Ripple Effect 13: Everybody Wins

A discussion with Paul Burnett of Trout Unlimited unpacking the structure and multifaceted benefits of an instream flow project.

Transcription:

Brian Lebrecht , President of Clyde Snow & Sessions 0:01
This podcast is brought to you by the law firm of Clyde Snow and Sessions, based in Salt Lake City with offices in Oregon and California. For over 65 years. Clyde Snow has representing clients throughout the West. Clyde Snow: Serious About Solutions.

Emily Lewis, Host 0:23
Hello, welcome to Ripple Effect, a podcast putting water into context. I’m Emily Lewis, your host and on water attorney here in Salt Lake City, Utah, practicing creative solutions today’s and tomorrow’s. Welcome to the conversation.

Hello, and welcome to the 13th episode of Ripple Effect. I have with me today, Paul Burnett, he is the Utah Water and Habitat Director for Trout Unlimited. And I’m very excited to have Paul here because he is going to talk with us a little bit today about some of Trout Unlimited’s instream flow projects and collaborative projects that they have going kind of in the Cache Valley area. And the reason that I wanted Paul to join the podcast is because I think these projects exemplify really positive solution making and how often if we just think a little bit more creatively about our water use, we can come up with some pretty exciting goals that meet multiple needs. So that’s why I wanted to have him here. And to start us off, Paul, if you wouldn’t mind, would you please let the listeners know kind of a little bit about your background, what you do at Trout Unlimited, and kind of what the mission of the organization is?

Paul Burnett, Guest 1:45
Sure, I’d be happy to do that. And thank you for having me on the podcast. So just a little bit about me, I have a background in ecology and in fisheries. So none of my formal training has anything to do with water law or engineering. But it seems like you know, once we get into any sort of projects, or any sort of restoration work it really incorporates kind of all three of these areas of expertise. And so I’ve kind of picked up some knowledge of, you know, some like street knowledge, if you will, of water law and engineering and just enough to be really dangerous. I guess really quickly, just like any nonprofit, it’s really good for me to say what our mission is. So Trout Unlimited – we’re a nonprofit organization. And our mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s Coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. And that’s a lot and a big area. And so we are, obviously nationwide, but I personally direct our water and habitat program in Utah, which is mostly focused on, restoration and water transactions on important areas in the state that have really valuable fisheries. So I personally work on the Weber River, I spend most of my time on the Weber River doing a lot of fish passage restoration work and also coordinate with my colleagues in the Bear and the Price and also down in the Duchesne River. Yeah, so we’re mostly focused on kind of the, we kind of have this really interesting niche in Utah, where we’ve been able to develop a lot of really, I think, interesting and unique solutions for establishing instream flows, working with agricultural producers, as well as, you know, kind of bringing diverse stakeholders together on fish passage work that, you know, a lot of people wouldn’t even think about, such as just replacing culverts to make them more available for fish to move through.

Emily Lewis 3:44
Yeah, I find it so funny how the best collaboration happens at the brass tacks stage. You know, you can have so many really good theoretical discussions, but to really get the right people in the room, you need a specific project and task and get some kind of innovative.

Paul Burnett 4:01
So that’s true. And sometimes projects appear when you’re not expecting them to. So that’s also really fascinating when that happens.

Emily Lewis 4:11
Great. Well, that’s a segue into I think the best way to talk about what you do then and to really give the listeners you know, a meaty piece to think about is to just dig right into one of your projects. And so I was hoping that you could talk to us a little bit about like the Weber River Diversion Irrigation – What would – How do you title your project? Weber River Diversion Dam?

Paul Burnett 4:36
Yeah, it’s funny. It’s kind of funny. Well, we called it the lower Weber River Diversion although there’s irrigation diversions lower than that on the river, but it was one of the first projects that we did working on on the Weber River.

Emily Lewis 4:51
Can you just give me a picture of like, where the headwaters are that the river starts at and where your project is located on the Weber?

Paul Burnett 4:59
Yeah, I’d be happy to do that. So yeah the headwaters of the Weber they come off kind of the Northeast flank of the Uintah Mountains. So, near Oakley/Kamus area. And then from there the river starts to flow north. So it goes through towns like Coalville, there’s water stored in Rockport or Wanship Reservoir, goes through Coalville. Water is stored in Echo. At Coalville a major tributary Chalk Creek enters. And then downstream from there downstream from Echo, it flows through Henefer Valley. So if you’re going up I-84 basically, that’s the point where it parallels I-84 all the way down into Ogden. So it goes through Morgan, then down into Ogden through Weber Canyon, Weber Canyon is just there’s actually three canyons and Weber, this is the lowest one. Weber canyon is just to the, I guess just to the east of Ogden flows into where the river flows into Salt Lake Valley. So it’s pretty low in the watershed. So there’s a lot going on upstream from there.

Emily Lewis 6:08
Yeah. And your project is right at I-84 correct.

Paul Burnett 6:12
Right. That is correct.

Emily Lewis 6:14
Great, interesting,

Paul Burnett 6:15
We’ve got a pretty mature project up in the Bear River where Trout Unlimited, we’ve been working up there. It’s a multi state watershed. We’ve been working up there since about 2004. And so in 2010, we were contacted by an engineering company, who was representing the South Weber Irrigation Company. And they had a major problem, their major problem was they had this concrete diversion dam in the river that was falling apart. And they needed to rebuild it. But the cost of reconstruction was, I mean, was crazy expensive for a small water company.

Emily Lewis 6:51
And what would something like that be? Was it like $10,000? Because that’s the thing is I think that people don’t understand kind of the margins that some of these companies work. Big projects and such small little companies.

Paul Burnett 6:51
It’s really interesting, when you think about the rates that they pay the water, individual water shareholders pay, but yeah, we’re talking like a $400,000 to $500,000 project. initially, the outset.

Emily Lewis 7:16
Okay, half a million dollars, yeah.

Paul Burnett 7:19
Pretty, pretty big money for, you know, for a really small individual water company. And, you know, of course, all the individual water users are either, you know, agricultural producers, or, you know, just really small shareholders. And so they did not have, they didn’t have the financial resources at all to, to make the project happen. So what they ended up doing is they applied for, this was a before water smart, it was water for America, I believe was what it was called. And they applied for this grant. And in order to qualify for it, they had to modernize their system. And in that time, modernization was either going to a pressurized system, or some something like that, that was an improvement over what, what they had.

Emily Lewis 8:05
Ans so Paul, before we get into that, can I just ask you real quickly, can you give the listeners an idea of the size of the company you’re talking about? What kind of water does this company move? What was this culvert project? What’s the physical size of what we’re talking about?

Paul Burnett 8:22
Oh, of this diversion?

Emily Lewis 8:25
Yes.

Paul Burnett 8:26
Well, actually, it’s two water companies, but they’re combined, you know, flow diversion rate is probably about 14 CFS, so pretty small. So in terms of acre feet, you know, I think they have maybe it’s like a 900 acre foot water right or so. So they’ve got this massive irrigation diversion structure, if you ever driving up I-84 just as soon as you hit the canyon mouth, there’s the old bridge, and they’ve got this concrete diversion structure. That’s right, you know, right downstream from it. And the thing is, in this reach of the Weber, there’s such varying flows, that you need some sort of structure that’s going to hold up and so there weren’t really any good options other than a big concrete structure. And so, that’s some big money. So they reached out to us and they said, you know, we’re gonna apply for this grant. We’ve got to raise $500,000. But we also have to modernize what could we do to modernize to make it better for fish and so we started looking at the kind of the history of this structure. We started looking at the ability of fish to move upstream and realize that this specific diversion structure they had about a four foot drop over the over the crest of the dam was a complete blockage for fish movement.

Emily Lewis 9:51
In terms of like, the fish can’t get up the stream?

Paul Burnett 9:53
Yes upstream movemet that’s correct.

Emily Lewis 9:56
Yeah, four feet would be pretty high.

Paul Burnett 9:59
Yeah, yeah, and we can put it, we can put a pin in what we call habitat fragmentation or stopping fish from moving upstream. That’s a huge threat for native fish. And so we saw that and we’re like, Hey, this is a good opportunity for us to reestablish fish passage. And it would be a model project and Weber be one of the first ones that we’ve done here. So we proposed developing a fish way to basically allow fish to get around the structure by swimming up a side channel that we construct, and then we proposed fish screens to keep fish from getting trained or sucked into the irrigation system, and then lost to the fishery. So I think we’re we were able to play a really valuable role is not only were we able to provide kind of the support from a, you know, like the environmental perspective on a traditional irrigation use, but we also were able to bring money to the table. So we were able to raise some funding to help the water company, reduce their liability for construction and engineering and that sort of thing. And bring some really, I think, at the time, pretty groundbreaking improvements to the to the Weber River. So that really helped us develop a really trusting working relationship with the water company, actually, both water companies, and one of them reached out to us about a year later and said, Hey, you know, we’ve got some acreage that we’re not using, we’re really worried about losing our waterr ight, you know, that to you has the ability to lease water for in stream flows.

Emily Lewis 11:27
And that’s important right there. Because there’s very few entities in the state that can correct. So to yourself a couple state divisions and, you know, trout groups really correct?

Paul Burnett 11:35
Yeah, I mean, essentially we’re the only organization that can lease water for in stream flow, the only two organizations or agencies that can hold water permanently, are the division of Wildlife and Parks. So they saw it as an opportunity to help protect their water, right. For us, it was an opportunity to keep a little bit of water in the stream. And so and also to pilot the 2012 in stream flow for native fish bill that we got passed through the legislature. So we move forward with a water lease and took about a year going through the change application process. And we were able to establish a small one CFS in stream flow in this region of the Weber.

Emily Lewis 12:18
And that came from essentially fallowing – the farmers chose not to irrigate in the water that would have been applied for irrigation, you guys are able to use for a stream flow.

Paul Burnett 12:29
That’s correct. We were hoping that we were gonna be able to lease water that they had conserved with pressurizing their system as well. But when it came down to it, we could only lease the water from from fallowing and so they had, I can’t remember how many acres, like an 80 acre field, that they were not irrigating that one of their shareholders was not irrigating so we basically just highlighted that in the change application, said that wasn’t going to be irrigated. And that’s how the lease is working right now.

Emily Lewis 13:00
Great. And so how many years on has that been in place?

Paul Burnett 13:05
That was approved in, oh, my goodness, what 2015 or 2016? I believe. So we’re about four years into that lease.

Emily Lewis 13:16
And do you have any monetary compensation? Do you would you pay them for the water? Or is it just a lease for preserving the water right?

Paul Burnett 13:23
So in this case, yeah, we did, we did. We did compensate them. And basically, what they wanted, was just to be able to pay their water master to tend the fish screen. So that was, you know, not that expensive. Turns out water masters in smaller irrigation companies don’t get paid very much.

Emily Lewis 13:41
No, I kove how we’re always like too “Oh the water masters could help.” But I’m like those people have big jobs.

Paul Burnett 13:50
They basically work 24 hours a day during the summer and get paid like $5000-$6000.

Emily Lewis 13:58
I mean, this is this, I should have a watermaster on. Because this is I think this gets down to the brass tacks though, because one of the things we’ve had a lot of discussions about, you know, here in the state of Utah recently, is in stream flows are increasingly becoming an important topic. You know, they have been for a long time. But like now we’re starting to think about in stream flows for environmental purposes, to meet water quality standards, you know, just kind of cultural standards of having a thriving ecosystem, specific reasons like trout. And so I think that it’s a conversation that we’re having here in the state that it’s not an easy conversation to always have, either, you know? But I think one of the cool things is like projects like this is we can figure out how it would actually work on the ground. And I think, the question of shepherding these water rights is a really big deal. And so did you work with the state engineer at all about like, making sure that extreme tranche of water made it to where it was supposed to go?

Paul Burnett 14:59
Yeah. There’s two issues, actually two issues with the in stream flow on the lower Weber, that we had to really had to consider. One is, so based on the statute, essentially what we can do is we can protect the one CFS that we lease, we can protect that in the river, downstream to the next physical point of diversion, which is pretty constraining on that, on that whole program. Because, I mean, if you look at a lot of river systems, I mean, you’re talking maybe one or two miles. Bbut we also look at kind of, Okay, if we’re adding water, keeping water in stream, even though the next diverter could potentially take all the water, you know, there’s a lot of variables at play, especially with natural flow rates, where they may already be getting their water, and so would be passing water downstream from their structure as well. So we kind of look at as more of a, you know, a system level approach. Like if we’re, adding water to the stream, at a system or at a reach, then hopefully, that will propagate downstream as well. But the other thing that we were looking at there was making sure, and this is this is a lot more difficult, especially in a system like the Weber, which is so heavily managed, is making sure that the water that historically made it down to this diversion, is still making it down

Emily Lewis 16:20
Oh so people upstream interference?

Paul Burnett 16:23
Right. And that’s a lot more difficult to keep track of. Because, you know there’s only a few gauges on the Weber. And so, and most of those don’t gauge the reaches that we’re interested in.

Emily Lewis 16:35
Yeah. So now I have a better idea of kind of like what the two projects that you guys are involved with one being a construction project for the diversion structure and two being more of like a transactional project with like leasing the one CFS of water rights. On the leasing question, because I do think that this is something that’s going to come up a lot in the future of Utah as we explore the recent water baking statute, which we’ll have an episode on, you know, what lessons can you tell me about that process a little bit like how that went, and thoughts you had? I mean, was it just a really easy lease? Or, how did you get the parties to the table to kind of decide what that will look like?

Paul Burnett 17:26
Yeah, well so I guess I would view our the leasing program as kind of one of like a piece of the puzzle. Because I think there’s a lot of different tools. And in this case, I think that the leasing program kind of fits a good use case, it fits where there are water companies or water users that kind of they have a kind of a long term, either need for for funding, or they are not going to be irrigating for a long term timeframe. I think that the leasing program really fits. I guess just before I really get into the, the meat of of doing the the process, I think one of the things that we had to decide on, on not only this lease, but also others is, you know, can we can we do a water lease in a more informal process? Can we do like short leases on a year to year basis? Where they irrigate, or they use the water every seven years or something like that to prevent any sort of issues with forfeiture. And the reason why we did that is because really, when it comes to a long term lease like this, once I mean, we have to go through, we have to develop an agreement with the water company, it has to be voted on, then it has to actually be approved by the division of wildlife. So there’s several layers that have to go into a lease after, you know, after we decide we want to move forward with it.

Emily Lewis 18:57
So the transactional costs are pretty heavy.

Paul Burnett 19:00
Yeah, that’s right. And so yeah, we really think about, okay, if we want to do it, it’s gonna have to be a 10 year lease, we’re gonna have to go for the maximum amount of time available, because other wise it really is not worth the effort to go through the whole process more than once.

Emily Lewis 19:18
And is that mostly because of the structure laid out under 73331, which is the industry flow statute, or is that just kind of the nature of doing a lease like this?

Paul Burnett 19:29
Well, I think it’s, yes, and no, I think part of it is you know, what is laid out in that statute. But also, I think, part of it is just to go through a change application process or an in stream flow, regardless of whether or not we need to go through those other steps I think is still still, you know, something that at least if we’re interested in developing kind of a long term relationship with a water company or developing a long term source of water for the fishery. I think we’d want to, I mean, it’s just gonna necessitate kind of a longer term effort or more transaction costs, if you will.

Emily Lewis 20:10
Yeah, kind of have to have your bang for your buck for it. You’re committed.

Paul Burnett 20:15
Yep, yeah. Exactly.

Emily Lewis 20:16
Yeah, that’s good, though. I mean, cuz I’m assuming too like, I think a 10 year project, like that has a benefits too, because there’s just so much uncertainty in our water system at the moment, you know? When we’re grappling with the fact that our projections of the past are not suited to the conditions of the current, you know, and so you’ll probably see a fair amount of variation in 10 years, I’m assuming you’re tracking this, like, what kind of data points are you tracking through this project? Are you tracking fish counted at the at the fish ladder? Like, what are your metrics?

Paul Burnett 20:54
Well, that’s the other issue that’s really challenging is to actually track fish numbers is really difficult. And for a nonprofit organization like us, we have to go through a whole permitting process just to sample plus, we need all the gear. So really, we’ve been focused on just monitoring the flow, and monitoring stream temperatures in the river. So those are kind of our key measurements, the flow measurement is required by the state engineer’s order.

Emily Lewis 21:26
And what kind of instruments do you use to actually get those measurements? Like, because I think that’s one thing – there’s a bunch of listeners who are coming from different silos. And so I think physically breaking down, the actual piece of equipment we use is helpful to kind of put in context, what we need to do to scale these problems up to get larger data sets about how we use water in Utah.

Paul Burnett 21:48
Yeah, so in with the flow measurement, we did two things. Somewhat unrelated to the water lease, we actually developed an agreement with the Weber river water rights committee to establish a river gauge at the I-84 crossing near Uintah. That was partly because that was something that the river Commissioner really needed previous to our, or even during our water lease timeframe. There were some issues with accounting for all the water that was being diverted in the river and down this far on the river. It was actually shorted there wasn’t enough water. And so the river dried up, which is pretty shocking, actually. And so we worked with the water rights committee and developed a funding agreement, where we helped fund a gauge to gauge this reach for 10 years, that was kind of separate from the water lease, but we are gauging the lease water with that. That’s, I mean, gauging flow in the river is expensive. That’s about a, I believe it costs about $10,000 per year, just to gauge.

Emily Lewis 23:05
And is that in costs for like subscription service was for SCADA licenses, like what is that $10,000? You know, what, how is that money spent?

Paul Burnett 23:15
So some of its equipment, but most of it is paying the USGS to store the data to post the data on the web, and also to, you know, rate, the curve rate of the height, water height measurement, at that point, so there’s a lot that goes into it, that’s pretty grand in terms of scale. But you know, on a lot of our water leases, we actually do physically measure flow either through some sort of like a flume measurement device, or we do physically measure flow with a flow meter. And those types of devices are, as you’re probably aware about $10,000. So, it’s pretty heavy equipment that we have to pay for. We also in a couple of places, at least on this on the lower Weber Project, we do have a continuous stage recorder, that continuously measures the water height and the outflow of the diversion head gate. So we’ve got a consistent measurement of water height, and we can tie that to water flow as well.

Emily Lewis 24:19
Alright, did you say you also measured temperature?

Paul Burnett 24:23
We do. Yeah, we don’t consistently do this. But last year, we deployed temperature loggers in the Weber river, I think we deployed like 20 of them. And basically they’re little, they’re small devices. They are about the size of like a pocket watch that you submerse in the water, and it will log temperature for as long as you want. We were measuring temperature every 10 minutes and it would log it and then we would come back – so we deployed all of our loggers back in June and then collected them in October, typically the July to August month timeframe is the most important for cold water fish, that’s when the water gets the warmest. And so that’s when we want to capture, we really want to know what what the high temperatures are in the river during these timeframes.

Emily Lewis 25:10
And can you just break that down a little bit too, because I had actually, just this morning, I had a really interesting discussion with somebody about temperature and fish. And they said something along the lines of, if we can just stretch out the period for which we stress them. And I like I took me a second understand he was saying that he was saying, instead of having like, a four day stretch of really high windows, if we could do like slugs of colder water in between to help, but I just had never thought about, and this is my own insular thinking, I never thought about managing a water system for temperature like that, you know? We manage it for volume, we manage it for all these things, but I was like, oh, temperature. Yeah, that would make sense too.

Paul Burnett 25:52
Yeah, temperature is huge. In fact, there’s some, yeah – that statement of kind of extending out the period where, or providing the timeframes when fish are exposed to kind of the sublethal but warm temperatures, if that occurs in pulses then they can usually recover, when the water cools off as long as the water cools off cold enough. So I get a couple of really good examples of that, as you know, like the the Weber river, for example, that during the day at temperatures will pretty much this is pretty much the case throughout the entire River. But during the day, in the hottest part of the summer, temperatures will reach about 70 degrees, which is about the limit for trout. But it’s only that warm for a couple for a couple hours, and then it cools back down. So we still have a really good trout fishery, of course, in the Weber because of that. If you go up into place like East Canyon Creek at a Park City, we collected temperature data in 2018, which was pretty unprecedented in terms of how hot and dry it was. And we had temperatures in especially in East Canyon Creek just upstream of the reservoir that didn’t get below 70 degrees for about a week, at least. You get temperatures like that and the trout fishery just just doesn’t make it they’ll either move out or they’ll die.

Emily Lewis 27:24
And so do you guys have the calculations of how much water is needed to address those concerns? Or is that what you’re trying to figure out right now? Is one CFS of flow in the size of the reach of the Weber enough to affect temperature? Or like, are you doing the studies to figure that out? Because I think that having specifics in terms of volume could be like very helpful for you know?

Paul Burnett 27:45
Yeah, we haven’t done that yet. That’s something that we’re really interested in. I will say that looking at the temperature data that we’ve collected, there are differences between reaches, it really depends on how can I how the groundwater is interacting with the surface water, and also what the temperature of the storage upstream is because, you know, if you look at right below Echo reservoir, for example, it’s pretty cold all summer, mainly because it’s cold water coming out of Echo reservoir. Whereas you get down on to the lower Weber where you start seeing some more, you know, groundwater discharge and that sort of thing, you actually have pockets of water that are cold, that are providing cold water input into the river channel. So that is something that, you know, we do want to investigate, I think it probably requires a lot more data than we’ve collected so far. But that’s a really valuable question that I think not only for the Weber, but you know, East Canyon Creek is one that we’ve talked about a lot. And you really figuring out what that what that kind of threshold is, I think is really critical, because that gives us a target, right? That helps us understand what we need.

Emily Lewis 28:50
Well, and thinking about the larger mechanics of what’s happening in the state from a water management perspective – we’ve talked a lot about water marketing, we’ve talked a lot about water banking, you know, we’re getting to the point where we have to answer some questions about what that looks like on the ground. And so, you know, if we are, we need to put a value on, what is that tranche of water that we need to meet our needs you know? Whatever that need is, I mean, that could be across sectors or whatever, and how do we value that in a way that people take advantage of it? Or think it’s in their interest?

Paul Burnett 29:22
Well, exactly. And that also provides kind of this the backstop right for like this is, I mean, this is kind of a critical – for this fishery to stay alive, this is what is neede to meet, you know, certain goals and that sort of thing.

Emily Lewis 29:37
Yeah. Which leads me to another question I have for you. So, you know, being a nonprofit, and these questions also come up a lot recently about like the funding question, because, you know, realistically, we have much of our water in agriculture. Agriculture is an extremely important sector to keep vibrant here in the state of Utah. You know, culturally economically, you know, it’s part of what we do here in Utah, and then you have a growing need for environmental flows, you have a growing need for flows for water quality, we’ve got growing demand. And so we have all these things going. I think that people look to environmental groups like you guys as a potential purchaser of water for your needs. But that’s also limited, you know what I mean? They’re not unlimited funds. And so have you guys thought about how to sustain like, a longer term more robust fund or financing source for water like this?

Paul Burnett 30:37
That’s a good question. One that we haven’t developed a funding model. No, we have some concepts. We do work with several partners that, like the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, that that does work with corporate sponsors to help offset their corporate water use. So for example, you know, like a water bottling company, or even like a computer supply company, where they have to use water in their process. Oftentimes, what they’re trying to do is they’re looking for a way to kind of offset the water that they use, it’s almost kind of like a, like, green power.

Emily Lewis 31:18
Like a mitigation bank almost?

Paul Burnett 31:20
Pretty much, yeah. It’s voluntary.

Emily Lewis 31:23
Oh, it’s voluntary. So they can just like basically, it’s a promotional thing. And it’s a good thing.

Paul Burnett 31:29
So, you’ve seen like Coca Cola, they’ve got their, like, their replenish ads that they’ve had on TV, that’s part of one of their programs is basically they look for places where they can, essentially least water and keep it in stream and use that offset. And of course, they measure in gallons. So you know, you talked about a CFS, that’s how many million gallons per day. Yeah. So that’s one potential funding model. But, um, but I think that, you know, when we start looking at, you know, things like getting water to Great Salt Lake, those are bigger questions that I think are gonna require some, I don’t know, I think some unique thinking on how to model funding to keep water in stream, but also keep the agro agricultural community whole as well.

Emily Lewis 32:15
Yeah. Whole and engaged, like in their interest. Yeah I totally agree with you. They’re interesting. I just love the fact that these projects have addressed so many things, you know, I mean, you’re not just working, you’re really kind of putting into practice some of these optimization tools that get batted about, and you touch on a bunch of different interesting and ripe areas for discussion, you know? :Like, this is what’s really happening in the state!

Paul Burnett 32:43
Yeah, and I think there’s some really interesting models that are kind of coming out of this, that I think, especially as we started getting into water banking will be really interesting to see if we can scale up. But that’ll be one of the big questions for me is, how can we scale some of these things that we’re that we’re trying?

Emily Lewis 32:59
Yeah. Great. Cool. Well, Paul, that those are most of the questions I have for you. But if you have anything you want to add, or you know, any thoughts that you have as a concluding thought, you know, please do, now’s the time to throw them out there.

Paul Burnett 33:13
No, I think if anybody’s interested in learning more about our efforts, we do have a pretty active Facebook page. It’s UtahTroutUnlimited all one word. And we do highlight some of the work that we’re doing mostly project based work. And, just kind of how the angler community is engaging in some of these projects and on our rivers.

Emily Lewis 33:37
Great, cool. Well, we’ll definitely I’m sure we’ll be in touch again. And we’re gonna have a water banging episode here real soon, and I think we’ll probably reference this project. As a good example of what we can kind of try to do. Right, well, thank you so much!

Paul Burnett 33:51
Well, thanks Emily.

Brian Lebrecht 34:02
Nothing’s said in this podcast should be taken as providing legal advice or as establishing an attorney client relationship with you or anyone else.

MacKenzie Nickles, Producer 34:09
This podcast was produced by MacKenzie Nickles. Find Ripple Effect on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai