# Dam the Logan?



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm hearing rumors that they (State of Utah--whoever that is) is drilling test holes near the Temple Fork area in Logan Canyon to test the feasibility of putting a 300 foot high dam in the canyon.

Logan Canyon is considered a scenic byway and the river should receive some type of protection as a wild scenic river. I couldn't imagine that gem of a canyon being ruined. The Logan is also one of the last strongholds for natural reproducing Bonneville cutts.

Any one else hearing this rumor?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I have not- Can't believe that would go thru- hell they won't let them clean out the silt from the dam they have.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

This is what they are doing.
http://www.gslcouncil.utah.gov/docs/2014/10Oct/BearRiverPipelineProject.pdf


----------



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

mtnrunner260 said:


> This is what they are doing.
> http://www.gslcouncil.utah.gov/docs/2014/10Oct/BearRiverPipelineProject.pdf


All unnecessary!


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Unnecessary? Really? Just how does one come to that conclusion?

Population growth is a fact. It's happening now and will continue into the foreseeable future. Water is absolutely needed to support that growth. And that water is going to have to come from somewhere. If not from this project, then from where?

Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89.

And according to the slide show, the process to find funding for the construction doesn't start until 2025 and actual construction isn't scheduled until 2028.

All of this started way back in 1991 when the Bear River Development Act was passed so it isn't anything new. It will be another 10 years before they even start looking for funding and at this point in time, it is impossible to predict the success of that endeavor.

I'm not saying anybody has at this point, but I think it totally premature for anybody to get their panties in a bunch over this at this time.


----------



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

dubob said:


> Unnecessary? Really? Just how does one come to that conclusion?
> 
> Population growth is a fact. It's happening now and will continue into the foreseeable future. Water is absolutely needed to support that growth. And that water is going to have to come from somewhere. If not from this project, then from where?
> 
> ...


When Utahns live in the 2nd driest state in the nation and waste more water per capita than anyone else in the nation, I think there's plenty of way we can conserve instead of looking for more ways to take more. You're correct, water is important for growth, but at what time is water more important than growth? Do we simply grow and grow while destroying our resources and starving the sources of them? Or do we start to use them more wisely? Do all businesses and homes in the second driest desert in the US need green lawns? Can we not improve on agricultural waste? How about before we jump to use more water and not improve or ways, we stop a fixing stupidly and believing we can continue at our current water use pace. These projects are not needed if we look for wiser uses of an important resource. Raise water prices, create harsher water waste laws, improve farming, and make businesses landscape in sown thing other than green grass that requires giant amounts of water to stay green. Do you want a green lawn or a wet mouth?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

A dam up Temple Fork is never going to happen.....the proximity of USU with it's environmental community will see to it. Heck, you should have heard the public uproar when it was proposed to build a simple retention dam in the Amalga Barrens that would have flooded a few acres of salt grass and alkaline flats. Just the suggestion of building a dam up Temple Fork, one of the more pristine areas in the Logan Canyon drainage, would be enough to mobilize the environmentalists and their lawyers.

Nah, water resource managers are going to have a fight on their hands wherever they decide to put a dam, but they're smart enough to pick a fight in a place they can probably win.......and that ain't up Temple Fork.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> When Utahns live in the 2nd driest state in the nation and waste more water per capita than anyone else in the nation, I think there's plenty of way we can conserve instead of looking for more ways to take more. You're correct, water is important for growth, but at what time is water more important than growth? Do we simply grow and grow while destroying our resources and starving the sources of them? Or do we start to use them more wisely? Do all businesses and homes in the second driest desert in the US need green lawns? Can we not improve on agricultural waste? How about before we jump to use more water and not improve or ways, we stop a fixing stupidly and believing we can continue at our current water use pace. These projects are not needed if we look for wiser uses of an important resource. Raise water prices, create harsher water waste laws, improve farming, and make businesses landscape in sown thing other than green grass that requires giant amounts of water to stay green. Do you want a green lawn or a wet mouth?


In addition to conservation and education we need a growth cap on areas that are already depleting natural resources and encourage people to move into areas where the population is low and resources are plentiful.


----------



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

30-06-hunter said:


> In addition to conservation and education we need a growth cap on areas that are already depleting natural resources and encourage people to move into areas where the population is low and resources are plentiful.


I agree there's a point you just shouldn't grow in areas when they can't support the growth. There's plenty of space left in this world, and drying up the salt lake is not viable option for anyone. It's already at its lowest point ever, do we really need big reservoirs sucking more water out of it? The salt lake valley in some areas and even Utah county in many areas has grown to a point it's time to look at the damage further growth will cause. Too bad people are blinded by dollar signs. We aren't planning for a good future or wiser ways of doing things, some are just planning for their pay day.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

dubob said:


> I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.


Which is why we need a growth cap/restrictions to protect these resources.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

"Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89."

It sure will impact the scenic byway. They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species.

A scenic byway has so much more meaning than just what you can see by driving up the highway. You take into consideration all the surrounding area and the opportunities it offers. Visible or not--it will have an impact.


----------



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

dubob said:


> I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.


No it's not inevitable. Its about the choices that are made, and I just hope it's not all the wrong ones. The great salt lake is like nothing else in our nation, and is not being treated like something important by our state officials. The GSL must be protected and wisely managed so it will not continually degrade until we've ruined it. We have to learn at some point development is not the only or best decision to be made. There's plenty of ways to avoid stupid decisions like these ones being considered, but we live in a state ran by republican reps that continue to push development and take for granted conservation of our natural resources.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. What makes you think they would 'have' to do this? They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. I doubt that very much. TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species. Can you supply a link to data that would support that claim?
> 
> A scenic byway has so much more meaning than just what you can see by driving up the highway. You take into consideration all the surrounding area and the opportunities it offers. Visible or not--it will have an impact.


Logan Canyon is a National Scenic Byway (NSB) as opposed to an All-American Road (AAR). The things that are looked at for designation are called intrinsic qualities: Scenic, Natural, Historic, Cultural, Archeological, or Recreational. An NSB only has to meet one of those qualities. If it meets 2 qualities, it becomes an AAR. Logan Canyon is not classed as an AAR; therefore, it can be assumed it only meets one of the six qualities. As to which of the six, I don't have a clue - do you?

Lets assume for a moment that the quality is recreation since there is both fishing and snow skiing available in the canyon. The primary fishing would have to the actual Logan River. I'm not going to take the time to count how many creeks (or streams if you prefer) feed the Logan River, but it's more than a few. So putting a dam on one is going to impact the Logan River fishing by how much of a percentage? I don't know; do you?

I can only guess, but I would guess that the overall percentage of impact to fishing is way under 1%. If you have actual data that would say otherwise, I'm always willing to listen or become more knowledgeable in this area. If not, then we just have differing 'opinions' about how much impact it will have. I have no problem with that.

And again, I'm not even sure the quality that made Logan Canyon a NSB was recreation. If it was one of the other 5 qualities, then changing the fishing aspects by any percentage is a moot point as far as changing the NSB status. So whether or not it changes the value of its being a NSB is still undetermined.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> No it's not inevitable.


Yes, it is! You're missing the main point here. Growth is happening here in Utah and there is no way to stop it. You may slow it down to some degree but you (we) are not going to stop or reverse it. And BECAUSE growth is an inevitable change, that makes developing every possible water source possible in the state inevitable *in the long run*.

Look, I respect your opinion - really, I do - but I whole heartedly disagree with it. I've made my point to the best of my ability and I'm sure you have too. We disagree; so be it. I'll let it go at that. Hope you have a great fall season this year and for many years to come.
:O--O:


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

dubob said:


> Yes, it is! You're missing the main point here. Growth is happening here in Utah and there is no way to stop it. You may slow it down to some degree but you (we) are not going to stop or reverse it. And BECAUSE growth is an inevitable change, that makes developing every possible water source possible in the state inevitable *in the long run*.
> 
> Look, I respect your opinion - really, I do - but I whole heartedly disagree with it. I've made my point to the best of my ability and I'm sure you have too. We disagree; so be it. I'll let it go at that. Hope you have a great fall season this year and for many years to come.
> :O--O:


Lucky for you that you at your age will be dead before Utah develops itself into misery....


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

30-06-hunter said:


> Lucky for you that you at your age will be dead before Utah develops itself into misery....


Hey, speak for yourself; I plan on being around for at LEAST another 30 years. :grin:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of points.

1. RE"I can only guess, but I would guess that the overall percentage of impact to fishing is way under 1%. " and "TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species."

The pertinent point is not how it will affect recreational fishing, but how it will affect the spawning ability of a sensitive species, that just so happens to be a game fish. A potential dam will doubtless bring more bait chucking angling use for the stocked rainbows that would go into such a project.

2. I do have to agree with Dubob that growth is inevitable. However, in considering projects like this, it also has to be asked if the proposed dam would really help the situation, or is it just "doing something" in the name of growth and not really a solution, with some pretty striking environmental costs. With that in mind, the devil is in the details, but it seems to me that a dam on a small tributary high up in the mountains is *not* going to provide a sufficient sized body of water to be a real answer to any future growth in Cache valley. It does seem clear that the environmental costs are significant in such a project however.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I have a feeling that this probably covers more than water conservation, and hydro electric energy production. But I cant put my finger on it.

Speaking of water conservation, did any of you read this a while back?

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=35054495


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Interesting read; thanks BAX. The one thing that grabbed me the most from the article was this: Professor Daniel McCool of the University of Utah, a long-time critic of water policy in the Western states wants to see changes in water laws. "In fact, *we have plenty of water*," McCool said. "We do not have a water crisis. *We have a water management crisis.*"


----------



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

dubob said:


> Interesting read; thanks BAX. The one thing that grabbed me the most from the article was this: Professor Daniel McCool of the University of Utah, a long-time critic of water policy in the Western states wants to see changes in water laws. "In fact, *we have plenty of water*," McCool said. "We do not have a water crisis. *We have a water management crisis.*"


Imagine how much water we won't need with better management. Imagine with the development how much water use will change with agriculture being transferred to concrete. Not that I believe that's good either. But without a doubt there's plenty of water it just gets wasted.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

so. Utah has about 7.5 million acre feet in reservoir storage and consumes on average about 6 million per year. of this, agriculture takes about 85%, municipal use is about 11% and industrial about 4 to 5%. so, conservation by us, the municipal users - if we as water wasters reduced our consumption by an totally unrealistic 50%, that would equate to about 5% of the total water used annually. a more realistic goal and close to what gov Herbert stated goal would be 25% which equates to a savings of about 2.5% of the total use. personally I like a lawn and garden. I don't consider it waste at all in any sense of the word. its a resource I use and gladly. the difference between us so called water wasters and the rest of the country is essentially outside water use for lawns and gardens, inside use is very comparable to the rest of the country that doesn't have to irrigate lawns and gardens.
its obvious that the only way to save serious water is dealing with agriculture. or converting ag to municipal. personally I would rather a Utah with more agriculture and less concrete. this agrees with the plenty of water theory - we just have to choose how we use it. you can have more people or the same level of agriculture but not both if you limit your thinking to the finite pie we seem to have... however, in the long run, a willing seller with excess and a short growing season )canada, a willing buyer with little water but the ability to grow (Arizona, new mexico, Utah, California, etc) and all you need is a pipeline. or interbasin transfers. longer pipelines such as keystone for oil, or ever the millionare pipeline from central Wyoming to southern Colorado have already been proposed. I see no reason why not and viola, the pie gets as big as you have money to spend.


----------



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

I personally would like to see ag land protected in Utah, as well as wetlands. Instead of looking at these reservoirs let's look at that 82%, which will be a much better and more sustainable option than building a bunch of reservoirs so we can continue to miss use. There are better ways to farm, and I hate the thought of a lot of them because pheasants are all but done for when ditches turn to sprinklers, but there can be a balance for growth, water usage, wildlife, agriculture, and habitat. Planning is what it is going to take. Punishing those with water rights if they don't use them is a complete failed policy and must be done away with. Protection of GSL and even Utah lake wetlands, is also important. Agricultural land is important, though minuscule on a national scale, provides industry and open space in our state as well as some food production. We can manage growth with wise use of our land and resources. There are better ways of doing things. Cutting municipal use will help, but the agriculture side of things has got to be managed better.

Like I've said, my opinion is we have plenty of water, it is just not wisely regulated or used. There are so many more cost effective and environmentally friendly ways to solve this problem in our lifetimes than these terrible reservoir solutions. If it happens after I'm dead so be it, but I won't support these nonsensical solutions while I'm alive.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

so - have you all gone onto the "envision Utah:" web site and made your opinions heard on the subjects of growth, water and resources in Utah? your opportunity to weigh in on these issues for the planning stage of the next 50 years. if you haven't, shame on you.


----------



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

Kingfisher said:


> so - have you all gone onto the "envision Utah:" web site and made your opinions heard on the subjects of growth, water and resources in Utah? your opportunity to weigh in on these issues for the planning stage of the next 50 years. if you haven't, shame on you.


I did quite a while back. Isn't the study period over now?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

let me make the case for bigger reservoirs. in 2011, the bear river banked 750,000 acre feet of water in bear lake. ag takes about 200K per year on that system. they are today and for several more year will be using the water from that one big year. the weber on the other hand does not have near the storage of a bear lake and due to that and some other circumstances lives more hand to mouth. they could have banked a huge chunk of water for the lean years if they had the storage that the provo and bear have (provo has Utah lake, deer creek, jordanelle and strawberry). banking that water is beneficial to many many purposes including fisheries and recreation. 2011 was big and not necessarily an anomaly when compared to 2005, 98, 86, 84 and 83. I don't have a problem with reservoirs banking water for later use as I perceive the benefits outweighing the costs.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Originally Posted by HighNDry View Post
They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. What makes you think they would 'have' to do this? (Because a reservoir is going to be planted with catchable fish, be developed with campsites, and draw more people into the area. Right now much of Temple Fork Creek is a hike in area and the dirt road was actually moved away from following the creek to help protect the area.) They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. I doubt that very much. (I don't. I've witnessed areas that are somewhat primitive get paved and opened up quite regularly.) TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthroat trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species.) Can you supply a link to data that would support that claim? (I don't need a link to supply data. It's common sense. Bonneville cutts spawn in Temple Fork as a major trib to the Logan. If it is turned into a reservoir and miles of stream habitat is lost, then spawning area is lost. It's not rocket science. I have been on Temple Fork in the Spring when the cutts are up there spawning. It is a prime spawning creek. There is a study done by USU or the DWR where they surveyed many if not all of the tribs to the Logan and Temple Fork and Beaver Creek are the most substantial and productive tribs for spawning. I think a quick google search would bring up that data.)


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Originally Posted by HighNDry View Post
> They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. _What makes you think they would 'have' to do this?_ (Because a reservoir is going to be planted with catchable fish, be developed with campsites, and draw more people into the area. [This is nothing more than your opinion. Show me some factual data that supports your opinion. There is nothing shown in the project plans that indicates that this will take place. Your opinion that it will happen is no more valid than mine that it will not happen. If you have actual facts that support your opinion, I'm very willing to hear them and change my opinion.] Right now much of Temple Fork Creek is a hike in area and the dirt road was actually moved away from following the creek to help protect the area.) They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. _I doubt that very much._ (I don't. I've witnessed areas that are somewhat primitive get paved and opened up quite regularly.) [And there are still lots of primitive areas in Utah that don't have paved access and are difficult to get to.] TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthroat trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species.) _Can you supply a link to data that would support that claim?_ (I don't need a link to supply data. It's common sense. [LOL - I'm not buying that your common sense equates to something being factual. I am more than willing to listen to or see factual data that will lead me to the truth. So far, you have been unable or unwilling to supply any facts that support your claims.] Bonneville cutts spawn in Temple Fork as a major trib to the Logan. If it is turned into a reservoir and miles of stream habitat is lost, then spawning area is lost. It's not rocket science. I have been on Temple Fork in the Spring when the cutts are up there spawning. It is a prime spawning creek. There is a study done by USU or the DWR where they surveyed many if not all of the tribs to the Logan and Temple Fork and Beaver Creek are the most substantial and productive tribs for spawning. I think a quick google search would bring up that data.) [I did a Google search and found a 2012 USU study on "A Study of the Spawning Ecology and Early Life History Survival of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout." They selected 4 tributaries (not many if not all) "that captured the natural range of habitat characteristics and BCT redd densities." There were no indications in the report that other tributaries didn't also contain those natural range of habitat characteristics and BCT redd densities or that the 4 chosen tributaries were the only ones that did. I suppose that we can assume that they had a limited budget and time such that selecting only 4 tributaries was their best option at the time. There is no way to determine from the report if any other tributaries might have been just as appropriate for their study.]


From the 'facts' that have been presented here thus far, I'm inclined to change my opinion that Utah does waste an unneeded amount of water on agriculture. That must change at some point and the sooner, the better. However, I'm not against improving our long term water availability posture unless, or until, a case can be made that the negatives of any such project far outweigh the positives. So far, I haven't found or been shown that to be the case with the Bear River Project.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

results are now out from the envision Utah project.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37101205&ni...-want-most-based-on-53k-surveys&s_cid=queue-2

water conservation and infrastructure... i.e. dams etc rank high. at least both together in the same sentence whatever one can infer from that.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A few thoughts. 

I like dams and the recreation they provide. 

Reservoirs are scenic to me also.

Water companies want to turn water into a commodity more like electricity and gas. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As stated in this tread. It's not my yard that's using all the water. And every acre converted into residence uses less water then before. 

The NSA can find plenty of water to cool there computers here.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> results are now out from the envision Utah project.
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37101205&ni...-want-most-based-on-53k-surveys&s_cid=queue-2
> 
> water conservation and infrastructure... i.e. dams etc rank high. at least both together in the same sentence whatever one can infer from that.


 The KSL report was just a summary of the actual report. You can see the full report at this link (also provided in the KSL article): Envision Utah results
If you want to see the water use results directly, click on this link: Utahn's Vision for the Future of Water
No need to infer anything. It was clear to me what the vision is from these 2 quotes from the second link above; "Adequately maintain, and replace where needed, existing water infrastructure."  And: "Prepare for and develop new water supplies as needed." As I've stated before, eventually new water supplies (reservoirs) will be needed. Your guess is as good as mine as to when that might be. And yes, we should exhaust all conservation techniques before that need becomes a reality. :mrgreen:


----------

