03-08-2015, 12:02 AM
I apologize for my ineptitude, but your graphic appears to have been deleted.
Using approximate numbers, the water taken for industrial use (GSL) equates less than 1-ft of depth from Willard Bay annually. If this water were to be retained through summer months, they would have to shut down operations during this time. Evaporation accounts for an additional 1-ft of depth annually. The rest is irrigation. For reference, each foot of water depth in Willard equates to 1,000 acre-feet of water (which is by no measure an insignificant amount).
The reason it is low isn't due to water being diverted where it shouldn't be; it is because water is being diverted faster than it is being replenished. With a few years exception, we have been in a drought cycle since 2000. You guys are catching walleye and wipers in February. When was that "normal"? As of today, we are sitting at 66% for snow water equivalent within this watershed. Based on recent history, this appears to be the new "norm".
There is no "no negative effect " scenario here...if water stays in Willard Bay, that means it is not being used elsewhere, which means someone isn't getting their water.
I would encourage all to research this carefully before signing anything. You might not like the eventual outcome.
[signature]
Using approximate numbers, the water taken for industrial use (GSL) equates less than 1-ft of depth from Willard Bay annually. If this water were to be retained through summer months, they would have to shut down operations during this time. Evaporation accounts for an additional 1-ft of depth annually. The rest is irrigation. For reference, each foot of water depth in Willard equates to 1,000 acre-feet of water (which is by no measure an insignificant amount).
The reason it is low isn't due to water being diverted where it shouldn't be; it is because water is being diverted faster than it is being replenished. With a few years exception, we have been in a drought cycle since 2000. You guys are catching walleye and wipers in February. When was that "normal"? As of today, we are sitting at 66% for snow water equivalent within this watershed. Based on recent history, this appears to be the new "norm".
There is no "no negative effect " scenario here...if water stays in Willard Bay, that means it is not being used elsewhere, which means someone isn't getting their water.
I would encourage all to research this carefully before signing anything. You might not like the eventual outcome.
[signature]