How would you like a new reservoir north of Willard?

[cat_man]

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 12:00 AM [url "http://www.harktheherald.com/print.php?sid=57329"][/url] | [url "http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Recommend_Us&file=index&req=FriendSend&sid=57329"][/url]

Utah looks for ways to satisfy growing water needs

Jennifer Dobner THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah is going to need millions upon millions of gallons of water to satisfy the thirst of a growing population, estimated to explode by more than 3 million residents in 45 years.
"Today, we have about 1.3 million acre-feet of water to meet municipal and industrial needs," Division of Water Resources director Larry Anderson said Monday. [url "http://heraldextra.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=display_ads&file=index&func=display_ad&ad=00267841"][/url][url "http://adserver.harktheherald.com/adclick.php?n=a1d19a67"][/url] "If the population grows as projected, we would need 2.2 million acre-feet of water."
On paper that means the state needs to find more than 845,000 acre-feet of water to be prepared for an estimated population of 5.4 million, Anderson told the State Water Development Commission.
State engineers and water resource experts are working with municipal and water conservancy experts on a plan to find that water, Anderson said.
The plan includes tapping additional groundwater, increasing the size of water treatment plants, conservation -- Utah residents have reduced their per capita use from 321 gallons per day to 267 gallons per day in the last 10 years -- and by converting water presently designed for agricultural use for municipal and industrial uses.
Most of that agricultural water conversion will come through the projected loss of about 10 percent of Utah's agricultural land to municipal uses, Anderson said.
Also on the drawing board are two water development projects: the Bear River project and the Lake Powell pipeline.
The Bear River project will bring water from the Utah-Idaho border to Willard Bay for storage and then use by communities in Weber, Davis and Salt Lake counties. It will likely also require the construction of a reservoir, although an exact location has not been determined, Anderson said.
The Lake Powell pipeline will pump water through a 66-inch pipeline from the lake, through northern Arizona, and then back into Utah near Hildale for storage in Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George. There is a possibility of extending that project to Cedar City.
The areas make sense, Anderson explained to the committee of lawmakers and municipal water district and conservancy officials, because they both have large amounts of unused water and are relatively close to the population centers -- the Wasatch Front and Washington County -- that have the most pressing water needs.
Both come with huge price tags, Anderson said.
The Bear River project cost estimates range between $260 million and $500 million. Lake Powell could cost between $340 million and $450 million.
"So you see, this water gets to be very expensive," Anderson said.
Both projects will require the purchase of additional water rights, purchase of land for reservoirs, pipelines and other delivery systems, as well as agreements between various water districts and state agencies.
A governor's Water Delivery Task Force, originally appointed by former Gov. Olene Walker, has been studying ways to pay for the projects and will present it final report in late July, said task force member Richard Ellis.
Among the financing methods considered are everything from straight legislative appropriations, to bonding, increases in local water access and user fees, as well as raising the cap on the portion of sales tax already designated for water uses, Ellis said. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D3.
[signature]

[mikecromaine]

WELL IF THEY PUT ANOTHER RES. IN. I SURE HOPE THEY PUT WIPERS IN IT!!!! TO THINK TWO LAKES CLOSE TO SLC WITH WIPERS OH BOY
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

There has been talk about that very issue for years and also raising the dikes around Willard to hold more water. It seems like it will never happen but maybe this announcement will change all that. Even if they decide to build a new lake North of Willard, we will be lucky if they have one built in 10 years. It is very likely that it will happen and I say the sooner the better, lets hope the report in July is good news and they will start it soon. Thanks for posting the story. WH2
[signature]

[lurechucker]

Yikes.


I'd like to offer my two cents about this, ifn's I could. On the surface, it may be exciting to talk about a new reservoir...but if you look closely at the plans it's bad idea that just needs to be killed.

The site in question has become known as the Washakie site (it would be near the town of Washakie). To build a reservoir there, it would be necessary to build a giant bathtub. Nothing says "Welcome to Utah" like stagnant water.

I've never heard the site mentioned as any kind of fishery, either. Shallow, fluctuating, poor quality water would be problematic to the establishment of any kind of fishery, to be sure. For the same reason, I don't think the area would be much of a recreational site.

What is apparent, however, is that the effects would be devastating on the Bear River. In low water years, it could divert as much as 70% of the flow out of the Bear. Not sure how the big kitties would feel about that. Taking Bear River water would also mean severe impact to the Great Salt Lake. Not that fishing is great there, but that place is so important that you can't dry up that land without having HUGE impacts on wildlife. (1/3 of all migratory waterfowl in North America inhabit that area. That's a lot of ducks!)

It's also apparent that an idea like this would be VERY expensive. Latest talks show that they want to raise taxes to build it. A statewide sales tax increase was talked about by the Water Delivery Financing Task Force. While the water is only slated to go to a small part of Salt Lake County, Weber, Davis, and two other counties that will never be able to afford it, it doesn't seem fair to the rest of Salt Lake County (Salt Lake City and Sandy, for example) and the ret of the state (Utah County, in particular) would to have to pay for it. Large chunks of the state would never see a drop of that water. Larry Anderson himself said that the two projects combined would cost at least a billion dollars.

The task force also wants to take money from the surplus every year--basically saying "We plan on overcharging in taxes so we can use surplus on giant construction projects." Just doesn't seem right.

There are a lot more problems with this idea--water quality, other Bear River effects, money, and legalities to name a few.

Don't let them fool you into thinking we're running out of water. Sure, we're growing. Absolutely we need to beef up water conservation--that's one of the ways we can ensure we'll still have good rivers in 50 years. But we've developed tons of water--now we need to make sure we take advantage of what we've got.

The answer isn't greater water supply, it's lower water demand. We're at least 10 years behind most other western states in water conservation, but we're resourceful enough to catch up--and surpass. Conservation is phenomenally less expensive than building raising taxes to build new projects. Every drop saved is like new water to the system.

There's plenty of other solutions that will help too. Agricultural water transfers, dry year water leases, incentive programs, we're just stuck in the 19th century of dam building. Sure it worked then, but we're smarter now.

Sure, a new reservoir might sound excting...but once you look at the plan, it's really not going to work out for anyone. Make us pay a billion bucks for water to keep Kentucky Bluegrass green? Build a reservoir of stagnant water? No thanks. Utahns are smarter than that.

Phew. That may be more like three cents.


lurechucker

[cat_man]

[cool] Hey lurechucker, tell us how you really feel!! [cool][shocked][]
[signature]

[KokaneeReaper]

That was well said bud you hit the nail on the head and it makes me cringe when I hear about the bear being damed so people can have a green yard- what a joke! I was wondering how do you think they will get around the bird refuge and there water rights legally? I am an avid waterfowler and catfisherman my self and the i would hate to see them destroyed because of this kinda BS it is all propaganda in my minde and I don't think they should be able to do this. I will tell you one organization that could help would be Ducks Unlimited they will definitly be all over this it is going to really hurt the bird refuge. What a JOKE! God I hate Utah some times if there is money involved our state jumps I hate it. We are going to turn into the next California you wach.
[signature]

[lurechucker]

KR- You bring up another problem with the Bear River idea. The Bear River Bird Refuge has very senior water rights to Bear River water. In Utah's system of water rights (oldest rights win), it's very problematic to talk about diverting 220,000 acre-feet upstream from the refuge. For reference, Deer Creek holds about 153,000 acre-feet.
When the legislature made the Bear River Development Act in 1991, they decided they would assign these 220,000 AF to four entities: [ul] [li]50,000 to Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (a small part of Salt Lake County)[/li] [li]50,000 to Weber Basin Water Conservancy District (Weber & Davis)[/li] [li]60,000 to Bear River Water Conservancy District[/li] [li]60,000 to water users in Cache County[/li][/ul]
I'm not sure where they came up with the 220,000 acre-feet of water to be divided. The state decided they had those water rights, but that's...a stretch at best. It sounds eerily reminiscent of the Colorodo River Compact that divides water up amongst the states along the Colorado River. They based everyone's allotment on an outrageously high amount of water in the Colorado that simply isn't there, and now when the upstream users take their "legal" allotment, the downstream users get the shaft. Just look at the mess that's been lately.

The message being sent by the state is that by timing water diversions to be taken in times when the refuge's rights are thin, they can avoid infringing on those rights. That's a small window when the river is already low, so there could be some drastic implications there.

They're also talking about not building the dam right away, but diverting some of the water and putting it in Willard, then piping it to Salt Lake. Again, outrageously expensive, and if I were the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, I'd be real worried about Bear River water coming into my Willard! Three words: water quality issues.

I can respect that the state and water providers have an awesome responsibility to get quality drinking water to us, but I think we should have a say in how that happens. I think we can do it without hurting the Bear River. I think we're resourceful enough to do it without spending a billion dollars. Lots of people agree--the last two dams proposed on the Bear were defeated due to overwhelming public opposal. There's more opposition mounting to defeat this latest one.

It's time to kill the Bear River Development idea, eh KR?

Okay, that's 2 more cents. At a total of 5, I think I'm done for the day. Just thought as long as someone brought it up...


lurechucker

[FishingWaters]

[font "Times New Roman"][black][size 3]You are right about the state being behind in water conservation. However we have come along ways in the past 10 years. The majority of water is used outdoors on landscapes. Bluegrass has be made out to be a water waster it is not it is one of the most drought tolerant plant in the landscape, it can go with out water all summer and still green back up in the fall rain. What need to be done to conserve water it proper use of the water. I would encourage anyone installing sprinkler systems to spend the time and money to install a quality system. For those that have systems, improve the system and keep it in good working condition and water wisely. Each time you water apply a half inch to one inch of water and only water ever 5 to 10 days. The average landscape uses over twice as much water as needed and with half of the water supply being used on the landscape by proper watering over a quarter of the water can be conserved putting off the need to create new water projects. [/size][/black][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][black][size 3] [/size][/black][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][black]If anyone would like to be come involved in promoting water conservation in the state, send me a P.M. and I’ll update you on ongoing activities.[/black][/size][/font]
[signature]

[KokaneeReaper]

Does any one have contact to the DU club out of tremonton or maybee the citie to see if we could help out in some way to kill this stupid idea. I am not much of an activist but some times you got stand up to this kinda crap and I would be interested to here what plans are in place to put a stop to it. If we could get with someone that knows whats going on and let me know what I could do to help I will.
Don
[signature]

[lurechucker]

The group that's really dealing with this issue is the Utah Rivers Council. The URC defeated the last two proposals and are currently working on this latest one--with a whole range of groups and citizens.

[url "http://www.utahrivers.org/"]www.utahrivers.org[/url]
or (801) 486-4776


I might just know someone who works there...who likes to chuck lures..., .

lurechucker
[signature]

[neveronsunday]

[red][size 3]I'd heard to improve the lower end flows during the summer and also keep the ducks happy there was talk at one time of doubling Hyrum Res. I thought that was a great idea. To me, even when it is full, it still looks half empty - lots of room to expand if you know what I mean. It would beat the heck out of another lower valley mud hole. I don't have anything against new dams, I think they are great! Jordanelle is awesome compared to the pile of burned up sage brush that used to be in that valley not many years ago. Building new impoundments are expensive and always a trade off to the environment but it is an expensive price our grandparents paid for 90% of the places we fish in Utah today. Face it we live in a desert. Everyone agrees it's time for us to suck it up and invest in our kids now. We just need to make sure it gets done right. ('nother soapbox 2 cents)[laugh] [/size][/red]
[signature]

[Bigfishrule]

The idea behind resevoirs in the first place was not a place for recreation (although a great side benifit), but to store water in the wetter years for use in the drought years. The bird refuge would still get its water every year. The could even let this new resevoir go dry some years. Take a look at Lake Powell the drained it 160 feet during this most recent drought. If powell and wead had not been in place Phoneix, Vega, and So. Cal. would have dryed up and blown away. Back in the floods of 83-84 this other impoundment might of minimized the Great Salt Lake flooding. So we need to look at the specifics of the plan and not jump to conclusions. Just my two cents.

John
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

In my opinion no amount of conserving will negate building another lake, it's just a matter of time. Another million plus people along the Wasatch front will need more water than conservation will be able to create. Your idea about using the bird refuge makes a lot of sense, like you said the birds would still be able to use it. Although, some birds need the shallow water and the nesting area that the Bird Refuge, in it's current state provides. If they could leave the shallow water for the birds and still have the holding ability of a lake, I can't see why it wouldn't work. I would guess it would be similar to Culter res. if they did built it. But just like everyone else stated, "Just my 2 Cent". WH2
[signature]