Joined
·
3,535 Posts
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.
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.