# So what happens if the next 20 years are as dry as the last 20 were?



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Any predictions? What's gonna be left of Mead and Powell? How does that bode for our wildlife populations? Fisheries? Forest fires? Agriculture? We still gonna have lawns? Am I the only one going, " OH, SH$!!$!#TTT!!!" yet? 

Honestly, this situation is starting to get worrying. People like my dad seem to think that all the brilliant minds of the world will always be able to invent and innovate us out of any pickle we ever find ourselves in. I wish I could be so optimistic.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. They could pipe water into some reservoirs and lakes that already exist and then run pipes out of them down to the arid west. I don't believe that it would take too much to get a pipeline into the Green River drainage to feed Flaming Gorge which in turn could be used to feed Lake Powell.


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

I believe California uses somewhere around 60% of the water from the Colorado River. California also has 840 miles of shoreline. We start by advancing desalinization processes so California can become H2O self-reliant by taking advantage of the "rising ocean levels".
As Critter said, I think a piping distribution system could also be potentially effective. A North America piping infrastructure could distribute water to areas around the continent as needed (I know that's easier said done when it comes to counties, states, provinces and countries agreeing to share "their" water.
I look at the $$$ the government squanders on stupid S&%T, these are just a couple if ideas they should seriously be looking to invest in.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Critter said:


> I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. They could pipe water into some reservoirs and lakes that already exist and then run pipes out of them down to the arid west. I don't believe that it would take too much to get a pipeline into the Green River drainage to feed Flaming Gorge which in turn could be used to feed Lake Powell.


Maybe it has been proposed, but then the Canadians remembered the tale of Owens Valley in southern California and wisey told the Americans to shove the proposal up their bums.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

It will be as dry as some of my jokes.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

When it comes down to it those areas that need the water are going to eat a lot of crow and get on their knees to work deals with those areas that have excess water. It isn't just California but Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and to some extent Colorado. 

There are areas in each of those states have taken just about all the water from other areas to the point that there isn't any water left. 

But like most problems they don't consider it a problem until it is too late.

As a example a number of years ago a Colorado state leglesater wanted to build a dam on the Utah state line and then pump the water from that reservoir over the continental divide to Denver, bypassing the rest of the state. The bad thing was that they actually looked at doing this.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. *They tried that already.....Biden shut it down.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

This is the way I see it.

One needs to remember that Utah is the second most arid state in the nation, followed by Arizona being at the top. Utah receives the snowfall and rain that fills the reservoirs for distribution to municipalities, water share holders and so on. 
We've had some higher than normal summer temps along with a record setting stretch of no precipitation for three months. With the hot, dry temps, water evaporates quicker. The problem I see, is the record number of people coming to Utah, record demand for housing for these folks and yards with lawns that are requiring on average 500 gallons of water to keep them green. 

The waterbodies are filling, but not at the 100% level. Then, they are being drained faster to meat the demand for homes, agriculture, and so on. If we are to "slow the flow", slow the infiltration of people moving into the state. I also think that the home builders should pay up-front impact fees to the state for the average amount of each household they build and sell (average home of 4 is 400 gallons a day) Ya, home costs are out of this world, but they are still building, and selling them at record pace. Same with the water situation....We are using it faster than it's produced. Something has to give or we will be "up a *DRY *creek without a paddle" or, any need for one.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Critter said:


> I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. They could pipe water into some reservoirs and lakes that already exist and then run pipes out of them down to the arid west. I don't believe that it would take too much to get a pipeline into the Green River drainage to feed Flaming Gorge which in turn could be used to feed Lake Powell.


In the early 90s the governor of Alaska proposed building a pipeline to California to provide freshwater, but at the time water conservation measures were less expensive and able to free up as much water as a pipeline would have brought, without the added environmental concerns


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

taxidermist said:


> *I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. *They tried that already.....Biden shut it down.


Water, not oil....At least they can say that if there was a pipe break all you will end up with is mud and localized flooding. 

But I am sure that the greenies would find a fault with that.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It's a bit more widespread than some believe.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Groundwater Depletion In California's Central Valley


We will look into trends in California's depleting Central Valleys and future threats we will face without a proper recharge to our Aquifer.




storymaps.arcgis.com


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I


Critter said:


> Water, not oil....At least they can say that if there was a pipe break all you will end up with is mud and localized flooding.
> 
> But I am sure that the greenies would find a fault with that.


 I know it was for oil. It just seemed appropriate to make a dig.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

middlefork said:


> It's a bit more widespread than some believe.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer


Oh, yes, it is. But at least we aren't India and Pakistan with temperatures that are currently pushing the boundaries of what humans can actually survive in.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

When they shut down swimming pools and golf courses thats when it will get attention !


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Al Hansen said:


> When they shut down swimming pools and golf courses thats when it will get attention !


Based on equal surface area, a lawn uses more water than a pool. Lawns in arid states are a massive waste of water


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

🤷


legacy said:


> I believe California uses somewhere around 60% of the water from the Colorado River. California also has 840 miles of shoreline. We start by advancing desalinization processes so California can become H2O self-reliant by taking advantage of the "rising ocean levels".
> As Critter said, I think a piping distribution system could also be potentially effective. A North America piping infrastructure could distribute water to areas around the continent as needed (I know that's easier said done when it comes to counties, states, provinces and countries agreeing to share "their" water.
> I look at the $$$ the government squanders on stupid S&%T, these are just a couple if ideas they should seriously be looking to invest in.


I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but from what little I have read about desalinization it sounds like a very energy intensive process. California is already strapped for electricity as it is. Every time you think you have found a solution, there is a new hurdle. I guess we can always turn thousands more acres of Utah into solar farms.


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

I’ve heard the same thing about it being a very energy intensive process. You’re right. It’s the cobra effect.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Any predictions? What's gonna be left of Mead and Powell? How does that bode for our wildlife populations? Fisheries? Forest fires? Agriculture? We still gonna have lawns?



I think we are already seeing an effect with the wildlife. It is usually forgotten in our desperate "save the herd" threads, but from about 2012-2017, we had pretty good deer herd growth and conditions were decent. SFW was patting itself on the back as the herd numbers neared 400,000. Since then, we certainly haven't had horrible winters, but we have definitely had the drought. While I don't claim it is the only cause, I do believe that range degradation from drought conditions is a big part in the poor fawn and calf recruitment we have been seeing. As for fisheries, the cause and effect is obvious. I fear more of the same in the coming years. 

As for where it ends, eventually, there simply won't be enough water for the continued growth and hard decisions will have to be made. Conservation certainly can help to a point, and maybe technology can help some with desalinization or long distance piping. However, even these "cures" have their limits. Piping water from one dry western state to another is just a shell game as we all are in the same boat. Carrying capacity is a biological principle that applies to us too. I just wish the growth,growth,growth politicians could get even a glimpse of that.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I think we are already seeing an effect with the wildlife. It is usually forgotten in our desperate "save the herd" threads, but from about 2012-2017, we had pretty good deer herd growth and conditions were decent. SFW was patting itself on the back as the herd numbers neared 400,000. Since then, we certainly haven't had horrible winters, but we have definitely had the drought. While I don't claim it is the only cause, I do believe that range degradation from drought conditions is a big part in the poor fawn and calf recruitment we have been seeing. As for fisheries, the cause and effect is obvious. I fear more of the same in the coming years.
> 
> As for where it ends, eventually, there simply won't be enough water for the continued growth and hard decisions will have to be made. Conservation certainly can help to a point, and maybe technology can help some with desalinization or long distance piping. However, even these "cures" have their limits. Piping water from one dry western state to another is just a shell game as we all are in the same boat. Carrying capacity is a biological principle that applies to us too. I just wish the growth,growth,growth politicians could get even a glimpse of that.


Last year during the archery hunt I kept seeing a "bachelorette herd" of about 7 does with no fawns. That was so weird and unsettling.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

legacy said:


> I’ve heard the same thing about it being a very energy intensive process. You’re right. It’s the cobra effect.


Plus there is the problem of what to do with the brine leftover. The resulting brine is more concentrated than the GSL and can have a significant environmental impact wherever it is discharged


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Last year during the archery hunt I kept seeing a "bachelorette herd" of about 7 does with no fawns. That was so weird and unsettling.


While I don't hunt there, our family has some property on the Wasatch and I spend a fair amount of time in the summer in the area. Last June, as we were coming off that dry spring, the mountains were dry and plant growth was terrible. I remember making a mental note to myself how scroungy and skeletal the deer looked. Then we got those fortunate monsoon rains and the mountain greened up. Once that happened, the deer looked better eventually, but I noted the deer eating like there was no tomorrow. One doe was so intent on eating that I snuck within a few feet of it and I wondered if I could reach out and pet her. She saw me but didn't care. We did have a few fawns pull through up there but I doubt they would have if the rains didn't come.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

We sure talk a lot about watering lawns -- but how come nobody ever talks about suspending building permits?

what's the human consumption vs. my lawn? So I stop watering my lawn, and they construct a new 300 unit complex. What was the net gain in water?



Also -- is send water from Canda really "down" or is it south? I'm pretty sure there is a lot of up hill between British Columbia and Utah. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to send it "down", it would just flow. So, if you have to pipe it and pump it, then can't we look to a closer source? I mean, that Columbia is a big river, and a lot of that water ends up in the ocean too.

Hell, screw it. Let's just go hook on to some icebergs, and bring them to Utah to replenish our reservoirs. In fact, let's require it for developers. 1-to-1 ratio -- for each building permit 1 large iceberg must be brought in.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Hell, screw it. Let's just go hook on to some icebergs, and bring them to Utah to replenish our reservoirs.


That too has been suggested as a way to help the western water situation.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

87% of Utah's water goes to agriculture, 9% goes to cities for lawns and drinking and the remaining 4% goes to business/industry






Utah Major Watersheds







extension.usu.edu




).

Folks here talk about human population growth and lawns like it's the big boogie man taking all the states water.

I am not dissing the agricultural industry here, merely saying it is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores. You want to save water in Utah--improve the way agriculture uses water so there is less waste. We are talking 87% here--letting every lawn dry up in the state is going to give ya like 4% more water--whoopy do! Transition farmers away from flood irrigation to more effective forms could save multiple times that. All it takes is $


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Some were projecting years ago that water would be the next disputed resource. I think at some point, states involved in the Colorado river compact of 1922 will probably reevaluate that piece of legislation. Particularly as political divides widen. My understanding is it was an entirely one sided deal beneifitting everyones favorite west coast state building cities in the desert - that and Las Vegas in Nevada. Generally speaking most of the population centers in the SW probably shouldn't exist.

If I were to make a long reaching apocalyptic prediction, it would be not enough water to grow crops to support the current human population. Not to mention the "Green agenda" trying to do away with fossil fuels, which makes modern agriculture possible. Realistically, as a species we've artificially inflated the carrying capacity of the land for some time. A guy like BIll Gates doesn't become America's largest farmland owner for nor reason. When people don't get enough to eat, expect things to get nasty. Maybe that's what they want? 

I'm just a ray of sunshine this morning....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> I'm surprised that someone hasn't started a pipeline from up in Canada down to the west here. They could pipe water into some reservoirs and lakes that already exist and then run pipes out of them down to the arid west. I don't believe that it would take too much to get a pipeline into the Green River drainage to feed Flaming Gorge which in turn could be used to feed Lake Powell.


Really? You mean starting a pipeline that crosses the Rocky Mountains...doesn't sound too easy to me.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Truck it in. Have a fleet of tanker rigs bringing it in from....wherever.... With the fuel prices now at an all time high, I'm sure it would only cost $10-$15 a gallon.  

We'll never run out of water, so just go ahead and wash the driveway with the hose into the gutter and leave the sprinkler heads spraying on the sidewalk. Oh, ya....this is the one that gets me, Make sure your watering your lawn when it's raining. 

I haven't even turned on my sprinkler system to see if anything broke over the winter, no need to, When the temps get to be 65 and above at night, that's when you should begin to water the grass. 

Doesn't really matter if one person on the block is being "water aware" and doing what they feel is best to conserve water, if, the remaining 10 homes on the block are watering every day.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Really? You mean starting a pipeline that crosses the Rocky Mountains...doesn't sound too easy to me.


With the new technology in tunnel boring it isn't so far fetched. 

There are a number of tunnel bores in Utah already taking water from the Green River drainage and sending it into the Wasatch Front area. The same with Colorado, tunnel bores going from the Colorado River drainage and sending it to the Arkansas and South Platte Rivers for the folks on the Front Range.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> With the new technology in tunnel boring it isn't so far fetched.
> 
> There are a number of tunnel bores in Utah already taking water from the Green River drainage and sending it into the Wasatch Front area. The same with Colorado, tunnel bores going from the Colorado River drainage and sending it to the Arkansas and South Platte Rivers for the folks on the Front Range.


Ok, but the distance alone is daunting. Not to mention issues of elevation increases, crossing borders, EISs, etc. The better solution, to me, at least is stop developing and start recognizing where we live and the need to live within our own water means.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm just trying to figure out the best rout from "Canada" to Utah.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Al Hansen said:


> When they shut down swimming pools and golf courses thats when it will get attention !


This is more true than most cities and residents care to admit. 

On our farm we have water shares, with dedicated ownership of water, yet the city sees fit to curb the amount we are delivered, while they put the remainder into their pressurized irrigation pond. The golf courses stay green and the city parks are green. The neighbors' lawns are green. The fish die as they pull 100% now for the ponds. Oh, and they built a large recreational lake on top of a porous substrate, then tried to fill it and failed, then tried to line it and it still leaches. The city's culinary water wells are failing. The trees that lined the some irrigation ditches are dying now the water is in a pipe. It is a mess in our area.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Seriously, though. Piping it in from "Canada" would be silly. I mean, why cross the Columbia? Do you guys realize how much water enters the Columbia from Canada? It just seems silly to go further north than the Columbia to deliver something already being delivered by nature.

And, if we're going to do that, then why not just divert the Snake, and pipe, or divert, water to Idaho to compensate for the Snake...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You are not going to stop developments, and in the cities they are just growing upward if not outward. The base water need is the same no matter where homes or apartments are built. And as the population grows the people need to live somewhere.

I agree that the distance is daunting but something needs to be done and using water from areas that have a excess is about the only way. You would think that by using existing reservoirs and river systems it should be able to be done. 

Most of the farms have already converted over to sprinkler irrigation, but there are still those that use flood irrigation. Doing away with lawns is also a help but not that much. With a lot of the new grasses out there that don't require very much water people can have a small lawn, but do away with that Kentucky Blue grass that you need to dump gallons upon gallons on it to keep it green


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Don't worry Packout -- the combination of the Green and Cozzens will surely fix the issues.

In the meantime, let's just watch all these new neighborhoods pop up everywhere.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> Seriously, though. Piping it in from "Canada" would be silly. I mean, why cross the Columbia? Do you guys realize how much water enters the Columbia from Canada? It just seems silly to go further north than the Columbia to deliver something already being delivered by nature.
> 
> And, if we're going to do that, then why not just divert the Snake, and pipe, or divert, water to Idaho to compensate for the Snake...


Because of the impacts on anadromous fish species. There are minimum flows required and while the Columbia is a big river it doesn't have as much water to spare as you might think. 

Yeah, you should get guff for watering your lawn vs residential building permits or agriculture. Your lawn is ornamental. People need homes and that comes with plumbing (and unfortunately more dumb lawns just like yours) and agriculture being part of commercial industry is a higher priority than you want your yard to look nice. 

Y'all live in the desert, and one that has a rapidly growing population for some reason. Shouldn't matter if you've been there since before Fathers Dominguez and Escalante came to town or just moved from [insert liberal hellscape] yesterday, nobody should be wasting water. And ornamental uses should be the first to go.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

My honest thought is the drought breaks in the next few years and swings back the other way and is wet for a couple decades. A lot of the data from the years we have tracked, shows the swings are inevitable, but getting more extreme. So the problems will likely get worse but given historical data we should see a wet period after the dry period.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Johhny -- so, you're saying to not take water from the Snake due to anadromous fish or the Columbia because it doesn't have water to spare? To be clear -- none of the other rivers in Canada would be any different (Fraser, Skeena, Saskatchewan, Mackenzie).

It's just such a laughable concept to bring water in from Canada.



FWIW -- I have no lawn. yet.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> Johhny -- so, you're saying to not take water from the Snake due to anadromous fish or the Columbia because it doesn't have water to spare? To be clear -- none of the other rivers in Canada would be any different (Fraser, Skeena, Saskatchewan, Mackenzie).
> 
> It's just such a laughable concept to bring water in from Canada.
> 
> ...


I've never said bringing water from Canada makes sense. What I did say was that AK proposed a water pipeline to California in the 90s (subsea to CA IIRC). For the record, AK has about ⅓ of the annual freshwater runoff for the entire US, and most of our water is not already dedicated/claimed unlike the western states. Various studies from the feds in the 90s also found it very unlikely that diverting flow for such a pipeline from near the outlets of either the Stikine river in SE AK or the Copper River in PWS would have a negligible impact on anadromous fish or other species present. Neither river has any dams, little to no agricultural or residential use dependency, etc. 


But, those studies are about 30 years old now, and maybe if repeated the findings would be different. Regardless, it would still likely be much cheaper to pursue local water efficiency measures and frivolous uses like your future lawn should be at the top of the list. Now, if you planned to capture the grey water from your residence to water it that would be a better option that using culinary or irrigation water, but I'm willing to bet that such a system is not in your plans.

But if you really want to get my blood boiling, we can talk about the absurd water wastes for ornamental lawns that lie at the feet of churches, cities, and schools. 


I am not gonna lie, water responsibility is pretty low on the list of reasons I moved to Alaska, but it sure is great not having to feel that stress as I see the snow melting on the mountains each year or watching snowpack totals and reservoir capacity.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Johnny -- for clarification, I didn't mean to infer you said bringing water from Canada made sense. I was actually supporting your comment of why the Snake and Columbia were bad ideas, and adding other drainages to that list.

I'm on my own private well. I'm also on a septic tank. My water use goes straight back into the ground (with some evaporation). Flood irrigation in my area doesn't bother me because some of that water is going right back down for me.

The new Mayor has grand plans for water reuse from the city wastewater treatment plant. We also have a pipeline planned to bring water from the southwest desert. These are all good things for water -- but will ultimately fail if we continue to grow uncontrollably. I hate that the whole goal of "conserving" water is for one reason: support growth.

I support effective water management. I support water development -- something severely lacking in Iron County. I support good efforts to improve our quality of life. 

I don't support forcing residences to stop watering their lawns so that developers and real estate agents (and former developers and real estate agents turned politicians) can make a bunch of money building new homes using the water that I'm saving for them. Sorry.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It's such a huge issue.

I doubt we'll see a trend of wet years that counterbalance the drought in my lifetime. Many of the droughts studied in the scientific record can last decades. And that's building assumptions on the historic record before AGW, which is changing trends left and right. 

Utah will have a reckoning between a conservative hands off approach (like Iron Co) and growth at some point. You don't get to allow unfettered growth in a water poor region without conflict eventually arising. And relying on voluntary individual restraint won't cut it; water in the west is a great example of the tragedy of the commons.

But capping growth takes a willingness and political capital that is currently lacking. We can absorb a fair amount more growth but it means going vertical, crowding and ultimately reductions in the agricultural sector. That trend has a momentum that won't be stopped. 

Broader realities are going to include: a longer wildfire season (season is already being challenged in the literature) including shortages in man power to fight them like this year; significant reductions in ungulate populations and rapid changes to the rate we get to hunt; loss of many fisheries, especially self sustaining wild ones; more emergency closures on public land to prevent human caused wildfires and protect people/infrastructure; etc. 

Those shouldn't be controversial as they are already happening across the West.

Utah needs to be about 5 years ahead in it's planning then it currently is. We are going to need to see a type of collaboration at every level of government that is extremely difficult to organize in our current political climate. 

The vast majority of culinary water used outside of agriculture is for turf and that needs to end. The state missed an opportunity last year to fund statewide programs to incentivize homeowner turf removal. It's really the only big opportunity we have in a conservative state to affect change on existing properties. The next step will be limiting turf on new developments which requires a massive shift in policy and flexibility in ideology. 

I'm just not convinced our state will rise to the occasion. My county's kick the can down the road approach just doesn't give me hope that we have the vision needed to tackle this problem. I'd love to see the state and municipalities prove me wrong.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

All this discussion on here reminds me of a discussion that I had with a member over on a truck forum. 

He planned on purchasing a "Ranchet" up in Wyoming that had either a creek or a river running through it. He had visions of grander in putting in a pond and diverting the water to flood irrigate a fruit orchard. I asked him if he had any water rights on the 35 acres that he planned on buying, he responded "what is a water right?" I explained to him that even with a waterway running through the middle of his property that he had no right to use the water that was flowing without the so called rights to it. He just couldn't believe that he couldn't use any of the water that was flowing across his land. I went on to explain that it was quite likely that every drop of that water crossing his land was spoken for and that at most all he was going to be able to use as far as water would be a well that he would have to sink for culinary water in his home and out buildings. He just couldn't believe any of what I told him until he reached out the the developer of the property and found out the facts of western water. 

Then here in Colorado there was a landowner up in South Park with is south east of Leadville. He planted trees and in order to water them and keep them alive he would drive over 50 miles to the South Platte River and fill up 55 gallon drums in the back of his truck to take home and water them. That is until he got caught. I never did hear the outcome of that case.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

PBH said:


> I'm just trying to figure out the best rout from "Canada" to Utah.
> 
> View attachment 151955


Highway 36 to I-15


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I hear a lot of chit-chat about "let's just run a pipeline from Canada down here to Utah and fill the lakes back up". Well I ain't no hydrologist, but a quick google search brought forth these interesting numbers.

The mighty "Alaska pipeline", 48" diameter, can carry about 32,000 gals/per minute, travels about 800 miles over mostly flat ground and through remote, uninhabited and cheap real-estate and cost about $8 billion back then.

The Green river, by comparison, carries approximately 2,750,000 gals/per minute... that's approx 86 times bigger.

Gee, I don't know, I guess Utah could afford to do that. And I am sure Canada would be more than happy to give up all the water from and area the size of the Green River drainage so we can keep our fishin holes, desert cities like St George, alfalfa fields and green lawns pretty.

My guess is it would be cheaper and more viable to just relocate... of course at tax payers expense... about 1/2 our population up to Canada.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

So, what's your solution?

No more developments, not happening.

No more flood irrigating? Possible but that is a bandaid on a severed leg.

I know, birth controll in all culinary water systems. But it would need to be absorbed through the skins since everyone would just start drinking bottled water.

Then there is the fiasco of trying to save the GSL. Talk about trying to put out a forest fire with a squirtgun. How about reclaiming the old Sevier Lake and filling it back up?

There are no simple solutions, just ideas.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I keep telling all my friends/ family. “ just wait, they’ll have to fire up the GSL pumps again”
I hope I’m right


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

All those new homes within a mile of Utah Lake and many businesses around the GSL are praying for no big winters. Looks like they have more sway on the prayer side as their prayers are being answered.....

How about we kick the Data centers out of the State? Millions of gallons of water to cool computers that store info on everything and run analytics. Never understood why our politicians lobbied to get such operations built in a desert.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Are the cooling systems a closed loop or does it constantly need more? I know towns in the PNW were in big battles with Google et al because of the secret water deals the brokered with municipalities.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

They didn't buy all the water rights they could just to do a one time fill on a closed system. My understanding is they drilled large wells and pump continuously. Micron, the security center, facebook, etc.. among with all the others. Water was purchased throughout the aquifer and moved for use in those facilities.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

TPrawitt91 said:


> My honest thought is the drought breaks in the next few years and swings back the other way and is wet for a couple decades. A lot of the data from the years we have tracked, shows the swings are inevitable, but getting more extreme. So the problems will likely get worse but given historical data we should see a wet period after the dry period.


I genuinely hope your correct. It's not a far off thought either, as the earth has had every weather pattern done before. Mini ice age, and the like. Geological timelines move slow.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Great Salt Lake


Richard H. Jackson Utah History Encyclopedia, 1994 The Great Salt Lake is both the largest body of water between the Great Lakes and the Pacific Ocean and the largest salt lake in the western hemisphere…




historytogo.utah.gov




.

"In 1962 the lake elevation was 4,192 feet above sea level, giving it a surface area of 969 square miles (620,400 acres). In the early 1980s the lake reached an elevation of 4,212 feet above sea level, giving it a surface area of 2,300 square mile (1,472,000 acres)."

Current elevation is 4,190 so who really knows?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I will be concerned if the next 20 look like the past 2. If the next 20 years are as dry as the past 20, I would have no concern. There have been a lot of great hunting years in that span. People seem to remember things differently than I do. Here is how I remember it. 2019 was a record wet year even though it was followed by a record dry spell. It was a great year to hunt. The previous 8 years to that had high success rates and many units were over objective. That's been the best time for hunting in my hunting career which started in 1989. 2010 / 2011 were record winter years back to back. A lot of mountain resorts didn't open on Memorial Day because there was so much snow.. 2004 had an early winter and a lot of big bucks were killed. A few dry years followed by record rain in the Spring of 2006. At that point we were told it would take years for the reservoirs to fill. One very wet spring and a lot of flooding took care of that in about a month. I'm not concerned about development. I don't like the traffic and pressure on the mountains, but water rights are not being created. They are simply reallocated. We could have a problem if too much of our agricultural water converts into residences that do not produce anything. I'm concerned about the current water situation, but I can only hope the next 20 looks like the last 20.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

provider said:


> I will be concerned if the next 20 look like the past 2. If the next 20 years are as dry as the past 20, I would have no concern. There have been a lot of great hunting years in that span. People seem to remember things differently than I do. Here is how I remember it. 2019 was a record wet year even though it was followed by a record dry spell. It was a great year to hunt. The previous 8 years to that had high success rates and many units were over objective. That's been the best time for hunting in my hunting career which started in 1989. 2010 / 2011 were record winter years back to back. A lot of mountain resorts didn't open on Memorial Day because there was so much snow.. 2004 had an early winter and a lot of big bucks were killed. A few dry years followed by record rain in the Spring of 2006. At that point we were told it would take years for the reservoirs to fill. One very wet spring and a lot of flooding took care of that in about a month. I'm not concerned about development. I don't like the traffic and pressure on the mountains, but water rights are not being created. They are simply reallocated. We could have a problem if too much of our agricultural water converts into residences that do not produce anything. I'm concerned about the current water situation, but I can only hope the next 20 looks like the last 20.


We have certainly had wet years during the last 20. We will likely have more to come. I'm talking about long term trends though. The long term trend is undeniably dry. I have also had some great hunting years during the same period you are talking about. Still, we are trending dry.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Airborne said:


> 87% of Utah's water goes to agriculture, 9% goes to cities for lawns and drinking and the remaining 4% goes to business/industry
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you begin removing open ditch banks, replacing them with pipe, (that is hard to come by now, and expensive) you give up one thing for another. Your giving up habitat that is needed for ditch chickens. Other fowl and wildlife also depend on these open ditches for water and cover. 

So, is one willing to give up bird hunting, etc. for some water?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> When you begin removing open ditch banks, replacing them with pipe, (that is hard to come by now, and expensive) you give up one thing for another. Your giving up habitat that is needed for ditch chickens. Other fowl and wildlife also depend on these open ditches for water and cover.
> 
> So, is one willing to give up bird hunting, etc. for some water?


I feel like this would have been a different discussion 25 years ago. Not many ditch chicken opportunities for the public anymore in scenarios like you describe above.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

taxidermist said:


> When you begin removing open ditch banks, replacing them with pipe, (that is hard to come by now, and expensive) you give up one thing for another. Your giving up habitat that is needed for ditch chickens. Other fowl and wildlife also depend on these open ditches for water and cover.
> 
> So, is one willing to give up bird hunting, etc. for some water?


Yes


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

This is far from a popular opinion, but loss of habitat for a nonnative game bird should not be an argument against water conservation practices in agriculture. And I don't think that going from open ditches to pipes is a material impact on either sage grouse or sharptails.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I kick around buying land in West Virginia. For around $150k you can still get 80-100 or so acres with running streams, loads of deer and turkeys. Spent 2 years living in that state. Beautiful.

-DallanC


----------

