> before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
My understanding is that people are mainly concerned about toxic lakebed dust.
Using those flies to drum up sympathy is going to backfire. On a trip to SLC we hiked up Antelope Island. In the morning it was chilly and there were no flies on the way up but oh my we were getting attacked on the way down. Half of the hike was amazing!
I don't live in the area but isn't the toxic dust of all the heavy metals going to be a problem? Is there some way to deal with that other than covering them all up with water so they don't get blown into the city?
> and before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
At least flies and other insects are a common food for birds.
> Almost a third of it is exported, mostly to China, taking far too much of our water with it.
So basically, the state is letting other countries effectively over farm Utah, destroying it while it’s at it, giving Utah little in return.
Meanwhile residents are being asked to “slow the flow” and water their lawns less, etc. No. Utah government just needs to start doing their job, pay attention to consumption, and properly govern.
One or two good rain years should not distract us from the real problem either.
I used to live in Utah, and this attitude across most of the population is what led us to this dire place.
The consequences of this lake shrinking (or ultimately disappearing at this point) is significant. Not just for Utahns, but for the entire rocky mountain region.
First off, this lake was a lifeblood for millions of migrating birds across the "pacific flyway" which is the one of the largest migratory routes in the world. Losing the lake is literally extinction to many species that couldn't survive a migration without this stopover.
Next you have the lakeborn dust. Utah already has the dirtiest air in the country and that will only get worse as the toxic dust mixes with the smog. This could turn the air in salt lake and utah county into actual hazards that require masks to go outside (and we know how much Utahns loved wearing masks last time they were asked to do that).
Furthermore the shrinking lake means less snow. As storms pass over utah, they absorb moisture as they cross the salt lake, which causes precipitation to be released as they pass over the mountains. This means that one of Utah's most famous pasttimes and tourist destinations, the mountains will get worse over time.
And when there is less snow, that means less meltoff filling the rivers and streams in the mountains, which leads to water shortages for the citizens and a dryier changing landscapes as the mountains that Utah loves so much turn from lush forests to arid deserts. This furthermore changes and risks populations of wildlife that require these mountains to survive.
So yes, its an eye sore. But it is hugely significant to the entire Utah ecosystem. But not only Utah, a drying salt lake will also have devastating affects on Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado.
Ya I’m in the area. The OP’s viewpoint is illuminating in its candor but not surprising and explains why we’re where we’re at.
“Resources exist to be used, it’s been fine for 20 years why doesn’t that prove it’s fine” (about a thousands year old ecosystem). Incredible.
We will fully earn whatever outcomes come from this due to this being a prevalent local attitude. We showed up here in the 1800’s, we own it, we’ll drain it, it’s all fine.
Which part of that quote isn’t true? You’re right GSL has been losing water on average, but it did accelerate in 2020-2022.
The article mentioned the fact that the lake came up a little - slightly - this year, but that’s anomalous weather and not a trend. The trend is clear that there are only a few years left for the lake at current rates. The lake was at it’s lowest point ever 1 year ago, when it got so low they had to haul all of the boats out of the marina and it went dry.
If the concerns about arsenic are accurate - and I’ve heard Salt Lake is already starting to experience increased health issues from the lake dust - then I pretty strongly disagree that sales of alfalfa (a notoriously thirsty crop) are more important.
> resources exist to be used
False. Resources exist, and we humans take them at will and use them for our own profits at the expense of other humans and animals, until they start becoming a big enough ecological problem, or until there is contention over the resources between humans. This case is both of those - there is contention between people who use the lake and farmers, and there is a looming ecological problem for the population of Salt Lake if the like dries up.
> They point to agriculture and domestic usage as one of the reasons the lake is shrinking. The fact of the matter is in my estimation these are far more valuable uses of the water then letting it drain to be forever lost into a giant puddle
Utah's agricultural water usage is overwhelmingly (68%) alfalfa and hay, of which 30% gets sent overseas [0]. Speaking as a Utahn, there's no good reason for Utah of all places to export agricultural goods. I'm all for eating local, but we don't have to climate to be an exporter, and right now at least 1/5 of the water diverted from the Great Salt Lake is not only leaving Utah, it's leaving the country.
> and before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
I don't know how you can possibly know that—large bodies of water generally have an enormous effect on the local climate, which obviously all local plant and animal life depends on. The concern over the loss of the lake isn't just about first order effects, it's about second order effects, and while those are rather hard to predict they will certainly extend beyond brine shrimp and flies.
EDIT: I really dislike when people edit their original posts instead of just replying to the comments they're replying to, but since we're playing that game I'll just note that your repeated use of the word "wasted" with regards to water going in to the Great Salt Lake shows that you have absolutely zero understanding of the water cycle. I recommend brushing up on that before taking grand sweeping stances about the value of water pooled in large bodies.
> Utah's agricultural water usage is overwhelmingly (68%) alfalfa and hay, of which 30% gets sent overseas [0].
Surely the right solution is to set an appropriate price for the use of water and let the market figure it out. If exported alfalfa is actually an economically appropriate use of limited water, fine. If not, then it would be uneconomical with appropriately priced water.
(Or perhaps it would be economical with appropriately priced water, but growers would need to become more efficient. That would be fine, too.)
Yes, I wish that we could do that. We're currently mired in some ancient laws established in an unusually wet period more than a hundred years ago that give a lot of property owners unreasonable rights over "their" water. The government can't just take that away forcibly, and it's hard to persuade taxpayers in Utah to approve large government expenses of any sort.
Market failures are common, and it might make sense to try to buy up the water to prevent alfalfa farming, even if that water isn't used elsewhere. Consider it a water rights conservation easement. Once you own them, if farmers attempt to pump it, sue them.
Maybe alfalfa farmers would prefer utility scale solar income versus farming? Not in Utah, so unsure how palatable that concept is. In 2022, coal fueled 53% of Utah's total electricity net generation, down from 75% in 2015, and natural gas accounted for 26%. More renewables near SLC would be helpful imho.
Environmental damage is one place free market thinking has completely failed, repeatedly. It surely is not the right solution. First off, there’s a massive delay between environmental changes and outcomes. We’d have had to foresee this problem and set the right prices 100 years ago when water rights were being handed out and priced. Secondly, prices are never “appropriate”, we simply cannot forecast the outcome of environmental changes. Cost benefit analyses in the past when it comes to the environment have been wrong by orders of magnitude [1] Third is that viewing things through an economic lens distorts the value and gives automatic preference to the party that is profiteering off the environment. Saying that people in Salt Lake should cough up enough cash to outbid the people who want to grow alfalfa to sell it to China is kinda gross, that’s not how we should handle public safety or our environment. Think about all these issue with respect to air pollution & CO2. What would it have taken to solve it with free markets? We haven’t solved it yet, and it would have needed to be priced and debated starting 100 years ago. And there is no appropriate price for clean air and the earth to stay habitable.
> Saying that people in Salt Lake should cough up enough cash to outbid the people who want to grow alfalfa to sell it to China is kinda gross
It's also incredibly easy; SLC could outbid the farmers hundreds of times over and it wouldn't be even a rounding error in the city budget. It's difficult to see anyone opposing this as anything other than useful idiots for the ag lobby.
Because it’s easy is not a valid reason to charge the public to compete with business for the right to keep the lake and not get sick living near it. We need to restrict business interests from driving critical resources into the ground for profit. I’m all for farming and farmers making some money, but we can’t let that be unlimited like it has been forever.
And it’s incredibly short sighted to suggest we should go down that road even if it’s easy. The only reason it’s affordable now is because way-too-cheap water rights have been grandfathered in for decades and decades. There hasn’t been free market prices ever, so if we introduce them, the prices are going to skyrocket immediately, and it won’t be so easy anymore.
> Surely the right solution is to set an appropriate price for the use of water and let the market figure it out.
The idea that money of all things should define environmental and health interests is so laughable, there’s literally a cartoon about it. (“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.”)
Putting that aside. Yes, the 19th century water rights laws where certain people get guaranteed drawdowns and are encouraged to use all of the water every year is destroying the western United States. We need to blow up the entire system and star again. And if this means screwing over golf courses, mining, and inappropriate agriculture that inevitably uses unsustainable irrigation practices, so be it.
Counterintuitively, shipping that alfalfa overseas is probably better for the environment than shipping it via truck all over the country. So there's that to consider.
One of the most memorable excursions I’ve had with my brothers is when we visited the Great Salt Lake and found out it was a cess pool and one of the foulest smelling places on Earth. You truly cannot imagine how vile this place is unless you visit. An ecosystem of death based on brine shrimp, flies, a few pitiful birds trying to eat the flies, and rot. The closest analog I can think of is Mordor. This was before Covid, so it seems it has gotten nothing but worse since then.
It's also a keystone to the environment of the Rocky Mountains, providing a habitat for millions of migratory birds (even ones that don't stay use it as a critical stopping point on the way north or south), giving water to clouds that becomes snow in the rest of the Rockies, and cooling the air as it passes.
You may not enjoy being there, but that doesn't make it not worth saving.
No I’m not saying it isn’t worth saving at all. Maybe it was nicer when it had more water flowing into it? Can anyone that visited it decades ago chime in?
I’d even say save it if it was always disgusting. It’s certainly unique.
I visited in the 80's when I was a kid. We found a beautiful beach, and swam for hours. No stink, and crystal clear water that, due to its salt content, made you float super easily.
Today, it's disgusting and obviously sick. That same beach is a sandy field a mile from the water, and when you do get to the water, it's a sludge that's probably not healthy to be around.
Running out of water is a concern, but it's not because we won't be able to farm or wash or cars or whatever. It's because if that sludge dries, it turns to dust, and all the very nasty stuff (arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals), starts polluting our air.
And when it comes to air pollution, even without a dry lake of nasty stuff, the Salt Lake City metro area is one of the worst - especially so in the winter. We get an inversion later that traps air pollution in the valleys, and the air becomes brown. Not even a hint of brown, but just brown.
Very bad things will happen to the health of everyone in this area should the lake go dry.
As someone who's visited the Salton Sea, I assure you, I can imagine.
That said, the more dead the sea becomes, the less it smells. The Salton Sea smelled so much worse when there were will fish to die off [0]. The fish population would go through population boom and bust cycles. I haven't seen a dead fish there in about 10 years now. Now that it's mostly dead and sterile, the smell isn't as bad. And that's not necessarily a good thing....
There is a researcher named John Todd whose work has been able to break down DDT in a matter of weeks.
In this video, he gives a talk about some various projects. In the first one, he uses these methods to clean up a site contaminated with the top 15 pollutants (at least at the time). Heavy metal were sequestered by algea; 14 of the 15 toxins were below detectable levels, and the 15th was reduced by 99.999%; solids were eaten by armored carp. The output is drinking standard water, and it takes 10 days for the contaminated water to flow through the system.
The key design principle is putting many species across all five kingdoms, from different biomes, and they start self-organizing around the pollutants. The resulting communities break down the pollutant, but are all new.
In a different interview, he talks about microplastics — and while he has not worked on it, he believes a solution can be found in incorporating all five kingdoms. So not just sequestering them, but breaking them down so they can be useful in the ecosystem again.
Neat video, but let's not forget two important things about the Great Salt Lake.
It's enormous. 950+ square miles.
It's a salt lake. Far saltier than the ocean. No carps are going to be eating solids. The algea or other biological methods described in the video will not work to reset a lake of salt that is nearly the size of Rhode Island.
Revitalizing an area of that size would likely be a far larger undertaking than solving the problem of reduced flow into the lake due to agricultural overuse.
I'm all for clever solutions, but they can also lead people into thinking that it's a problem solved, and that addressing the root cause of the problem isn't needed. It allows people to be complacent and allow abuse to continue. When it all implodes, those who caused it get sit back and see how the rest of us deal with it.
I'd be more generous though...it's not Mordor. It's where Mordor residents go on vacation. The beach in Death Stranding was cleaner, but a beach is a beach even if it's full of jagged rocks, hot sand and dead organic matter. I walked it barefoot and came down with blisters and a bacterial infection so nasty I couldn't walk for a month.
Not saying it's not worth saving, only that it's not worth advertising as a recreational venue. It's gross. It's literally a sump tank.
The lake is great but it has good days and bad days like anything else. I lived near the lake for years and still think it's heart-rendingly beautiful. Flies weren't usually a problem, there are all kinds of animals living nearby that you wouldn't expect like seagulls, buffalo, etc.
And then yes there were occasional times where the lake would recede a bit and the smell could make you flinch from miles and miles away.
I live in the salt lake valley and it’s infuriating how much of a disconnect between public perception and reality there is about water usage. People are all stressed out about not watering their lawns and ripping out grass, when in reality the alfalfa farmers use the vast majority of our water. Because of water rights they get it cheap so we’re subsidizing beef production with our dwindling water supply so we can grow alfalfa in the desert.
(Edit: This may not be correct! Please see comment chain below with jeffbee)
California too. While they were
making it illegal for restaurants to hand out drinking water without asking, big ag carried on. It's so silly it can't be a real conservation concern, probably was just some divide and conquer from the industry.
Big Ag and Big Restaurant do not share the same water supply. In 2014, when the temporary emergency conservation measure that you mentioned was adopted, many municipal water supplies were actually out of water. Nothing that an almond orchard can do would solve that problem promptly.
Not really. Probably you can find some case where that is true, such as small towns that formerly used now-depleted aquifers, but on a population-weighted basis your typical California city has completely separate rights and infrastructure. Many of the municipal systems have very superior rights, way upstream. Our ancestors were idiots but they knew the rules of the game.
Hmm, I don't quite understand. Are you saying typical municipalities today (say, LA or San Diego) get their water from different sources than ag does, so they're not in competition with each other? (ie water not from the same watersheds or pipelines)?
Yes. Los Angeles does buy water from some ag rights holders but they also have dedicated supplies. San Francisco and the East Bay have totally separate rights that are upstream of everyone.
I think the main thing to know is that water is not like electricity. There is not a grid. Every municipal system has circumstances completely unique to it.
Promptly, sure - but there's a system that can be changed overall, we should have the power to do so. For instance, groundwater depletion from ag limits municipal water supplies, or other ag use uses State Water Project water 'before' it gets sent down to SoCal. The more SWP water they use, the less Colorado water they use. It is a grid, and not always fully fungible, but more connected than people think.
It's not just local beef production either—30% of the alfalfa and hay goes overseas, 20% to China. We're taking the tiny amount of water we have in this desert and shipping it over an ocean.
It's specifically a problem because Utah is a desert.
Alfalfa fed to local cows that are consumed locally keeps the water in our ecosystem, within the bounds of our natural water cycle. Alfalfa fed to cows overseas exports our water overseas, so it doesn't reenter the water cycle locally, and it may never find its way back (on human timescales).
You can think of it as having a trade deficit for water—we're not importing it in sufficient quantities to make up for our exports, and the result is that our local environment gradually dries out. Wetter climates don't have that problem because water that evaporates from the ocean can be treated as unlimited.
You are completely wrong about how agricultural water usage works.
The water doesn't physically go into the final shipped alfalfa in meaningful quantities. 99.9% of the water that is used in growing alfalfa evaporates, or ends up in the ground, and it doesn't matter whether the remaining 0.1% that actually ends up, and stays inside the plant gets exported to Mars, or consumed locally.
When growing alfalfa, 100 tonnes of water is used to produce ~300lb of biomass. When you're sourcing those 100 tonnes unsustainably, it really doesn't matter whether you export the 300lb, or not.
You're blaming a foreign boogieman for a domestic, self-inflicted problem.
lolinder was simply pointing out that the problem isn't helped by the shipment of alfalfa overseas. They weren't suggesting that exporting alfalfa is the entire problem.
My extended family are cattle ranchers in southern Utah, and a lot of alfalfa is grown to feed cattle in the winter. A lot of the weight of a bundle of alfalfa is water - probably most of it when freshly harvested. When processed, it's left to dry for a while, but the alfalfa that gets sold is probably still 10-20% water.
Our ranch doesn't sell the alfalfa we grow, but there are plenty of massive , industrial scale, operations near our ranch that exclusively sell alfalfa on foreign markets. At their scale, not shipping alfalfa overseas would make a meaningful dent in the problem. It wouldn't solve it entirely, but it would likely have a greater impact than people not washing their cars.
> A lot of the weight of a bundle of alfalfa is water - probably most of it when freshly harvested. When processed, it's left to dry for a while, but the alfalfa that gets sold is probably still 10-20% water.
And for every liter of water that's left in dry alfalfa, it took ~4,000 liters of water to grow it.
You, like the parent poster, are making a huge mistake, in thinking that that one liter that's getting exported is at all a meaningful part of the water sustainability problem with going alfalfa in a desert. It's not. The unsustainable part of it is the other 3999 liters.
'Don't export alfalfa grown in a desert' optimizes the part that isn't important. 'Don't grow alfalfa in a desert' is what people actually need to be doing.
I am not making that mistake. Since I'm also involved in growing said alfalfa, I know very well how much water is used in merely growing it. That I didn't mention that in my reply isn't evidence that I'm making a huge mistake in thinking.
In my opinion, exporting any amount of water is too much.
Saying that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the other ways in which water could be better managed.
Live in Phoenix, which as you know, does not have a lot of water.
Alfa-alfa is grown here, packaged and shipped to Saudi-Arabia because it's cheaper this way than for Saudi-Arabia to desalinate water and grown their own stuff.
I mean surely the product is dried before shipping. /s
It's still a problem, but we need to keep in mind that maybe we shouldn't be farming so much animal feed in general. We'd still lose this water if we kept the feed local.
That 20% is just what fraction of the shipped alfalfa is water. It doesn't tell you anything about how much of the water used to grow the alfalfa stays.
If you used a 1000000 kg of water to grow alfalfa, you'd get around 25000 kg of alfalfa (which would contain 5000 kg of water and 20000 kg of other stuff).
So for every 5000 kg of water that is in that alfalfa when shipped around 995000 kg of water stays.
This is basically the plot of the excellent “the moon is a harsh mistress”, ultimately the moon (and a benevolent revolutionary ai) holds the earth hostage until the earth commits the building a giant orbital launch cannon to fire ice back up to the moon
Not sure we want china firing freshwater ice at utah on a ballistic trajectory?
Here’s your daily reminder that desalination can provide as much water as we need. Nuclear power + desalination would solve all our water AND energy problems in a carbon-free way.
Israel gets over 55% of their water from desalination.
Water problems are simply a political\planning failure. There is no real shortage of water.
The west coast has a water problem, the tools to solve it, and complete one-party control of politics to make it happen. They are choosing not to though.
You Utah folks obviously don’t have an ocean sitting next to you, but perhaps if the west coast used less of the Colorado river there would be more for you.
I need to clarify here, the GSL is far far too salty to desalinate, and Utah is pretty close to the head of the Colorado, not the other way around. It's AZ and NM and CA that are having problems with the CO not providing enough water.
Also the GSL water is entirely divorced from the CO river water.
Oh I’m not talking about desalination of GSL. I’m talking about California doing desalination and not using the Colorado river for water anymore.
If they stopped using water from the Colorado, there would be more water for Utah to take from it.
States up the river use less water in order to leave some for the states down river. So if the states downriver stopped using it, then states upstream could increase their usage.
How would they get the water over the Rocky Mountains to the Salt Lake Valley? I thought the pipeline from the Pacific Ocean was a crazy idea, but you have that one beat.
Utah already gets 27% of its water from the Colorado river.
I am not suggesting that Utah desalinate the Pacific Ocean or that Utah desalinate the great salt lake. I am saying they should increase their usage of water from the Colorado River.
If California stopped using the Colorado river for water, then Utah could pull more water from the Colorado.
Water can be moved in pipelines or controlled via a manmade river/channel.
Desalination is incredibly energy-inefficient and everyone over 40 (i.e. everyone in positions of power) was successfully brainwashed that nuclear BAD so it's going to be decades by the time it's ever a consideration again in the public sphere. And by that point, many of the experts on building reactors will be long gone
It is literally impossible to desalinate enough water to grow staple row crops and fodder in an economically viable manner. However, there is plenty of room for efficiency improvement. US agribusiness wastes a huge amount of water. They could save a lot with a modest investment in irrigation improvements (some of which were developed in Israel).
A lot of this is the fault of the politicians and public education.
Both are largely influenced by one overwhelming organization with nearly infinite money. If you live in Utah you know who i'm talking about.
They don't care about the environment and they aren't overly concerned with public health. Yet most politicians in Utah will only get and stay in power with their blessing and approval. Thats why Utah has had the same senator for 42 years.
We need the utah public to wake up and vote with some intelligence to get people in power who want to and can actually make change and care about these things.
I lived in Utah for almost 2 decades (as an adult). I moved out 5 years ago and it was the absolute best decision I ever made.
Literally nothing you describe is unique to Utah or the LDS Church.
I agree that it isn't unique, but why does it matter? The point isn't that it is a unique situation, the point is that Utahns are being underserved by their officials.
> We need the utah public to wake up and vote with some intelligence to get people in power who want to and can actually make change and care about these things.
I live in Oregon where the majority of people live in a tiny corner of the state (the Portland Metro area) which is Democrat heavy. The rest of the state is mainly populated with rural Republican-leaning conservatives. The rural portion of the state is essentially constantly mimicking you about how the entire state government is controlled by Democrats and how “We need the Oregon public to wake up and vote with some intelligence to get people in power who want to and can actually make change and care about these things.” It has gotten to the point where they want the majority of the counties in the state to secede and join themselves to Idaho. Of course, there is no more chance of that happening than you trying to convince the majority conservative Utah population to not vote for conservative candidates. And, the Oregon liberal majority will keep voting for liberal candidates.
And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. If some farmers purchased water usage rights from the state (is that how it worked?), then the state should refund them, paying back the original purchase amount plus inflation. And then start charging them the same as everyone else for water.
If farmers can grow alfalfa cheaply enough when the water isn't free, by being more efficient with water usage, then they will continue to do so because it will be profitable. If it's not profitable, then they'll stop growing alfalfa.
We don't need to make laws about agriculture in particular; simply start charging people for the resources they use, and market forces will grind to dust anyone who uses resources inefficiently.
> And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used.
If your great, great grandfather was a pioneer and moved into the SLC valley 150 years ago- a particularly harsh and rugged place, and then started a small farm that was perfectly sustainable, but then millions of transplants moved in, what exactly makes them so entitled to the water under your property? Sounds like theft to me.
I don't disagree, Somewhat recently a Federal Judge ordered that the Navajo Nation wasn't entitled to the Colorado River that they had been using for thousands of years. This is what happens when the government steps in to redistribute a resource to who they "think" deserves it rather than to those who were historically entitled to it. Legalized theft, plain and simple.
Ok, great. Let's undo all those peaky 'big gubmint' deals you dislike so much and return the land to it's original owners. You're on the side of small government and historical ownership claims, right? Hard to imagine a smaller government or more viable historical claim than the obvious one.
I disagree: this is what happens when you have structural racism. Here, it’s either individuals stripping others of their long held traditions, property rights, and society. Or it’s an organized government transgressing.
Less government wouldn’t prevent this outcome. A more just one that doesn’t ignore the rights of natives would.
Your great, great grandfather probably died around the age of 40 before the transplants and modern society advanced the medicine. He would probably be in favour of living longer than dying early.
I’m actually curious how people make arguments while referring to a completely different period of time with its own problems.
I know this is a tangent, but it’s unlikely great grandpa only lived to 40. Even 100 years ago, someone who was 39 would be expected to live another 28 years on average.
All those low life expectancy numbers were due to high infant- and childhood-mortality rates.
That nitpick aside, yeah gramps’ prior claim should not be given the weight it has.
So the descendents of someone who secured a deal based on a completely different socioeconomic context and then died over 100 years ago should be given priority over those who live today and those who live tomorrow? Sounds like theft to me.
That's kind of how property rights work. So if you're not going to go full "property is theft", then you need to show why water rights are different from the right to, say, the land (or the minerals on the land, or the timber on the land, or...)
And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.
Well you got me, I'm one of those "property is theft" / "ACAB" nutjobs.
But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?
If your great grandfather was growing alfa alfa to send it to cattle feed lots in Saudi Arabia all the while risking the lives of his fellow pioneers who lived next to him, he wasn't entitled to that water in the first place.
That is hardly a simple solution. In most states, water rights weren't purchased from the state. They were granted and tied to property deeds. In some cases those actually predate statehood.
In theory states could seize those water rights through eminent domain (or a similar process) but under the 5th Amendment the state would have to pay fair market value for this. That would be enormously expensive. States would have to raise taxes on everyone to fund that, which would be political suicide.
In the western US, water rights generally derive from first historical productive use of the water. Older uses take precedence over later uses in case of low water years. So a farm (mine, factory, city) established in the 1800s has a right to use that amount of water before cities established later can take any water. These rights are transferable (sellable), so cities can purchase water rights from other holders. Note that downstream rights holders may have prior claim to water over upstream users.
Water allocation rights are generally use-it-or-lose-it, so early water rights are incentivized to make even marginally productive use of their full allocation, rather than to leave it for other higher-value use.
That could actually get farmers to increase alfalfa production.
Alfalfa water usage per acre is not much different than that of spinach, tomato, lettuce, wheat, or corn. As an aggregate it uses more water because (1) there is a lot of acreage of alfalfa, and (2) it can be grown nearly year around.
Furthermore, its water efficiency (how much is produced per unit of water used) is high.
If water costs go up some farmers might be able to make more money then by switching to alfalfa since it is more efficient.
We have the same thing in California. We have rice and pistachio farmers in the Central Valley. It makes no sense to grow rice and pistachios in a water challenged environment. Then you see Congress Created Dust Bowl signs on I5.
Is CA's central valley water challenged? The Imperial valley siphoning the Colorado River and LA siphoning the back of the Sierras are. But northern Central valley especially seems quite abundant in water from the runoff of the Sierras. Reservoirs are looking pretty good to me https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
> People are all stressed out about not watering their lawns
Salt Lake City requested that residents reduce usage to keep enough drinking water in the reservoirs. This is pretty separate from the lake and upstream farming issues, no? I think the canyon runoff goes to Utah lake and not GSL? Some places legitimately went very very low on drinking water last year due to low runoff and high usage. I think it’s important to care about both watering lawns and the salt lake.
> I think the canyon runoff goes to Utah lake and not GSL?
Depends on the canyon. The canyons in Salt Lake County go to the GSL; the canyons on the Wasatch Back go to either the Provo River (and then Utah Lake) or the Weber River (and then the GSL).
I ate my last McRib while looking out at the great Salt Lake for the first time. It was otherworldly and much bigger feeling than I was expecting but it was super hard to find a place where we could just walk up to the edge of it. My McRib almost got cold.
Also I don't fully know what to make of this wave of environmental law suits but it feels very Ministry for the Future.
It's quite possible you contributed to the GSL drought by having the McRib. Not trying to blame, I only had this observation after reading the other threads.
This oft-cited 1993 study [1] estimated 3,682 L of developed water per kilogram of boneless meat for beef cattle production in the United States. A McRib is obviously pork, but a double quarter pounder would represent approximately 200 gallons of water not entering the Great Salt Lake.
I moved away from Utah 2 years ago, but at the time, there were a significant numbers of folks in the Utah Valley (upstream from the Great Salt Lake) that still irrigate their alfalfa fields with flood irrigation, which is exceedingly wasteful. Basically, there are large ditches that divert water from the rivers 24/7 all season, with each farmer being on a schedule to open their gate and flood their property.
If they modernized their practices, they could greatly reduce water usage. I don't know if that alone would save the lake, but it certainly is worth a try.
This is why all the hand-wringing about "take shorter showers!!!" is so braindead.
The issue is agriculture, full stop. Of course, we all need food to eat, but as you point out we could produce just as much food if we just modernized our irrigation practices. I'm not saying that would be cheap, or that we shouldn't have government support for that modernization, but whenever I hear some nonsense about how we should stop washing our cars I just tune that out. It's a form of green washing when we focus on inconsequential bits and then let the biggest water users continue to waste water.
What happens to the water after they flood the field? It seems neutral if the fields in question are in the same basin.
Same point is often made about flooded rice fields in northern California. The water "used" by this process, that is the water that does not return to the river, transpires into the air. For a given crop the transpiration is the same whether flooded or irrigated by another method. The crop is the problem, not the flood.
Are you saying that flooding a field loses the same amount of water to evaporation as other, more targeted, means of irrigation? Or are you saying "alfalfa itself uses the same amount of water regardless of irrigation methood."
If it's the latter, that makes sense. A plant can only use so much, and that rate of use is consistent for a given crop, but that doesn't address the water not used by the alfalfa. Wouldn't flooding lose more water to evaporation than other irrigation methods?
Yes, but, most of the water loss and flood farming is because there is water pulled up everywhere around the plants and a lot of it just directly evaporates. That’s why drip irrigation is so much better, you’re targeting water to the plants
Flooding an X area field is more water exposed to the air than direct application to a smaller Y area no? So by your own logic more water evaporates into the air with flooding
And once it evaporates, it will move east with the air, over the mountains, and into a different watershed.
It is true that the water will flow somewhere, so isn't "lost", but the point is that the diversion decreases how much makes it downstream to the Salt Lake.
I thought the water cycle causes almost all of the precipitation to happen before going over the mountains? It's why the west side of the Sierras are wet and the east side dry.
The water carries minerals from the soil back into the river, which get more concentrated each time. Salt is a major concern (this is the source of ocean salt), and in major irrigation rivers like the colorado is a major issue that is controlled carefully for downstream users, for whom it would otherwise be too salty to use for irrigation.
The US treaty with mexico dictates the salt content of the river at the border for this reason. The southwest US used to be home to a widespread desert irrigation agricultural people, the Hohokum, and failure to manage soil salt content is afaik still the leading hypothesis for their disappearance. So no unfortunately water that flows back into the river isn't neutral.
The government can certainly limit sinks pulling water out of the lake, but ultimately I don't know what petitioners think the courts are going to do about the underlying input problem.
What remedy is available here in the medium-term? Teaching the entire Utah legislature and executive how to do a rain-dance?
A rain dance might be more effective than other ideas they've considered.
The one thing they haven't really tried doing is giving industrial scale agriculture a reason to help solve the problem. If big ag's profits were actually at risk because of big ag's overuse of water, they'd be incentivized to use less, by any means.
What are the implication for snowfall and skiing? We know the Utah state government and the people who elected them don't care about the environment or the health implications of poor quality air, but presumably they do care about jobs, and resorts employ a lot more people than farms do, no?
I was just watching a video from the CBS Morning Show talking about how the Great Salt Lake was recovering from the drought, thanks to all the recent heavy winter snows.
> “The Great Salt Lake belongs to the people of Utah and the state has a legal obligation to protect this resource”
As this seems to be the core of the lawsuit, I'm curious whether this is accurate from a legal perspective. Not that it's always the right thing to do, but governments typically have legal leeway to make all kinds of decisions like damming rivers, flooding canyons, etc. So I wonder if there's specific legislation about preserving the lake in the Utah State Constitution or legislation that would form the legal basis of this lawsuit.
The lawsuit is linked in a press release from one of the firms pursuing it [0]. The legal argument is summarized in paragraph 8 in the Introduction:
> The public trust doctrine is well-established in Utah law, confirmed by statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and the Utah constitution. Under this doctrine, the public owns many natural resources, and the State holds and manages them in trust for the public, which is the beneficiary of the trust. Such resources include the Great Salt Lake—a historically navigable waterway—and the sovereign lands underlying the Lake. As trustee, the State of Utah has an ongoing obligation to protect the Great Salt Lake’s waters and underlying lands, so that Utahns can continue to use them for navigation, commerce, brine shrimp fishing, recreation, and other uses recognized under the public trust doctrine.
That is, they're arguing that the state government has a duty to protect the public waterways, alongside its powers to manage them. They elaborate on their interpretation of the public trust doctrine in the Legal Background section; the precedents they cite don't look like obvious bunk to me, but I'm no lawyer, much less an expert in Utah law.
Until we start sending the national guard in to scuttle the wellheads flooding the deserts to grow alfalfa I’m not taking a shorter shower, I’m not going to stop watering my grass, and I’m not changing anything about my behavior whatsoever.
Sorry, but I just don’t believe it’s a crisis when I can see that it pretty clearly isn’t a big enough crisis to stop growing horse food in the desert.
And not to pile on the infinite number of ways that California is a failure: but if you guys arent racing to build nuclear desalination plants, then I don’t believe you either.
Sorry but I’m getting pretty fed up with hearing that I need to live in a crisis, but that the people telling me in need to live in a crisis don’t.
While I completely understand (and share) the frustration, I think it's important not to fall into the "I'm not doing anything until it's fixed" trap.
Things change when enough people care about a problem. Electing people who care about the problem is one of the primary ways to fix it. Electing people who care about the problem isn't going to happen if everyone collectively stops caring about the problem.
The current behavior of corporations and politicians is BS, but concluding that "I'll change nothing" feeds/perpetuates the problem, which is still ultimately a collective concern. The problem will eventually come to a head forcing regulatory change, and it's far better if people have already started moving in a healthier direction.
I don't necessarily think that's what the comment you are responding to is saying.
I agree with that parent comment, which is that trying to guilt consumers into worrying about their shower length or grass watering is plain bad policy if meanwhile we do nothing about agricultural usage. If anything, I think making it loudly known that consumers aren't going to do squat unless agriculture is tackled is a step in the right direction.
I do feel it is important to note that merely taking normal-length showers isn't making anything "loudly known" though. Other action has to be taken to be sure you're heard.
The revolution starts at home. Just make sure it doesn't end there, too. Vote for politicians who are willing to do something about it. Call your current ones and tell them you're pissed and why.
Oh but we don’t get our shower water from the Lake, right? That comes from snowpack. I understand the sentiment, but not watering the lawn is to make sure we have enough drinking water, not to keep the lake up. Alpine actually ran out a year or so ago, I heard. These are two different water issues.
> But wresting water away from agriculture is politically complicated. Officials have explored propositions to pay farmers to fallow land and use less water, though such proposals have yet to gain much tractions.
Do I have to say it? Fuck the farmers. They make a minuscule amount of money for the economy and contribute nothing to the ecology. We know this isn't sustainable and the water's going to dry up anyway, but we need to let these good ol' boys create an environmental disaster first 'cuz the livestock in the desert gotta eat. Stop coddling these people.
Just tax agricultural output until their property values drop, then use eminent domain to seize it for pennies on the dollar, rewrite the deed's water rights, lower agricultural taxes and then resell the land.
The problem is that they own the water rights. The state could eminent domain them, but they would have to pay fair market value (whatever that is). I would bet that most people would not elect politicians who suggested such a thing, unless they were feeling the pain directly.
The legal system governing water rights in the western United States is utterly absurd. I think it was a stupid system in the beginning but is orders of magnitude more stupid today given the challenges facing the region.
It also happens to be a system that people will legitimately fight and kill others to preserve. The political challenge to change this system is enormous and I'd bet most people have no idea how fucked it is.
Unfortunately the article doesn't get into too much detail about the particular legal argument being made.
Given the state government has taken actions intended to address the water level in the lake it would appear that the fact of the water level being a problem isn't the main point of dispute. I'm not entirely familiar with US law but I guess the legal question might be whether the state's actions are sufficient to protect the lake and also whether the sufficiency or insufficiency is a justiciable matter (rather than a political/legislative one).
This seems to be a copy of the original written arguments from the plaintiffs. [1]
162 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 282 ms ] threadMy understanding is that people are mainly concerned about toxic lakebed dust.
I don't live in the area but isn't the toxic dust of all the heavy metals going to be a problem? Is there some way to deal with that other than covering them all up with water so they don't get blown into the city?
At least flies and other insects are a common food for birds.
I’ve read/heard that a bulk of the alfalfa grown in Utah is exported to other countries:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2022/12/04/why-its-...
> Almost a third of it is exported, mostly to China, taking far too much of our water with it.
So basically, the state is letting other countries effectively over farm Utah, destroying it while it’s at it, giving Utah little in return.
Meanwhile residents are being asked to “slow the flow” and water their lawns less, etc. No. Utah government just needs to start doing their job, pay attention to consumption, and properly govern.
One or two good rain years should not distract us from the real problem either.
The consequences of this lake shrinking (or ultimately disappearing at this point) is significant. Not just for Utahns, but for the entire rocky mountain region.
First off, this lake was a lifeblood for millions of migrating birds across the "pacific flyway" which is the one of the largest migratory routes in the world. Losing the lake is literally extinction to many species that couldn't survive a migration without this stopover.
Next you have the lakeborn dust. Utah already has the dirtiest air in the country and that will only get worse as the toxic dust mixes with the smog. This could turn the air in salt lake and utah county into actual hazards that require masks to go outside (and we know how much Utahns loved wearing masks last time they were asked to do that).
Furthermore the shrinking lake means less snow. As storms pass over utah, they absorb moisture as they cross the salt lake, which causes precipitation to be released as they pass over the mountains. This means that one of Utah's most famous pasttimes and tourist destinations, the mountains will get worse over time.
And when there is less snow, that means less meltoff filling the rivers and streams in the mountains, which leads to water shortages for the citizens and a dryier changing landscapes as the mountains that Utah loves so much turn from lush forests to arid deserts. This furthermore changes and risks populations of wildlife that require these mountains to survive.
So yes, its an eye sore. But it is hugely significant to the entire Utah ecosystem. But not only Utah, a drying salt lake will also have devastating affects on Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado.
“Resources exist to be used, it’s been fine for 20 years why doesn’t that prove it’s fine” (about a thousands year old ecosystem). Incredible.
We will fully earn whatever outcomes come from this due to this being a prevalent local attitude. We showed up here in the 1800’s, we own it, we’ll drain it, it’s all fine.
The article mentioned the fact that the lake came up a little - slightly - this year, but that’s anomalous weather and not a trend. The trend is clear that there are only a few years left for the lake at current rates. The lake was at it’s lowest point ever 1 year ago, when it got so low they had to haul all of the boats out of the marina and it went dry.
You can watch the lake shrink in the aerial animation here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/gslep/about/water-levels.html#:~:t...)
If the concerns about arsenic are accurate - and I’ve heard Salt Lake is already starting to experience increased health issues from the lake dust - then I pretty strongly disagree that sales of alfalfa (a notoriously thirsty crop) are more important.
> resources exist to be used
False. Resources exist, and we humans take them at will and use them for our own profits at the expense of other humans and animals, until they start becoming a big enough ecological problem, or until there is contention over the resources between humans. This case is both of those - there is contention between people who use the lake and farmers, and there is a looming ecological problem for the population of Salt Lake if the like dries up.
Utah's agricultural water usage is overwhelmingly (68%) alfalfa and hay, of which 30% gets sent overseas [0]. Speaking as a Utahn, there's no good reason for Utah of all places to export agricultural goods. I'm all for eating local, but we don't have to climate to be an exporter, and right now at least 1/5 of the water diverted from the Great Salt Lake is not only leaving Utah, it's leaving the country.
> and before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
I don't know how you can possibly know that—large bodies of water generally have an enormous effect on the local climate, which obviously all local plant and animal life depends on. The concern over the loss of the lake isn't just about first order effects, it's about second order effects, and while those are rather hard to predict they will certainly extend beyond brine shrimp and flies.
EDIT: I really dislike when people edit their original posts instead of just replying to the comments they're replying to, but since we're playing that game I'll just note that your repeated use of the word "wasted" with regards to water going in to the Great Salt Lake shows that you have absolutely zero understanding of the water cycle. I recommend brushing up on that before taking grand sweeping stances about the value of water pooled in large bodies.
[0] https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2022/11/24/one-crop-...
Surely the right solution is to set an appropriate price for the use of water and let the market figure it out. If exported alfalfa is actually an economically appropriate use of limited water, fine. If not, then it would be uneconomical with appropriately priced water.
(Or perhaps it would be economical with appropriately priced water, but growers would need to become more efficient. That would be fine, too.)
Maybe alfalfa farmers would prefer utility scale solar income versus farming? Not in Utah, so unsure how palatable that concept is. In 2022, coal fueled 53% of Utah's total electricity net generation, down from 75% in 2015, and natural gas accounted for 26%. More renewables near SLC would be helpful imho.
[1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
It's also incredibly easy; SLC could outbid the farmers hundreds of times over and it wouldn't be even a rounding error in the city budget. It's difficult to see anyone opposing this as anything other than useful idiots for the ag lobby.
And it’s incredibly short sighted to suggest we should go down that road even if it’s easy. The only reason it’s affordable now is because way-too-cheap water rights have been grandfathered in for decades and decades. There hasn’t been free market prices ever, so if we introduce them, the prices are going to skyrocket immediately, and it won’t be so easy anymore.
The idea that money of all things should define environmental and health interests is so laughable, there’s literally a cartoon about it. (“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.”)
Putting that aside. Yes, the 19th century water rights laws where certain people get guaranteed drawdowns and are encouraged to use all of the water every year is destroying the western United States. We need to blow up the entire system and star again. And if this means screwing over golf courses, mining, and inappropriate agriculture that inevitably uses unsustainable irrigation practices, so be it.
These sites are all on the Jordan river, and it’s tributaries, which empty into the great salt lake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River_(Utah)#Pollution
I used to live within walking distance of the Jordan river, in Rose Park by the fairgrounds. I remember getting warned not to play in it.
You may not enjoy being there, but that doesn't make it not worth saving.
We can try taking Sauron to court?
I’d even say save it if it was always disgusting. It’s certainly unique.
Today, it's disgusting and obviously sick. That same beach is a sandy field a mile from the water, and when you do get to the water, it's a sludge that's probably not healthy to be around.
Running out of water is a concern, but it's not because we won't be able to farm or wash or cars or whatever. It's because if that sludge dries, it turns to dust, and all the very nasty stuff (arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals), starts polluting our air.
And when it comes to air pollution, even without a dry lake of nasty stuff, the Salt Lake City metro area is one of the worst - especially so in the winter. We get an inversion later that traps air pollution in the valleys, and the air becomes brown. Not even a hint of brown, but just brown.
Very bad things will happen to the health of everyone in this area should the lake go dry.
That said, the more dead the sea becomes, the less it smells. The Salton Sea smelled so much worse when there were will fish to die off [0]. The fish population would go through population boom and bust cycles. I haven't seen a dead fish there in about 10 years now. Now that it's mostly dead and sterile, the smell isn't as bad. And that's not necessarily a good thing....
[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-12-mn-65092...
Not that you are arguing that they aren't though. It's an interesting anecdote. A dried-up salty lake doesn't sound inviting.
In this video, he gives a talk about some various projects. In the first one, he uses these methods to clean up a site contaminated with the top 15 pollutants (at least at the time). Heavy metal were sequestered by algea; 14 of the 15 toxins were below detectable levels, and the 15th was reduced by 99.999%; solids were eaten by armored carp. The output is drinking standard water, and it takes 10 days for the contaminated water to flow through the system.
The key design principle is putting many species across all five kingdoms, from different biomes, and they start self-organizing around the pollutants. The resulting communities break down the pollutant, but are all new.
https://youtu.be/SeQotnmhO5I
In a different interview, he talks about microplastics — and while he has not worked on it, he believes a solution can be found in incorporating all five kingdoms. So not just sequestering them, but breaking them down so they can be useful in the ecosystem again.
It's enormous. 950+ square miles.
It's a salt lake. Far saltier than the ocean. No carps are going to be eating solids. The algea or other biological methods described in the video will not work to reset a lake of salt that is nearly the size of Rhode Island.
Revitalizing an area of that size would likely be a far larger undertaking than solving the problem of reduced flow into the lake due to agricultural overuse.
I'm all for clever solutions, but they can also lead people into thinking that it's a problem solved, and that addressing the root cause of the problem isn't needed. It allows people to be complacent and allow abuse to continue. When it all implodes, those who caused it get sit back and see how the rest of us deal with it.
I'd be more generous though...it's not Mordor. It's where Mordor residents go on vacation. The beach in Death Stranding was cleaner, but a beach is a beach even if it's full of jagged rocks, hot sand and dead organic matter. I walked it barefoot and came down with blisters and a bacterial infection so nasty I couldn't walk for a month.
Not saying it's not worth saving, only that it's not worth advertising as a recreational venue. It's gross. It's literally a sump tank.
And then yes there were occasional times where the lake would recede a bit and the smell could make you flinch from miles and miles away.
California too. While they were making it illegal for restaurants to hand out drinking water without asking, big ag carried on. It's so silly it can't be a real conservation concern, probably was just some divide and conquer from the industry.
I think the main thing to know is that water is not like electricity. There is not a grid. Every municipal system has circumstances completely unique to it.
30% looks reasonable to me. That is 70% are sold locally.
Does other water-using industries exports around the same percentage?
Alfalfa fed to local cows that are consumed locally keeps the water in our ecosystem, within the bounds of our natural water cycle. Alfalfa fed to cows overseas exports our water overseas, so it doesn't reenter the water cycle locally, and it may never find its way back (on human timescales).
You can think of it as having a trade deficit for water—we're not importing it in sufficient quantities to make up for our exports, and the result is that our local environment gradually dries out. Wetter climates don't have that problem because water that evaporates from the ocean can be treated as unlimited.
Edit: Clarified a few things.
The water doesn't physically go into the final shipped alfalfa in meaningful quantities. 99.9% of the water that is used in growing alfalfa evaporates, or ends up in the ground, and it doesn't matter whether the remaining 0.1% that actually ends up, and stays inside the plant gets exported to Mars, or consumed locally.
When growing alfalfa, 100 tonnes of water is used to produce ~300lb of biomass. When you're sourcing those 100 tonnes unsustainably, it really doesn't matter whether you export the 300lb, or not.
You're blaming a foreign boogieman for a domestic, self-inflicted problem.
My extended family are cattle ranchers in southern Utah, and a lot of alfalfa is grown to feed cattle in the winter. A lot of the weight of a bundle of alfalfa is water - probably most of it when freshly harvested. When processed, it's left to dry for a while, but the alfalfa that gets sold is probably still 10-20% water.
Our ranch doesn't sell the alfalfa we grow, but there are plenty of massive , industrial scale, operations near our ranch that exclusively sell alfalfa on foreign markets. At their scale, not shipping alfalfa overseas would make a meaningful dent in the problem. It wouldn't solve it entirely, but it would likely have a greater impact than people not washing their cars.
And for every liter of water that's left in dry alfalfa, it took ~4,000 liters of water to grow it.
You, like the parent poster, are making a huge mistake, in thinking that that one liter that's getting exported is at all a meaningful part of the water sustainability problem with going alfalfa in a desert. It's not. The unsustainable part of it is the other 3999 liters.
'Don't export alfalfa grown in a desert' optimizes the part that isn't important. 'Don't grow alfalfa in a desert' is what people actually need to be doing.
In my opinion, exporting any amount of water is too much.
Saying that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the other ways in which water could be better managed.
Alfa-alfa is grown here, packaged and shipped to Saudi-Arabia because it's cheaper this way than for Saudi-Arabia to desalinate water and grown their own stuff.
Yet my water bill is going up by 6%.
It's still a problem, but we need to keep in mind that maybe we shouldn't be farming so much animal feed in general. We'd still lose this water if we kept the feed local.
If you used a 1000000 kg of water to grow alfalfa, you'd get around 25000 kg of alfalfa (which would contain 5000 kg of water and 20000 kg of other stuff).
So for every 5000 kg of water that is in that alfalfa when shipped around 995000 kg of water stays.
Not sure we want china firing freshwater ice at utah on a ballistic trajectory?
<this is a funny joke post don’t freak out man>
Israel gets over 55% of their water from desalination.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...
Water problems are simply a political\planning failure. There is no real shortage of water.
The west coast has a water problem, the tools to solve it, and complete one-party control of politics to make it happen. They are choosing not to though.
You Utah folks obviously don’t have an ocean sitting next to you, but perhaps if the west coast used less of the Colorado river there would be more for you.
Also the GSL water is entirely divorced from the CO river water.
If they stopped using water from the Colorado, there would be more water for Utah to take from it.
States up the river use less water in order to leave some for the states down river. So if the states downriver stopped using it, then states upstream could increase their usage.
I am not suggesting that Utah desalinate the Pacific Ocean or that Utah desalinate the great salt lake. I am saying they should increase their usage of water from the Colorado River.
If California stopped using the Colorado river for water, then Utah could pull more water from the Colorado.
Water can be moved in pipelines or controlled via a manmade river/channel.
Both are largely influenced by one overwhelming organization with nearly infinite money. If you live in Utah you know who i'm talking about.
They don't care about the environment and they aren't overly concerned with public health. Yet most politicians in Utah will only get and stay in power with their blessing and approval. Thats why Utah has had the same senator for 42 years.
We need the utah public to wake up and vote with some intelligence to get people in power who want to and can actually make change and care about these things.
I lived in Utah for almost 2 decades (as an adult). I moved out 5 years ago and it was the absolute best decision I ever made.
You can cherry pick anything to suit a narrative.
Orin Hatch served 42 years; his successor is serving only one term. What does that mean?
I agree that it isn't unique, but why does it matter? The point isn't that it is a unique situation, the point is that Utahns are being underserved by their officials.
Example: This recent donation of agricultural water rights that they owned, to divert the water into lake preservation instead.
https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/church-donate...
I live in Oregon where the majority of people live in a tiny corner of the state (the Portland Metro area) which is Democrat heavy. The rest of the state is mainly populated with rural Republican-leaning conservatives. The rural portion of the state is essentially constantly mimicking you about how the entire state government is controlled by Democrats and how “We need the Oregon public to wake up and vote with some intelligence to get people in power who want to and can actually make change and care about these things.” It has gotten to the point where they want the majority of the counties in the state to secede and join themselves to Idaho. Of course, there is no more chance of that happening than you trying to convince the majority conservative Utah population to not vote for conservative candidates. And, the Oregon liberal majority will keep voting for liberal candidates.
If farmers can grow alfalfa cheaply enough when the water isn't free, by being more efficient with water usage, then they will continue to do so because it will be profitable. If it's not profitable, then they'll stop growing alfalfa.
We don't need to make laws about agriculture in particular; simply start charging people for the resources they use, and market forces will grind to dust anyone who uses resources inefficiently.
If your great, great grandfather was a pioneer and moved into the SLC valley 150 years ago- a particularly harsh and rugged place, and then started a small farm that was perfectly sustainable, but then millions of transplants moved in, what exactly makes them so entitled to the water under your property? Sounds like theft to me.
Less government wouldn’t prevent this outcome. A more just one that doesn’t ignore the rights of natives would.
I’m actually curious how people make arguments while referring to a completely different period of time with its own problems.
All those low life expectancy numbers were due to high infant- and childhood-mortality rates.
That nitpick aside, yeah gramps’ prior claim should not be given the weight it has.
And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.
But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?
In theory states could seize those water rights through eminent domain (or a similar process) but under the 5th Amendment the state would have to pay fair market value for this. That would be enormously expensive. States would have to raise taxes on everyone to fund that, which would be political suicide.
Water allocation rights are generally use-it-or-lose-it, so early water rights are incentivized to make even marginally productive use of their full allocation, rather than to leave it for other higher-value use.
Didn't the Nestle CEO say something like this and everyone crucified him?
Alfalfa water usage per acre is not much different than that of spinach, tomato, lettuce, wheat, or corn. As an aggregate it uses more water because (1) there is a lot of acreage of alfalfa, and (2) it can be grown nearly year around.
Furthermore, its water efficiency (how much is produced per unit of water used) is high.
If water costs go up some farmers might be able to make more money then by switching to alfalfa since it is more efficient.
Salt Lake City requested that residents reduce usage to keep enough drinking water in the reservoirs. This is pretty separate from the lake and upstream farming issues, no? I think the canyon runoff goes to Utah lake and not GSL? Some places legitimately went very very low on drinking water last year due to low runoff and high usage. I think it’s important to care about both watering lawns and the salt lake.
Depends on the canyon. The canyons in Salt Lake County go to the GSL; the canyons on the Wasatch Back go to either the Provo River (and then Utah Lake) or the Weber River (and then the GSL).
Also I don't fully know what to make of this wave of environmental law suits but it feels very Ministry for the Future.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8478283/
If they modernized their practices, they could greatly reduce water usage. I don't know if that alone would save the lake, but it certainly is worth a try.
The issue is agriculture, full stop. Of course, we all need food to eat, but as you point out we could produce just as much food if we just modernized our irrigation practices. I'm not saying that would be cheap, or that we shouldn't have government support for that modernization, but whenever I hear some nonsense about how we should stop washing our cars I just tune that out. It's a form of green washing when we focus on inconsequential bits and then let the biggest water users continue to waste water.
Same point is often made about flooded rice fields in northern California. The water "used" by this process, that is the water that does not return to the river, transpires into the air. For a given crop the transpiration is the same whether flooded or irrigated by another method. The crop is the problem, not the flood.
Is this true?
Are you saying that flooding a field loses the same amount of water to evaporation as other, more targeted, means of irrigation? Or are you saying "alfalfa itself uses the same amount of water regardless of irrigation methood."
If it's the latter, that makes sense. A plant can only use so much, and that rate of use is consistent for a given crop, but that doesn't address the water not used by the alfalfa. Wouldn't flooding lose more water to evaporation than other irrigation methods?
It is true that the water will flow somewhere, so isn't "lost", but the point is that the diversion decreases how much makes it downstream to the Salt Lake.
I thought the water cycle causes almost all of the precipitation to happen before going over the mountains? It's why the west side of the Sierras are wet and the east side dry.
The US treaty with mexico dictates the salt content of the river at the border for this reason. The southwest US used to be home to a widespread desert irrigation agricultural people, the Hohokum, and failure to manage soil salt content is afaik still the leading hypothesis for their disappearance. So no unfortunately water that flows back into the river isn't neutral.
What remedy is available here in the medium-term? Teaching the entire Utah legislature and executive how to do a rain-dance?
The one thing they haven't really tried doing is giving industrial scale agriculture a reason to help solve the problem. If big ag's profits were actually at risk because of big ag's overuse of water, they'd be incentivized to use less, by any means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F98VvsJuJeM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvOZZ-DacAAIfbc?format=jpg&name=...
The concern is that the farmers and towns are using the water before it can get to the Salt Lake.
The consequences of the lake drying up is the end of the "lake effect" cycle, the arsenic in the dried lakebed being released into the air, etc
As this seems to be the core of the lawsuit, I'm curious whether this is accurate from a legal perspective. Not that it's always the right thing to do, but governments typically have legal leeway to make all kinds of decisions like damming rivers, flooding canyons, etc. So I wonder if there's specific legislation about preserving the lake in the Utah State Constitution or legislation that would form the legal basis of this lawsuit.
> The public trust doctrine is well-established in Utah law, confirmed by statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and the Utah constitution. Under this doctrine, the public owns many natural resources, and the State holds and manages them in trust for the public, which is the beneficiary of the trust. Such resources include the Great Salt Lake—a historically navigable waterway—and the sovereign lands underlying the Lake. As trustee, the State of Utah has an ongoing obligation to protect the Great Salt Lake’s waters and underlying lands, so that Utahns can continue to use them for navigation, commerce, brine shrimp fishing, recreation, and other uses recognized under the public trust doctrine.
That is, they're arguing that the state government has a duty to protect the public waterways, alongside its powers to manage them. They elaborate on their interpretation of the public trust doctrine in the Legal Background section; the precedents they cite don't look like obvious bunk to me, but I'm no lawyer, much less an expert in Utah law.
[0] https://earthjustice.org/press/2023/lawsuit-targets-state-of...
Sorry, but I just don’t believe it’s a crisis when I can see that it pretty clearly isn’t a big enough crisis to stop growing horse food in the desert.
And not to pile on the infinite number of ways that California is a failure: but if you guys arent racing to build nuclear desalination plants, then I don’t believe you either.
Sorry but I’m getting pretty fed up with hearing that I need to live in a crisis, but that the people telling me in need to live in a crisis don’t.
Things change when enough people care about a problem. Electing people who care about the problem is one of the primary ways to fix it. Electing people who care about the problem isn't going to happen if everyone collectively stops caring about the problem.
The current behavior of corporations and politicians is BS, but concluding that "I'll change nothing" feeds/perpetuates the problem, which is still ultimately a collective concern. The problem will eventually come to a head forcing regulatory change, and it's far better if people have already started moving in a healthier direction.
I agree with that parent comment, which is that trying to guilt consumers into worrying about their shower length or grass watering is plain bad policy if meanwhile we do nothing about agricultural usage. If anything, I think making it loudly known that consumers aren't going to do squat unless agriculture is tackled is a step in the right direction.
Do I have to say it? Fuck the farmers. They make a minuscule amount of money for the economy and contribute nothing to the ecology. We know this isn't sustainable and the water's going to dry up anyway, but we need to let these good ol' boys create an environmental disaster first 'cuz the livestock in the desert gotta eat. Stop coddling these people.
It also happens to be a system that people will legitimately fight and kill others to preserve. The political challenge to change this system is enormous and I'd bet most people have no idea how fucked it is.
Given the state government has taken actions intended to address the water level in the lake it would appear that the fact of the water level being a problem isn't the main point of dispute. I'm not entirely familiar with US law but I guess the legal question might be whether the state's actions are sufficient to protect the lake and also whether the sufficiency or insufficiency is a justiciable matter (rather than a political/legislative one).
This seems to be a copy of the original written arguments from the plaintiffs. [1]
1. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pd...