What’s going on with the Great Salt Lake?
Writer: Madeline Buhman
Editors: Sarah Brockway, Allie White, Sophia Andreadis, and Lydia Dresler
The Great Salt Lake (GSL) has recently become a hot-button topic from Utah’s capitol all the way to Washington D.C. How has the lake unified doctors, skiers, professors, Governor Cox, President Trump, local land managers, and grassroots activists? This unlikely coalition of advocates all seem to agree that (a) the GSL is in trouble, and (b) we need to save it.
For many native Utahns the GSL may be a large light blue splotch on a map, but it turns out the size of the GSL on most maps is much bigger than the GSL is today. Recent projections indicate the lake could become totally dry by 2028—a disturbing prospect that has fueled much of the recent concern and debate surrounding the lake.
Dry, dusty, and dangerous
Many lake preservation advocates value the lake for its ecological and cultural significance, but the lake’s reducing size has two major repercussions which have helped unite advocates from across the political and professional spectrum. These repercussions are:
The shrinking lake increases the amount of polluted dust in the air.
The shrinking lake also reduces rain and snowfall in the local watersheds.
The first issue, polluted dust, interests lake advocates primarily due to its detrimental health effects. Decades of industry and pollution have deposited toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, and lead into the lakebed. As the lake shoreline recedes, the lakebed containing all those chemicals becomes exposed to the air and the lakebed soil dries into dust. Carried up into the air by the wind, the dust settles over Salt Lake City and the surrounding areas. People breathing in the lakebed dust can suffer a litany of health problems: pneumonia, asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks, and strokes. Even unborn children can suffer as some lakebed chemicals can cause low birth weight and other birth defects. Because scientists are still learning the effects of all the chemicals, other health concerns such as cancer could also result from the chemical laden dust.
In addition to posing serious health concerns in the form of polluted dust, the decreasing lake size also decreases precipitation in the local watersheds. This occurs because water evaporates out of the GSL and later precipitates down on the Wasatch Front as rain or snow. This movement of water from the GSL into local precipitation provides up to 50% of all the annual precipitation along the Wasatch Front. Consequently, as the lake shrinks, the amount of water evaporating into the air also shrinks, which means less rain and snow.
Local Utahns depend on precipitation for watering crops, supplying drinking water, and filling local mountains with the “Greatest Snow on Earth”. The GSL also relies on precipitation to maintain its water levels. Nearly 30% of all the water that flows into the GSL receives, and rivers/streams contribute 58% of other water inflow. This means years with very low precipitation can decimate the lake’s water levels, which can further reduce precipitation for the Wasatch Front. While other climate factors contribute to changes in annual precipitation, the GSL relies on precipitation to survive, and the GSL in turn supplies much of Utah’s vital snow and rain.
A tale of two lakes
While some Utah residents may have connected the shrinking GSL to increasing dust storms or perhaps even reduced precipitation, many residents may not associate dropping GSL water levels with any negative consequences. After all, the GSL has far fewer annual visitors and recreators compared to Lake Powell, Bear Lake, and other freshwater bodies, and the lake’s influence on local health and precipitation is less obvious than other environmental disasters such as oil spills or wildfires. Locals may not adequately appreciate the GSL if they do not understand the important health and environmental services it provides. Perhaps residents of Owens Valley, California also undervalued their local saline lake, Owens Lake, but after the lake was drained, the consequences proved surprisingly dire for its local residents. Utah residents can look to the Owens Lake disaster to better understand the crucial importance of preserving the GSL.
Owens Lake rose to infamy when its water was diverted in 1926 to serve the growing population of Los Angeles, California, located 165 miles to the south of the lake. As the lakebed dried the soil that once was covered by the lake transformed into billowing dust; the dust became so intrusive and pervasive that many Owens Valley residents permanently relocated. Wildlife numbers also dropped drastically after the lake’s drainage, and the brine shrimp and native bird populations were devastated. Today, a century later, dust continues to plague Owens Valley. The dust contains carcinogenic particulates at concentrations 100x higher than the EPA’s healthy limits and can cause respiratory illness, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and pregnancy complications. Since 2000, Owens Valley dust storms have cost Los Angeles ratepayers nearly $2.5 billion to fund the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) dust mitigation programs. These programs seek to contain the dust primarily by flooding portions of the dry lakebed, laying gravel, and cultivating native plants. To date the LADWP has covered the lakebed with nearly 40 square miles of water in different cells or ponds to reduce dust. Ironically, to mitigate the dust, managers have had to deploy enormous resources, including lots of local water—water which would have naturally kept the dust in check if it had not been drained from the lake in the first place.
As water resources across the Western U.S., including California, grow scarcer, the future of Owens Lake remains very uncertain. LADWP has plans to decrease water use for Owens Lake by over 50% in future management scenarios, which will likely jeopardize the size and quality of the aquatic habitat that dust mitigation programs have restored, and potentially allow more dust to become airborne.
What happens now?
Similar to Owens Lake, the GSL also faces an uncertain future. In 2022 the GSL water level dropped to its lowest point in recorded history, reducing the lake’s surface by almost 40%. This year statewide stream runoff is anticipated to be around 50% of normal levels, and every major basin in Utah had record-low snowpack as of April 1, 2026. The actual impact of this year’s low precipitation levels on the GSL will unfold throughout this year, but with water levels dropping in other reservoirs and lakes across Utah, GSL water levels will likely follow suit.
While stakeholders broadly agree that the GSL needs water to prevent an Owens Lake-style disaster (although the GSL is 15 times larger than Owens Lake with more than 60 times the number of people living in its proximity), details on how to get more water into the lake remain highly contentious. At the heart of the conflict lies a strong urban-rural divide. Agriculture in more rural areas diverts the highest portion of water prior to it reaching the GSL, but urban areas also divert large amounts of water for industry, lawns, and other municipal water usage. Agriculture workers point out their efforts to conserve water and the necessity of water for their economic survival. Urbanites highlight their lower overall water use compared to agriculture. Agriculture tends to use much of the water to grow alfalfa, a highly water intensive crop, but one that has some watershed benefits and is the backbone of much of Utah’s rural economy. Utah’s urban residents have the second highest water use rate in the nation (over 150 gallons per capita per day), and much of the water used goes towards watering ornamental outdoor landscapes. The effect of urban water use on the GLS is compounded by Utah’s high growth rate, one of the highest rates in the nation, with Utah’s population expected to nearly double from 3 million to 5.6 million by 2065.
Current management efforts to maintain and increase GSL water levels include leasing water rights, agricultural adjustments, and urban water conservation. While much of the debate surrounding agricultural reductions hinges on modifying our rural economic structure, each Utah resident has direct control over their individual water usage, and we have much room for improvement. Simple changes such as reducing lawn size, planting drought-tolerant landscape plants, fixing irrigation and plumbing leaks, increasing irrigation time while reducing irrigation frequency, and more can increase our efficient use of water.
Keeping the GSL full to historic levels keeps both human and wildlife Utahns healthy and happy. Many environmental challenges require cooperation across many stakeholders, and Utah is no exception. Utah residents can support efforts to restore the GSL through advocacy, but they can also help to restore the GSL through small adjustments to their day-to-day lives. Regardless of individual political affiliations and inclinations, each Utah resident can help to make Utah a healthy and happy place for residents by keeping water in the GSL.
Comments