Man's Impact on Great Salt Lake Elevations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Man’s Impact on Great Salt Lake Elevations Eric K. Klotz, P.E. Craig W. Miller, P.E. Utah Division of Water Resources Great Salt Lake Issues Forum April, 2010 Future Water Needs Will Be Driven By Population Growth Utah's Population Millions 6.0 million in 2050 6 5 4 2.8 million in 2009 3 Population 2 1 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year Source: Governors Office of Planning and Budget 2009 Population Projections Future Water Needs Will Be Driven By Population Growth GSL WatershedUtah's Population Population Millions 6.0 million in 2050 6 5 4.8 million 4 in 2050 2.8 million in 2009 3 Population 2 2.5 million in 2009 1 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year Source: Governors Office of Planning and Budget 2009 Population Projections GSL Watershed Future M&I Water Needs Vs. Existing Supply 2.2 Based on 2000 per capita water use of 295 gpcd 2.0 1.8 1.6 Demand w/out Conservation 400,000 1.4 acre-feet ft. - ft. - 1.2 Existing M&I Water Supply 200,000 1.0 acre-feet Million Ac Million Million Ac Million 0.8 Demand with 25% Conservation 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Years Utah’s Public Community System per Capita Use Total Potable + Secondary Use Potable Use 375 370 350 345 350 325 320 320 300 310 295 285 275 285 260 250 260 260 255 240 220 225 Per Capita Water Use(gpcd) Water Capita Per 210 200 190 180 175 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Years 08/21/07 Rev. Meeting Future Needs . Water Conservation . Agricultural Water Conversions . Water Development . Management Strategies Correcting Misconceptions Great Salt Lake in Local News May 9, 2002 – City Weekly “Salt Lake County’s thirsty lawns may spur an environmental casualty at the Great Salt Lake.” “…..the diversion of 250,000 acre feet, or 20 percent of the Bear River’s flow, would drop the lake’s water level anywhere from 1 to 6 feet, depending on annual precipitation. ….. consulted more than 20 academics and specialists in disciplines ranging from water and wetland management to ornithologists and environmental consultants at the United States Geological Survey before writing her report. ” Concept Diversions ≠ Depletions The difference between what is diverted and what returns is depletion. It is water unavailable to a designated system (GSL). It is intended to represent the net water loss to a system. However, remember the water cycle. The water that is depleted here is used by other systems downwind. Water is after all a renewable resource! Evapotranspiration (ET) Inefficient Landscape 40% Watering Return Flow Diversion 60% Landscapes Diversion Consumptive use Approx. 5% Wells Great Salt Lake Sewer Return Flow Residential, Commercial Diversion 95% & Industrial (M&I) Rivers Diversion Return Flow Consumptive use 50% Agriculture 50% Wells What Changes in Agricultural Conversion? Residential . About half of area is hardscaped . Turfgrass depletion somewhat less than alfalfa depletion . Indoor depletions are relatively small . Net depletions are around half. Residential Depletions Lower Than Agriculture Rainfall on roof either enters storm sewer or shallow groundwater system Indoor water use depletes little water Rough Salt Lake City Residential Depletion Budget (.25 acre lots) Hardscape (50%) Landscape (50%) & Indoor Usage 14.5 inches precip. x .8 23 inches depletion (turf) = 11.6 inches runoff 50 inches diversion Net depletion = 11.6”* *Less depletion (45%) compared to alfalfa (25.5”) depletion with nearly the same water diversion) GSL: 55% more water is being received plus the runoff from hardscapes What Changes in Agricultural Conversion? Commercial Often mostly hardscape. Small landscaped areas. Indoor depletions small (depending upon the business). Commercial Water Users Much Lower Than Agriculture Rainfall on roof either enters storm detention & shallow groundwater system or storm sewer Indoor water use depletes little water Small landscaped areas=small evapotranspiration Hardscape evaporates little water. Runoff may feed directly into storm sewers and then into a water body. Rough Salt Lake City Commercial Water Use Budget Hardscape (80%) Landscape (20%) & Indoor Usage 14.5 inches precip. x 23 inches depletion (turf) .8 = 11.6 inches Diversion depends upon runoff business type Net depletion = 4.7”* *Less depletion (18%) as compared to alfalfa (25.5”) GSL: 82% more water is being received plus runoff from hardscapes What Changes in Agricultural Conversion? Institutional (includes parks, schools, churches, public buildings) . Large landscaped areas . Large hardscaped areas . Indoor depletions relatively small Institutional Depletions Somewhat Lower Than Agriculture Rainfall on roof either enters storm sewer or shallow groundwater system Lawn evapotranspiration lower than alfalfa Indoor water use depletes little water Rough Salt Lake City Institutional Depletion Budget Hardscape (20%) Landscape (80%) & Indoor Usage 14.5 inches precip. x 23 inches depletion (turf) .8 = 11.6 inches Diversion dependent upon runoff institution Net depletion = 18.5”* *Less depletion (72%) compared to alfalfa (25.5”) GSL: 28% more water is received plus runoff from hardscapes Agricultural Depletions by Basin (Acre-Feet) Years GSL Watershed 2000 2050 Bear 540,000 510,000 Jordan 40,000 0 Utah Lake 260,000 180,000 Weber 160,000 70,000 West Desert 110,000 100,000 Total 1,110,000 860,000 GSL Gains: +250,000 Acft Municipal and Industrial Depletions by Basin (Acre-Feet) Years GSL Watershed 2000 2050 Bear 20,000 50,000 Jordan 190,000 270,000 Utah Lake 60,000 170,000 Weber 90,000 160,000 West Desert 10,000 20,000 Total 370,000 670,000 GSL Loses: -300,000 Acft GSL Basin Imports (Acre-Feet) Years GSL Watershed 2000 2050 Colorado 120,500 189,950 River Basin Total 120,500 189,950 GSL Gains: +70,000 Acft AFFECT ON GSL! Gain: 250,000 AF Agricultural Depletions Decrease: 300,000 AF M&I Depletions Gain: 70,000 AF CUP Depletions In 2050: 20,000 More AF/Year To the Great Salt Lake! 4201.0’ – Historical SA average elevation 4198.4’ – Present modified average elevation 2.6’ – Difference Terminal lake stage difference model Volume Difference { Additional depletion Difference in evaporation At Equilibrium Difference in Inflow = Difference in Area x Net Evaporation Rule of thumb for Great Salt Lake 100,000 AF of long term additional inflow or depletion yields ~ .75 feet elevation difference With and Without Modern Depletions Great Salt Lake Elevations 4220 Natural South Arm Present modified Present Modified South Arm average south arm Historic South Arm lake elevation about 2’ 4215 below current average. 7.3’ – Average lake elevation difference caused by man 4210 4205 4200 Elevation (feet abv msl) (feet Elevation 4195 4190 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Year Latest GSL Photo 4195.4 28 What affects lake elevation? . Basin yield minus man’s depletions . Lake evaporation (salinity and lake bathymetry influence this) . Rainfall on Great Salt Lake’s surface Great Salt Lake Inflows From Baskin, et al., 2002 Some Great Salt Lake Precipitation Facts GSL Basin GSL Basin Great Salt Depletions (without Lake GSL Inflow GSL) Precipitation 29,700,000 AF 900,000 AF GSL Basin Percent of total 97% 3% Precipitation GSL Inflow (% 6.4% of basin precipitation) Depletions Salt Lake City 15.62” NWFSO average annual precipitation (inches) Standard deviation 22.6% Maximum recorded 24.26” Minimum recorded 8.70” Years of record 62 30-year Mean Annual Precipitation Precipitation grid from University of Oregon PRISM data 32 Small shifts in use or precipitation can produce large GSL elevation responses Wet year Normal year Dry year Runoff } Runoff } } Runoff Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Consumptive Use Consumptive Consumptive Use Consumptive Consumptive Use Consumptive GSL Basin VegetationSource: Randy Julander 2004 GSL Basin Cloud Seeding Cloud Seeding Runoff Augmentation Great Salt Lake Basin Area Increase 2005 (af) Cache County 50,000 West Box Elder 9,000 County Tooele County 9,400 Western Uinta’s 13,200 Basin Totals 81,600 GSL in Drought GSL and Drought GSL Basin Man-Caused Depletions Farming and Agriculture Crops at peak growth stages can deplete as much water as a water surface. 80% of Utah water diversions supply agriculture. Irrigated Agriculture in GSL Basin Each irrigated acre converted to dry farming could potentially save about an acre-foot of water. Impoundments Approximately 55,000 net af annual evaporation from reservoirs upstream. Over 116,000 acres of diked wetlands exist around the Great Salt Lake. Existing solar evaporation ponds are found in the north and south arms as well as Bear River Bay. GSL Elevation and Impoundments Man involved in changing lake Bear River Bay Sedimentation over ~30 years Elevation Waddell, et. al., 1972 BioWest, 2010 Perhaps ½ of sediment load is caused by man. (feet) Area (acres) Volume (acre- Area (acres) Volume (acre- feet) feet) 4192 0 0 0 0 4192.5 210 109 0 0 4193 438 218 0 0 4193.5 900 553 0 0 4,194.00 1,419 1,133 0 0 4,194.50 2,100 2,013 0 0 4,195.00 3,026 3,294 0 0 4,195.50 4,100 5,076 0 0 4196 5,593 7,589 0 0 4196.5 9,000 11,327 0 0 4197 12,614 16,731 1,546 393 4197.5 16,500 24,010 3,364 1,614 4198 21,592 33,533 4,969 3,727 4198.5 26,000 45,431 5,713 6,410 Old diking plans for declining lake Dikes for flood protection Inundation map 47 48 Natural and Historical Great Salt Lake Elevation 4220 14 Historical South Arm Natural South Arm 12 4215 Elevation Difference 10 4210 8 4205 6 4200 4 Elevation Elevation Difference (feet) South Arm Elevation (feet) 4195 2 4190 0 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year 49 Conclusions and Observations • Man has and will continue to affect the level of the lake.