LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

[provoman]

good grief. This is ridiculous.  The issue is a secular issue. It is a State legislature issue. This is not a religious issue.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

1) Yes, I think it would be good for the church to address the lake, just as it has addressed and invested time and money into developing Salt Lake City into a more habitable and thriving community.  More tourists, more visitors, more people moving to Utah = more interest in the church and conversions.  Toxic dust storms are not necessarily an attractive option for many thinking about Utah.  Plus this is the church's home.  We should care for it and be stewards over our home. That should matter.  

2) Yes, I do think the church should live up to the principles taught in the Word of Wisdom and encourage sparing meat consumption, and only in times of winter or famine.  Not in a testing our faith kind of way that tea and coffee has become though.  Primarily for reasons of health, but also for environmental impact.  I don't think it will make much of a dent on the Great Salt Lake if latter-day Saints all went vegetarian, as the alfalfa grown in Utah feeds animals that feed the rest of the world.

I immediately thought of the church and how they felt City Creek Mall was needed for the area, and now with the Great Salt Lake in it's condition, wouldn't it be another reason the church would/should be concerned. 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

Here's the thing: I like a lot of what environmentalists and conservationists are ultimately all about, but statements like this just don't make any sense to me.

I mean, even if every single person in the state of Utah (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) were to become vegetarian overnight, wouldn't alfalfa still be a cash crop? It isn't like people are just going to stop raising livestock because people in Utah decided to stop eating burgers and started consuming twice as much fry sauce.

Plus, once everyone in the state has switched over to a completely plant-based diet, who's to say that such a major shift in market demand wouldn't just incentivize all of those alfalfa farmers to switch over to another, similarly water intensive crop like wheat instead?

Seriously, I honestly just don't get comments like these. Like, at all.

 

I believe a more equable approach would be to administer conservation policies fairly.  Which would mean that farmers would need to cut back water usage just like the residential home owners have been doing for years.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I believe a more equable approach would be to administer conservation policies fairly.  Which would mean that farmers would need to cut back water usage just like the residential home owners have been doing for years.

Maybe.  Certainly, there can and should be a robust debate about what particular crops farmers should grow, whether they should grow more of this and less of that, whether they should (and whether it is feasible for them to) adopt farming methods that are less water-intensive, and so on, on the other hand, I'm not sure how prepared I am to tell someone who grows the food I eat how much water he or she should use.

And, certainly, except in terms of scale, there isn't all that much difference between a resident who grows one's own food in his or her backyard and a farmer who grows food to be sold to others.  While I have no problem suggesting that a resident might want to xeriscape instead of using copious amounts of water to keep his or her law lush and green in the dead of summer, I'm not sure I'm prepared to demand that a farmer who grows much of the food I eat cut too far back on his or her water use.

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I believe a more equable approach would be to administer conservation policies fairly.  Which would mean that farmers would need to cut back water usage just like the residential home owners have been doing for years.

I do Recognize a difference when that land use is your income v your recreational enjoyment. Cutting water is easier for homeowners than a farmer. It doesn't make it less necessary, but it means it can't be treated equitably.

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

And, certainly, except in terms of scale, there isn't all that much difference between a resident who grows one's own food in his or her backyard and a farmer who grows food to be sold to others. 

There can be a world of difference in terms of practice. For example, my plot of yard that's no bigger than a 1/5 acre with a house in the middle is purposely done with practices that maintain/build soil composition, conserves water, promotes bio diversity (I have over 100 types of plants from at least 50-80 different species), and feeds local wildlife as well as myself. Birds, butterflies (particularly working to attact monarchs), and wild bees flock to my little food hub. This is generally not the case for large scale industrial farms. They tend to be large monocultures that strip land and soil of bio diversity. Alphalpha has the one benefit of being a perennial (you don't have to replant every year, depleting the soil faster) but it's still water intensive and largely huge monocultures. I use no inorganic chemicals to care for my garden. Intensitve monocultures usually need several.

Does every gardener plant like me? No. Definitely not. But it's definitely easier to switch a home garden up than it is to shift a large monocultured farm. There's also less risk and less investments made. As well as less pressure for crop uniformity

 

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While I have no problem suggesting that a resident might want to xeriscape instead of using copious amounts of water to keep his or her law lush and green in the dead of summer, I'm not sure I'm prepared to demand that a farmer who grows much of the food I eat cut too far back on his or her water use.

I want to be cautious and make sure plenty of support is given both in education and monetary resources to intro more sustainable farming. But to me, this shift is on the inevitable list. We're literally stripping land and resources to maintain our current farming practices. It can't last. Crop yields will begin to fail because the land and water resources needed are dropping out/ less reliable. They already are in some places...but it'll get worse the longer we continue with intensive practices that strip/defy rather than work with the land and local ecology. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited January 26, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Kenngo1969]

@BlueDreams

You probably know more about farming than I do.  Heck, maybe you've even forgotten more about farming than I'll ever know.  I wonder, is there a "sweet spot," a point of equilibrium, where it is easiest to maintain sustainable farming practices, but beyond which the costs, both monetary costs and other costs such as time and labor, become too high? 

I can barely afford my groceries now.  I wonder, if all of the farming "experts" got their way, would they be saying, "Hooray!  Finally!  Sustainable farming, ranching, and so forth!" while they, and the rest of us, are paying $5 each for a dozen eggs*, a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread, respectively?  I hope, whatever the views of others happen to be, that they'll pardon me if I don't think it's a completely ridiculous question.

____________________

* Eggs are almost that expensive now.  Maybe, for purposes of this illustration/discussion, I should bump the price up to $10 a dozen?

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

... And, certainly, except in terms of scale, there isn't all that much difference between a resident who grows one's own food in his or her backyard and a farmer who grows food to be sold to others.  ...

 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

... There can be a world of difference in terms of practice. For example, my plot of yard that's no bigger than a 1/5 acre with a house in the middle is purposely done with practices that maintain/build soil composition, conserves water, promotes bio diversity (I have over 100 types of plants from at least 50-80 different species), and feeds local wildlife as well as myself. Birds, butterflies (particularly working to attact monarchs), and wild bees flock to my little food hub. This is generally not the case for large scale industrial farms. They tend to be large monocultures that strip land and soil of bio diversity. Alphalpha has the one benefit of being a perennial (you don't have to replant every year, depleting the soil faster) but it's still water intensive and largely huge monocultures. I use no inorganic chemicals to care for my garden. Intensitve monocultures usually need several. 

Does every gardener plant like me? No. Definitely not. But it's definitely easier to switch a home garden up than it is to shift a large monocultured farm. There's also less risk and less investments made. As well as less pressure for crop uniformity ...

Sorry for the confusion.  To clarify, what I meant when I said that there isn't much difference between the two is that both are providing a necessity, the only difference, in that case, being the size of the group for which the necessity is provided: One is providing for his or her family (and perhaps for some neighbors and friends), while the other is providing for everyone who shops at the grocery store. 

And since both are providing a necessity, I do think there is a limit to the sacrifices we should ask the "backyard farmer"/gardener to make: We shouldn't go too far in saying to the "backyard farmer"/gardener, "You have to make these sacrifices," while telling the large-scale farmer, "What you do is necessary, so we're not going to ask you to sacrifice as much (or to sacrifice at all)."  In both cases, albeit to a different extent, what both the "backyard farmer"/gardener and the large-scale farmer provide is necessary.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[pogi]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

Not in the way you think. Human use has gone down. That means we have partially offset the result of hydrologic causes.

Clearly it has not gone down enough to compensate.  Without further intervention, we are at the mercy of nature.  Granted, we may still be at the mercy of nature even with 0 human consumption, but there can still be other human interventions possible.

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

We have tree rings going back thousands of years, which that are a good proxy for hydrologic conditions.

Hydraulic conditions don't tell us much about lake level.  Extremely dry conditions don't mean the lake was lower than it is now.  Before recorded history, human use would have been close to 0%.  

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

Unpredictable is the name of the game when it comes to hydrology. Nothing anybody can do about that. And the lake will not be gone if five years. This is easy to show, as well.

How do you know the drought wont continue?  How can you say it wont be gone in 5 years without human intervention?  Yes there is fluctuation with the lake, but we are not going back to Lake Bonneville levels, so clearly we should not expect modest fluctuations and relatively consistent levels.   There is no reason to believe it wont dry out completely at the current rate, especially with the expectation that the West can and will become much drier. 

https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.18/utahs-ancient-lake-bonneville-holds-clues-to-the-wests-changing-climate

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

You're making an assumption about climate change that isn't supported by the science. It turns out that climate change in the Great Salt Lake Basin is causing more water in the lake.

Yes it is supported.  See above link.  The expectation is that the West will only get drier. 

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

If we were all going to die from toxic dust it would have happened a long time ago.

Who said anything about dying?  Do you know what led and arsenic does to a developing brain?  It doesn't usually kill us, although it can increase risk of certain cancers significantly, but it does cause permanent neurological damage.  As long as we aren't dying though, that's ok. 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

All this talk about meat is making me hungry for more meat. 

[carbon dioxide]

We should see a good rebound in the Salt Lake water levels if the storms keep coming like they have so far this year.  

Edited January 26, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@BlueDreams

You probably know more about farming than I do.  Heck, maybe you've even forgotten more about farming than I'll ever know.  I wonder, is there a "sweet spot," a point of equilibrium, where it is easiest to maintain sustainable farming practices, but beyond which the costs, both monetary costs and other costs such as time and labor, become too high? 

I can barely afford my groceries now.  I wonder, if all of the farming "experts" got their way, would they be saying, "Hooray!  Finally!  Sustainable farming, ranching, and so forth!" while they, and the rest of us, are paying $5 each for a dozen eggs*, a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread, respectively?  I hope, whatever the views of others happen to be, that they'll pardon me if I don't think it's a completely ridiculous question.

____________________

* Eggs are almost that expensive now.  Maybe, for purposes of this illustration/discussion, I should bump the price up to $10 a dozen?

Tin Foil hat time

White Horse - groups set out to conquer; check. 

Red Horse - wars, peace taken from the Earth; check

Black Horse - food prices skyrocket; check

Black Horse - death, famine, pestilence; check.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, provoman said:

Tin Foil hat time

White Horse - groups set out to conquer; check. 

Red Horse - wars, peace taken from the Earth; check

Black Horse - food prices skyrocket; check

Black Horse - death, famine, pestilence; check.

The pale horse is death…

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, provoman said:

good grief. This is ridiculous.  The issue is a secular issue. It is a State legislature issue. This is not a religious issue.

Since when did the church stay out of secular issues when they think it impacts the church, which this does.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

The abundance of water in the Northeast where I live will be the resurgence of our economy at some point in the future.  Likely not in my lifetime thought.  But we have the great lakes, Finger Lakes in Western NY, BIG flowing rivers and streams.  Farmers don't need to irrigate here.  Alfalfa grows well with just the rain.  It is a water paradise.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/25/2023 at 2:22 PM, smac97 said:

So it looks like "going vegetarian" isn't a panacea.  It looks like we in Utah need to reduce residential water usage and agricultural water diversions.  That will be hard on the farmers, but the negative consequences of a dried-up Great Salt Lake look to be even harder.

Instead of vegetarians, we should all be humanitarians. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:46 PM, CV75 said:

I would think our Church leaders are looking at the Great Salt Lake evaporation issue…

Yes, because it makes it much more difficult for women to escape from the temple by jumping into the lake from the roof.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Instead of vegetarians, we should all be humanitarians. 

Why not do both?  (language warning)

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@BlueDreams

You probably know more about farming than I do.  Heck, maybe you've even forgotten more about farming than I'll ever know.  I wonder, is there a "sweet spot," a point of equilibrium, where it is easiest to maintain sustainable farming practices, but beyond which the costs, both monetary costs and other costs such as time and labor, become too high? 

I can barely afford my groceries now.  I wonder, if all of the farming "experts" got their way, would they be saying, "Hooray!  Finally!  Sustainable farming, ranching, and so forth!" while they, and the rest of us, are paying $5 each for a dozen eggs*, a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread, respectively?  I hope, whatever the views of others happen to be, that they'll pardon me if I don't think it's a completely ridiculous question.

____________________

* Eggs are almost that expensive now.  Maybe, for purposes of this illustration/discussion, I should bump the price up to $10 a dozen?

I do find agriculture and potential alternatives really interesting and probably have looked up more than a thing or two on it. But I'm by no means an expert. 

I think your questions though are on based on a poor (but completely understandable) assumptions about our current agricultural system and thus food industry.  Namely that it can continue in perpetuity as it currently has for the last 80-ish years (that's around the time industrial farming practices began to take effect). I know you likely cognitively get that it might not be able to, but the question is basing a system of now, dominated by industrial/intensive farming practices that caters to meat production to a different one that's described as sustainable. And that's not really the comparison. It's a sustainable or regenerative farming practice or a future system where we continue our current practices blindly. In both of these the price of food rises because the amount of yield, partially depending on genetic breakthrough and further limited diversity, will inevitably shrink or need pricier means to keep extracting from depleted lands. Crop failure will become more common and our systems will be less resilient....which would make food prices more unpredictable. Egg prices right now a real great example of that actually. We farm them intensively in huge facilties that house hundreds of thousands if not millions of hens at the same time in cramped quarters. This increases production short term but reduces system resilience long term, making the system more susceptible unexpected outbreaks. Which is what is happening leading to the price hike. 

In sustainable or regenerative practices, there would likely be a price increase. Meat/dairy would probably feel it the most, as it's disproportionately subsidized and underpriced. In a sustainable system meat supply would drop. There's not a system that can keep our meet consumption at this level without adding a planet or three of arable land. BUT the price would also likely stay more stable than if we allow our current system to stay. Which means people would get used to and adjust to a different price range for food. Meanwhile other foods may become more plentiful, including food sources we currently don't eat much of if at all and food would likely localize a ton. This shift may long term increase local/backyard growing as a means to reduce cost. In short, it just would be a different system. But one that could actually last as opposed to one that will slowly crash. This probably sounds like a pipe dream. But remember that the current system we think as normal has only lasted 50-80 years. We shifted how we do food on a monumental level in just under 3 generstions. It's both possible and necessary to do it again to meet the new demands we're facing. 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Sorry for the confusion.  To clarify, what I meant when I said that there isn't much difference between the two is that both are providing a necessity, the only difference, in that case, being the size of the group for which the necessity is provided: One is providing for his or her family (and perhaps for some neighbors and friends), while the other is providing for everyone who shops at the grocery store. 

And since both are providing a necessity, I do think there is a limit to the sacrifices we should ask the "backyard farmer"/gardener to make: We shouldn't go too far in saying to the "backyard farmer"/gardener, "You have to make these sacrifices," while telling the large-scale farmer, "What you do is necessary, so we're not going to ask you to sacrifice as much (or to sacrifice at all)."  In both cases, albeit to a different extent, what both the "backyard farmer"/gardener and the large-scale farmer provide is necessary.

I think I understand you. i think the confusing part for me as a gardener is that I don't make a ton of sacrifices in resources. Nor am I asked to. Again, my yard is fairly sustainable in practice and it's a lot easier to get there. It's less water intensive than the grass we have left (which will be even less by end of this spring). In part because the way we garden retains water far better and we use a lot of plants that need less than grass generally does. The only places that make "sacrifices" for their gardening dreams seem to be ones with HOA's who tend to want utah desert to look mini-english manicured lawns and are pushing back on UT's drives to go more sustainable/waterwise. It's really easy for me to drop to say 1 watering a week....because most of my plants only need one good watering a week. Well I guess also technically I'm "limited" in what I grow. But the environment is just as much a hindrance as any law would be on that. Either I seriously baby my plants and overwater areas to keep a water loving plant alive....or I choose different crops that can handle my ecology. That still leaves me with hundreds of options with far less work. Mainstream farming is more problematic and so it's the one that would be hit more with water conservation pushes if things were done equally. Most backyard farmers wouldn't feel it at all. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, provoman said:

good grief. This is ridiculous.  The issue is a secular issue. It is a State legislature issue. This is not a religious issue.

Personally, I think it shouldn't be. It's probably part of what got us in this mess to begin with. Making land and water an amoral secular institution leaves us ignoring its innately spiritual nature and practice that include humility and honoring what we are given.  

Taking care of my tiny patch of land has been innately spiritual and it's expanded a lot of scripture that uses land and agriculture in its analogies/parables. I think we've made a mistake in divorcing ourselves from land and nature to the point where our relationship is nothing more than a tourist trap, instagram shots, unnamed body parts and unrecognizable products in a supermarket, and sources of economic exploitation. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Personally, I think it shouldn't be. It's probably part of what got us in this mess to begin with. Making land and water an amoral secular institution leaves us ignoring its innately spiritual nature and practice that include humility and honoring what we are given.  

Taking care of my tiny patch of land has been innately spiritual and it's expanded a lot of scripture that uses land and agriculture in its analogies/parables. I think we've made a mistake in divorcing ourselves from land and nature to the point where our relationship is nothing more than a tourist trap, instagram shots, unnamed body parts and unrecognizable products in a supermarket, and sources of economic exploitation. 

 

With luv,

BD 

This brings to mind the story of a man that planted 11,000 trees 24 or more years ago to re-forest a mass area. https://sea.mashable.com/social-good/15087/indonesian-man-plants-a-forest-with-11000-trees-all-by-himself#:~:text=Known simply as Sadiman%2C the,no less than 11%2C000 trees.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Tacenda

[JarMan]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Clearly it has not gone down enough to compensate.  Without further intervention, we are at the mercy of nature.  Granted, we may still be at the mercy of nature even with 0 human consumption, but there can still be other human interventions possible.

It's not as dire as you think and human intervention will not be as effective as you think.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Hydraulic conditions don't tell us much about lake level.  Extremely dry conditions don't mean the lake was lower than it is now. 

Ummmmmm, what? What do you think controls lake levels? Politicians?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

How do you know the drought wont continue?  How can you say it wont be gone in 5 years without human intervention?  Yes there is fluctuation with the lake, but we are not going back to Lake Bonneville levels, so clearly we should not expect modest fluctuations and relatively consistent levels.   There is no reason to believe it wont dry out completely at the current rate, especially with the expectation that the West can and will become much drier.

My crystal ball is no better than yours. But my math probably is. So let's do some. Current lake volume is about 7.6 maf (million acre-feet) and surface area is about 590,000 acres. Average net evaporation is about 3 feet. Right now the deepest part of the lake is about 23 feet. If there was no inflow to the lake for the next five years, the lake would drop by 15 feet (3 feet evap * 5 years). That would still leave 8 feet in the lake, which is about 1.1 maf. Small. But not dry. And that's with absolutely no lake inflow. But there is always inflow. The very driest 5-year period on record provided about 0.9 maf of inflow per year. This year is shaping up to provide (conservatively) about 2 - 3 maf of inflow. So now let's compare that to evaporation, which is the lake's only outflow. With the current surface area, we would expect a little less than 1.8 maf of evaporation. But since inflow will increase surface area, the evaporation should be a little more than 1.8 maf. If we end up with 2.5 maf of inflow this year and 1.8 maf of evaporation, the lake will increase by 0.7 maf to 8.3 maf, bringing its level up about a foot by this time next year.

Okay, now let's do the same thing with a dry year. We'll start at the beginning of next year with the lake a foot higher than it is now. But now we are going to add only 0.9 maf to the lake because it's a super dry year. We'll lose about 1.8 maf again from evaporation, meaning there's a net loss of 0.9 maf. So now we're down to 7.4 maf in the lake. But let's finish our five year scenario with three more super dry years. As the lake gets smaller it evaporates less water. There are two reasons for this. First, the surface area gets smaller and, second, the water gets saltier which impedes evaporation. So over the next three dry years, the lake evaporates about 4.7 maf, but gets 2.7 maf of inflow. The net loss of 2.0 maf has brought the lake down to 5.4 maf.

We started at 7.6 maf and by modeling the driest conditions we've ever experienced the lake is down to 5.4 maf after 5 years. So, not even close to dry. But let's be super silly and pretend the lake inflow stays at 0.9 maf per year forever. The lake would shrink until the evaporation equals the inflow of 0.9 maf. It would reach a stable volume of about 3.7 maf. Still not dry.

As for climate change, the "West" is a big place. Some areas of the west like the Colorado River Basin have seen a decrease in stream flows. Some places like the Great Salt Lake Basin have not. Most climate models predict the continued aridification of the Colorado River Basin, but it's a different story for the Great Salt Lake Basin. The models are all over the place, but on balance predict slightly wetter conditions.

You're welcome to get off on the apocalypse porn if that's what you like. But it should be abundantly clear from this brief analysis that the story you're hearing just isn't true.

Edited January 27, 2023 by JarMan

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's not as dire as you think and human intervention will not be as effective as you think.

Ummmmmm, what? What do you think controls lake levels? Politicians?

My crystal ball is no better than yours. But my math probably is. So let's do some. Current lake volume is about 7.6 maf (million acre-feet) and surface area is about 590,000 acres. Average net evaporation is about 3 feet. Right now the deepest part of the lake is about 23 feet. If there was no inflow to the lake for the next five years, the lake would drop by 15 feet (3 feet evap * 5 years). That would still leave 8 feet in the lake, which is about 1.1 maf. Small. But not dry. And that's with absolutely no lake inflow. But there is always inflow. The very driest 5-year period on record provided about 0.9 maf of inflow per year. This year is shaping up to provide (conservatively) about 2 - 3 maf of inflow. So now let's compare that to evaporation, which is the lake's only outflow. With the current surface area, we would expect a little less than 1.8 maf of evaporation. But since inflow will increase surface area, the evaporation should be a little more than 1.8 maf. If we end up with 2.5 maf of inflow this year and 1.8 maf of evaporation, the lake will increase by 0.7 maf to 8.3 maf, bringing its level up about a foot by this time next year.

Okay, now let's do the same thing with a dry year. We'll start at the beginning of next year with the lake a foot higher than it is now. But now we are going to add only 0.9 maf to the lake because it's a super dry year. We'll lose about 1.8 maf again from evaporation, meaning there's a net loss of 0.9 maf. So now we're down to 7.4 maf in the lake. But let's finish our five year scenario with three more super dry years. As the lake gets smaller it evaporates less water. There are two reasons for this. First, the surface area gets smaller and, second, the water gets saltier which impedes evaporation. So over the next three dry years, the lake evaporates about 4.7 maf, but gets 2.7 maf of inflow. The net loss of 2.0 maf has brought the lake down to 5.4 maf.

We started at 7.6 maf and by modeling the driest conditions we've ever experienced the lake is down to 5.4 maf after 5 years. So, not even close to dry. But let's be super silly and pretend the lake inflow stays at 0.9 maf per year forever. The lake would shrink until the evaporation equals the inflow of 0.9 maf. It would reach a stable volume of about 3.7 maf. Still not dry.

As for climate change, the "West" is a big place. Some areas of the west like the Colorado River Basin have seen a decrease in stream flows. Some places like the Great Salt Lake Basin have not. Most climate models predict the continued aridification of the Colorado River Basin, but it's a different story for the Great Salt Lake Basin. The models are all over the place, but on balance predict slightly wetter conditions.

You're welcome to get off on the apocalypse porn if that's what you like. But it should be abundantly clear from this brief analysis that the story you're hearing just isn't true.

JarMan....Wake up. 

Have you walked the lake lately? I have.

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's not as dire as you think and human intervention will not be as effective as you think.

Ummmmmm, what? What do you think controls lake levels? Politicians?

My crystal ball is no better than yours. But my math probably is. So let's do some. Current lake volume is about 7.6 maf (million acre-feet) and surface area is about 590,000 acres. Average net evaporation is about 3 feet. Right now the deepest part of the lake is about 23 feet. If there was no inflow to the lake for the next five years, the lake would drop by 15 feet (3 feet evap * 5 years). That would still leave 8 feet in the lake, which is about 1.1 maf. Small. But not dry. And that's with absolutely no lake inflow. But there is always inflow. The very driest 5-year period on record provided about 0.9 maf of inflow per year. This year is shaping up to provide (conservatively) about 2 - 3 maf of inflow. So now let's compare that to evaporation, which is the lake's only outflow. With the current surface area, we would expect a little less than 1.8 maf of evaporation. But since inflow will increase surface area, the evaporation should be a little more than 1.8 maf. If we end up with 2.5 maf of inflow this year and 1.8 maf of evaporation, the lake will increase by 0.7 maf to 8.3 maf, bringing its level up about a foot by this time next year.

Okay, now let's do the same thing with a dry year. We'll start at the beginning of next year with the lake a foot higher than it is now. But now we are going to add only 0.9 maf to the lake because it's a super dry year. We'll lose about 1.8 maf again from evaporation, meaning there's a net loss of 0.9 maf. So now we're down to 7.4 maf in the lake. But let's finish our five year scenario with three more super dry years. As the lake gets smaller it evaporates less water. There are two reasons for this. First, the surface area gets smaller and, second, the water gets saltier which impedes evaporation. So over the next three dry years, the lake evaporates about 4.7 maf, but gets 2.7 maf of inflow. The net loss of 2.0 maf has brought the lake down to 5.4 maf.

We started at 7.6 maf and by modeling the driest conditions we've ever experienced the lake is down to 5.4 maf after 5 years. So, not even close to dry. But let's be super silly and pretend the lake inflow stays at 0.9 maf per year forever. The lake would shrink until the evaporation equals the inflow of 0.9 maf. It would reach a stable volume of about 3.7 maf. Still not dry.

As for climate change, the "West" is a big place. Some areas of the west like the Colorado River Basin have seen a decrease in stream flows. Some places like the Great Salt Lake Basin have not. Most climate models predict the continued aridification of the Colorado River Basin, but it's a different story for the Great Salt Lake Basin. The models are all over the place, but on balance predict slightly wetter conditions.

You're welcome to get off on the apocalypse porn if that's what you like. But it should be abundantly clear from this brief analysis that the story you're hearing just isn't true.

Math is not my forte. But even if your numbers are absolutely correct, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that reaching that low of a lake size would still be an unmitigated ecological, economic, and environmental disaster. 

If this happened 100's of thousands of acres of currently covered lake bed would be exposed leading to potential toxic dust being released into our atmosphere. This would likely reduce growth in the area, particularly in the SL area. It may even lead to a reverse growth trend and a brain drain, since no one is really a fan of arsenic clouds and the wealthy/well-educated would likely be the first to go.

It would mean a drastic increase in the water salinity likely exceeding the dead sea in salinity in most places. Meaning it would become a dead lake...a glorified salt puddle. It would kill off a major ecosystem as it's keystone species (brine shrimp) struggles than fails to reproduce and dies off. 

It would lead to severely hindered economic output that's dependent on a healthy lake environment to thrive.  

And whether in 5 years or a slower slump over 20, that number is still too close to just ignore and poo-poo the problem away. I'd also like to not flirt with getting close to those numbers again either and have a use management structure that gives a healthy buffer for what is likely increased dry conditions, higher heat indexes, and less predictable weather patterns in the long term for our semi-arid region.

 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This brings to mind the story of a man that planted 11,000 trees 24 or more years ago to re-forest a mass area. https://sea.mashable.com/social-good/15087/indonesian-man-plants-a-forest-with-11000-trees-all-by-himself#:~:text=Known simply as Sadiman%2C the,no less than 11%2C000 trees.

There's a lot of beautiful projects and stories like this one across the world....both in national projects like costa rica and individuals such as this man. There's still hope we can get our crap together and respect the gift we have been given. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Math is not my forte. But even if your numbers are absolutely correct, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that reaching that low of a lake size would still be an unmitigated ecological, economic, and environmental disaster. 

If this happened 100's of thousands of acres of currently covered lake bed would be exposed leading to potential toxic dust being released into our atmosphere. This would likely reduce growth in the area, particularly in the SL area. It may even lead to a reverse growth trend and a brain drain, since no one is really a fan of arsenic clouds and the wealthy/well-educated would likely be the first to go.

Currently the lake is covering about 920 square miles of lake bed. At its peak in the 80s it covered about 3,300 square miles. That means we already have 2,380 square miles of exposed lake bed potentially containing harmful minerals. My scenario outlined above shows than in the very worst case scenario, the lake could recede to 800 square miles in five years. This is a reduction of 120 square miles when we already have a redcution of 2,380. So it would be a mere 5% increase in exposed lake bed, which could produce about 5% more dust. We definitely need to study this issue, but the truth is we don't understand airborne dust from the lakebed that well yet. The situation doesn't warrant the frenzied panic being spread in the media.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It would mean a drastic increase in the water salinity likely exceeding the dead sea in salinity in most places. Meaning it would become a dead lake...a glorified salt puddle. It would kill off a major ecosystem as it's keystone species (brine shrimp) struggles than fails to reproduce and dies off.

The north arm already is dead and has been for decades because of the railway causeway. The south arm could reach a point where brine shrimp would be significantly reduced. And that would effect the ecosystem. But this would be temporary. As I explained earlier, natural variations in hydrologyy over the last 40 years have caused enormous fluctuation in the lake. We just happen to be looking at it right now from the low point. The fluctuations will continue and the brine shrimp and ecosystem will recover. This has happened many times over the last several thousand years and it will happen again.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It would lead to severely hindered economic output that's dependent on a healthy lake environment to thrive.

The economy is much more effected by the water uses that occur upstream than it is to the incidental benefits of having the lake there. Another way to look at it is that in order to increase flows to the lake, some sort of economic activity that uses water would have to cease. There are some small exceptions like areas of turf that do nothing but consume water, but that is already being addressed. To get serious, someone would have to buy out hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland. That creates a whole new set of problems and we need to be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

And whether in 5 years or a slower slump over 20, that number is still too close to just ignore and poo-poo the problem away. I'd also like to not flirt with getting close to those numbers again either and have a use management structure that gives a healthy buffer for what is likely increased dry conditions, higher heat indexes, and less predictable weather patterns in the long term for our semi-arid region.

You're overgeneralizing about climate effects. The Great Salt Lake Basin has not been effected by climate change like other area such as the Colorado River Basin. It's positioned right between a zone to the NW that is expected to get wetter and a zone to the SE that is expected to be drier. There is a real danger of over-reaction. Some of the statutory proposals I'm hearing would have far-reaching and disastrous results.

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

JarMan....Wake up. 

Have you walked the lake lately? I have.

You may just be waking up to this issue because of the barrage of media. I've been studying the lake closely for several years from a scientific/engineering perspective. I live a mile away from it and drive along it everyday on my way to work and back.