested parties here can survive...it's called sustainability. The current practices we are employing in Utah are not sustainable. 

We need better, more efficient farming practices. Many have put those in place or are in the process of putting those in place. Many also have not. We need more efficient landscapes in our growth. Putting in a crap ton more quarter acre lots with beautiful green lawns around the state is not sustainable. Continuing to have the GSL shrink and dry up is not sustainable for so many reasons, including this forum's selfish reasons of wanting to kill birds in Utah. 

Every single one of factors involved have to be improved. I'm skeptical of anyone pointing the finger only at "others" and not willing to look at their own contributions on issues like this. We need to make the entire process better, or we're all screwed.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> So, how long did it take the "pioneers" to drain the SL valley when they arrived in the late 1840's? It was a swamp, right, just like from where they left?
> 
> If memory serves from early US History class in high school, the valley was a parched strip of ground that actually broke plows when they tried to till the soil, so I really don't get the climate change argument that it's a doomsday apocalypse event.
> 
> Also, just how much does it take of the plant protein substitute to equal the same of a beef? Plants that provide that protein need water as well, so...


My point is not that we should be growing water sucking plants either. Utah is the 2nd driest state in the nation. Nothing that consumes huge amounts of water to produce has real business being produced here in unsustainable ways. As I said, alfalfa is the #1 produced crop in the state, and I would bet a fair % of that used by agriculture is used on it alone. As for climate change, it depends on what you see as apocalyptic. Do I think humans are on the edge of extinction because of it? No I don’t. Do I think species like mule deer, Sage grouse, and many species are in trouble if climate change continues on its path? Yes, I do. Animals like mule deer are a very niche type of species in a very vulnerable habitat and landscape. A few degree temperature change could certainly devastate places and species, and the 2nd driest place in the nation is certainly one of the places that will end up most impacted.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> Fair share????? 😂😂😂 We own the water right. It’s ours. What part of that are ya having trouble with. You say you still own a small farm correct. Well why doesn’t the municipality you live in take your farm and give it to the poor homeless folks. It’s only fair. You don’t need that land. Do what’s fair and donate it. You are sure flippant with others peoples property, let’s see ya out your money where your mouth is???
> I am all for conservation. But it’s amazing to me how you just want to supersede centuries of water rights because you and others think unmitigated growth isn’t the problem. Cities and the State of Utah have blown up our population and your solution is taking away water rights from the families who own them? One more little tidbit amigo- 1 in 6 kids in the USA have food insecurity and many go to bed hungry. Taking water from agriculture helps fix that how?


When the water isn’t there and the water laws are as flawed as they are? Absolutely. I support the water rights being purchased, not taken, but the problem is current laws make that process very difficult. Conservation groups do have money, and in some situations have found ways to do so. No one said anything about just taking your water rights. And I don’t know what you don’t get about the fact population growth has not amounted to a huge increase in water use. Agriculture is the main water user and the problem is warmer drier winters that are yielding far less actual water available. Water rights are only water rights when there’s water to be had.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Daisy said:


> I am not sure where anybody is looking to take away water rights. Utah water law needs to revised to further define what "beneficial use" actually is in these modern times. The recent agreement between Audubon and Kennecott to divert a portion of Kennecott's water rights to the GSL is uncharted territory and a positive first step to keep the GSL whole and its $1.4-2B economic engine, that by the way greatly benefits agriculture locally and globally.


This. No one said to just go take peoples water rights, but transferring/trading water rights that aren’t considered “beneficial uses” is extremely difficult and state policy on it is extremely stupid. Essentially a use it or lose it strategy and it’s a ridiculous approach to a resource that there isn’t enough of in the state.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> #1deer stated plainly- If 85% of the water in the state goes to agriculture I will certainly fight for more to be used for conservation!!!! So how does that water go from Ag producers, who own their rights, to conservation????? We can sell our shares or short sighted folks who showed up late to the party will do their best to take them. It’s only fair 🙄
> Pardon me from being skeptical when non agricultural folks start telling me what’s best for my livelihood. And the livelihoods of thousands of Utah families who produce milk, cereal grains, alfalfa, row crops, beef, pork, lamb and food for Utahns and others. #1deer is correct about one thing, 2% of us feed the other 98%. But by all means let’s make it even more difficult for producers. 🙄


I said nothing about simply taking water rights, you’re the one assuming that. There are some plainly stupid laws in what can be done with those water rights that are a hindrance to conservation investment in them. Water rights should be more mailable in their use and the ease of transferring that use. Conservation groups, and the government has money to incentivize conservation use of water, but the laws are very tricky in regards to how that water can legally be used.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> I’m not fighting with you. It’s the other guy who mentioned nothing of fair compensation I have a burr with. I’m all conservation. Did you see the 8000 acre property purchased by the DWR with the financial backing of SFW and the RMEF and others recently? A win win if there every was one. The ranch owner received fair market value and the property was protected for hunting and will become a WMA. What Rio Tinto did was fine, as it was their choice.


Water is not as easy as land to do this with. State law on water rights is an archaic system that makes what you’re mentioning with land above nearly impossible to accomplish with water.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I love the talk of water conversation and the GSL in the same sentence. 

What happens to the water that flows into the GSL? It turns to salt water, what is salt water good for other than birds sitting on it or mineral extraction? Other than that all it does is evaporate into the air. If it is winter then the lake effect takes over and perhaps the hills to the east of it will get more snow, sometimes they don't, if it is summer perhaps the hills will get some rain. The past few years not so much. 

So other than adding dams to store water which isn't going to happen what are the plans to keep the water from flowing into the dead sea called the GSL? Or how about the Sevier River? Same problem it winds around and then dumps out onto a wasteland.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

bowgy said:


> Water rights are like land, you don't own it, just renting it with your taxes. The state is already taking back deeded water rights. The state screwed up in the 50's and 60's and over allocated available water. Now they are in the process of taking back those rights. If your water rights weren't granted in the 1930's as of now you will lose them in the future unless something happens to change the drought.
> 
> As of right now our water rights were granted in 1953 so we are set to lose them in 40 years, those granted in the 1960's will lose them much sooner.
> 
> ...


Population growth is certainly a part of it, especially in regards to how shares are being split up, actual water use on diverted water is very clearly an agriculture use of most of our water.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> I love the talk of water conversation and the GSL in the same sentence.
> 
> What happens to the water that flows into the GSL? It turns to salt water, what is salt water good for other than birds sitting on it or mineral extraction? Other than that all it does is evaporate into the air. If it is winter then the lake effect takes over and perhaps the hills to the east of it will get more snow, sometimes they don't, if it is summer perhaps the hills will get some rain. The past few years not so much.
> 
> So other than adding dams to store water which isn't going to happen what are the plans to keep the water from flowing into the dead sea called the GSL? Or how about the Sevier River? Same problem it winds around and then dumps out onto a wasteland.


If you think the GSL has no significant ecological importance, idk what to tell you. And yes, the shrinking of the water body does impact rain and snow fall some as well.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If you think the GSL has no significant ecological importance, idk what to tell you. And yes, the shrinking of the water body does impact rain and snow fall some as well.


Lets hear them. 

You are against flood irrigation and thousands of acres of alfalfa hay being grown. Yet it sounds like you are open to water flowing into a water body that once the water gets there is pretty much no use to us humans other than to recreate on.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Look I apologize for being defensive about my way of life. And I agree that water law is a complex and antiquated mess. But I have worked hand in had with the federal land managing agency’s for decades. And I am in the loop with the state of Utah as well. Both parties are filled with agenda driven nonsense not backed by common sense or science. Throw in the environmental movement and nothing beneficial gets done. The Feds are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at sage grouse because of their own mismanagement practices. It’s mind numbing to think I have to purchase a permit to cut down a juniper tree for a fence post in public land when they want a large portion of them gone! I get very skeptical when anyone here or at a state or federal agency starts talking about messing with my water rights. Without my water I’m dead. Out of business. History. With our water I will keep doing my best to be a good steward of this land I own and lease. It benefits cattle and sheep and wildlife of all differ varieties. As j the people of Callao and Ibapah how they feel about Nevada wanting to send an 84 inch diameter pipe full of water to Vegas? There is more votes in a four block area of SLC or Provo than the entire west desert. So we get pretty **** gun shy. I guess we have a lack of good communication here between #1deer and myself. For my part I am sorry.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

And we all have to remember our history. Utah was settled as an agricultural state. Mining and grazing and timber were essential for survival in those early pioneer years. Therefore of course the water rights filed on then were based highly towards agriculture. It’s only been the last 75 years, as the population exploded, that we didn’t have adequate water for agriculture and development. Now the pendulum has swung so far to growth it’s stupid. While I am for looking at improving water law, it has to be done without penalizing those of us who’s families had the foresight to file on the water in the beginning.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Lets hear them.
> 
> You are against flood irrigation and thousands of acres of alfalfa hay being grown. Yet it sounds like you are open to water flowing into a water body that once the water gets there is pretty much no use to us humans other than to recreate on.


Here is some useful links for you









Commonly Asked Questions About Utah's Great Salt Lake & Lake Bonneville - Utah Geological Survey






geology.utah.gov










Friends of Great Salt Lake - Latest News & Updates


FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake works to preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem and to increase public awareness and appreciation of the lake through education, research, arts, and advocacy.




www.fogsl.org













Great Salt Lake Facts and Information


An overview of Great Salt Lake facts, including where it is in Utah. Everything you need to know.



utah.com





Between the environmental, ecological, economical, and air quality issues that will occur with the GSL drying up, it's well worth doing what we can to save it. Quite honestly how you can be a sportsman and ask what significance it has, specifically to waterfowl, as I said, can't help you if you simply want to ignore such things.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Another note is agriculture is shrinking, land is being developed and the water is being bought by the municipalities for growth.

I know that my wife's family alone sold almost 400 acre feet of water rights to Cedar City Corporation.

So as farmland is turned into housing that water is being turned from agriculture to population growth so some of what 1 deer is wanting is happening.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Critter, The fact that the GSL is a terminal body of water is the exact problem we are talking about. To date it was not considered "beneficial use" to allow water into the lake bed. That needs to change.








Environmentalists secure water rights for Great Salt Lake


FARMINGTON, Utah (AP) — In an effort to help save the shrinking Great Salt Lake, environmentalists are attempting a novel idea: securing water rights for a terminal system. The Great Salt Lake is now nearly a foot below its last recorded level in 1963, alarming environmentalists and Utah’s...




apnews.com


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

bowgy said:


> Another note is agriculture is shrinking, land is being developed and the water is being bought by the municipalities for growth.
> 
> I know that my wife's family alone sold almost 400 acre feet of water rights to Cedar City Corporation.
> 
> So as farmland is turned into housing that water is being turned from agriculture to population growth so some of what 1 deer is wanting is happening.


I wouldn't say that is what I want at all. I would like water rights to be more malleable and easier to use for conservation measures than the "beneficial use" laws. Conservation is a beneficial use. I don't care to see huge population growth, my point was simply a flood irrigated field does use less water annually when turned into a bunch of houses than the field being flood irrigated. I'm being a proponent of turning it into a bunch of houses, just finding ways to conserve water and avenues to use more for conservation. And to @cowboy point, I am not looking to take water from anyone, I would just like to see a broader definition of what water can be used for as to what falls under "beneficial" use of it. And yes, conservation groups and state incentives to water right owners to use those water rights on those uses. I am not pro-development or pro-taking water rights. I'm pro-finding ways to conserve as much water as we can and use what we can on conservation in a larger scale than we are currently seeing. Water law in the state is just nonsensical given the current dynamics.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

A current project to help the GSL. I'm not sure once this completed that the water currently going into Farmington Bay will continue however.




__





Final Effluent Pipeline Project


CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL Project Report - Win more business with commercial construction leads. Powerful data, tools and analytics to help you stay ahead of your competitors.



www.constructionjournal.com


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

In talking about flood irrigating and sprinkler irrigating often it is two different water sources. High water coming from run off, rivers, streams, etc. While most sprinkler irrigating is from wells. Granted some of the high water does and is supposed to filter into the aquifers where the wells get their water from but a lot of farmers don't flood irrigate with their wells, (some do), and it is hard, not impossible, but harder to sprinkler irrigate with high water.

A lot of the high water that was used for gardens is decreasing also as there are not as many, at least in the Cedar area, that have gardens. The street I grew up on almost everyone had gardens and flood irrigated them from the coal creek water, but now I will bet you could count the number of gardens on that street on one hand.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> my point was simply a flood irrigated field does use less water annually when turned into a bunch of houses than the field being flood irrigated.


This is what I meant by saying that some of what you want is happening.

Take the 400 acre feet of water that my wife's family sold to the city, 400 acre feet of water will water 100 acres of land, the amount of houses that you can put on that 100 acres will usually use less than 400 acres of water.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

There are 325,851 gallons of water in an acre foot. When I had three teenagers at home in a 2 story house with a full basement I was averaging less than 150,000 gallons per year. I know this because we are on a unique water system that is spring water from the mountain and we had to meter the water we used.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

middlefork said:


> Critter, The fact that the GSL is a terminal body of water is the exact problem we are talking about. To date it was not considered "beneficial use" to allow water into the lake bed. That needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





#1DEER 1-I said:


> Here is some useful links for you
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there in not one thing in any of those articles other than information about the GSL that points to why fresh water should be dumped into it to turn it into salt water. 

I'll give you the fact that waterfowl use it and that it would be a loss for them. But why should people give up their fresh water that is more useful and that everyone can use for letting the water to run into a a basin like the GSL when there are other more useful purposes that the water can be used for?

Then how about the Sevier River drainage? What is going to be done with it? I know it isn't the GSL but isn't that water just as important as what flows into the GSL? If it wasn't for the agriculture use of that water it would just drain into the west desert. 

You also need to address the aquifers that the agriculture community draws most of it's water from out of wells. What is being done to replace that water? Las Vegas wants to tap into one of the largest aquifers in the west out of the west desert to feed its thirsty consumption of water. While none of the above is surface water it is just as important.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> And there in not one thing in any of those articles other than information about the GSL that points to why fresh water should be dumped into it to turn it into salt water.
> 
> I'll give you the fact that waterfowl use it and that it would be a loss for them. But why should people give up their fresh water that is more useful and that everyone can use for letting the water to run into a a basin like the GSL when there are other more useful purposes that the water can be used for?
> 
> ...


Habitat, air quality, the economy. This isn't hard Critter. Why save any winter range for mule deer and elk when people can find a beneficial use of housing and development right? Let's get rid of conservation easements, WMA, and protected land because it would be more beneficial to us in houses. That's what you're saying. You're being extremely anti-conservation with your take here. The GSL is extremely important to waterfowl, both game and non-game species. Just because it's water and not land doesn't mean there isn't valuable habitat and also benefits to people within it. As for aquifers we can also talk about those, but the main discussion here is diverted running water across the landscape.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Just to add a little more, according to google, and if it's on google it must be true, the average household uses 300 gallons per day times 365 that would be 109,500 gallons per year, if this is somewhat accurate then the 400 acre feet of water we sold to the city could provide water to 1190 households, or part of one golf course.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

bowgy said:


> Just to add a little more, according to google, and if it's on google it must be true, the average household uses 300 gallons per day times 365 that would be 109,500 gallons per year, if this is somewhat accurate then the 400 acre feet of water we sold to the city could provide water to 1190 households, or part of one golf course.


Now golf courses, those are another subject entirely.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> And there in not one thing in any of those articles other than information about the GSL that points to why fresh water should be dumped into it to turn it into salt water.


In addition to the obvious wildlife benefits, there are a number of globally strategic resources derived from a viable GSL:
1. US Mag- is the sole magnesium producer in the US. Magnesium the lightest metal is critical in many metal alloys used in everyday life and importantly in national defense. They also are producing titanium again important in many industries.
2. Compass Minerals- one of the few producers globally of sulphate of potash (SOP). A highly desirable potassium component in agricultural fertilizers. They are also now getting into the lithium business based on the brine from the lake to supply the battery industry.
3. Brine Shrimp- the brine shrimp eggs from GSL supply almost 50% of the global demand. The baby brine shrimp are the first food source for all farmed shrimp and numerous farmed fish species. 

I hope this helps explain how a viable GSL helps humanity not only locally but also globally.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

To throw another wrench into your plans. 

What gives the right to the Wasatch Front to take water from the Green and Colorado River drainage's? 

Isn't the water on that side of the mountain just as important as it is on the Wasatch Front? Are the Salt Lake water users going to have to give back their water rights like you would like others to do?




Daisy said:


> In addition to the obvious wildlife benefits, there are a number of globally strategic resources derived from a viable GSL:
> 1. US Mag- is the sole magnesium producer in the US. Magnesium the lightest metal is critical in many metal alloys used in everyday life and importantly in national defense. They also are producing titanium again important in many industries.
> 2. Compass Minerals- one of the few producers globally of sulphate of potash (SOP). A highly desirable potassium component in agricultural fertilizers. They are also now getting into the lithium business based on the brine from the lake to supply the battery industry.
> 3. Brine Shrimp- the brine shrimp eggs from GSL supply almost 50% of the global demand. The baby brine shrimp are the first food source for all farmed shrimp and numerous farmed fish species.
> ...



I believe that I did mention mineral extraction as on of the uses for the GLS.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> To throw another wrench into your plans.
> 
> What gives the right to the Wasatch Front to take water from the Green and Colorado River drainage's?
> 
> ...


Because as part of the Colorado River Compact Utah has water rights they have not used, and the water is owned by the State. What gave the right of the front range in Colorado the right to take Colorado River water from the pacific drainage to the Atlantic side? What gave the Central Utah project to move water from the Strawberry drainage (Pacific) to flow into the Provo drainage which drains into the terminal lake called the GSL. In each case the State "decided" it was in the best interest of the citizens of that particular state. 

In the end.... follow the money. The smart people are looking to the future not the past.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> To throw another wrench into your plans.
> 
> What gives the right to the Wasatch Front to take water from the Green and Colorado River drainage's?
> 
> ...


You’ve thrown no wrenches into any plans, you just want to willfully ignore the value of the GSL.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

You want to talk about a plant that needs extensive water to grow, then look at Phragmites. It is all over Northern Utah, in almost every ditch, canal or river that flows to the GSL. It is also all over the GSL lakebed too. I do realize alfalfa takes a lot of water too. I’m not suggesting do nothing at all to protect the GSL, I just think there’s no way to get the lake back unless Mother Nature kicks in fast and does her part. I have spent countless hours around the GSL for the last 32 years and have watched it disappear before my eyes. It’s quite sad to be honest.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

The value of US MAG is the number one producer of pollution in Utah. Or very close to the top. How does that work for your conservation model #1deer? The GSL is an important part of the SL valley and Utah. Amazing how it was full for decades until the unmitigated growth happened? When the Ogden, Salt Lake and Utah county area were predominantly farms the GSL was healthy and viable. What changed? 😁


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Battle brewing over plan to build 5,000 apartments near Thanksgiving Point


A battle is brewing in Lehi over whether a new community with thousands of apartments will be built west of Thanksgiving Point.




www.ksl.com


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Maybe dehydrated water is a good option for these folks to drink? It’s beyond a joke to see how developers are destroying this state.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> You want to talk about a plant that needs extensive water to grow, then look at Phragmites. It is all over Northern Utah, in almost every ditch, canal or river that flows to the GSL. It is also all over the GSL lakebed too. I do realize alfalfa takes a lot of water too. I’m not suggesting do nothing at all to protect the GSL, I just think there’s no way to get the lake back unless Mother Nature kicks in fast and does her part. I have spent countless hours around the GSL for the last 32 years and have watched it disappear before my eyes. It’s quite sad to be honest.


Phragmites are another thing we need to be much more aggressive in fighting, again, that's going to take funding and the current approach is not nearly aggressive enough.


cowboy said:


> The value of US MAG is the number one producer of pollution in Utah. Or very close to the top. How does that work for your conservation model #1deer? The GSL is an important part of the SL valley and Utah. Amazing how it was full for decades until the unmitigated growth happened? When the Ogden, Salt Lake and Utah county area were predominantly farms the GSL was healthy and viable. What changed? 😁


Do you want to contend that it's growth when winters have obviously drastically changed right before your eyes due to the climate warming and drying in the region? Again, I have not said growth is not a part of it, but it is far from the much more significant parts that are contributing to the lake drying up. The reason the lake is drying up is because there is far less water to go around overall, and we need to be focusing much harder on what we do with the water we do have.



cowboy said:


> Maybe dehydrated water is a good option for these folks to drink? It’s beyond a joke to see how developers are destroying this state.


Then maybe we should stop electing Republican Real Estate developers to the state legislature. Really great to see Ken Ivory back! (sarcasm) All that man cares about is development, using government to pay for firms he goes to work for, selling public lands and being a slime ball politician. He quite literally took tax funds to pay for the place he left the legislature to work for and is back in government now. Must need some more funding to pay himself and his friends. Maybe Utah voters could stop so blindly voting for people who are pro-development because they have an R next to their name and change the dynamics of the state legislature so we can see more moderate approaches in the state. As it stands, you have a legislature that is very pro growth, and believing a resource is only valuable if we can use and abuse it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here's a nice study on the GSL and disappearing snowpack









The role of declining snow cover in the desiccation of the Great Salt Lake, Utah, using MODIS data


The Great Salt Lake (GSL) in Utah has been shrinking since the middle of the 19th Century, leading to decreased area and volume, and increased salinit…




www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Instead of throwing money at the GSL, they need to invest that coin into a colossal canopy to capture all the water evaporating into space and becoming lost...


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

You wrote the following-Do you want to contend that it's growth when winters have obviously drastically changed right before your eyes due to the climate warming and drying in the region? Again, I have not said growth is not a part of it, but it is far from the much more significant parts that are contributing to the lake drying up. The reason the lake is drying up is because there is far less water to go around overall, and we need to be focusing much harder on what we do with the water we do have.
Here is data from the NOAA on our average precipitation










Here is the population of Utah in 1960 and again in 2020-
1960- 900,000 people
2020- 3.28 million people.

If the average precipitation is holding steady over those 60 years and the population has tripled you will continue to argue it’s not a significant issue when it comes to water? Climate change has increased temps but the historical average remains close to the same for precipitation #1deer. The reason the lake is drying up is that it’s being used beneficially before it gets to the GSL to hydrate, feed and employ the extra 2.38 million plus people living in Utah now!


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

More facts to consider- 
19,000 farms in Utah in 1960 and a total of 13.6 million acres in farms
18,400 farms in Utah in 2017 and 10.8 million acres in farms. So we’ve lost roughly 3 million acres of farmland and replaced that with almost 2.4 million people. But that doesn’t affect the GSL or other watersheds in the state? At least not significantly right? 🙄


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

cowboy said:


> Here is data from the NOAA on our average precipitation
> View attachment 150392


So, according to this display of data, is it suggesting there have been dry periods off and on over the last 100 years or so?

Say it ain't so!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> You wrote the following-Do you want to contend that it's growth when winters have obviously drastically changed right before your eyes due to the climate warming and drying in the region? Again, I have not said growth is not a part of it, but it is far from the much more significant parts that are contributing to the lake drying up. The reason the lake is drying up is because there is far less water to go around overall, and we need to be focusing much harder on what we do with the water we do have.
> Here is data from the NOAA on our average precipitation
> View attachment 150392
> 
> ...


If you read the report above it explains how even if annual moisture stays the same the amount evaporating, snow melting sooner, etc. is having a big impact on what is actually running into lakes, rivers, and stream across the state. Annual precipitation amounts can stay the exact same, the warming temperature is ensuring far less of that moisture ever makes it anywhere but the ground or evaporated back into the atmosphere.









The role of declining snow cover in the desiccation of the Great Salt Lake, Utah, using MODIS data


The Great Salt Lake (GSL) in Utah has been shrinking since the middle of the 19th Century, leading to decreased area and volume, and increased salinit…




www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> So, according to this display of data, is it suggesting there have been dry periods off and on over the last 100 years or so?
> 
> Say it ain't so!


Lowest recorded levels of water ever in Lake Powell and the GSL. But yes HDE. Everything is business as usual. Eye roll.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> More facts to consider-
> 19,000 farms in Utah in 1960 and a total of 13.6 million acres in farms
> 18,400 farms in Utah in 2017 and 10.8 million acres in farms. So we’ve lost roughly 3 million acres of farmland and replaced that with almost 2.4 million people. But that doesn’t affect the GSL or other watersheds in the state? At least not significantly right? 🙄


I never said it didn’t impact them, I said there are far bigger limiting factors as far as water running to the lake. The problem isn’t necessarily farms are using more than they did, the problem is there is less water than there was available in these diversions before.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

1#deer I don’t think I can ever sway you to my point of view. And I’m confident you aren’t even making a dent in how I feel. So I will agree to disagree and step out. Good luck


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lowest recorded levels of water ever in Lake Powell and the GSL. But yes HDE. Everything is business as usual. Eye roll.


Understand, the water management plan CA has adopted over the years has played a significant impact on both Powell and Mead. Population growth along the Colorado river system has also taken it's toll as well.

Indeed, eyeroll, eyeroll, eyeroll...


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

One last thing- water never goes anywhere. It evaporates and becomes rain or snow. If the snow melts and runs into reservoirs or lakes we capture it to use. If it melts and goes into the ground instead it recharges aquifers and provides water that feeds springs and wells. The climate has been changing since the ice age. I for one am grateful it’s warmed up enough to sustain life in a much easier way that hunting mammoths with sharp sticks. 😁


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Understand, the water management plan CA has adopted over the years has played a significant impact on both Powell and Mead. Population growth along the Colorado river system has also taken it's toll as well.
> 
> Indeed, eyeroll, eyeroll, eyeroll...


To be clear, Mead and Powell do have much more to do with population growth than the GSL, however, to pretend winters, runoff, and weather are business as usual is very much asinine.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> One last thing- water never goes anywhere. It evaporates and becomes rain or snow. If the snow melts and runs into reservoirs or lakes we capture it to use. If it melts and goes into the ground instead it recharges aquifers and provides water that feeds springs and wells. The climate has been changing since the ice age. I for one am grateful it’s warmed up enough to sustain life in a much easier way that hunting mammoths with sharp sticks. 😁


Take a look at the soup bowl of air along the Wasatch front every winter, and then realize SLC is relatively small in terms of city sizes. Then tell me humans don’t impact the environment. People who want to pretend humans and carbon emissions aren’t impacting the planet have never once took a moment to look at studies on the issue, just like you couldn’t look at a short study on the exact conversation we’re having here above. Yes the climate can always be changing. That doesn’t negate the fact that we are having an impact.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)




----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I can’t believe I just saw someone argue the GSL doesn’t have a benefit to the state except to recreate on.

Goodness. Be better, Critter.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Take a look at the soup bowl of air along the Wasatch front every winter, and then realize SLC is relatively small in terms of city sizes. Then tell me humans don’t impact the environment. People who want to pretend humans and carbon emissions aren’t impacting the planet have never once took a moment to look at studies on the issue, just like you couldn’t look at a short study on the exact conversation we’re having here above. Yes the climate can always be changing. That doesn’t negate the fact that we are having an impact.


And you keep screaming population growth doesn’t effect water usage. See the hypocrisy!!!! 
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
You have zero credibility when you make zero sense. No freaking wonder Biden just nominated and had confirmed a person who is a convicted eco terrorist from earth first as his new BLM director. Folks like yourself are the reason idiots like Brandon got elected. Asinine!!!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Seems like a good summary is:

We need to work on agricultural use AND household water use (especially as it pertains to growth)

IBTL


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I can’t believe I just saw someone argue the GSL doesn’t have a benefit to the state except to recreate on.
> 
> Goodness. Be better, Critter.


I was just making a point. Except for the Wasatch Front very few care about the GSL and even most of the population in the Wasatch Front don't care about it. All they care is that when they turn a faucet on water comes out and when they flush the toilette that whatever that is in it goes away. 

I'd still like to see what they are going to do about the Sevier River or the aquifer that Vegas wants to tap into.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm pretty sure they are fighting the Vegas water grab. Have been since it was proposed.

How many people are down wind of the bowl that the Sevier river drops into? Give it a radius of say a hundred miles. Compared to the GSL it is nothing.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

While that is true, how much money needs to be spent to make it snow a few more feet or rain more inches to increase the level of the GLS, not to mention figuring out a way to stop the evaporation of the surface water? 

But some believe that if you spend enough money you can fix anything.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> To be clear, Mead and Powell do have much more to do with population growth than the GSL, however, to pretend winters, runoff, and weather are business as usual is very much asinine.


No, it's not asinine. Data doesn't lie. You're kidding yourself if you think humans have the power to control the elements...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Critter said:


> While that is true, how much money needs to be spent to make it snow a few more feet or rain more inches to increase the level of the GLS, not to mention figuring out a way to stop the evaporation of the surface water?
> 
> But some believe that if you spend enough money you can fix anything.


That's a bit simplistic. Money doesn't fix everything. But human ingenuity definitely requires funding to at least attempt to address problems of this size.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> No, it's not asinine. Data doesn't lie. You're kidding yourself if you think humans have the power to control the elements...


You're exaggerating what I'm saying. Humans can't control the elements, but they do have an impact on the environment and 99.9% of scientists AGREE climate change is happening and is in part caused by humans and carbon emissions. I'm sorry HDE, I will trust those studying the issues and who actually know what they're talking about and not you or the guy at the coffee shop down the street. Where scientists disagree is on the approaches to take to minimize the impacts we have, how much we can actually curve what has been done, and to what extent we are having an impact on the climate. It is you, who is ignoring the data.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> And you keep screaming population growth doesn’t effect water usage. See the hypocrisy!!!!
> 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
> You have zero credibility when you make zero sense. No freaking wonder Biden just nominated and had confirmed a person who is a convicted eco terrorist from earth first as his new BLM director. Folks like yourself are the reason idiots like Brandon got elected. Asinine!!!


Again, haven't said that, but you apparently have very little reading comprehension skills. And this type of response from you? Not a surprise at all. I'm not super partisan, unlike most of you secretly or not. Things like say the infrastructure bill that both political parties said was needed? See I don't care who gets something done, just that they get it done.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Take a look at the soup bowl of air along the Wasatch front every winter, and then realize SLC is relatively small in terms of city sizes. Then tell me humans don’t impact the environment. People who want to pretend humans and carbon emissions aren’t impacting the planet have never once took a moment to look at studies on the issue, just like you couldn’t look at a short study on the exact conversation we’re having here above. Yes the climate can always be changing. That doesn’t negate the fact that we are having an impact.


Don't confuse "the valley" with the rest of the planet. Where I live the only haze is from the wildfires in Kali due to poor forest and undergrowth management.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You're exaggerating what I'm saying. Humans can't control the elements, but they do have an impact on the environment and 99.9% of scientists AGREE climate change is happening and is in part caused by humans and carbon emissions. I'm sorry HDE, I will trust those studying the issues and who actually know what they're talking about and not you or the guy at the coffee shop down the street. Where scientists disagree is on the approaches to take to minimize the impacts we have, how much we can actually curve what has been done, and to what extent we are having an impact on the climate. It is you, who is ignoring the data.


You mean the 99.9% of the 45% in the climate change camp...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Seems like a good summary is:
> 
> We need to work on agricultural use AND household water use (especially as it pertains to growth)
> 
> IBTL


I started this thread by saying I’m removing half our lawn this spring. I get people want to blame development for everything, and it’s an issue, but my lawn being cut in half is gonna save a lot less water than turning a field from flood irrigation to sprinkler.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Don't confuse "the valley" with the rest of the planet. Where I live the only haze is from the wildfires in Kali due to poor forest and undergrowth management.


Your missing the point, the point is in the valley you can see the pollution and just how much emissions people create. How many cities 5x the size of SLC exist?


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Do you even read the drivel you write #1deer? 
Typical liberal who can’t answer questions and then turns to personal attacks when the data doesn’t back up their claim. You have pissed backwards this entire thread. Thanks for playing.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> You mean the 99.9% of the 45% in the climate change camp...


No, that it’s happening and humans have an impact is not really a debate. Hell, even political talking heads like Ben Shapiro will admit climate change is real and humans are impacting it. Know why? Because of the mountains of data clearly showing it.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Look I understand irrigation needs to keep becoming more efficient. But back when the entire state flood irrigated because sprinklers hadn’t been invented, guess how full the Great Salt Lake was??????? The climate has changed for sure. But if tearing out half a lawn makes you feel better go for it. This state needs more people like that who try and make a difference. But this thread has reinforced how little I trust anyone who wants to mess with water rights.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> Do you even read the drivel you write #1deer?
> Typical liberal who can’t answer questions and then turns to personal attacks when the data doesn’t back up their claim. You have pissed backwards this entire thread. Thanks for playing.


I read plenty of drivel on here no doubt. Personal attacks? You read your own posts correct?


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Good night. 🙄


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> Look I understand irrigation needs to keep becoming more efficient. But back when the entire state flood irrigated because sprinklers hadn’t been invented, guess how full the Great Salt Lake was??????? The climate has changed for sure. But if tearing out half a lawn makes you feel better go for it. This state needs more people like that who try and make a difference. But this thread has reinforced how little I trust anyone who wants to mess with water rights.


Oh I have no doubt between Facebook articles and Fox News you don’t trust much of anything out there and everything’s a conspiracy.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

You still haven’t answered a single question. 😂😂😂
Your true colors are very evident. FYI- I don’t have a Facebook account as it’s useless. And I don’t have either satellite or cable so no Fox News here. Like a lot of other things here you were wrong again 😂😂😂


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> You still haven’t answered a single question. 😂😂😂
> Your true colors are very evident. FYI- I don’t have a Facebook account as it’s useless. And I don’t have either satellite or cable so no Fox News here. Like a lot of other things here you were wrong again 😂😂😂


Cowboy, go take a nap. You haven’t asked questions, you’ve talked. I haven’t seen you post any studies, links, or verifiable data on your end. I’ve posted several things in regards to water use, snow pack, etc. just because you want to resist information isn’t on me. I haven’t done comprehensive studies on the issues. That’s why I’ll post what people who have, have found. Agriculture water use % is what it is in the state. Temperature changes are what they are. You want population growth to be the main cause of water shortages just because that’s how you see it as so. You have nothing but coffee shop talk to verify what you’re saying. The truth is data won’t change your mind, and neither will the answers that are out there because your mind is made up whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

C’mon gents, let’s keep the personal attacks out of the discussion.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

#1deer I have asked you 19 questions pertaining to growth and the population of our state. The only one you haven’t side stepped is when I asked you if you read the drivel you post. Every other question has been ignored. You position has changed from cattle are drinking every drop of water in waterholes and draining swamps to alfalfa farms are the issue to the wasatch front has horrible air pollution!!! You have to be a lawyer or a politician as your vocation. Nothing you posted in these five pages of nonsense has proven population growth isn’t a significant problem in Utah. Nothing! You say my data is coffee shop talk? (Question #20 by the way) US census data, NOAA and NRCS data, beef sustainability data collected over 50 years by KSU and UofW is much more than coffee talk! You are just another narrow between the ears liberal who blames everyone but the actual problem. I’ll ask one last time- why did Utah lake and the GSL stay full when the state was almost totally based on agriculture using archaic and inefficient flood irrigation from statehood until the 1950’s?
The data shows we have the same precipitation. The data shows we now have less farm land. The data shows we are exponentially more efficient with agricultural water use. But I’m sure its not doubling the population that is causing a significant impact to water quantity and quality. It must be solar flares or a disruption of ocean currents caused by deforestation. 😁


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

cowboy said:


> #1deer I have asked you 19 questions pertaining to growth and the population of our state. The only one you haven’t side stepped is when I asked you if you read the drivel you post. Every other question has been ignored. You position has changed from cattle are drinking every drop of water in waterholes and draining swamps to alfalfa farms are the issue to the wasatch front has horrible air pollution!!! You have to be a lawyer or a politician as your vocation. Nothing you posted in these five pages of nonsense has proven population growth isn’t a significant problem in Utah. Nothing! You say my data is coffee shop talk? (Question #20 by the way) US census data, NOAA and NRCS data, beef sustainability data collected over 50 years by KSU and UofW is much more than coffee talk! You are just another narrow between the ears liberal who blames everyone but the actual problem. I’ll ask one last time- why did Utah lake and the GSL stay full when the state was almost totally based on agriculture using archaic and inefficient flood irrigation from statehood until the 1950’s?
> The data shows we have the same precipitation. The data shows we now have less farm land. The data shows we are exponentially more efficient with agricultural water use. But I’m sure its not doubling the population that is causing a significant impact to water quantity and quality. It must be solar flares or a disruption of ocean currents caused by deforestation. 😁


I did answer that question, you just didn't take a moment to look at the in depth study I posted on the very thing you're talking about. Here's a saying you'll probably get. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I did answer that question, you just didn't take a moment to look at the in depth study I posted on the very thing you're talking about. Here's a saying you'll probably get. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


Not if 2.3 million other horses are drinking the water 😂😂


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

A couple articlecontinuing the conversation:









The Great Salt Lake is disappearing. If we don’t fix it, we’ll pay the cost with our health and economy, Robert Gehrke says


The Great Salt Lake is dying and it will take a radical change to Utah's mindset and policies to save it. Do we have the will to do it?




www.sltrib.com













We need to rethink water usage before one of our biggest resources dries up


The Great Salt Lake is continuously shrinking and that has lasting economic effects.




www.utahbusiness.com


----------



## Dexter (Sep 23, 2018)

I'm no scientist or claim to knowing any of the answers. I have lived here in the Wasatch front valley my whole life. In my opinion it seems like as the population keeps growing and as the subdivisions are growing with it. There always seems to be a holding pond at the bottom of each new subdivision or Apt. Complex. It's like the water is being diverted into useless holding ponds that just dry up and evaporates. Are they pumping this water elsewhere to make it useful? This could be a contributing factor to why the GSL is drying up? IDK, just throwing out an idea.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Most of those "holding ponds" are in fact designed to prevent an overflow into the storm sewer systems during peek periods. They allow a more gradual discharge but do drain into the waste water system.
All that rain not soaking into roofs and parking lots and streets has to be slowed down.
I don't believe any of the storm water gets diverted before entering the lake through various waste water plants.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Overall the Governors budget seems like a good start to help water conservation in the state and the GSL with some committed funds. Now let’s see how much the legislature can screw it up.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468396735139434497


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I don’t understand how the Governor can talk saving the GSL and adding water storage at the same time. I hope they come to their senses and don’t go through with the planned Bear River “water storage”.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Only the government can come up with a solution of spending money to save water that we don't have.

As for building dams, I would guess that if they decide to build on tomorrow 12/8/2021 that the earth moving part of it will start somewhere the other side of 2050 just due to all the regulations that there are. Then there is the subject of where they are going to get the water from to hold in the reservoir 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

one4fishing said:


> I don’t understand how the Governor can talk saving the GSL and adding water storage at the same time. I hope they come to their senses and don’t go through with the planned Bear River “water storage”.


Agreed, focusing on better use of our dwindling water is where the focus should be. Cox’s budget reflects a better eye towards improving use of water, the legislature is the one pushing harder on things like the lake Powell pipeline, and Bear River reservoir monstrosities. Cox seems to not like ruffling the legislatures feathers too much though, so if it comes down to it I do believe he’ll go along with it. I like the commitment within his budget to the GSL and water conservation. We will see how much the legislature mucks it up.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Only the government can come up with a solution of spending money to save water that we don't have.
> 
> As for building dams, I would guess that if they decide to build on tomorrow 12/8/2021 that the earth moving part of it will start somewhere the other side of 2050 just due to all the regulations that there are. Then there is the subject of where they are going to get the water from to hold in the reservoir
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


Taking steps to conserve water takes money, especially agricultural use of water. Changing the landscaping in a back yard from lawn to turf or gravel will cost me a few thousands dollars to change it to what I want. Changing flood irrigation to sprinkler is a much bigger price tag. In the end water conservation will benefit all of us, especially sportsmen, so yes spending money is a necessity and always has been to better conserve it. I’m for helping people take those steps to be more water conscious and use the most valuable resource in the state wisely. As for the 2nd part of your post, true, all the better reason not to do it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Overall the Governors budget seems like a good start to help water conservation in the state and the GSL with some committed funds. Now let’s see how much the legislature can screw it up.


1-eye, what specifically is this money going for and how will it help? I’m interested to know. Help a brother out.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm not so sure all that money being spent on water won't be money down the drain . . . (pun intended). 

I'm interested to see how this all plays out in the long run. Getting the GSL back to capacity will GREATLY impact Utah and the amount of snowfall the WF receives.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Here is another news report on the proposal. 









Gov. Cox announces $45 million proposal to help protect Great Salt Lake


Utah Gov. Spencer Cox is proposing to spend $45 million to help preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake. Cox made the announcement at the Antelope Island Visitor Center Tuesday as he unveiled his proposed Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. The $45 million comes from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)...




kutv.com





TBH, it sounds like this is mainly seed money for studies, not plans of action. Yes, it may come to little or nothing but I do at least applaud the effort and the recognition that there is a problem. One thing is for sure, ignoring it or throwing hands in air and saying there is "nothing we can do" will lead to a certain outcome. 

Personally, the best thing that the state gubmint could do is change the laws to allow giving the GSL more water by changing the water rights definition of "beneficial use" to include refilling the GSL. No expensive studies needed!


----------

