D
Don Y
Guest
On 4/13/2023 4:20 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
When they\'re given X CCF to do it, they will likely discover that there are
more efficient ways of doing so. The problem is that water has (and still is)
relatively inexpensive. So, no incentive to conserve -- unless you\'re only
*allowed* to use a certain amount (or, have to fight with your neighbors
over your allocation)
The presettlement grasses in the plains had deeper root systems that
better held the soil in place in periods of drought. Once the topsoil
was tilled, the newer crops (and lack of large windbreaks) exposed the
dry soil to blowing.
Here, any construction must take pains to keep the soil wetted to
minimize blowing.
We also have cocci to worry about to; another huge region to keep
windblown dust to a minimum.
It\'s already topped 100F, here.
My FinL would open the \"gate\" from the irrigation canal onto his property...
and shut it when the water flowing over the ground reached his homestead on
the opposite side of the property. Efficient? No. Easy? Yes.
> Groundwater furnishes almost all of the water for irrigation here. The levels have gone up the last few years. The lowest levels were back in the late 1970s. The state set up Natural Resources Districts to monitor such things. I think that\'s the trigger point for irrigation control to kick in.
We have some (covered) reservoirs but most water is sourced from wells or CAP.
So, the levels in Lks Mead & Powell are of concern.
Utahans are notoriously wasteful of water. It will be interesting to see GSL
dry up and watch them scramble to find someone else to blame it on!
> The only restriction on irrigation timing is later in the summer. The shutdowns are because of lack of electricity. The farmers get reduced rates if they let the REAs shut down the wells from around 10 AM. until 10 PM. or so. It isn\'t because of water use but the increased load from air conditioning. God knows we don\'t want to let some college boy with a tie to break into a sweat.
There are no \"codified\" restrictions on irrigation, here. There are laws
in place that *could* be used to cite you if you let water flow off your
property or left an irrigation system \"broken\" (spouting water continuously)
for long periods of time (days).
For most (residences), there is a perceived responsibility to be frugal in
water use. You wouldn\'t want to be wasteful -- even if no one knew it.
[Fines have a counterintuitive effect on behavior; folks can rationalize
*continuing* their bad behavior \"because they are PAYING for that ability\".
So, to even begin to be effective, the fines would have to be exhorbitant.]
<https://econlife.com/2018/09/unintended-consequences-from-fines/>
When I moved in, here, I installed a mister on the back porch. And,
quickly realized if I *needed* it, then I shouldn\'t be out there!
You want to be cool? Stay indoors. You want to be outdoors and cool?
Wait until after midnight. Easy-peasy.
But, if the water source is over-used and dries up, will the farm magically
*retain* it\'s value? (\"Whew! Thank god the gummit didn\'t step in!\")
The river\'s resources have been routinely overcommitted. Who\'s surprised
at the outcome?
But there\'s no \"free market\" for water. It\'s not like X is opting to sell his
allotment to Y \"for a profit\". Rather, X is wanting to use *all* of his
allotment for *other* profit generating activities.
[And, there\'s no real \"allotment\"; it\'s whatever you can pull out of the ground
at whatever cost you are willing to incur -- unless X and Y are *states*]
The gummit has tried to incentivize customers to forego the use of their
allotments (e.g., paying them to leave ground fallow). But, \"Bob\" isn\'t
going to pay \"Tom\" to leave his farm fallow so Bob can use Tom\'s water
allocation!
When they\'re given X CCF to do it, they will likely discover that there are
more efficient ways of doing so. The problem is that water has (and still is)
relatively inexpensive. So, no incentive to conserve -- unless you\'re only
*allowed* to use a certain amount (or, have to fight with your neighbors
over your allocation)
The presettlement grasses in the plains had deeper root systems that
better held the soil in place in periods of drought. Once the topsoil
was tilled, the newer crops (and lack of large windbreaks) exposed the
dry soil to blowing.
Here, any construction must take pains to keep the soil wetted to
minimize blowing.
We also have cocci to worry about to; another huge region to keep
windblown dust to a minimum.
It\'s already topped 100F, here.
My FinL would open the \"gate\" from the irrigation canal onto his property...
and shut it when the water flowing over the ground reached his homestead on
the opposite side of the property. Efficient? No. Easy? Yes.
> Groundwater furnishes almost all of the water for irrigation here. The levels have gone up the last few years. The lowest levels were back in the late 1970s. The state set up Natural Resources Districts to monitor such things. I think that\'s the trigger point for irrigation control to kick in.
We have some (covered) reservoirs but most water is sourced from wells or CAP.
So, the levels in Lks Mead & Powell are of concern.
Utahans are notoriously wasteful of water. It will be interesting to see GSL
dry up and watch them scramble to find someone else to blame it on!
> The only restriction on irrigation timing is later in the summer. The shutdowns are because of lack of electricity. The farmers get reduced rates if they let the REAs shut down the wells from around 10 AM. until 10 PM. or so. It isn\'t because of water use but the increased load from air conditioning. God knows we don\'t want to let some college boy with a tie to break into a sweat.
There are no \"codified\" restrictions on irrigation, here. There are laws
in place that *could* be used to cite you if you let water flow off your
property or left an irrigation system \"broken\" (spouting water continuously)
for long periods of time (days).
For most (residences), there is a perceived responsibility to be frugal in
water use. You wouldn\'t want to be wasteful -- even if no one knew it.
[Fines have a counterintuitive effect on behavior; folks can rationalize
*continuing* their bad behavior \"because they are PAYING for that ability\".
So, to even begin to be effective, the fines would have to be exhorbitant.]
<https://econlife.com/2018/09/unintended-consequences-from-fines/>
When I moved in, here, I installed a mister on the back porch. And,
quickly realized if I *needed* it, then I shouldn\'t be out there!
You want to be cool? Stay indoors. You want to be outdoors and cool?
Wait until after midnight. Easy-peasy.
But, if the water source is over-used and dries up, will the farm magically
*retain* it\'s value? (\"Whew! Thank god the gummit didn\'t step in!\")
The river\'s resources have been routinely overcommitted. Who\'s surprised
at the outcome?
But there\'s no \"free market\" for water. It\'s not like X is opting to sell his
allotment to Y \"for a profit\". Rather, X is wanting to use *all* of his
allotment for *other* profit generating activities.
[And, there\'s no real \"allotment\"; it\'s whatever you can pull out of the ground
at whatever cost you are willing to incur -- unless X and Y are *states*]
The gummit has tried to incentivize customers to forego the use of their
allotments (e.g., paying them to leave ground fallow). But, \"Bob\" isn\'t
going to pay \"Tom\" to leave his farm fallow so Bob can use Tom\'s water
allocation!
(the Pacific Ocean)