My internet presence is small. I depend on the right eyes seeing to cause change for the good of GSL. The most difficult issue is those that gain financially off of the lakes status quo, careers depend on the lake not getting better. Academics get study funding; State bureaucrats are well paid.

In the KSL article, U of U is invoked to secure credibility.
But when studies skip peer review → chase funder narratives → build on shaky claims → the University itself suffers the consequences.
Credibility borrowed becomes credibility lost

2/
Peer review isn’t a bureaucratic hurdle; it’s the safeguard against bias and the path to credibility.
#UofU #PeerReview #Accountability

1/
When research skips peer review, it risks becoming a funding feedback loop: Conclude what the DNR/legislature want → secure more grants → build on shaky claims → ruin U of U’s credibility.
That’s not science, that’s derivative junk science.

The 1st 75% was so full of speculation and sophistry, the last 25% was built from it, so I basically stopped. It would have been a rehash anyway.

4/
We do know that reservoirs have been built up decade after decade, increasing water withholdings by millions of acre-feet.

3/
Folks would like us to believe that Agriculture, municipal & industrial are evaporating more water than would naturally evaporate from the ecosystem. It may well be, however, there is no pre-1847 evidence to validate that assumption.

2/
However, geological evidence from sediment cores indicates there have been periods where the lake likely desiccated or was significantly smaller and lower than 2022's 4188.5' elevation. Prior to human hydrological manipulations.

Policy often only looks at a dozen major reservoirs; reservoir retention has a much bigger scale of diversion and depletion.

4/
When a farmer fallows a field, the concept is the same, but the percentages are different.
Less diversion, less depletion, also means less return to flow, unless accounted for and delivered to the lake.

The metric has to be water to the lake.

3/
If you choose not to shower the next day to conserve water, no water is diverted, no water is depleted, no water is return to flow.
Remember that accumulated water.
That remains in upstream reservoirs, depriving GSL of inflow.

2/
water was "diverted" to your home to shower in.
A small portion of the water is "depleted" in your towel.
The rest is "return to flow", in other words GSL inflow.

Right now, policy makers are stuck in a magical thinking matrix.
They are under the impression that water conservation somehow magically adds water to the GSL.
There is a disconnect between saving and delivery.
Water conservation leaves water in upstream reservoirs instead.