# Here's a thought....



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm sure there are brighter minds on here than mine so here's a thought. With the antelope island causeway being placed at the north end of Farmington bay why don't we put a water control structure in the two spillways and hold, basically control the water levels for that area between the south antelope land bridge and the causeway. Heck we could do the same thing at the north end of the lake (Willard spur) with the railroad bridge. Both of those bays are basically fresh water anyway (first to freeze) and would allow for less air pollution, i.e. mud flats/ west winds and a huge shallow water area for all water birds. So what am I missing!?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

$ and more $


----------



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

Yeah there's always that. Lol. The dikes are already in so the only cost is the actual water control structure. I'd guess for all three you'd be looking at $100,000(total shot in the dark). Seems pretty trivial in the whole scheme of things. With more water close to I-15 there would be less air pollution and better lake effect snow fall (again that's a totally unscientific statement). It just seems to make sense.


----------



## Spry Yellowdog (Sep 8, 2007)

It just seems to make sense.....
Well theres the problem with it when you must involve the State and Federal goverment.

Spry


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

how would we go about bring it to the states attention? I'm down for trying to get it done!!


----------



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

hoghunter011583 said:


> how would we go about bring it to the states attention? I'm down for trying to get it done!!


The first step is to see if there's interest/support from the user level. If so then we can take it to them. In the meantime I'm going to do some research to see what it might take.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Josh Noble said:


> With more water close to I-15 there would be less air pollution and better lake effect snow fall (again that's a totally unscientific statement). It just seems to make sense.


Less air pollution? How much dust blows off of that area? Since it's wet a lot of the time, I'm inclined to think not much. I'm no expert though, I just wonder what difference it would make. I'd like more insight on that matter.

Better lake effect snow? I don't know about that one either. In a nutshell, lake effect snow occurs when cold air flows over the warmer GSL. So, would an impoundment like that make the waters of the GSL warmer or cooler? If it makes it any deeper, I'm inclined to think that it would make that part of the GSL cooler, and decrease lake effect snow.

However, if we keep more water in Farmington bay, there's less water in the rest of the GSL, which might make the rest of it warmer and increase the lake effect.

As far as I know, the Antelope Island Causeway wasn't engineered as a dam. If it's able to function as one, then installing some water control structures wouldn't be a big deal (relatively speaking). If it's not, then this idea is already dead in the water (pun intended).

I wouldn't mind seeing it happen though. I think it would be difficult to get the public behind it though.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

One other thought: salt water evaporates slower than fresh water. So, would we lose significantly more water to evaporation if this were to occur?

The idea I had in mind would simply be to continually build new impoundments westward to keep more water fresh, open and productive for birds (kind of like the j dike proposal, but on a wider scale). I'm not sure if that would work any better, but it would probably cost more.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

I'm not getting the "less Pollution" part of the question. If its about dust in the wind most of that is kicked up from the salt flats further west. Turning Farmington Bay into another Willard Bay has been talked about before. It would cost a lot more than you're thinking as far as infrastructure to the existing causeway and the delicate balance of salt water to the biota of the rest of the GSL.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Josh Noble said:


> The first step is to see if there's interest/support from the user level. If so then we can take it to them. In the meantime I'm going to do some research to see what it might take.


I would for sure be interested in getting involved in this project! I think it would be a massive step in helping the ducks and geese in the area!


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

$100k... for the first stage of the EIS, maybe. To actually do work? Much, much more.


----------



## fish-n-fool (May 26, 2009)

I like the idea, and they would not have to hold back more than 12" of water. nothing like willard bay at all. this would draw so many more birds than we currently get through the valley. that causeway can easily handle that. I also agree with you on the dust also I have seen it darken the sky over centerville and farmington at times. Try to get something going I'm all for it
o-||o-||o-||


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

I like the idea, but aren't we forgetting about Ogden bay and Howard slough? If we control and capture more water on the south side of antelope causeway, wouldn't that effect water levels on the north side of the causeway? and same concept if we controlled and captured more water on the spur at the railroad bridge, wouldn't that cut off water to the pintail flats area? 

Maybe Im not understanding the concept clearly. That being said, I wouldn't be against trying it in a individual location to see if it actually worked before making the change across the board. 

I believe a main reason that I doubt we will ever see this happen, is who would be in charge of controlling it? The state? The feds? Antelope island? I highly doubt they would care to much about what a group of waterfowl enthusiasts want, or whats best for the future of waterfowling in our state. just a thought.


----------



## fish-n-fool (May 26, 2009)

Gee LeDouche said:


> I like the idea, but aren't we forgetting about Ogden bay and Howard slough? If we control and capture more water on the south side of antelope causeway, wouldn't that effect water levels on the north side of the causeway? and same concept if we controlled and captured more water on the spur at the railroad bridge, wouldn't that cut off water to the pintail flats area?
> 
> Maybe Im not understanding the concept clearly. That being said, I wouldn't be against trying it in a individual location to see if it actually worked before making the change across the board.
> 
> I believe a main reason that I doubt we will ever see this happen, is who would be in charge of controlling it? The state? The feds? Antelope island? I highly doubt they would care to much about what a group of waterfowl enthusiasts want, or whats best for the future of waterfowling in our state. just a thought.


The idea would not effect any of the area's you talked about. pintail flats is fed by the weber river. all the WMA's are all fed by freshwater. This is a great idea. but they would both freeze solid in the winter due to being all fresh water impoundments. they would take years to fill i think but if both could fill to at least 12" of water the birds would stick around for allot longer. I think the friends of the great salt lake should jump all over this.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I have been involved in numerous discussions concerning this exact idea. There are so many layers of issues that arise, I don't even know where to start, but here goes. Anytime anyone discusses reducing, impounding, diverting flows on, or in, the GSL there will be unintended consequences. The Brine Shrimpers need to have salinity levels within certain parameters in order to ensure a sustainable harvest, and the reduced inflow of fresh water out into Gilbert Bay and the rest of the shrimping areas during low water years could mess with salinity levels. Mineral extraction companies (like Morton Salt, and GSL Minerals) need high enough water levels to suck water into their facilities for evaporation (fresh Water evaps faster). They all have water rights that may be impacted if impounded water reduces their ability to access GSL water. Water impounded higher than a few inches (I don't know how high) will reach back and cross over the South land bridge going from the South end of Antelope Island to the Goggin Drain. This would have to be addressed and controlled. Wetland biologists will certainly disagree about what depths to impound waters, and there are species that thrive in cyclical low water years. There would be yearly fights over what depth to have in Farmington Bay. Anyway, that is just the start of it...
R


----------



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

rjefre said:


> I have been involved in numerous discussions concerning this exact idea. There are so many layers of issues that arise, I don't even know where to start, but here goes. Anytime anyone discusses reducing, impounding, diverting flows on, or in, the GSL there will be unintended consequences. The Brine Shrimpers need to have salinity levels within certain parameters in order to ensure a sustainable harvest, and the reduced inflow of fresh water out into Gilbert Bay and the rest of the shrimping areas during low water years could mess with salinity levels. Mineral extraction companies (like Morton Salt, and GSL Minerals) need high enough water levels to suck water into their facilities for evaporation (fresh Water evaps faster). They all have water rights that may be impacted if impounded water reduces their ability to access GSL water. Water impounded higher than a few inches (I don't know how high) will reach back and cross over the South land bridge going from the South end of Antelope Island to the Goggin Drain. This would have to be addressed and controlled. Wetland biologists will certainly disagree about what depths to impound waters, and there are species that thrive in cyclical low water years. There would be yearly fights over what depth to have in Farmington Bay. Anyway, that is just the start of it...
> R


SEE!!!
I told you there were smart people that frequented this forum!! R's points are what I was looking for. This isn't the first time this idea has been brought to the table but I still think there's some merit to the idea.


----------



## fish-n-fool (May 26, 2009)

My opinion on this is your not taking any water from anyone. the water control would only impact water coming into the lake until the the water level was reached in farmington bay. it would spill over the same amount of water as soon as that level was reached, The incoming water flow changes by what time of the year it is and always has. there is a constant flow coming down the Jordan river that feeds that bay and the duck clubs and farmington bay WMA. I wouldn't even care if there was 1inch of water covering that bay as long as there is some water to hold the birds all these companies are stripping the lake of water and every pond they build the more they take. I could care less about the companies losing a little water to get this project done. 
Off the soap box!


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

When you get the Fed's, Corps Engineers, EPA and the state involved it usually does not help sportsmen nor wildlife.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The one thing that I have learned over the years of being pretty involved in water issues, GSL issues and Wetland issues is---our legislators cater to the business end of things to the exclusion of all else. Industry needs are considered part of beneficial use of resources, and the law says that it has priority. If it can be monetized it has priority, but if it is just protecting wetlands or other habitat that can't be drilled, mined. farmed, ect, then forget about it. That is just the way our legislature is, so we must find ways to work within those constraints to try and save the marshes that we love. Backing up some water into FB in dry years would be beneficial to the ducks, but it makes the state no money. We also don't have high-powered lobbyists camping out on capitol hill in SLC every day. If duck hunters had tons of money to throw around, there is a chance that the wetlands on the GSL would be noticed by our local leaders. Until that happens, it is baby steps, baby steps, and more baby steps.
R


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

*In regard to water in the future, ducks will be waaay down on the list.*

http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000537701.cfm?x=b11,0,w

"The estimated cost to deliver the full allocation of Bear River Water today to the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District is about $700 million with half the burden falling on the State to develop the water and deliver it to Willard Bay and half on the water districts to treat the water and deliver it to their wholesale agencies. 
There are many uncertainties with regard to developing a water supply for 2050. Many questions will have to be answered in coming years.

Will population growth and economic development exceed or lag behind current projections of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget?
How much agricultural water will be available for conversion to municipal uses?
Will environmental issues and interests require a greater portion of our existing or future water supply?
Will other projected water supply projects such as Central Utah's ULS Project and wastewater recycling be available in a timely manner?"


----------



## lablover (Jan 27, 2014)

WOW!
I guess I'm not the only crazy person that has considered this!
I've been saying it for years PUT IN A HEAD GATE :mrgreen:
If you don't think the causeway has effected flow rates because there are 2 areas
it can flow through then you are crazy. The causeway it self is not natural? GSL pulling out all the minerals is not natural ! Dumping the sewer into it is not natural!
PUT A **** HEAD GATE IN! It would effect NOTHING on the other side!
The benefits would be enormous! For one thing the Phrag issue would be nearly non existent and more water in that area would be a huge benefit to our Waterfowl!
Let's get er done !


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Ha! You are making a major mistake by being a rational man and introducing a moderate idea into the equation. Remember that we voted these folks into local office, and they set the rules. Unfortunately, they all know that the chance of not being re-elected is about zero. 
Another thought - Another huge risk of having a head gate is that other folks would want to make it even bigger and try to "develop the water" and make it into a "Freshwater Recreational Water". This would be devastating to the whole ecosystem from the north causeway (Antelope Island) all the way to the south causeway by the Goggin Drain. It would be gone...turned into a big algae-bloom infested bathtub. 100 years of dumping raw sewage into Farmington Bay would rear its ugly head and if you think it can have lake stink now, just imagine the smell later! Anyway, that is just another twist to the overall idea.
R


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Or, perhaps it will snow and rain and fill the lake back up again. Believe it or not there is a cycle to that big pond. It may be 20 more years before it floods again, but I'm sure at some point it will happen. Maybe those pumps that are sitting out on the West desert will be powered up again down the road. We can build a bunch of new dikes and water structures as a temporary band aid to our current problems, but eventually the life cycle of the lake will turn and all will be well again. I hope anyway.8)


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

More fresh water would actually increase the phrag, not to mention the increase in the mosquito population, both of which do not tolerate salt water. There are a lot of birds (not just ducks and geese) that visit the GSL because of the way it is...so don't think the friends of the GSL would be jumping all over this. The GSL has the distinction of a "western hemisphere shorebird reserve". This would greatly affect these other species.


----------



## lablover (Jan 27, 2014)

Naturalist-
Were you around in the 80's when we had the floods and the lake went WAY up ???
Did you hunt the GSL in the 80's when the flood was on?
There was a HUGE influence of FRESH water, and when the lake went up it still had enough salt to KILL ALL vegetation surrounding the lake! It will kill the phrag.
And I can honestly say I don't ever remember having a mosquito problem out there!
The water was deep and moving!!!!
It was seriously a awesome time for us duck hunters! NO PHRAG- A Lot of water and tons of area for birds to rest and roost. Those were the glory days 

I say give it a shot for 5 years and see what happens?
Hell we have already changed everything out there with causeways, dikes and GSL do you really think a head gate is going to make a difference?
Raise it 2-3ft and wash the marsh come alive again!


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Yes, I was around in the 80's and hunted in the 80's. I'm well aware of the water levels, but we're still talking salt water vs. fresh water. Even though the water levels went way up it was still salt water so phrag went down, no increase in mosquitos.
The gentlemen here are talking about making it *fresh water* similar to Willard bay, big difference.
I have no problem with Farmington Bay increasing, which will happen again someday due to the dynamic properties of the lake, as long as it remains a salt bay.


----------

