Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Happy to see $5 million of some of the surplus money from the American rescue plan/state surplus will be used to protect and preserve the Great Salt Lake. Would loved to have seen more, but it all matters. Another $95 million going towards water conservation measures. I’d love to see more and more of this. The GSL is wilting away and beyond wildlife implications will create plenty of other issues including worse air quality along the Wasatch front if we continue to let it shrink away. Happy to see some funds going towards addressing the issue. Now let’s stop pushing to build any more reservoirs upstream of it. Looks like plenty of water conservation incentives will come next year in the state as well. I plan to remove half my lawn next spring and replace it with a gravel/more natural landscape. I hope all of us will find ways to reduce our water use, with a warmer, drier winter forecasted and the levels of some lakes and reservoirs at the end of this summer….well…..next summer could be pretty dire.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Doesn’t matter how much money they throw at the GSL. It’s too late, too many water users with the booming population growth. That lake is “F’d”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Doesn’t matter how much money they throw at the GSL. It’s too late, too many water users with the booming population growth. That lake is “F’d”.
Well considering municipal water use isn’t the main issue of why water isn’t going into the lake I’m going to say it’s not a fruitless effort. It is if warming and drying climate trends in the state continue. But if the lakes “F’d” those living in the Salt Lake Valley aren’t going to enjoy the nasty dust. We should always be doing what we can to improve these things, and yes throwing $20 million at improving agriculture irrigation practices makes a pretty big water use-age difference. State law on water use-age also needs some changing. Let’s spend plenty of money trying to save the lake rather than spend millions upon millions trying to keep the dust down all while using a lot of water doing it. If we don’t this is the fate

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
So what about the entire Great Basin? It was Lake Bonneville at one time. Somehow nature filled in the blanks after it shrunk. 🙄
Throwing money at something seems to be a pattern with government. Rarely does it work. The fact the Utah’s population cannot sustain this irresponsible and destructive growth means everything to this issue. Maybe spend 20 million teaching planning and zoning boards to learn the word no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
So what about the entire Great Basin? It was Lake Bonneville at one time. Somehow nature filled in the blanks after it shrunk. 🙄
Throwing money at something seems to be a pattern with government. Rarely does it work. The fact the Utah’s population cannot sustain this irresponsible and destructive growth means everything to this issue. Maybe spend 20 million teaching planning and zoning boards to learn the word no?
Population growth is certainly a complicated issue. Again, municipal water usage is not the main reason for water not flowing into the lake. It’s agriculture. By that same token cowboy, if we can’t sustain human population growth, can we really sustain cows that can drink 20 gallons of water a day each and water sucking alfalfa on a desert landscape? People say throwing money at things doesn’t work, and it’s true, it doesn’t always work, it is however what makes things happen as well. It very literally takes money to accomplish anything these days and a lot of it. Improving irrigation and water conservation practices is a good thing, and I’m not going to hear about population growth when cattle are draining water holes and swamps across the state and alfalfa is sucking reservoirs dry and has no business growing here. Welcome to the desert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
So those now almost extinct 80-100 million Buffalo never drank any water? 🙄
If you think cows are the problem I doubt I can ever change your mind. The second driest state in the nation has a people problem, plain and simple. I applaud you for vowing to tear out part of your lawn. FYI farming and beef production has improved drastically. In the time from 1960 to 2018 beef has decreased its carbon footprint by 40% while increasing beef per steer by 60%!!!!! In the past thirty years we have used 30% less land to provide more beef than ever. We have used 12% less water while raising more beef in that same time frame. Meanwhile since 1980 Utah’s population has gotten over 2/3 rds larger!!! But by all means blame the cattle!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
And as far as your sustainability argument, my family has raised cattle in Utah for six generations. That is the definition of sustainable!!!! The cattle numbers in Utah since the Taylor grazing act in 1939 have been cut exponentially while the number of people has skyrocketed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
So those now almost extinct 80-100 million Buffalo never drank any water? 🙄
If you think cows are the problem I doubt I can ever change your mind. The second driest state in the nation has a people problem, plain and simple. I applaud you for vowing to tear out part of your lawn. FYI farming and beef production has improved drastically. In the time from 1960 to 2018 beef has decreased its carbon footprint by 40% while increasing beef per steer by 60%!!!!! In the past thirty years we have used 30% less land to provide more beef than ever. We have used 12% less water while raising more beef in that same time frame. Meanwhile since 1980 Utah’s population has gotten over 2/3 rds larger!!! But by all means blame the cattle!
My point is not to say that I don’t support some cattle/alfalfa production in the state. My point is you’re pointing out a problem and blaming it on municipal growth. When a field is subdivided and turned into homes generally it actually uses less water annually than if it were flood irrigated alfalfa. Your argument doesn’t hold. Far and away agriculture is the main water user in the state. Alfalfa is the number 1 crop yielded from the state and it in no way shape or form has any business being grown here in such great quantities. I agree that improvements have been made in agricultural uses of water, so let’s keep making them. Give grants to landowners/farmers to convert from flood irrigation. The amount of water used in flood irrigation is unconscionable and the limiting factor in cost for many to switch is why they don’t convert to sprinkler irrigation. Agriculture uses around 85% of diverted water annually in the state. And yes, this can be drastically improved.
Font Number Event

Municipalities and residents should do all they can to save water. The real culprit of ridiculous water use in the state is agriculture and it isn’t close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMuschamp

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
And as far as your sustainability argument, my family has raised cattle in Utah for six generations. That is the definition of sustainable!!!! The cattle numbers in Utah since the Taylor grazing act in 1939 have been cut exponentially while the number of people has skyrocketed.
I understand you don’t like the facts of the situation but Utahs human population is not the real problem. The problem is a warming, drying climate, and the fact agriculture is sucking up 85% of diverted water in a desert landscape where many practices have no business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Arguing here is like wresting a pig. Ya both get covered in crap but the pig likes it. I’ll walk away. Not because I’m wrong but because life is much to short to argue with educated idiots who have no experience with farming or ranching. Bless your hearts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Arguing here is like wresting a pig. Ya both get covered in crap but the pig likes it. I’ll walk away. Not because I’m wrong but because life is much to short to argue with educated idiots who have no experience with farming or ranching. Bless your hearts
I'm sorry to burst your bubble cowboy, but I have ran a small farm, and around 120 acres of irrigated pasture land. I know how much water flood irrigation uses, and wastes, how flawed water usage laws are in the state and how much more efficient sprinkler irrigation is and the improvements that can be made. I also know how much water cows can use. I'm not against the lifestyle, I'm against many of the practices that take place in the state that are not practical or sustainable given the climate issues going forward, as well as population growth. We still have a few cows, and still operate a around 80 acres of that land. The amount of water usage broken down by category is what it is. Resisting it doesn't change it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
God I hope folks like you never truly get into power. Your position wants to take valid water rights away from agriculture to continue unlimited and unsustainable growth! Will you give the farmers growing row crops throughout northern Utah a pass or take their lively hood away too? Flood irrigation is not as efficient as sprinkling is. Pivots are even more efficient. Thousands and tens of thousands acres have already been converted. We stopped flood irrigation in 1977. But your type lump all of us producers into the same corner. Your solution is baseless. Taking away valid water rights is your idea of fixing uncontrolled growth? Credibility is falling sir! 🙄 regardless of how many acres or cattle you used to/currently have. You simply cannot double the state population every fifty years and not expect consequences. But cattle are the problem 🙄
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
God I hope folks like you never truly get into power. Your position wants to take valid water rights away from agriculture to continue unlimited and unsustainable growth! Will you give the farmers growing row crops throughout northern Utah a pass or take their lively hood away too? Flood irrigation is not as efficient as sprinkling is. Pivots are even more efficient. Thousands and tens of thousands acres have already been converted. We stopped flood irrigation in 1977. But your type lump all of us producers into the same corner. Your solution is baseless. Taking away valid water rights is your idea of fixing uncontrolled growth? Credibility is falling sir! 🙄 regardless of how many acres or cattle you used to/currently have. You simply cannot double the state population every fifty years and not expect consequences. But cattle are the problem 🙄
Cowboy, that’s not at all what I’ve said. I’ve stated the fact that agriculture uses 85%of diverted water in the state and if you’re going to make meaningful in-roads in water conservation that is where it is going to need to happen. What’s baseless is your claim it’s population growth that is the significant problem. It’s factually not true. If you’re resisting the need for improvement of where 85% of the water is used, you aren’t actually interested in a useful conversation. You’re interested in being stuck in the ways of practices that aren’t sustainable. You may have stopped flood irrigating, but there’s plenty of it left in the state going on still. But yes, if you’re getting 85% of diverted water in the state on one portion of the population for use, I’ll certainly fight for more water to be used for conservation. 85% isn’t enough for the agriculture industry in the state cowboy? When they account for 2% of the economy. I’d say they get well more than their fair share.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
I understand you don’t like the facts of the situation but Utahs human population is not the real problem. The problem is a warming, drying climate, and the fact agriculture is sucking up 85% of diverted water in a desert landscape where many practices have no business.
So, how long did it take the "pioneers" to drain the SL valley when they arrived in the late 1840's? It was a swamp, right, just like from where they left?

If memory serves from early US History class in high school, the valley was a parched strip of ground that actually broke plows when they tried to till the soil, so I really don't get the climate change argument that it's a doomsday apocalypse event.

Also, just how much does it take of the plant protein substitute to equal the same of a beef? Plants that provide that protein need water as well, so...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Cowboy, that’s not at all what I’ve said. I’ve stated the fact that agriculture uses 85%of diverted water in the state and if you’re going to make meaningful in-roads in water conservation that is where it is going to need to happen. What’s baseless is your claim it’s population growth that is the significant problem. It’s factually not true. If you’re resisting the need for improvement of where 85% of the water is used, you aren’t actually interested in a useful conversation. You’re interested in being stuck in the ways of practices that aren’t sustainable. You may have stopped flood irrigating, but there’s plenty of it left in the state going on still. But yes, if you’re getting 85% of diverted water in the state on one portion of the population for use, I’ll certainly fight for more water to be used for conservation. 85% isn’t enough for the agriculture industry in the state cowboy? When they account for 2% of the economy. I’d say they get well more than their fair share.
Fair share????? 😂😂😂 We own the water right. It’s ours. What part of that are ya having trouble with. You say you still own a small farm correct. Well why doesn’t the municipality you live in take your farm and give it to the poor homeless folks. It’s only fair. You don’t need that land. Do what’s fair and donate it. You are sure flippant with others peoples property, let’s see ya out your money where your mouth is???
I am all for conservation. But it’s amazing to me how you just want to supersede centuries of water rights because you and others think unmitigated growth isn’t the problem. Cities and the State of Utah have blown up our population and your solution is taking away water rights from the families who own them? One more little tidbit amigo- 1 in 6 kids in the USA have food insecurity and many go to bed hungry. Taking water from agriculture helps fix that how?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Fair share????? 😂😂😂 We own the water right. It’s ours.
I am not sure where anybody is looking to take away water rights. Utah water law needs to revised to further define what "beneficial use" actually is in these modern times. The recent agreement between Audubon and Kennecott to divert a portion of Kennecott's water rights to the GSL is uncharted territory and a positive first step to keep the GSL whole and its $1.4-2B economic engine, that by the way greatly benefits agriculture locally and globally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
#1deer stated plainly- If 85% of the water in the state goes to agriculture I will certainly fight for more to be used for conservation!!!! So how does that water go from Ag producers, who own their rights, to conservation????? We can sell our shares or short sighted folks who showed up late to the party will do their best to take them. It’s only fair 🙄
Pardon me from being skeptical when non agricultural folks start telling me what’s best for my livelihood. And the livelihoods of thousands of Utah families who produce milk, cereal grains, alfalfa, row crops, beef, pork, lamb and food for Utahns and others. #1deer is correct about one thing, 2% of us feed the other 98%. But by all means let’s make it even more difficult for producers. 🙄
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
#1deer stated plainly- If 85% of the water in the state goes to agriculture I will certainly fight for more to be used for conservation!!!! So how does that water go from Ag producers, who own their rights, to conservation????? We can sell our shares or short sighted folks who showed up late to the party will do their best to take them. It’s only fair 🙄
Pardon me from being skeptical when non agricultural folks start telling me what’s best for my livelihood. And the livelihoods of thousands of Utah families who produce milk, cereal grains, alfalfa, row crops, beef, pork, lamb and food for Utahns and others. #1deer is correct about one thing, 2% of us feed the other 98%. But by all means let’s make it even more difficult for producers. 🙄
Whoa Pardner- you obviously have a burr under your saddle are picking a fight where there is not a fight.

What if there was a mechanism that the person with the water right is able to make an agreement to maintain instream flows for fish or god forbid allow it to go the the GSL (which currently buy law is not an allowable use of a water right). That holder of the water right still maintains their right, but up until now was not deemed a beneficial use. Hell, the right holder may even be able to be compensated for the allocation.

I am a "producer" too, that very sensitive to these issues. We have more in common than not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
I’m not fighting with you. It’s the other guy who mentioned nothing of fair compensation I have a burr with. I’m all conservation. Did you see the 8000 acre property purchased by the DWR with the financial backing of SFW and the RMEF and others recently? A win win if there every was one. The ranch owner received fair market value and the property was protected for hunting and will become a WMA. What Rio Tinto did was fine, as it was their choice.
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
Top