Critics portend the Bear River Water Development Project will result in the Wasatch Front becoming an uninhabitable toxic dustbowl. Utah has been planning the ambitious project since 1991, estimating it could deliver 220,000 acre-feet water to customers on the Wasatch Front. Utah legislators insist this water development project is needed to meet the projected growth in population that will increase water demand. Meanwhile, alternative solutions to water supply and demand are not being seriously considered.
A map of the Bear River Basin
The Ecology of the Bear River and the Great Salt Lake
The Bear River supports the ecology of the Wasatch Front in many ways. At 500 miles long, it is the largest river in the western hemisphere that does not meet the ocean.[i] Its headwaters begin in Utah before it flows north into Wyoming, bends west into Idaho, then finally wends south back into Utah, terminating just 90 miles from its headwaters, where it meets the Great Salt Lake. (See Figure 1) The river contributes 60% of the lake’s freshwater supply. The river’s delta is Federally designated as the “Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.” Thousands of species of birds use the Great Salt Lake as their resting grounds for summer and winter migration.[ii] The delta is a critical piece of wetland habitat because the salt waters of the Great Salt Lake mix with the fresh water of the river creating brackish waters crucial for many species of bird. This designation is well warranted as the Great Salt Lake is the largest migratory resting grounds for birds in the western United States. There used to be two larger resting grounds for birds in the western United States: the delta of the Colorado River and the San Francisco Bay. Now, the Colorado River does not reach the ocean and the San Francisco Bay has been developed to the extent that its capacity to accommodate birds has been severely undercut.
The Great Salt Lake is very sensitive to changes in its water inflow because it is shallow. So, when its water levels fluctuate by even a foot the footprint of the lake changes drastically. In Figure 2 you can see that the difference between the historic low and high of the lake is only 20 feet of elevation while the difference in square miles covered is two thirds its historic high. Exposing dry lake bed is concerning because there is no outlet to the Great Salt Lake meaning that any toxic chemicals that enter the lake settle in the lakebed. If the lake dries up the fine particulate matter of the lake bed could easily be kicked up by the wind carrying those same toxic chemicals into the air. This could make living on the Wasatch Front hazardous to human and other animal life.
Two photos side by side contrast the footprint of the Great Salt Lake at its peak in 1986 and in 2010, close to the 1963 historic low
The Great Salt Lake also influences the cumulation of snowpack in the Wasatch Mountains through a meteorological process called “lake effect.” Essentially, as storm systems move through the Wasatch Front warm water from the lake rises and mixes with cold, dry air above and causes downwind precipitation. As the clouds ascend over the mountains to leave the valley the mountains capture the lake-effect precipitation. Additionally, the salinity of the lake helps ensure the lake holds a warmer temperature than the atmosphere increasing the prevalence of the lake effect. This all contributes to a beneficial ecological regime between lake, mountain, and sky. A shrinking footprint of the Great Salt Lake will necessarily decrease the amount of lake-effect precipitation impairing this regime while the opposite generates more lake-effect precipitation and strengthens the regime.
The Bear River Water Development Project
This proposal presents ecological concerns tied to the footprint of the lake. The proposal to capture 220,000 acre-feet of the Bear River annually would remove 20% (12% of the lakes overall freshwater supply) of the Bear River’s fresh water supply. The lake currently sits close to its 1963 historic low. [iii] Removing 12% of its freshwater supply would drop the elevation of the water by an additional four feet making concern surrounding this proposal well warranted.
In addition, the proposal involves the construction of extensive infrastructure for capture and delivery at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. The water would be captured through a series of four dams (see Figure 3) one of which sits inside the wildlife refuge. A 50-mile pipeline would then carry the water to customers in Cache County, the Bear River Water Conservancy District, the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD). The former two would receive 60,000 acre-feet each, while the latter two would receive 50,000 acre-feet each. Utah intends to pay for the project independently. It has consistently been setting aside tax revenue for general water projects. Any debt financing used to pay for the construction is planned to be paid back through rate payers. Construction on the project will not begin until contracts have been made for 70% of the water development.[iv]
A map of the Bear River Development project showing 4 of its dam locations (the Fielding Dam, White’s Valley Dam, Temple Fork Dam, and the Bear River Migratory Refuge Dam) along with the proposed water delivery pipeline.
Water Supply and Demand
Since the Utah legislature passed the bill authorizing the construction of the Bear River Water Development Project in 1991 construction has not been triggered because “Utah residents have been so good at conserving water in the interim” according to Marissa Egbert, manager of the Bear River Development Project.[i] This is an interesting statement considering Utahns are the second highest consumers of water in the nation at 167 gallons per capita per day, according to a 2010 U.S. Geological Survey.[v] When institutional, commercial, and industrial use are included it comes out to 242 gallons per capita per day.[vi] Even at this rate of use, Utah has not been able to fill the contracts necessary to trigger the Bear River Development Project for nearly 30 years with an increasing population. This seriously throws into question whether the water development project is needed. However, Utah’s population is projected to double by 2050 with 60% of that growth coming from residents within the state having children. Without reducing per capita water use in the state and with a climbing population the project could still conceivably be triggered.
The Wasatch Front is not experiencing absolute water scarcity: the volume of water supplied by a watershed not being sufficient to supply 26 gallons per person per day. This is the volume of water “needed to ensure that most basic needs are met and few health concerns arise” identified by the World Health Organization.[vii] The Wasatch Front does have a physical limit to its water supply dictated by precipitation and groundwater reserves. So far, this supply has been more than sufficient to meet the high per capita demand for water on the Wasatch Front. This per capita demand combined with rising population could surpass currently available water supply and manufacture the need to seek out new water supplies such as the Bear River Water Development Project. Any perceived shortage in the water supply is being driven by habits of per capita use and population growth, not by the physical limit of water available to the Wasatch Front. Figure 4 depicts the water delivered in 2012 in the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) split between indoor and outdoor use. Figure 5 shows mean precipitation in Salt Lake. Side by side, they reveal a huge disparity in water availability through precipitation and water use. While indoor use stays consistent, outdoor water use quintuples demand in the Wasatch Front’s driest months. A large snowpack helps water managers meet demand through these dry months. When the snowpack is not sufficient the JVWCD draws on groundwater at higher rates.[viii]
Figure 4, Source: JVWCD
A graph depicting average monthly precipitation in Salt Lake City, UT
Figure 5, Source: JVWCD
A graph depicting the JVWCD water deliveries in 2012
However, the snowpack is in jeopardy due to climate change. For every degree of warming the snowpack is projected to decrease by 12%. At the same time, more precipitation is expected to fall in Utah’s wettest months, but as rain instead of as snow. This precipitation will travel faster through the watershed. A drop of rain that falls on the Wasatch Front can meet customers the same day[ix], while snow that accumulates can persist in the mountain via snowpack for months. In addition, the faster rate of water traveling through the watershed will consequently decrease infiltration and slow recharge to the aquifers. While the effects of climate change should be taken seriously by water managers on the Wasatch Front, Charles Vorosmarty et al. state “impending global-scale changes in population and economic development over the next 25 years will dictate the future relation between water supply and demand to a much greater degree than will changes in mean climate.”[x] While climate change will put further stress on water systems, water use and population growth will remain the primary drivers of perceived water scarcity.
Alternative Options
The Bear River Water Development Project is not the only option to increase water supplies and decrease perceived water scarcity on the Wasatch Front. There are three solutions that combined could seriously waylay perceived water scarcity: water conservation, rain harvesting, and water recycling for outdoor water supplies. Water conservation would entail reducing per capita water use, especially outdoor use. Rain harvesting is the distributed capture of rainfall through cisterns. Both of these solutions will take changes in social norms, policies, and laws to implement. Water recycling could be implemented without social change. Water recycling would take a large upfront investment in infrastructure like the Bear River Water Development Project. The difference is water recycling would preclude threatening the ecology of The Great Salt Lake and could even help increase the water that flows into the lake.
Water recycling is a viable alternative to the Bear River Water Development Project. Referring back to Figure 4 if the JVWCD recycled all of its indoor water use, approximately 60,000 acre-feet, nearly 60% of outdoor water demand could be met. This would completely cover the outdoor water demand in the Wasatch Front’s driest months. One of the main barriers to implementing water recycling is implementing a secondary water system that the recycled water can be conveyed to customers through. In many of Utah’s water districts, secondary water systems are already at least partially built as shown in Figure 6. This will reduce the upfront cost of implementing a recycled water system for outdoor water use in the JVWCD. Furthermore, recycled water could be stored in aquifers by pumping it underground. This is a practice that is already in place in the JVWCD. The advantage of storing recycled water in the aquifers is it creates a viable long-term solution for water storage that could supplement a decreasing snowpack. Water managers would need to be careful to avoid mixing pumped stores of water with sulfur dioxide contamination from mining practices in the valley.
A map depicting the network of secondary water pipes in South Jordan
When comparing the cost of water recycling to other water development projects it is less expensive per acre-foot than reservoir expansion.[xi][xii] Reservoir expansion, in turn, is less expensive than completely building a new system of dams and a pipeline. Water recycling is an alternative that could meet the bulk of current outdoor water demand. Implemented alongside an outdoor water conservation campaign and rainwater harvesting the Wasatch Front could accommodate its expected population growth without creating the conditions for water scarcity. Considering the ecological impacts the Bear River Development Project could have it is well worth seriously exploring these alternatives.
[i] Weiser, Matt. Water Deeply. “Bear River: The Biggest Dam Project You’ve Never Heard Of.” August 29, 2016. https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/08/29/bear-river-the-biggest-dam-project-youve-never-heard-of
[ii] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. “Wildlife & Habitat.” Feb. 23, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Bear_River_Migratory_Bird_Refuge/wildlife_and_habitat/index.html
[iii] Benson, Emily. High Country News. “Will Utah Dam the Bear River?” Sep. 4, 2017. https://www.hcn.org/issues/49.15/rivers-will-utah-dam-the-bear-river
[iv] Utah Division of Water Resources. “Bear River Concept Report – Final” July 2014. https://www.cachecounty.org/assets/department/water/brpipeline/Vol%201_Final_Bear%20River%20Pipeline%20Concept%20Rpt.pdf
[v] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010.” Circular 1405. 2010. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf
[vi] O’Donoghue, Amy. Deseret News. “Each Utan uses and average of 242 gallons of water per day.” June 19, 2018. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900022211/each-utahn-uses-an-average-of-242-gallons-of-water-per-day.html
[vii] UN-Water Decade Programme on Advocacy and Communication and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. “The Human Rights to Water and Sanitation.” Referenced May 11, 2019. https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/human_right_to_water_and_sanitation_media_brief.pdf
[viii] Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. “Community Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee.” Sep. 26, 2013. https://www.wcwcd.org/wp-content/themes/wcwcd/pdf/cirpac/09.26.2013/PPT1-09.26.2013.pdf
[ix] Briefer, Laura. The U Water Center. “Drinking Water and the Wasatch Front.” May 10, 2018. https://water.utah.edu/2018/05/10/drinking-water-and-the-wasatch-front/
[x] Vorosmarty, Charles J.; Green, Pamela; Salisbury, Joseph; Lammers, Richard B. “Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth. Science. V289. July 14th, 2000.
[xi] Cooley, Heather; Phurisamban, Rapichan. Pacific Institute. The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California.” October 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319876720_The_Cost_of_Alternative_Water_Supply_and_Efficiency_Options_in_California
[xii] Rohde, Melissa. Water in the West. Understanding California’s Groundwater. “Recharge: Groundwater’s Second Act.” https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/charts/cost-comparison/index.html