Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study: 10% basin-wide agricultural depletion reduction feasible but requires broad participation and $30–75M/year
Summary
A Utah State assessment evaluated 21 options to reduce agricultural depletions in the Great Salt Lake Basin and concluded a 10% reduction (about 132,000 acre-feet basinwide; ≈83,000 acre-feet in Utah) is technically achievable with a mix of leasing, irrigation upgrades and select crop shifts, at estimated annualized costs roughly $30–75 million depending on the portfolio.
Dr. Matt Yoast of Utah State summarized a year-and-a-half study quantifying agricultural water depletions in the Great Salt Lake Basin (2019–2023) and assessing options to reduce consumptive use.
Using OpenET products and other data, the team estimated five-year average agricultural depletions of roughly 1.3 million acre-feet across the basin, with year-to-year variability of nearly 500,000 acre-feet. "We have variation in time, which we expect," Yoast said, noting differences in weather and irrigation practices drive large annual swings.
Yoast modeled about 21 options — including 11 irrigation-system changes, seven leasing scenarios and three crop-substitution paths — to see how a 10% depletion reduction could be reached. A 10% basin-wide cut equals about 132,000 acre-feet; focusing on Utah's portion (about 830,000 acre-feet) yields an 83,000-acre-foot target.
Key takeaways: modest irrigation upgrades applied broadly yield small percent reductions unless deployed on a very large share of acres; subsurface drip irrigation can deliver greater savings but at high per-acre-foot costs and operational complexity; leasing (temporary, voluntary fallowing or seasonal leases) can be among the least-cost near-term options but requires annual enrollment and is not a permanent savings. A balanced portfolio of leasing, targeted irrigation upgrades and selective crop shifts tended to be the most cost-effective path in model scenarios.
Costs: depending on scenario choices and scale, the study estimated annualized costs of roughly $30 million to $75 million to reach a 10% reduction across the basin. Yoast emphasized the numbers reflect combinations of farmer investment, public incentives and program funding and that the study assumed farmers would be made financially whole for lost income in modeled scenarios.
Council members raised questions about the number of acres needed under different scenarios, impacts to farm income and regional agricultural economies, NRCS cost-share programs, and how on-farm versus off-farm conveyance losses were treated. Yoast said the analysis focused primarily on on-farm conveyance (piping/lining) where data were available and that off-farm canal data were limited.
Yoast and the council emphasized that all options would be voluntary and incentive-driven; broad participation across many farms would be required to meet the reduction targets.
