'Million' pipeline now touted as hydropower project

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rsatinfun Provo, UT
    Aug. 20, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    Imperfect I am, even below the dust of the earth. 3rd Nephi 11:30 Behold this is not my doctrine to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another, but this is my doctrine that such things should be done away.

    This move of water for hydro power project is a good move. I am concerned about the environment and lets move water forward and and become known for promoting hydro power over say Gas and Oil and Coal. Have a great dad and God Bless you.

    Randy Hanson

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 10:37 p.m.

    Let me get this straight... Utah is the 2nd driest state in the Union, with little precipitation and very few rivers... and Nevada is taking us to court to force us to let them suck the water from the snake valley aquifer to use in their over-the-top water features and numerous steam powered power plants to power their insatiable electricity appitite. And now Wyoming and Colorado want to pipe the water from the Green River out of Utah to satisfy their water needs?

    How does that make sense? Taking water from what's already one of the driest states? That's like taking money from the poorest people in the Union and giving it to the people who already have more money than the people you are taking it from!

  • Where's Stockton ??? Bowling Green, OH
    Aug. 16, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    Utah at all costs should avoid ever be selling off any of it's water rights....That's why we have some of the problems that we have with southeren California over the the Colorado River. Selling surplus water and selling water rights are two completley different situations as already has been noted in previous posts. Any one telling you other wise is a snake in the grass. We fell for those lines nearly a century ago and it cost us dearly. Send this guy packing.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Aug. 16, 2011 7:05 p.m.

    Using the Bureau of Reclamation figures may not be a good idea. There info on most every thing is way out of date and hardly reliable. We used to do const. work for them and most of their specs was always about 10 years behind normal const.and up to date technology, which made projects more costly and seldom using the best available mtls. and modern methods.Some of their specs.were even at odds with what they their purpose was, ( Like free draiing gravel in a drain that had to be compacted to 95 percent density ) I know for a fact that it was not free draining ever.)Don't believe all govt. info.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    The great water grab of '11 continues!

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Aug. 16, 2011 1:14 p.m.

    Don't think for one minute that this is about water or some benevolent project to bring water to the Front Range of Colorado. It's about money BIG corporate money and nothing else. Taking this much water will destroy the Green River fisheries and ruin family farms in Wyoming and Utah.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 11:16 a.m.

    What about our precious nuclear power plant to be constructed near green river?

    This will be fun...

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 11:14 a.m.

    The problem with giving up any irrigation water to a city is that in the future when there is a drought and water levels drop, the city still needs a large amount of water, which it will continue to take. Farms will loose out and go dry. Cities will continue to take water even when they have used all their water right shares. Water shares work as a per acre amount on dry years that will be less then a foot per acre, on wet years that will be more, it is not a set amount. If it is a dry year and the reservoir is low do you really think that they will cut off the city if they have used up all their shares?

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    cjp, it isn't that simple.

    Water rights are theoretical, water is real. Water rights are supposed to match the water available but may not in the future, and in some cases don't now.

    If the amount of real water is less than the rights, then rights have to be reallocated or re-adjudicated, meaning OTHER water rights holders end up with less. That means other water rights holders in Utah could end up with less water because of the water and water rights that have been sent to Colorado.

    Colorado, in anticipation of their being a mismatch between water and water rights, has been closing the spigot on California, because California has been using more water than it has rights. Colorado's fear is the day when there are more rights than water. People in Colorado understand water rights. 90% of the water rights attorneys in the U.S. are in Colorado. Why? Because the Colorado Rockies are the source of much of the country's water, but they have few rights.

    Water is scarce here. You cannot drink water rights. You cannot grow crops with water rights. If the water isn't there, a piece of paper won't quench your thirst.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    Big business and money money money own this country from the top down.

    Remember the golden rule. "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

    Fight it all you want, unless we reassess the way we now function as a society it won't matter a bit.

  • cval Hyde Park, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    It seems like every few months we hear that Nevada, California, or Colorado has a new plan to take water from Utah and Wyoming (two of the driest States in the Country).

    If you don't have the water, quit building!!! Leave our water alone.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    It'll never happen.

    The water that starts in the north slope of the Uintah mountains of Utah and south-west Wyoming ends up in the Green River. Then stops for a rest in Flaming Gorge, only to continue on down to join the Colorado river on its way to Lake Powell. From there through Arizona, Nevada and California. If any is left, Mexico gets a bit of it.

    Any water taken out of the Green River close to its source removes water currently used by Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California and Mexico. None of it is surplus. It is all greatly coveted and used by the states through which it naturally flows.

    None of these states and countries will have a problem with someone taking water that they currently have rights to?

    They'd be taking water that falls on the western side of the Continental Divide to hydrate the dry, western states, and divert it to the eastern side of the Continental Divide, which is already much richer in moisture. Sounds to me like someone in Colorado is being very self-serving.

    It will never happen.

  • Still Blue after all these years Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 8:52 a.m.

    wow, we see that the federal government is not the only ones that stop economic growth, cause unemployment and make it difficult for Americans to progress. These are Utah water rights? maybe because of some attorneys or such. but half the lake is in Wyoming, the water comes in from somewhere else than Utah (primarily) and they only want a portion of the surplus. Everyone is so dang selfish. This is a microcosim of all our problems. Old people won't give up their SS and medicare, even though the young and not even born will pay the bill. companies will not put jobs in the U.S. but in China becaues its cheaper. young people want low cost college educations paid by others. And each state wants "it'" water though it came from God for everyone.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 8:46 a.m.

    Why is there no one with enough clout standing for Utah on these water issues? It's time for the people to get involved. Tire the ears and fill the in boxes of your representatives in Congress and in the state legislature. Water is life. Do we really want to let someone take away our future life here in Utah?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 8:04 a.m.

    re Rational | 7:48 a.m. Aug. 16, 2011

    Assuming a water right is tied to water, (that is correct isn't it)?

    If Mr. Million acquires the rights, then those who sell their rights to him will no longer have that water. However those who keep their rights, will also keep their water. Those people who do not give up their rights will not lose water.

    What is wrong with this argument?

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    Meanwhile, the State does nothing to stop the theft of water to Colorado or the theft of water to Las Vegs. Utah will be left high and dry.

  • S.Andrew Zaelit Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 8:00 a.m.

    There is no difference between Colorado or California when it comes to water. Utah water is for Utah, period. This state needs to be more proactive in acquiring water rights and it needs to be more aggressive keeping the water here. Stop the insanity! Stop other states from taking what is Utah's!

    To put things plainly, STOP!

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 7:48 a.m.

    water rights and water are two separate things, as Mike McKee stated. DO NOT, under any circumstances, allow water or water rights to leave the state of Utah.

  • SME Kearns, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 6:46 a.m.

    Acknowledging that environmentalists will oppose any project what so ever. I have a problem with the numbers here.

    "Flaming Gorge has an available surplus of 165,000 acre feet a year. Another 75,000 acre feet would be diverted per year from the Green River above Flaming Gorge."

    If you divert 75,000 acre feet from the Green River above Flaming Gorge, then Flaming Gorge no longer has a surplus of 165,000 acre feet, it now has a surplus of 90,000 acre feet.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2011 6:35 a.m.

    Let him acquire the water rights then he can have that water. Problem solved.