# Bear river project?



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

Is it getting close to a vote on the Bear River/ lake Powell pipeline projects? If so does someone have links on who to contact on the projects to speak out against them?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Senator Stuart Adams from the Layton area slipped in a bill (SB281) over the weekend about a week ago. It proposes to create a way to fund both the pipeline from Lake Powell to St George and to fund a dam and a pipeline from the Bear River to Salt Lake City. It passed favorably out of the Senate and is now in House rules committee. As of this morning it wasn't funded, so it hopefully will die in the rules committee before any legislators can vote on it. The bad thing is that Rep Noel is the Rules Committee Chairman and has the power to fast-track a bill out to a quick vote if he wants. I guess we will know more tomorrow. Bills that slide in at the last minute like this are done in such a way as to reduce the opportunity of citizens like us to participate. Can't change that, but we can ask our elected officials to be more up-front with us in the future!
R
P.S. the Bear River project would cost several BILLION dollars of tax money and would devastate the Bear River Refuge, lower the GSL lake levels, destroy GSL wetlands and be REALLY bad for duck hunter in general.


----------



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

Okay, well post whatever information comes out tomorrow.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Hopefully the twelve Democrats shut it down.



Sorry I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Hopefully the twelve Democrats shut it down.
> 
> Sorry I just couldn't help myself.


That's a good one! The wasatch front has some huge issues with population growth and water. What amazes me is how most the water used along the front is used for agriculture. I think it's something like 80% or so. I just shake my head at how most farmers here still flood irrigate. Now I know that moving water is expensive like no other. Just wondering if approaching the problem from that side has any solutions?....


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

King Eider has hit on the solution. But our water laws are over 100 years old. There is no interest in our legislature to go against the big water districts that want to build big infrastructure. Our "leaders" don't dare even talk about changing water laws to make it easier to allow agriculture to transfer water rights for municipal use. You can forget about conservation issues...it is against the law to allow water to reach the Great Salt Lake marshes unless all water rights have been exhausted...this is because the GSL is not allowed to be classified as a "beneficial use" of water. 
Around 85% of all the water on the Wasatch Front is used for agriculture. We could double our population and barely touch the water that is being used by agriculture without building ANY billion-dollar dollar projects. The hype about having no water is just an excuse to build *big projects* that create temporary jobs but make millions for a few contractors. 
Think about it...how often are new subdivisions told they can't build because we don't have any water? 
Many conservation organizations have tried to get legislators to make modifications to water laws to allow us to buy a water right to allow it to reach the GSL wetlands...sorry...it's AGAINST THE LAW!
R


----------



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

I wrote both my senator and rep to vote no on the bill. Didn't know it made it out into the house.

The pipeline for St. George had one goal - to provide water for lawns. Think about it - spending $2 billion to water lawns in St. George. Such a colossal waste.

However, I don't think it got approved. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33800580&nid=757


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm on the water board for my canal company in Cache Valley and I can tell you that things are really going to get interesting in the next few years. The state is really aggressively pursuing water shares and trying to reclaim anything that they can for future development. This Bear River project is really scary in the effects it can have on our ecosystem and on our future as waterfowlers, hopefully we can prevail in this fight but I know that at least up here they are acting like it's already a done deal.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

SB281 passed. Sneaky way to do it, but hey, that's the way these fellers do bidness up on the hill. This allows them a way to fund a Bear River project in the future. This will be devastating to our wetlands, and for no other reason that to allow the big water districts to ramp up some big construction projects while hiding the true cost of water.
Yet another sad day for wetlands, ducks and duck hunters.
R


----------



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

rjefre said:


> SB281 passed. Sneaky way to do it, but hey, that's the way these fellers do bidness up on the hill. This allows them a way to fund a Bear River project in the future. This will be devastating to our wetlands, and for no other reason that to allow the big water districts to ramp up some big construction projects while hiding the true cost of water.
> Yet another sad day for wetlands, ducks and duck hunters.
> R


Terrible to hear. This state is horrible on managing for the future of our states resources.


----------

