nzaugg
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
The golf course issue is one that irks me. There was a bill put forth a couple of years ago that would have required golf courses to record and report their water consumption as part of efforts to reduce water consumption in the Great Salt Lake basin. The golf industry got the bill killed, stating that people wouldn't be able to put the water consumption in context. Most golf courses in Utah have multiple sources of water supply, typically being fed by canal companies in addition to receiving municipal or secondary irrigation sources. Some even have groundwater wells to supplement those resources. Three years ago when the drought in northern Utah was at its worst, all my neighbors and I were severely restricted in our use of secondary irrigation water, resulting in a lot of brown and spotty lawns, yet when I drove by the country club near our home, things were as green as ever, since they had priority water rights.
As far as I know, there is very limited use or recycled water at golf courses in Utah. I know of three definite users of recycled wastewater on golf courses, but there are likely others on a limited basis. Utah water law limits the ability for reuse to be viable since reuse water is owned by the original provider of water rather than whoever makes it clean enough for reuse, making the only viable reuse applications those completed by cities.
St. George is embarking on a major reuse program in order to reduce their need for new water resources and has basically aligned Washington County WCD, as well as all the other purveyors of water and wastewater treatment (St. George, Ash Creek, etc) to make it workable. This will take some time, but is likely to result in massive improvements in per capita water consumption in Washington County. The whole area has a lot of work to do though and there are some problems with the reservoir systems in Washington County that result in inherent water inefficiency there due to system losses.
Regarding secondary irrigation systems, I have lived in Davis County most of my life, which has had secondary irrigation since the advent of Weber Basin WCD. The canals that used to run through the fields and orchards were all replaced with pressurized delivery when the fields were turned into homes and people didn't want canals and flood irrigation. The other areas followed suit and now there are a smattering of canal companies turned into pressurized irrigation districts (Benchland Water, Davis-Weber Canal Company, Haight's Creek, Deuel Creek, etc.). These became a convenient way to reduce cost of water delivery and treatment since we didn't have to have treated water going on grass. However, they were unmetered and it has been easy for people to over-water. About 10 years ago, Weber Basin piloted addition of flow meters to secondary irrigation in my neighborhood. They were able to track usage and if you used more than they expected, they would provide you with a new sprinkler timer along with guidance on how to set it up to reduce consumption. This worked very well and they saw significant reductions in water consumption in my area. They were also able to provide instantaneous feedback on excessive consumption and leaks along with weekly tracking of use during the drought when there were actual limitations on allowable volumes, preventing the need to use preset days for allowable water use. The success of the program has led the state to require all secondary systems to require flow meters in the future. There is a timeline associated with implementation. Ideally, this reduces irrigation demand for home use.
As noted though, the elephant of water usage continues to be agriculture. An article in the SL Tribune recently noted that 75% of water consumption in the state is supporting agriculture, which provides 0.5% of the GDP. The investment in water in the past has subsidized agricultural consumption in the present. Continuing to support agricultural water consumption in marginal quality areas will guarantee failure in the future. I drove through Imperial Valley about 10 years ago and was shocked by the farms I saw, featuring marginal quality soils, poor quality crops, and a ton of water consumption. Of course, I didn't do a complete survey of the area, so this was just my impression, but it seemed unsustainable to me. Looking at big lakes in the desert also looks unsustainable though, so we have to decide how and where to use our water. If the upper basin wants to keep water in Lake Powell, it comes at a loss of 400,000 acre-feet/year. If the lower basin wants water in Lake Mead, it comes at a cost of at least 600,000 acre-feet/year. These water costs have not been accounted for in the CRC, so that needs to get fixed and included as part of the allocations for users. We need to be using water where it is most valuable though. If we completely end agricultural usage it would have devastating impacts on those communities and to the downwind airshed though.
As far as I know, there is very limited use or recycled water at golf courses in Utah. I know of three definite users of recycled wastewater on golf courses, but there are likely others on a limited basis. Utah water law limits the ability for reuse to be viable since reuse water is owned by the original provider of water rather than whoever makes it clean enough for reuse, making the only viable reuse applications those completed by cities.
St. George is embarking on a major reuse program in order to reduce their need for new water resources and has basically aligned Washington County WCD, as well as all the other purveyors of water and wastewater treatment (St. George, Ash Creek, etc) to make it workable. This will take some time, but is likely to result in massive improvements in per capita water consumption in Washington County. The whole area has a lot of work to do though and there are some problems with the reservoir systems in Washington County that result in inherent water inefficiency there due to system losses.
Regarding secondary irrigation systems, I have lived in Davis County most of my life, which has had secondary irrigation since the advent of Weber Basin WCD. The canals that used to run through the fields and orchards were all replaced with pressurized delivery when the fields were turned into homes and people didn't want canals and flood irrigation. The other areas followed suit and now there are a smattering of canal companies turned into pressurized irrigation districts (Benchland Water, Davis-Weber Canal Company, Haight's Creek, Deuel Creek, etc.). These became a convenient way to reduce cost of water delivery and treatment since we didn't have to have treated water going on grass. However, they were unmetered and it has been easy for people to over-water. About 10 years ago, Weber Basin piloted addition of flow meters to secondary irrigation in my neighborhood. They were able to track usage and if you used more than they expected, they would provide you with a new sprinkler timer along with guidance on how to set it up to reduce consumption. This worked very well and they saw significant reductions in water consumption in my area. They were also able to provide instantaneous feedback on excessive consumption and leaks along with weekly tracking of use during the drought when there were actual limitations on allowable volumes, preventing the need to use preset days for allowable water use. The success of the program has led the state to require all secondary systems to require flow meters in the future. There is a timeline associated with implementation. Ideally, this reduces irrigation demand for home use.
As noted though, the elephant of water usage continues to be agriculture. An article in the SL Tribune recently noted that 75% of water consumption in the state is supporting agriculture, which provides 0.5% of the GDP. The investment in water in the past has subsidized agricultural consumption in the present. Continuing to support agricultural water consumption in marginal quality areas will guarantee failure in the future. I drove through Imperial Valley about 10 years ago and was shocked by the farms I saw, featuring marginal quality soils, poor quality crops, and a ton of water consumption. Of course, I didn't do a complete survey of the area, so this was just my impression, but it seemed unsustainable to me. Looking at big lakes in the desert also looks unsustainable though, so we have to decide how and where to use our water. If the upper basin wants to keep water in Lake Powell, it comes at a loss of 400,000 acre-feet/year. If the lower basin wants water in Lake Mead, it comes at a cost of at least 600,000 acre-feet/year. These water costs have not been accounted for in the CRC, so that needs to get fixed and included as part of the allocations for users. We need to be using water where it is most valuable though. If we completely end agricultural usage it would have devastating impacts on those communities and to the downwind airshed though.
AI, while scary & kinda voo-do-ish to us old pharts.....could, in the right hands, perhaps solve perplexing decades long issues for mankind...and womenkind, of course.....
The lakes themselves may also be running out of options (The Salton Sea is beyond ecological collapse stage already IMO).