I used to live in Utah, and this attitude across most of the population is what led us to this dire place.
The consequences of this lake shrinking (or ultimately disappearing at this point) is significant. Not just for Utahns, but for the entire rocky mountain region.
First off, this lake was a lifeblood for millions of migrating birds across the "pacific flyway" which is the one of the largest migratory routes in the world. Losing the lake is literally extinction to many species that couldn't survive a migration without this stopover.
Next you have the lakeborn dust. Utah already has the dirtiest air in the country and that will only get worse as the toxic dust mixes with the smog. This could turn the air in salt lake and utah county into actual hazards that require masks to go outside (and we know how much Utahns loved wearing masks last time they were asked to do that).
Furthermore the shrinking lake means less snow. As storms pass over utah, they absorb moisture as they cross the salt lake, which causes precipitation to be released as they pass over the mountains. This means that one of Utah's most famous pasttimes and tourist destinations, the mountains will get worse over time.
And when there is less snow, that means less meltoff filling the rivers and streams in the mountains, which leads to water shortages for the citizens and a dryier changing landscapes as the mountains that Utah loves so much turn from lush forests to arid deserts. This furthermore changes and risks populations of wildlife that require these mountains to survive.
So yes, its an eye sore. But it is hugely significant to the entire Utah ecosystem. But not only Utah, a drying salt lake will also have devastating affects on Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado.
Ya I’m in the area. The OP’s viewpoint is illuminating in its candor but not surprising and explains why we’re where we’re at.
“Resources exist to be used, it’s been fine for 20 years why doesn’t that prove it’s fine” (about a thousands year old ecosystem). Incredible.
We will fully earn whatever outcomes come from this due to this being a prevalent local attitude. We showed up here in the 1800’s, we own it, we’ll drain it, it’s all fine.
> They point to agriculture and domestic usage as one of the reasons the lake is shrinking. The fact of the matter is in my estimation these are far more valuable uses of the water then letting it drain to be forever lost into a giant puddle
Utah's agricultural water usage is overwhelmingly (68%) alfalfa and hay, of which 30% gets sent overseas [0]. Speaking as a Utahn, there's no good reason for Utah of all places to export agricultural goods. I'm all for eating local, but we don't have to climate to be an exporter, and right now at least 1/5 of the water diverted from the Great Salt Lake is not only leaving Utah, it's leaving the country.
> and before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
I don't know how you can possibly know that—large bodies of water generally have an enormous effect on the local climate, which obviously all local plant and animal life depends on. The concern over the loss of the lake isn't just about first order effects, it's about second order effects, and while those are rather hard to predict they will certainly extend beyond brine shrimp and flies.
EDIT: I really dislike when people edit their original posts instead of just replying to the comments they're replying to, but since we're playing that game I'll just note that your repeated use of the word "wasted" with regards to water going in to the Great Salt Lake shows that you have absolutely zero understanding of the water cycle. I recommend brushing up on that before taking grand sweeping stances about the value of water pooled in large bodies.
> Utah's agricultural water usage is overwhelmingly (68%) alfalfa and hay, of which 30% gets sent overseas [0].
Surely the right solution is to set an appropriate price for the use of water and let the market figure it out. If exported alfalfa is actually an economically appropriate use of limited water, fine. If not, then it would be uneconomical with appropriately priced water.
(Or perhaps it would be economical with appropriately priced water, but growers would need to become more efficient. That would be fine, too.)
Environmental damage is one place free market thinking has completely failed, repeatedly. It surely is not the right solution. First off, there’s a massive delay between environmental changes and outcomes. We’d have had to foresee this problem and set the right prices 100 years ago when water rights were being handed out and priced. Secondly, prices are never “appropriate”, we simply cannot forecast the outcome of environmental changes. Cost benefit analyses in the past when it comes to the environment have been wrong by orders of magnitude [1] Third is that viewing things through an economic lens distorts the value and gives automatic preference to the party that is profiteering off the environment. Saying that people in Salt Lake should cough up enough cash to outbid the people who want to grow alfalfa to sell it to China is kinda gross, that’s not how we should handle public safety or our environment. Think about all these issue with respect to air pollution & CO2. What would it have taken to solve it with free markets? We haven’t solved it yet, and it would have needed to be priced and debated starting 100 years ago. And there is no appropriate price for clean air and the earth to stay habitable.
> Saying that people in Salt Lake should cough up enough cash to outbid the people who want to grow alfalfa to sell it to China is kinda gross
It's also incredibly easy; SLC could outbid the farmers hundreds of times over and it wouldn't be even a rounding error in the city budget. It's difficult to see anyone opposing this as anything other than useful idiots for the ag lobby.
Because it’s easy is not a valid reason to charge the public to compete with business for the right to keep the lake and not get sick living near it. We need to restrict business interests from driving critical resources into the ground for profit. I’m all for farming and farmers making some money, but we can’t let that be unlimited like it has been forever.
And it’s incredibly short sighted to suggest we should go down that road even if it’s easy. The only reason it’s affordable now is because way-too-cheap water rights have been grandfathered in for decades and decades. There hasn’t been free market prices ever, so if we introduce them, the prices are going to skyrocket immediately, and it won’t be so easy anymore.
Yes, I wish that we could do that. We're currently mired in some ancient laws established in an unusually wet period more than a hundred years ago that give a lot of property owners unreasonable rights over "their" water. The government can't just take that away forcibly, and it's hard to persuade taxpayers in Utah to approve large government expenses of any sort.
Market failures are common, and it might make sense to try to buy up the water to prevent alfalfa farming, even if that water isn't used elsewhere. Consider it a water rights conservation easement. Once you own them, if farmers attempt to pump it, sue them.
Maybe alfalfa farmers would prefer utility scale solar income versus farming? Not in Utah, so unsure how palatable that concept is. In 2022, coal fueled 53% of Utah's total electricity net generation, down from 75% in 2015, and natural gas accounted for 26%. More renewables near SLC would be helpful imho.
> Surely the right solution is to set an appropriate price for the use of water and let the market figure it out.
The idea that money of all things should define environmental and health interests is so laughable, there’s literally a cartoon about it. (“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.”)
Putting that aside. Yes, the 19th century water rights laws where certain people get guaranteed drawdowns and are encouraged to use all of the water every year is destroying the western United States. We need to blow up the entire system and star again. And if this means screwing over golf courses, mining, and inappropriate agriculture that inevitably uses unsustainable irrigation practices, so be it.
Counterintuitively, shipping that alfalfa overseas is probably better for the environment than shipping it via truck all over the country. So there's that to consider.
Which part of that quote isn’t true? You’re right GSL has been losing water on average, but it did accelerate in 2020-2022.
The article mentioned the fact that the lake came up a little - slightly - this year, but that’s anomalous weather and not a trend. The trend is clear that there are only a few years left for the lake at current rates. The lake was at it’s lowest point ever 1 year ago, when it got so low they had to haul all of the boats out of the marina and it went dry.
If the concerns about arsenic are accurate - and I’ve heard Salt Lake is already starting to experience increased health issues from the lake dust - then I pretty strongly disagree that sales of alfalfa (a notoriously thirsty crop) are more important.
> resources exist to be used
False. Resources exist, and we humans take them at will and use them for our own profits at the expense of other humans and animals, until they start becoming a big enough ecological problem, or until there is contention over the resources between humans. This case is both of those - there is contention between people who use the lake and farmers, and there is a looming ecological problem for the population of Salt Lake if the like dries up.
> before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
My understanding is that people are mainly concerned about toxic lakebed dust.
> Almost a third of it is exported, mostly to China, taking far too much of our water with it.
So basically, the state is letting other countries effectively over farm Utah, destroying it while it’s at it, giving Utah little in return.
Meanwhile residents are being asked to “slow the flow” and water their lawns less, etc. No. Utah government just needs to start doing their job, pay attention to consumption, and properly govern.
One or two good rain years should not distract us from the real problem either.
Using those flies to drum up sympathy is going to backfire. On a trip to SLC we hiked up Antelope Island. In the morning it was chilly and there were no flies on the way up but oh my we were getting attacked on the way down. Half of the hike was amazing!
I don't live in the area but isn't the toxic dust of all the heavy metals going to be a problem? Is there some way to deal with that other than covering them all up with water so they don't get blown into the city?
> and before people start complaining about the ecological impact there is almost no wildlife that is dependent upon the lake except for brine shrimp and flies, not exactly endanger species.
At least flies and other insects are a common food for birds.
