Does anyone who attended the meeting today have any info on that they are willing to share?
[signature]
I was there as was TubeDude. It seems the current bloom is beginning to dissipate and the lake may be open soon. There was a long presentation on the nutrient sources going into the lake and what long range options there are. I was disappointed that there was no discussion on the low water levels and the reason behind that nor was there adequate time for questions. It was I guess to some degree what I expected. Pat might jump in here with some comments. He is a far better word smith than I am.
[signature]
I was there until I mentally timed out and had to leave. Mostly it amounted to multiple presenters that held forth for too long with a bunch of esoteric terms, charts, and graphs that explained everything except when I could go fishing again. I still don't know if it was a good news or bad news meeting.
One depressing opinion was advanced that we may just get over this bloom in time to have another one.[
] They also showed some aerial photos of a similar sized bloom in 2006 and there was no fish loss noted them??
I agree, let someone with more smarts than I have break it down for dull normal IQ folks like myself. TubeDude??
[signature]
Well that is exactly what I expected to hear. I didn' think for a minute that the powers controlling lake levels would say we screwed up.
[signature]
I got there late because I had a client apt that I had to change to 7:30 when they changed the meeting time to 8:00, so I missed the first hour. In talking with TD, there was no discussion about the water allocation and what may or may not be done in the future about it. Most of the discussion was of no use other than the presenter to hear him/her self evacuate hot air. The last presentation was about "presenting the story to the public" by a "PIO" public information officer. Little or no comment was allowed from the public and the board asked few pertinent questions. It appeared that the dude running the show was more interested in getting the meeting over with rather than getting information into the how of the current situation. While not surprised at the outcome, I was disappointed that there was no challenge to the causes.
TD was going to do some more research on line and find some of the material referenced in a couple of the presentations. I imagine he will be posting his findings at some point. So we'll have to wait for his analysis of the meeting. Wish I could have stayed and met a couple of you guys, but I had to get back to the office for another appointment. As TD pointed out, the meeting was a good comparison to the breeding of elephants, done with a great deal of hoopla, exertion and expenditure of energy and the result takes a long time to emerge !!!
[#0000FF]TubeBabe and I showed up. I took a lot of notes. The bottom line I came away with was that Utah Lake has had algae blooms before...none as massive and none as toxic. Also, because of the current circumstances (low water - high nutrients) there is every possibility of this bloom lasting much longer...or even if it subsides there could be other blooms before the cold sets in later in the year.
The other thing evident from the deluge of rhetoric was that even though the causes of the problem are well identified...there are no suitable short term fixes. Long term fixes might take "decades". Just what we wanted to hear.
I have attached a longer written synopsis of the meeting. For those who want more detailed info on the nature of the beast...and past history...you can go to the [url "http://deq.utah.gov/locations/U/utahlake/algal-bloom.htm"]DEQ WEBSITE [/url]
If you visit that site you will find a lot of buttons to click on both current and past algae blooms. These include the last big one in 2014. One of the interesting statements about our current one is that the concentrations are 10 times greater than the yearly average.
As Therapist mentioned, there was absolutely no discussion on exactly HOW it is that Utah Lake is so %&$@# low while the upstream ponds are so high. Whenever asked, "officials" use the silly excuse that it was a bad water year...again. But the extra water held by Jordanelle this year (over 40 feet higher than last year) would have helped Utah Lake a bit if it had been released at a normal flow.
Although nobody seems to want to seriously discuss any potential oversights, I am hoping that those in charge have taken note of the adverse effects created by their decisions this year...and that they remedy them in future years. Yeah, right.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Because of the size difference it would take about 28' of Jordanelle water to raise Utah lake 1 foot. basically, every extra foot of J water going down to Utah lake would amount to about 20" difference in Utah lake. If the states on area thet I used to do the math is correct. Jordanelle, 5.158 square miles vs Utah lake at 148.4 sq miles.
[signature]
[quote Troll]
basically, every extra foot of J water going down to Utah lake would amount to about 20" difference in Utah lake.
[/quote]
Me thinks this is not what you intended to type.[
]
[signature]
Me thinks it is...
If the extra 40' of water people are saying J has, were released and passed through DC to put into UL, it would only amount to a rise of UL by about 20" with a drop at J of 40'.
[signature]
Got it. I was reading that for every foot of water lowering of Jordanelle would raise UL 20".
[signature]
Yeah, I can see where my wording could confuse like that, I should have stated "all" extra feet instead of every, even though I meant "every" (all 40') extra.
My bad. I think this clears up what I meant though.
[signature]
I can see your point here. That's not much of an impact. Sounds like UL is destined to be a mud hole soon without intervention. Scary scenarios ahead of us all here.
[signature]
Factor in more than an inch a week of natural evaporation from UL and the J water does not amount to much.
[signature]
7.48 gallons in one cubic foot of water.
[signature]