# The St. George pipeline; true stupidity



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

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37129316&ni...complicated-by-invasive-mussels&s_cid=queue-6

A quote from David Jessup, the assistant operations manager for water in the district:



> Water shouldn't be the restricting factor in growth," Jessup said. "Utah owns that portionof (Lake Powell) water in the upper basin of the Colorado system, so we should use it. If Utah doesn't use the water, they'll lose it to other states."


Water shouldn't be a restricting factor in growth? How can you convince yourself of something so stupid? Seems like a pretty important part to me. And looking to use up water just so someone else doesn't get it is stupidity on top of stupidity. This is not the way to look at water.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I guess someone forgot to tell him that we live in a DESERT and water is ALWAYS a controlling factor in a DESERT. Sometimes you just can't fix stupid.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Based on your rationale there, there would be no Phoenix, Las Vegas, St. George, or really most any city in the desert southwest. Why let water, or lack of it, get in the way? 

The whole thing has such a long and trying history. What Jessop said is correct though. Utah uses just a small portion of its water in the Colorado River System. Years ago they figured it good to lease the water to AZ, NV, and CA. Well, Utah wants to use the water they legally own. And if people won't live where there is water, take water to the people. 

That is what has moved water to the Wasatch Front from the Green River drainage. It is what takes water from the Colorado and sends into the Salt River Project in PHX. 

The question really becomes if it is a good idea or not, and how does it bankroll?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem with water in the west is that there isn't enough of it and most of it is used multiple times before it even thinks of getting to the Gulf of California if it does. There is going to be a lot of legal fights in the courts before a lot of it is finished. 

California is claiming a lot of the water that it doesn't own. The same with Arizona. Las Vegas wants all of the water from western Utah and eastern Nevada and is working to get it. There is a state Senator in Colorado that wants to place a dam on the Colorado on the Utah state line and then pump all the Colorado River water back over to the Denver area. 

Anyone interested in what has been agreed to on the Colorado River Compact which was signed back in 1922 needs to do some research on it.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Let me add to GaryFish's comment:

Many are not very forward-thinking when it comes to water. There's plenty of water. All we have to do is move it from a "wet" to a "dry" place place thru a pipeline. Not too complicated really. We do with natural gas; have been for nearly 100 years in America. 

Water pipelines can be ran along existing pipeline and/or utility right-of-ways or along highways to lessen the enviromental impact. The biggest limiting factors are compressor stations to push the water uphill and like Gary mentioned, the cost.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

They could always build an aqueduct from the Mississippi river to bring the water to the Colorado river which could eliminate the fighting over scant resources. The average discharge of the Colorado River is 22,500 cu ft/sec, the Mississippi average discharge is 450,000 cu ft/sec, so about 20X the discharge of the Colorado. If you increased the Colorado by just 50% or 11,000 cu ft/sec that would only take 2.5% of the discharge of the Mississippi. Couple that with helping to reduce the almost annual flooding and it's a win win win...ok maybe just win win. If you build the aqueduct to be capable of carrying much more but limit it then in the spring when the floods happen you could open up the gates and allow significantly more during that 1-2 month period and fill the reservoirs up to the brim with just a 1-2 month flow...I know it makes too much sense...sheesh what was I thinking.


----------



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

There is more water legally allocated in the Colorado river than even exists. Deciding we need to use more, rather than cut back is asinine. At some point areas need to realize growth is over and the cap of the area is met. So with lower lake and reservoir levels than any other time, warmest winters on record, and depleting snowfall, the wise thing to do would be to look at water and say it shouldn't limit growth? I'm sorry in a realistic sense of things some day resources will be stretched to far.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> They could always build an aqueduct from the Mississippi river to bring the water to the Colorado river which could eliminate the fighting over scant resources. The average discharge of the Colorado River is 22,500 cu ft/sec, the Mississippi average discharge is 450,000 cu ft/sec, so about 20X the discharge of the Colorado. If you increased the Colorado by just 50% or 11,000 cu ft/sec that would only take 2.5% of the discharge of the Mississippi. Couple that with helping to reduce the almost annual flooding and it's a win win win...ok maybe just win win. If you build the aqueduct to be capable of carrying much more but limit it then in the spring when the floods happen you could open up the gates and allow significantly more during that 1-2 month period and fill the reservoirs up to the brim with just a 1-2 month flow...I know it makes too much sense...sheesh what was I thinking.


Yeah, lots of water in the Big River. At present the Mississippi needs a considerable amount of water to facilitate it's barge traffic and to make the lock and dam system work so to maintain that level of commerce you can't take too much water out of the river.

All in all the Mississippi River, during wet periods, is a good resource for water. Another place: the Great Lakes. 10% of the world's fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Ever been to Ontario? Quebec? Northwest Territories? more water than land there. Sooner or later the water pipelines will be built. As America's rivers, lakes, and aquifers are depleted it will all come down to water; not oil, not natural gas, not electricity, but water, and the USA will be at the mercy of Canada.

Just pipeline it to wherever you need it and give up on the geo-political stupidity. good grief


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ever wonder why an alfalfa field's sprinklers are still running during a rain storm? It's because "If I don't use it, the next guy downstream will!"

Said state of affairs. 
Look at Walker Lake in Nevada. You want to see a sad water battle, just look at the Walker River and the former lake.

there is something to be said for leaving water in it's streambed. We need to change our thinking about always wanting to remove it and send it somewhere else.

Just pipeline it? I'm not a fan. Neither are fish.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Well all I can say is when it dries up here and everyone is drinking sand I will be on the bayou slurping up


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Well all I can say is when it dries up here and everyone is drinking sand I will be on the bayou slurping up


That's one less person that we need to water.

any other takers ready to leave this god-forsaken desert? Please? Pretty please?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

PBH said:


> That's one less person that we need to water.
> 
> any other takers ready to leave this god-forsaken desert? Please? Pretty please?


I ain't leavin till the water runs out first bubba... :grin:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> I ain't leavin till the water runs out first bubba... :grin:


so why wouldn't we all just jump in your wagon and ride with you to the bayou?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

You all can have the Bayou... if it gets that bad I'm heading for Alaska.


-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I've got 160k gal per year at 10,000 ft. I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

PBH said:


> so why wouldn't we all just jump in your wagon and ride with you to the bayou?


Plenty of room for lots of good ol boys. Of course you gotta like eating ****, alligator, ducks, wild pig, whitetail, rabbits, squirrels, armadillo, catfish, bass, crappie and an occasional cottonmouth or eastern diamondback.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

just a few clarifications to the chatter. 1) Utah has not leased any water to the lower basin states. as per the 1922 compact agreement, each state has an allocation that they can legally utilize. 2) California has been using up to 3 million acre feet per year over their allocation - mostly because the upper basin state haven't been able to construct the infrastructure to use our share. 3) per recent negotiations, California has been put on a crash diet and has been forced to reduce their over use of the river. 4) one of the ways Utah can use its share of the river is the st George pipeline, and its one of the least expensive even at its price tag. 5) why should California get to use that water to develop their state and economy over Utah who owns the water? 6) water is regularly moved from where it is to where people want to live... who owns the first water right on the weber? slc, weber provo canal. on the duchense? slc, duchensen tunnel. on rock creek, lake fork, currant creek? slc. central Utah project. on ferron creek? san pitch thru the tunnel. on the upper Colorado? its all east side with dozens of tunnels thru the rockies.
Utah will hit 6 million people in the next 40 years. water has to come from somewhere. conservation, development. and finally from really long pipelines.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> just a few clarifications to the chatter. 1) Utah has not leased any water to the lower basin states. as per the 1922 compact agreement, each state has an allocation that they can legally utilize. 2) California has been using up to 3 million acre feet per year over their allocation - mostly because the upper basin state haven't been able to construct the infrastructure to use our share. 3) per recent negotiations, California has been put on a crash diet and has been forced to reduce their over use of the river. 4) one of the ways Utah can use its share of the river is the st George pipeline, and its one of the least expensive even at its price tag. 5) why should California get to use that water to develop their state and economy over Utah who owns the water? 6) water is regularly moved from where it is to where people want to live... who owns the first water right on the weber? slc, weber provo canal. on the duchense? slc, duchensen tunnel. on rock creek, lake fork, currant creek? slc. central Utah project. on ferron creek? san pitch thru the tunnel. on the upper Colorado? its all east side with dozens of tunnels thru the rockies.
> Utah will hit 6 million people in the next 40 years. water has to come from somewhere. conservation, development. and finally from really long pipelines.


Should we then allow Las Vegas to pump and pipe water from the Snake Valley in west central Utah?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

snake valley. tuff situation. Nevada is legally entitled to their share to the extent that they do not impact utahs share. any time you take water from the system, in this case ground water, you run the risk of impacting surface water rights which have priority. so even though they own a big share of the bathtub... subsurface, they cant take much of it without impacting the surface rights. so, no. they cant. but I would watch closely to see if they try an owens valley by offering to buy a lot of the land and its water rights to secure what they want. that happens a lot... even here - like tooele buying a Vernon ranch for the water right...


----------

