Deseret News | Reader comments: Love is flowing for Utah rivers

Reader comments
Love is flowing for Utah rivers

New Trick | 12:11 p.m. March 19, 2008

Just another way of making public land or in this case water unavailable to the public.

BasinBoy | 1:18 p.m. March 19, 2008

Amen to New Trick's comment. It would be foolhardy for an arid state like Utah to diminish its ability to impound water from its rivers to serve the needs of a growing population (the population is expected to double by the year 2050. There are other regulations already in place to protect rivers. Plus, Wild and Scenic River designations would cost the federal taxpayers at least $.75 million per year in the preparation of WSR management plans and implementation. Wild and Scenic Rivers have not been a problem in states like Oregon and Washington where water is abundant. It's a different world here.

Wilderness Lover | 4:15 p.m. March 19, 2008

If we want Utah to stay nice we have to keep the Fed's out. Don't destroy what makes this state great by "protecting it".

Comments continue below

Lifelong Utahn | 4:24 p.m. March 19, 2008

BasinBoy: "It's a different world here." Precisely why we need these designations. We in Utah all believe that we must have our cake and eat it too. We want to live in a desert but we want our yards to look like Oregon. If Utah developers had their way we would drain these rivers down to their last drop. What we need is for someone to draw a line--to say "this far, and no further"--so we can protect the precious water resources we have. If our population is to double by the year 2050, as you say, then we better start figuring out how to live with less water and quit trying to figure out how to suck more out of what little we have just so we can live a ridiculous and irrational dream.

Lifelong Utahn | 4:40 p.m. March 19, 2008

Self-styled "Wilderness Lover": "Don't destroy what makes this state great by 'protecting it.'"

Heaven forbid! What we want to do is PRESERVE what makes this state great by "destroying it!" Mr. Orwell would enjoy this line of thinking: "Development is Protection." "Draining is preserving."

RiverGirl | 8:42 a.m. March 20, 2008

Does anyone realize the cost of development and impoundment of our "wild" rivers - I'll let you know that cost far exceeds the 0.75 Million that tax payers are supposedly charged to protect our waters.
Basin Boy: Where are you gonna get your water when we've impounded and used all of Utah's water (with help from Nevada) by 2050?
Utah has very few regulations protecting water, hence the Central Utah Water Project - a situation that allows the Wasatch front to steal water from other Utahns.
Wilderness Lover: I like the old school Utah mentality of keeping the Feds out. Let's take away your federal rights and benefits and see how "nice" your life is then.

jack Sorensen | 10:29 a.m. March 20, 2008

"Where are you gonna get your water when we've impounded and used all of Utah's water (with help from Nevada) by 2050?"

I would guess.. From the impoundment. Isn't that what it is for? And if you look at recreation statistics flat water absolutely devastate streams and rivers when it comes to hours of recreation spent whether it be fishing, swimming or water skiing.

RiverGirl | 8:39 a.m. March 21, 2008

Jack: I'm completely against impoundments (hence the name river girl!) but there is little way around them with our growing population. However, my point was that impoundments don't last forever, especially when their source headwater rivers and streams are sucked dry due to overuse and groundwater withdrawls...so exactly Where are we gonna get our water?

In addition it isn't recreation that devestates streams and rivers it's the physical impedement of flow that changes the function of the ecosystem and interrupts the life history cycles of our native fishes.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.