GSL FinalAssess v27

Photo credit: Kelly Hannah
Great Salt Lake

Policy Assessment
A synthesized resource document for
the 2023 General Legislative Session
February 8, 2023
Declining water levels threaten economic activity, public health, and

ecosystems of Great Salt Lake and surrounding communities. This policy
assessment provides a summary of data, insights, and policy options that
will inform strategies to improve water management and increase
deliveries to the lake.
Special thanks to Kelly Hannah
for allowing the use of his
Great Salt Lake photography.
February 2023
Dear friends,
Declining water levels of Great Salt Lake threaten economic activity, local public health, and
ecosystems. The need for data-informed guidance is now. In response to this emergent statewide
challenge, we have embarked on a new type of partnership to get answers to state policymakers
faster. We call it the Great Salt Lake Strike Team.
The Strike Team quickly synthesizes cutting-edge research and delivers information to those
who need it most. It includes top researchers from Utah’s research universities who are experts in
public policy, hydrology, water management, climatology, and dust. They join with experts from
Utah state agencies, who are the “boots on the ground” in overseeing Great Salt Lake.
In just a few months, we’ve worked to create clear guidance and consensus on the most critical
questions about the lake. How serious is it? How much water are we taking from the lake?
How much more do we need? What are our options?
This approach aims to be impartial, data-informed, and solution-oriented. The peer-reviewed

research prepared at Utah’s research universities serves as the gold standard of scientific inquiry
and provides the shoulders this Strike Team stands on.
The Strike Team offers six specific recommendations for gubernatorial and legislative support in
the coming year: Leverage the wet years, set a lake elevation range goal, invest in conservation,
invest in water monitoring and modeling, develop a holistic water management plan, and
request an in-depth analysis of policy options. The Strike Team stands ready to support state
leaders in this important work.
This policy assessment provides a first step. As responsible stewards we have many more
steps to take.
With appreciation,
William Anderegg Craig Buttars Joel Ferry

Director, Wilkes Center for Climate Commissioner, Utah Department Executive Director, Utah
Science and Policy, University of Utah of Agriculture and Food Department of Natural Resources
Natalie Gochnour Kim Shelley Brian Steed

Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Executive Directory, Utah Department Executive Director, Janet Quinney
Institute, University of Utah of Environmental Quality Lawson Institute for Land, Water,
and Air, Utah State University
David Tarboton
Director, Utah Water Research
Laboratory, Utah State University
Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 1

Great Salt Lake Strike Team
The Great Salt Lake Strike Team includes researchers from the University of Utah and Utah State University working
together with state leads from the Utah Department of Natural Resources and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
and additional experts from other entities. Together, these entities join in a model partnership to provide timely, relevant,
and high-quality data and research that help decision-makers make informed decisions about Great Salt Lake.
The Strike Team fulfills a two-fold purpose: 1) Serve as the primary point of contact to tap into the expertise of Utah’s
research universities, and 2) Provide urgent research support and synthesis that will enhance and strengthen Utah’s
strategies to improve watershed management and increase water levels in Great Salt Lake.
CO-CHAIRS TEAM MEMBERS
William Anderegg Leila Ahmadi Bethany Neilson

Director, Wilkes Center for Climate Water Resource Engineer, Professor, Civil and Environmental
Science and Policy, University of Utah Utah Division of Water Resources Engineering, Utah State University
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Craig Buttars Eric Albers Sarah Null
Commissioner, Utah Department of Project Lead Associate Professor, Watershed Sciences,
Agriculture and Food Research Associate, Kem C. Gardner Utah State University
[email protected] Policy Institute, University of Utah [email protected]
[email protected]
Joel Ferry Kevin Perry
Executive Director, Utah Department Blake Bingham Professor, Atmospheric Sciences,
of Natural Resources Deputy State Engineer, University of Utah
[email protected] Utah Division of Water Rights [email protected]
[email protected]
Natalie Gochnour Ben Stireman
Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Paul Brooks Sovereign Lands Program Administrator, Division
University of Utah Professor, Geology & Geophysics, of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, State of Utah
[email protected] University of Utah [email protected]
[email protected]
Kim Shelley Courtenay Strong
Executive Director, Utah Department of Joanna Endter-Wada Professor, Atmospheric Sciences,
Environmental Quality Professor, Natural Resource Policy, University of Utah
[email protected] Utah State University [email protected]
[email protected]
Brian Steed Laura Vernon
Executive Director, Janet Quinney Lawson Candice Hasenyager Great Salt Lake Basin Planner,
Institute for Land, Water, and Air, Director, Utah Division of Water Resources, Utah Division of Water Resources
Utah State University [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
John Lin Kyla Welch
David Tarboton Associate Director, Wilkes Center for Climate Program Manager, Wilkes Center for Climate
Director, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Science and Policy, University of Utah Science and Policy, University of Utah
Utah State University [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Anna McEntire Matt Yost
Associate Director, Janet Quinney Lawson Associate Professor and Agroclimate Extension
Institute for Land, Water and Air, Specialist, Utah State University
Utah State University [email protected]
[email protected]
2 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Data and Insights Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Lake Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Temperature, Precipitation, and Runoff Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Natural Flow and Streamflow into Great Salt Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Explanation for Record-low Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Human Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Future Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Target Lake Elevation Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conservation Opportunities
Commit Conserved Water to Great Salt Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Agriculture Water Optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Optimize Municipal and Industrial Water Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Limit Municipal and Industrial Water Use Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Water Banking and Leasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Active Forest Management in Great Salt Lake Headwaters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
New Water
Import Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Increase Winter Precipitation with Cloud Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Engineering Solutions
Raise the Causeway Berm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Mitigate Dust Emission Hotspots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Glossary
Depletion – The amount of water consumed by a given Runoff Efficiency – The ratio of volume of runoff to volume
use and not returned to the system. of precipitation in a given basin is a measure of natural
GSL - Great Salt Lake system water use. It can vary due to temperature, aquifer
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) – Includes water use and replenishment, and extended periods of drought.
depletion for commercial, industrial, institutional, and Thousand Acre-feet (KAF) – An acre-foot is the amount of
residential purposes. water it takes to fill one acre of land one foot deep in water,
Natural Flow – The amount of streamflow that would occur if typically expressed in this report as thousand acre-feet (KAF)
there were no human depletions. It is estimated by adding and occasionally referred to by million acre-feet (MAF).
calculations of depletions to measured streamflow.

Great Salt Lake Strike Team
POLICY ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Declining water levels of Great Salt Lake threaten economic activity, local public health,
and ecosystems. The situation requires urgent action. Fortunately, science provides crucial
perspective, understanding, and scenarios for policymakers to chart a path forward. Many
policy levers can help return the lake to healthy levels.
Utah’s research universities formed the Great Salt Lake Strike Team to provide a primary
point of contact for policymakers as they address record-low elevations of Great Salt Lake.
Together with state agency professionals, the Strike Team brings together experts in public
policy, hydrology, water management, climatology, and dust to provide impartial, data-
informed, and solution-oriented support for Utah decision-makers. The Strike Team does not
advocate but rather functions in a scientific/ policy advisory role as a service to the state.
The Strike Team offers six major insights and recommendations
1 Explanation for
record-low elevation
Human and natural
consumptive water use explain over
two-thirds of low lake levels. Other
Estimated Contribution of Impacts on Current Record Low Elevation
POLICY
LEVER
smaller contributing factors include

Direct Evaporation Natural Variability Natural and Human
natural precipitation variability and
from Climate (Precipitation and Runoff Consumptive Use
climate warming. Human water use Warming Efficiency)
is not only the largest contributing Estimated Impact:
Estimated Impact: Estimated Impact: 67–73%
factor for Great Salt Lake’s decline,
8–11% 15–23%
but also the only factor that can be
Source: Analysis from Great Salt Lake Strike Team, 2022; Mohammed, I., & Tarboton, D. (2012). An examination of the sensitivity of the
changed in the near term. Great Salt Lake to changes in inputs. Water Resources Research, Volume 48, Issue 11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011908
2 Decreasing inflow
Even though overall
water supply from the
mountains shows no long-
term trend, inflow to the lake is
Bear River Annual Streamflow, 1903-2022
4000
3500
3000
Bear River accounts for about 50%
of total inflow to Great Salt Lake
Contemporary Period
Volume (KAF)
decreasing. This decrease reflects 2500

greater depletion by natural 2000
and human systems at lower
1500
elevations.
1000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Note: Trend line generated using LOESS regression.
Source: Data from USGS gage 10126000 Bear river Near Corrinne with missing data (1957-1963) and values
prior to 1949 derived from USGS gage 10118000 Bear River near Collinston (Analysis by David Tarboton)

3 Policy options
A variety of policy
options exist to increase
water deliveries to Great Salt Lake.
Interventions fall into three broad
5 Elevation range goal – The Strike Team recommends policymakers adopt a lake
elevation target level range based on analysis prepared by the Utah Division of Forestry,
Fire, and State Lands. Preliminary analysis suggests a range in the 4,198-4,205-feet elevation
level maximizes benefits across many factors. Meeting this goal requires policymakers to focus on
inflows that both fill and maintain targeted elevation ranges.
categories: conservation, new
Average Annual Elevation of Great Salt Lake with Elevation Zones, 1903–2022
water, and engineering solutions.
Policymakers will need to rapidly 4,211
assess the benefits, costs, and 4,209
Adverse effects due to high levels.
4,207
speed of each policy lever to
4,205
Elevation (feet)
prioritize state actions. The Strike
4,203
Optimal lake level range
Team can help with more detailed 4,201 deemed beneficial for most uses.
analysis to support prioritization. 4,199
4,197 “Transitionary zone” with some adverse effects.
Conservation
4,195
• Commit conserved water Adverse effects impacting brine shrimp
4,193 viability, recreation, ecosystem health.
to Great Salt Lake 4,211 Serious adverse effects on brine shrimp viability,
4,191
4,209 air quality, mineral production and recreation.
• Optimize use of 4,189 Adverse effects due to high levels.
4,207
1905
1915
1925
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
agricultural water 4,205
Elevation (feet)
• Optimize municipal and Year

4,203
industrial water pricing 4,201
Sources: deemed
US Geological Survey Historical Elevation at Saltair Boat Harbor; Utah Division of Forestry, beneficial
Fire and for GSL
State Lands, most uses.
Lake Elevation Matrix, 2013
6
• Limit municipal and industrial 4,199
Changes
4,197 relative to 1989-2019
water use growth “Transitionary zone” with some adverse effects.
4,19515Future water availability – Over the long term, slight increases
AIR TEMPERATURE
Adverse effects+11°F
in expected
impacting brine shrimp
• Utilize water banking Range
Change (°F)
4,19310precipitation will likely be overwhelmed by increases

and leasing +5°F in temperature and health.
viability, recreation, ecosystem evaporation,
Middle half
4,191 5 Serious adverse effects on brine shrimp viability,
creating further challenges for the +0°Flake. These future challenges underscore the Average
air quality, mineral production and recreation. need to
• Conduct active forest 4,189 0 Trend
resolve -5 torefill the lake quickly and create an adaptive process to monitor and maintain Reference lake levels
1905
1915
1925
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
management in Great Salt a.
in coming1900 decades.1920 1940 1960 Year 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 period
Lake headwaters
40 Trends in Temperature, Precipitation, and Evaporation in the Great Salt Lake Basin, 2004-2100
Projected
• Optimize Great Salt Lake
PRECIPITATION
30 Range
+13%
Change (%)
mineral extraction 20 Middle half

Changes relative to 1989-2019 +6%
New water
10 +0% Average
AIR TEMPERATURE
150 +11°F Trend

Range
• Import water -10
Change (%)Change (%) Change (°F)
10 Reference
-20 +5°F b. Middle half
period
• Increase winter precipitation 5 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
0
+0°F Average
with cloud seeding 40 Trend
EVAPORATION
-5
30 a. Reference
Range
Engineering solutions 201900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080+17% 2100 period
Middle half
10 +8% Average
• Raise the causeway berm 40
0
+0% Trend
PRECIPITATION
• Mitigate dust transmission 30 Range

-10 Reference
20 +13%
c. Middle half
hotspots -20
10 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 +0% +6%
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
period
Average
4
0 Trend
-10 b. Reference
Commit conserved -20 period
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
water Committing 40
conserved water to the
EVAPORATION
30 Range
+17%
Change (%)
lake is a fundamental policy lever 20 Middle half

10 +8% Average
that is crucial for many other 0
+0% Trend
policies to function effectively. -10 c. Reference
-20 period
Upon approval of an appropriate 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
change application, the state Notes:
1. The analysis is based on a high greenhouse gas emission scenario referred to as Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 585. Lower emission scenarios tend to
engineer can readily deliver produce similar changes but at smaller magnitudes.
2. There are 30 global climate models included in this analysis, developed by leading modeling centers in countries including the United States. The simulations
conserved water to Great Salt were coordinated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) and were analyzed by Courtenay Strong at the University of Utah.
3. Great Salt Lake is not explicitly represented at the grid spacings used in these global climate models. The analysis uses the grid point nearest the central
Lake under a “distribution system.” latitude and longitude of the lake in each model.
Source: Data from CMIP6; Analysis by Courtenay Strong, 2022

“
As leaders of Utah’s research universities,
we share a commitment to the research needs
of this state. Together with our partners in
state government, we have joined in a model
partnership to share with state policymakers
the best available data and research on
Great Salt Lake’s declining water levels and
the policy options that exist to reverse this
trend. This is Utah at its best – a state that
collaborates, makes data-driven choices,
”
and acts for the greater good.
Taylor R. Randall, President Noelle E. Cockett, President

University of Utah Utah State University

Data and Insights Summary
Understanding the recent record-low elevation of Great Salt Lake is foundational to
charting a path forward. The following figures clarify how the lake reached its current
level and explore how a changing climate will impact Great Salt Lake in the future.
Lake Level
Great Salt Lake elevation is at a historical low.
INSIGHTS
1. In 2022, the annual average lake level dropped to the lowest level on record (4,190.1 ft).
2. On October 27, 2022, the lake reached a daily record low of 4,188.6 ft.
3. After a peak in 1987 (4,210.4 ft), there has been clear downward trend in lake elevation.
Figure 1: Average Annual Elevation of Great Salt Lake, 1903–2022

4214
4212 Contemporary Period
4210 Contemporary Record High
Elevation (feet)
4208
4206
4204
4202
4200
4198
4196 Average Elevation:
4194 1903–Present (4,199)
4192
4190 Record Low
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
Sources: US Geological Survey Historical Elevation at Saltair Boat Harbor
Average Annual Elevation of Great Salt Lake: 1987, 1995, and 2022
Contemporary Record High Average Record Low

4,210.4 feet 4,199.6 feet 4,190.1 feet
1987 1995 2022

Source: Google Earth Engine

Temperature, Precipitation, and Runoff Efficiency
In northern Utah, temperature is rising, while precipitation and runoff efficiency show no consistent trend.
INSIGHTS
Runoff Efficiency is the ratio
1. Mean annual air temperature in northern Utah increased more than 3 degrees
of volume of streamflow to
Fahrenheit since 1983.
volume of precipitation in a given
2. Higher air temperatures result in increased evaporation from reservoirs and GSL.
basin. Approximately one-third
3. Annual precipitation is becoming more variable, with more dry periods.
of the precipitation that falls
4. Runoff efficiency increases for several years after one or more years with
contributes to streamflow. This
above average precipitation and decreases following years with below
value is highly variable from year
average precipitation.
to year but has not changed
5. Consecutive dry years and warmer temperatures interact to reduce runoff efficiency
appreciably over the last century.
and streamflow more than would be expected based on precipitation alone.
Figure 2: Historical Observations: Northern Utah Mean Annual Temperature, Precipitation, and Runoff Efficiency, 1903-2020
Mean Northern Utah Air Temperature
48
48
48 Contemporary
Contemporary Period
46
Period
46
Fahrenheit
44
Fahrenheit
44
Fahrenheit
44
42
42
42
40
40
40
38
38
38
36
36
36
1900
1900 1910
1910 1920
1920 1930
1930 1940
1940 1950
1950 1960
1960 1970
1970 1980
1980 1990
1990 2000
2000 2010
2010 2020
2020
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Year
Year
Mean Northern Utah Precipitation
Contemporary
Contemporary Period
50
50
Period
40
40
40
Inches
Inches
Inches
30
30
30
20
20
20
1900
1900 1910
1910 1920
1920 1930
1930 1940
1940 1950
1950 1960
1960 1970
1970 1980
1980 1990
1990 2000
2000 2010
2010 2020
2020
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Year
Year
Northern Utah Runoff Efficiency
100%
100%
100%
Mean
Mean
Contemporary Period
fromMean
80%
80% Contemporary
Contemporary Period
Period
80%
60%
60%
60%
from
Deviationfrom
40%
40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
Deviation
%Deviation
0%
0%
0%
-20%
-20%
-20%
-40%
-40%
-40%
%
%
-60%
-60%
-60%
1900
1900 1910
1910 1920
1920 1930
1930 1940
1940 1950
1950 1960
1960 1970
1970 1980
1980 1990
1990 2000
2000 2010
2010 2020
2020
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Year
Year
Source: Brooks, P. et al. (2021). Groundwater-mediated memory of past climate controls water yield in snowmelt-dominated catchments. Water Resources Research, 57 e2021WR030605.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030605

Natural Flow and Streamflow into Great Salt Lake
Natural flow and streamflow in the Great Salt Lake basin are highly variable. Natural flow in the contemporary
period shows no trend, while streamflow into Great Salt Lake shows a declining trend.
INSIGHTS: NATURAL FLOW

Natural flow is the amount of
1. Natural flow is highly variable due primarily to winter snowfall and
streamflow that would occur if there
runoff efficiency.
were no human depletions. It is
2. Natural flow in the basin does not show a declining trend
estimated by adding calculations of
over the last 30 years.
depletions to measured streamflow.
3. The Bear River's natural flow is the largest of the Great Salt Lake sub-basins.
3500
Figure 3: Natural Flow in the Contemporary Period, 1989-2020

3000
3500
2500
3000
Volume (KAF)Volume (KAF)
2000
2500
1500
2000
1000
1500
500
1000
0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
500
Year
0 Bear River Jordan River Weber River West Desert

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year
Bear River Jordan River Weber River West Desert
Average Natural Flow by Basin, 1989-2018
49.9 24.5% 19.8% 5.8%

Bear River Jordan River Weber River W. Desert
Source: Great Salt Lake Water Budget, Utah Division of49.9

Water Resources, 2023 24.5% 19.8% 5.8%
Bear River Jordan River Weber River W. Desert

INSIGHTS: STREAMFLOW INTO GREAT SALT LAKE
1. Even though natural flow shows no long-term trend, inflow to the lake is decreasing.
2. These decreases reflect greater depletion by natural and human systems.
Figure 4: Bear River Annual Streamflow, 1903-2022

4000
Contemporary Period
3500
4000
3000
3500
Contemporary Period
(KAF) (KAF)
2500
3500
3000
Volume
2000
3000
2500
(KAF)
1500
2500
Volume
2000
Volume
1000
2000
1500
500
1500
1000
0
1000
500 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
5000 Year
0 using
Note: Trend line generated 1900 LOESS1910
regression.1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Source: Data from USGS gage 10126000
1900 Bear river1920
1910 Near Corrinne
1930with missing
1940 data1950
(1957-1963) and values
Year
1960 prior to 1949
1970 1980derived from
1990 2000 2010 2020
USGS gage 10118000 Bear River near Collinston (Analysis by David Tarboton) Year
1300
Figure 5: Weber
1200 River Annual Streamflow, 1908-2022 Contemporary Period
1100
1300
1000
1200
1300
900
Contemporary Period
(KAF) (KAF)
1100
800
1000
1100
700
Volume
900
1000
600
800
900
(KAF)
500
700
Volume
800
400
600
700
Volume
300
500
600
200
400
500
100
300
400
0
200
300
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
100
200
0 Year
100
0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Note: Trend line generated using LOESS regression. Year
Source: Data from USGS
1600 gage 10141000 Weber River near Plain City, UT
Contemporary Period
1400
Figure 6: Jordan
1600
River Annual Streamflow, 1902-2022
1200
1400
(KAF) (KAF)

1400
1200
Volume
800
1200
1000
(KAF)
600
Volume
1000
800
Volume
400
800
600
200
600
400
0
400
200 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
200 Year
0
0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Note: Trend line generated using LOESS regression.
Source: Data from USGS gage 10170490 (1944-2022) with modeled data from 1902-1943 (Analysis by Margaret Wolf )

Explanation for Record-low Elevation
Human and natural consumptive water use reduce Great Salt Lake elevations.
The Strike Team estimates human water use comprises 67-73%, natural variability 15-23%, and
climate warming 8-11% of Great Salt Lake's low elevation.
INSIGHTS: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

1. The nature and lack of data prevent greater precision in these estimates.
2. A changing climate further complicates the analysis, creating more variable precipitation, longer droughts,
and higher temperatures.
3. A solution based on these estimates will not be sufficient, as these estimates capture the system as it currently is.
Natural variability, climate warming, and direct evaporation are expected to increase with continued climate change.
4. Policy must focus on human water use, as it is the only component that can be changed in the near term.
Figure 7: Estimated Contribution of Impacts on Current Record Low Elevation
Direct Evaporation from Climate Warming

Estimated Impact: 8–11%
Natural Variability (Precipitation and Runoff Efficiency)

Policy Lever Natural and Human Consumptive Use

Source: Analysis from Great Salt Lake Strike Team, 2022; Mohammed, I., & Tarboton, D. (2012). An examination of the sensitivity of the Great Salt Lake to
changes in inputs. Water Resources Research, Volume 48, Issue 11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011908

INSIGHTS: DETAIL
1. Inflows are greater during and following years with higher precipitation. High precipitation years have become
less frequent over the last few decades.
2. Evaporation decreases as the surface area of the lake shrinks.
3. The contemporary period includes both year of water loss and gain, but has overall been a period of water loss.
Figure 8: Inflow, Evaporation, Loss/Gain, and Elevation Change on Great Salt Lake in the Contemporary Period, 1989–2020
6,000
Inflow (KAF)
4,000
2,000
4,000
Net Evaporation (KAF)*
3,000
2,000
1,000
4,000
Loss/Gain (KAF)
Annual Volume
2,000
-2,000
Annual Elevation Change (ft.)
-2
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year
*Note: Net evaporation is equal to evaporation minus precipitation over the lake surface.
Evaporation in 1989 includes water pumped to the West Pond.
Sources: Great Salt Lake Water Budget, Utah Division of Water Resources, 2023; US Geological Survey Historical Elevation at Saltair Boat Harbor

Human Water Use
Human water use varies by type.
INSIGHTS
1. Agriculture depletes the most water and this use has remained relatively constant in the contemporary period.
2. Reservoir evaporation has remained relatively constant, while municipal and industrial depletion has increased slightly over time.
3. Managed wetlands and mineral extraction have increased over the contemporary period.
4. Human water uses and total depletions tend to be larger in warmer and drier years.
5. Total depletions have been variable in the past 30 years, but the range has remained relatively constant,
averaging 2,077 KAF per year.
Figure 9: Human Water Depletion by Type in the Contemporary Period, 1989-2020
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
Depletion (KAF)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year
Total depletion Municipal and industrial Managed wetlands GSL mineral extraction Agriculture Reservoir
Average Depletion (KAF/year)

Depletion Type 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020
Agriculture – Includes all agriculture water depletions. 1,297 1,388 1,413 1,343 1,261 1,300
Reservoir – Represents evaporation from reservoirs
26 18 26 24 22 22
(does not include Bear or Utah Lakes).
Municipal and Industrial – Covers urban water depletions
352 352 366 370 375 381
from commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential uses.
Managed Wetlands – Includes depletions associated with
153 156 181 163 147 248
man-made riparian areas and wetlands.
GSL Mineral Extraction – Incorporates depletions from all
95 155 175 219 213 163
mineral extraction companies operating on GSL.
Total Depletion 1,923 2,069 2,161 2,119 2,018 2,113
Source: Great Salt Lake Water Budget, Utah Division of Water Resources, 2023

INSIGHTS: MINERAL EXTRACTION
1. Mineral extraction water depletion on Great Salt Lake grew to 181.8 KAF in 2020 with a peak in 2007 (271.3 KAF).
2. Compass Minerals and U.S. Magnesium drove the increase in depletion from 1989 to 2020.
3. Over this period, mineral extraction depletions account for 8.0% of total human depletion.
Figure 10: Mineral Extraction Water Depletions on Great Salt Lake in the Contemporary Period, 1989–2020
140 Cargill
Compass Minerals
120 Morton
U.S. Magnesium
100
Depletion (KAF)
80
60
40
20
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
Average Depletion (KAF/year)

Company 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020
Cargill 10.4 10.4 14.2 7.7 8.3 0.8
Compass Minerals 56.2 63.8 93.9 133.6 123.4 105.2
Morton 5.6 12.1 9.1 11.1 10.9 9.1
U.S. Magnesium 23.1 69.0 57.8 66.7 70.6 47.6
Total 95.3 155.2 174.9 219.1 213.2 162.7
Source: Utah Division of Water Rights, 2023

Future Water Availability
Experts predict that over the long term, expected increases in precipitation will be overwhelmed by rising
temperature and evaporation, creating further challenges for the lake.
Figure 11: Projected Trends in Temperature, Precipitation, and Evaporation in the

INSIGHTS
Great Salt Lake Basin, 2004-2100
1. Under a high
Changes relative to 1989-2019
greenhouse gas
Air temperature
emission scenario,
15 Range
5°F of warming is Middle half +11°F
projected by 2050 10
Average
Trend
and 11°F by 2100. Reference period +5°F
Change (°F)
2. Warming is projected to 5
increase precipitation +0°F
because a warmer 0
atmosphere can hold
-5 a.
and deliver more water.
3. However, warming also 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
increases evaporation,
and that will tend to Precipitation
40
offset any water gains Range
from precipitation. 30 Middle half
Average
4. Warmer temperatures Trend
20 +13%
increase lake Reference period
Change (%)
+6%
evaporation and 10
+0%
human water needs.
0
-10
b.
-20
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Evaporation
40
Range
30 Middle half
Average
20 Trend +17%
Reference period
Change (%)
+8%
10
+0%
0
-10
c.
-20
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Notes:
1. The analysis is based on a high greenhouse gas emission scenario referred to as Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 585. Lower
emission scenarios tend to produce similar changes but at smaller magnitudes.
2. There are 30 global climate models included in this analysis, developed by leading modeling centers in countries including the
United States. The simulations were coordinated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) and were analyzed
by Courtenay Strong at the University of Utah.
3. Great Salt Lake is not explicitly represented at the grid spacings used in these global climate models. The analysis uses the grid point
nearest the central latitude and longitude of the lake in each model.
Source: Data from CMIP6; Analysis by Courtenay Strong, 2022

Target Lake Elevation Range
The Strike Team recommends carefully selecting a target lake elevation
range and using the following analysis to set conservation goals and
plan for needed inflows to Great Salt Lake.
Adopt an elevation range goal. Select a range goal using Table 1: Inflow Requirements for Target Elevations (KAF/year)
the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Land’s Great Salt Lake
Target Fill in Fill in Fill in
Elevation Matrix (See Figure 12). Elevation (ft.) 5 years 10 years 20 years Maintain
Plan for a filling phase and a maintenance phase. Restoring 4,189 ft. - - - 1,327
Great Salt Lake to a target elevation range involves first filling 4,192 ft. 1,759 1,583 1,501 1,463
4,195 ft. 2,272 1,913 1,770 1,738
the lake to that level and then maintaining it. More inflow is
4,198 ft. 2,975 2,403 2,184 2,137
needed for the filling phase. Table 1 shows the inflow volume
Note: This table assumes an initial lake elevation of 4,189 ft.
required to fill and maintain Great Salt Lake at different target Source: Analysis by Great Salt Lake Strike Team, 2023
elevations.
Table 2: Range of Conservation Needed (KAF/year)
Plan for streamflow variability. Filling and maintaining Great
Salt Lake within a target elevation range is complicated, due Target Fill in Fill in Fill in
Maintain
to the fluctuation of streamflows from year to year. Managers Elevation (ft.) 5 years 10 years 20 years
should capitalize on wet years, although they are infrequent. 4,189 ft. - - - 0-268
Below are two streamflow scenarios that can be used for 4,192 ft. 116-700 0-524 0-442 0-404
planning. 4,195 ft. 629-1,213 270-854 127-711 95-679

4,198 ft. 1,332-1,916 760-1344 541-1,125 494-1,078
• Low streamflow – The average of the lowest sequential five Note: This table assumes an initial lake elevation of 4,189 ft.
years on record: 1988 to 1992 (1,059 KAF/year). Source: Analysis by Great Salt Lake Strike Team, 2023
• Average Streamflow – The contemporary average inflows

Determine conservation strategy. Table 3 explores different
between 2000 and 2022 (1,643 KAF/year).
scenarios for achieving water conservation targets. Different
Set conservation targets. Table 2 shows the range of water sectors could have similar or different conservation
additional water conservation needed per year to reach goals to begin to refill the lake to the target level (e.g. with 600
different target lake elevations for low and average streamflow KAF per year)—or at least to prevent further losses to the lake
conditions. If a target elevation range greater than 4,195 ft. (e.g. with 300 KAF per year).
is set to be reached in five years, conservation of at least 600
In the first two scenarios in Table 3, conservation percentages
KAF/year would be required. Conservation of approximately
are spread equally across each sector. In the third and fourth
300 KAF/year is needed just to prevent further loss if five-year
scenarios, potential tradeoffs are illustrated if the three sectors
average flows remain low.
take on different conservation goals. These four scenarios are
not exclusive, but provide a subset of examples for reaching
needed inflows.

Significant conservation and commitment to deliver
water to the lake is needed to reach desired elevations.
Filling the lake to the low end of the range that maximizes benefits on most dimensions per the Great Salt Lake Elevation matrix
(4,198 ft.) in 20 years would require between 500,000 and 1,100,000 acre-feet per year of additional water delivered to the lake.
Filling the lake to a level of 4,192 ft. (3 ft. higher than present) in five years would take between 100,000 and 700,000 acre-feet
per year of additional conservation and water deliveries to the lake. Both ranges depend on streamflow.
Table 3: Scenarios for Reaching Conservation Targets

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Primary reliance on Primary reliance on
Equal percentage municipal and industrial agricultural conservation
reductions to prevent Equal percentage conservation to achieve to achieve desirable
further decline reductions desirable lake level in 20 years lake level in 20 years
Average
Depletion, Volume Volume Volume Volume
Sector 1989-2020 Percent (KAF/year) Percent (KAF/year) Percent (KAF/year) Percent (KAF/year)
Agriculture 1,188 17.5% 208 35% 416 20% 238 42% 499
Municipal
358 17.5% 63 35% 125 69% 247 20% 72
and Industrial
GSL Mineral
165 17.5% 29 35% 58 69% 114 20% 33
Extraction
Total 1,711 300 599 599 604
Note: Average depletion values in this table exclude the West Desert, as conservation in the West Desert is not deemed to be a viable option for getting water to the lake.
Source: Analysis by Great Salt Lake Strike Team, 2023
Figure 12: Average Annual Elevation of Great Salt Lake with Elevation Zones, 1903–2022
4213
4211
4209 Adverse effects due to high levels.
4207
4205
Elevation (feet)
4203
4201 deemed beneficial for most uses.
4199
4197
“Transitionary zone” with some adverse effects.
4195
Adverse effects impacting brine shrimp
4193 viability, recreation, ecosystem health.
4191 Serious adverse effects on brine shrimp viability,

air quality, mineral production and recreation.
4189
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
Sources: US Geological Survey Historical Elevation at Saltair Boat Harbor; Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, GSL Lake Elevation Matrix, 2013

Policy Options
A variety of policy actions have been proposed to address
declining levels of Great Salt Lake. Each suggested course of
action comes with different benefits and costs.
The Great Salt Lake Strike Team selected 11 policy options

that would help increase water deliveries to the lake. The Expert Assessment Scorecard Scale
options fall into three categories and include the following:
Each policy option includes an expert scorecard
Conservation with a five-point scale that evaluates the option on
• Commit conserved water to Great Salt Lake nine dimensions.
• Optimize use of agricultural water
• Optimize municipal and industrial water pricing Benefits
• Limit municipal and industrial water use growth Water brought to the lake:
• Utilize water banking and leasing 1 = A little (100,000 acre-feet/year) — 5 = A lot (500,000 acre-feet/year)
• Conduct active forest management in
Air quality improvements:
Great Salt Lake headwaters
1 = No dust control — 5 = Significant dust control
• Optimize Great Salt Lake mineral extraction
Biological health:
New Water 1 = Ecological collapse — 5 =Ecological safety
• Import water
• Increase winter precipitation with cloud seeding Costs, Challenges, and Adaptations
Engineering Solutions Financial cost
• Raise the causeway berm 1 = Less (~$1 million) — 5 = More ($10+ billion)
• Mitigate dust transmission hotspots Agriculture changes
1 = Minimal change — 5 = Significant change
The Strike Team developed an evaluation scorecard Extractive industry changes
to create apples-to-apples comparisons of the most 1 = Minimal change — 5 = Significant change
commonly proposed options to address Great Salt Lake
Cultural shift
decline. By briefly outlining these policies and providing 1 = No change — 5 = Significant changes
necessary context, options, and tradeoffs, we give an
overview of expected water gains, monetary costs, Feasibility
environmental impacts, and feasibility. Many options Speed of implementation
work in conjunction with others, particularly “Commit 1 = Slow (5+ years) — 5 = Fast (1 year)
Conserved Water to Great Salt Lake” which is foundational
Legal/regulatory feasibility
to shepherding water conserved through other policy
1 = Low feasibility — 5 = High feasibility
options to the lake.

Commit Conserved Water to Great Salt Lake
Coupled with accurate quantification, appropriate procedural Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
mechanisms, and practicable means of delivery, stakeholders may be
Benefits Low High
able to commit conserved water to Great Salt Lake. Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
Air quality improvements 1 2 3 4 5
Summary Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
Conserving water for the benefit of Great Salt Lake is a fundamental strategy. However, Costs, Challenges,
water conservation alone may not benefit the lake since other uses often intercept and Adaptations Low High
water. If large-scale conservation efforts are combined with administrative actions on Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
Agriculture changes 1 2 3 4 5
the underlying water rights (i.e., through a change application), the state engineer may
Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
help ensure that the conserved water makes it to the lake. Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
Feasibility Low High

Key facts and insights Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
Legal/regulatory feasibility
n Water conservation doesn’t mean increased lake elevation: Although collective 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation may help mitigate the effects of drought on Utah’s water supply, it Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
does not necessarily translate into additional water for Great Salt Lake.
n Targeted Conservation: Decision-makers may want to target large-scale water Policy options and tradeoffs
users with underlying water rights eligible for shepherding to the lake by the state Policy Options
engineer under a change application.
- Conservancy districts benefiting
n Quantification of Available Water: Water available for conservation is likely limited from the water savings associated
to the amount of water depleted (or consumed) under previous use. Consequently, with subsidized secondary metering
accurate quantification is critical to any change application committing conserved efforts could dedicate a portion of
water to the lake. This quantification will prevent impairing use by downstream the saved water to the lake.
water users. - Irrigation companies or large
n Shepherding Water: Without a way to shepherd water past intervening users, agricultural users could employ
conservation efforts could be easily frustrated. However, upon approval of an full-season or split-season
appropriate change application, the state engineer can readily deliver conserved fallowing to conserve water and
water to Great Salt Lake under a “distribution system.” All of the main tributaries commit it to the lake.
to Great Salt Lake have distribution systems wherein water commissioners can - Municipalities can conserve water
shepherd water through the system. to offset future demands and
commit a commensurate amount of
Figure 15: Selected Water Sources Available for Committing to GSL treated sewage effluent that would
otherwise be available for reuse.
300
Volume of Water (KAF/year)
250
Tradeoffs
200 - Without enhanced conservation

150
efforts elsewhere, conservancy
245 districts would need to develop
100
173 additional sources to satisfy
50
63 54 growing demand.
0 - Agricultural users would require
Wastewater Wastewater Agriculture Water Secondary
Effluent (Within Effluent Optimization Metering compensation from an interested
GSL Watershed) (Direct to GSL) Conservation stakeholder. The increased demand
for the limited resource would result
Note: Wastewater effluent in the GSL watershed is discharged into streams and is likely intercepted and diverted by
downstream users. Currently, only 63 KAF is discharged directly to the lake. in cascading price increases.
Sources: Utah Division of Water Quality data using 5-year mean daily discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Forgoing the potential for reuse
(POTWs). Excludes discharges from POTWs utilizing evaporative lagoons; 2022 Ag Water Optimization Task Force
Annual Report, https://water.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-AWOTF-Annual-Report-Research-and-
of sewage effluent may limit the
Policy.pdf; Utah Division of Water Resources website, https://water.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ extent of future municipal growth.
300
Water (Thousand Acre-feet)
Secondary-Meter-3rd-Round-of-Funding.jpg
250 245
200
173
150
100
Agriculture Water Optimization
Agriculture water optimization provides immediate and improved Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
resilience to producers and builds the foundation of flexibility, Benefits Low High
infrastructure, and methods required to make more water available Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
Air quality improvements
for Great Salt Lake. 1 2 3 4 5
Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
Summary Costs, Challenges,

and Adaptations Low High
Reducing agriculture depletions annually by 10-15% through agriculture optimization Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
makes farming more resilient to drought and could supply nearly 180,000 acre-feet Agriculture changes 1 2 3 4 5
of water annually to the lake without reducing crop production. It could be achieved Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
through strategic agriculture water optimization that includes improving conveyance Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
systems that deliver water to the farm, and a variety of on-farm improvements in water, Feasibility Low High
crop, and soil management. Greater reductions in depletion are possible but would Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
require compensated strategic deficit irrigation or fallowing. This optimization comes Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team

at various costs ranging from about $60-400 per acre-feet of water per year, based on
which practices are implemented.
Policy Options and Tradeoffs
Key Facts and Insights On-farm optimization could save up to
n Begin with on-farm optimization - Reductions of approximately 10-15% in water 180,000 acre-feet per year (assuming
consumption could be achieved through on-farm optimization without reducing 15% reduction in total water use) with
production. minimal crop losses. This assumes that
farmers willingly participate and are
n Additional gains are possible - Voluntary, temporary, and compensated short-term
compensated for loss.
water banks and leases that may facilitate deficit irrigation/fallowing programs, which
might be necessary to help gain additional water for the lake, depending on the Policy Options
degree of effectiveness of other options. - Increased financial and technical
support for on-farm optimization
n Difficult and costly task - Reducing agriculture water depletion is difficult without
- M&I water conservation and other
reducing crop production. Most water used in agriculture is “beneficially used”
solutions could help offset agriculture
through crop consumption or returns to natural systems. Agricultural optimization
reductions
requires capital-intensive changes that often exceed producers’ capacity to perform
- Investment in water measurement
without assistance.
would aid in the refinement of what
n Other pieces required – Quantification of water savings, as well as other legal the possible and feasible reductions
mechanisms, including water leasing and/or banking, and shepherding will be are for agriculture
required to ensure agricultural optimization delivers water to the lake. - Enhanced capacity of Division of
Water Rights to rapidly and accurately
track and approve use changes
Figure 16: Estimated Reductions in Agriculture Depletions through Optimization
Tradeoffs
and Deficit/Fallow Programs
- Lost agriculture production
700
and profit
Agriculture water depletion
600 - On-farm optimization or fallowing are

reduction (KAF)
500 high ongoing costs

400 - Reductions in Utah food security
300 - Damages rural communities and
200
industries that rely on agriculture
100
-
15% reduction 20% reduction 30% reduction 40% reduction 50% reduction
Water optimization Deficit and Fallow Programs
Note: Proposed water optimization would have minimal damage to food production
Source: Analysis by Matt Yost, 2022

Optimize Municipal and Industrial Water Pricing
By optimizing water pricing in Utah, policymakers can improve water Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
management and increase water deliveries to Great Salt Lake. Benefits Low High
Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
Summary Air quality improvements 1 2 3 4 5
Water pricing impacts consumption. Economists estimate that for every 10% increase Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
in water rates, water consumption declines by 2.5%-7.5%. By optimizing water pricing, Costs, Challenges,
policymakers can benefit from market forces and more closely align supply with demand. and Adaptations Low High
Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
This will improve efficiency and fairness, while also reducing demand.
Key facts and insights Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
n Metering – An estimated 60% of municipal and industrial water in Feasibility Low High
Utah is metered. The state’s recent $265 million investment in secondary-metering Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
infrastructure provides additional metering capabilities.
n Water subsidies – An estimated 65% ($674 million) of Utah’s state and local
water delivery costs in FY 2020 accrued from revenues unrelated to water use. The
remaining 35% ($388 million) came from monthly water usage charges. Currently, Policy options and tradeoffs
more than 90% of Utahns pay subsidized water rates. Water managers and policymakers
n Property and sales taxes – In FY2022 Utahns paid nearly $120 million in sales taxes can refine water pricing proposals
for water and $160 million in local property taxes for water. Because water delivery to maximize the public good and
in Utah is often metered, it does not require general tax financing, like many other minimize unintended consequences.
government services. Water pricing options and trade-offs
include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Figure 13: Utah State and Local Water Revenues, FY 2020 (in millions)
$674 (65% of total) Policy Options

- Increased secondary water metering
$674 (65%FlatofBase
$242 Monthly total)
Rate - Tiered water pricing
$388 (35% of total) - Revenue-neutral water user charge
$111 Impact & Connection Fees increases
$242 Monthly Flat Base Rate
- Refined analysis on price elasticity of
$87 Other Funding Sources $388 (35% of total)
$111 Impact $388 Monthly Water Usage Charge water
$140 Local&Property
Connection Fees
Taxes
$87 Other Funding Sources
- Tax credit for homeowners and mobile
$94 State Taxes and Fees homeowners who meet certain
$388 Monthly Water Usage Charge
$140 Local
Not Directly Property
Tied Taxes
to Level of Use Tied to Level of Use income and resident qualifications
Note: Does not$94 State
include Taxes and
wholesale waterFees
sales to avoid double-counting revenues
- Additional optimization of state water
Source: Office of the State Auditor,
Not Directly Tied to Level Division
ofofUse
Water Rights, and Governor's Office of Planning
Tied to Leveland
ofBudget
Use loan funds for conservation and
7.0 potential private market capitalization
Figure 14: Estimated Lawn Watering Use Compared to Plant Needs, 2018 Tradeoffs
(Acre-feet per acre per5.1
year) 4.7
4.4 7.0
- Adjusting to new landscapes
3.4 - Increased transaction costs
5.1 2.9 2.8
2.1 4.4 4.7 - Higher financing costs for water
1.8
3.4 districts
2.9 2.8
2.1 Wasatch Front Wasatch Back St. George Area - Switching costs associated with more
1.8
efficient water use (ex. landscaping)
Turf grass Actual water use Actual water use for
Wasatchwater
Front needs for metered
Wasatchsystems
Back unmetered systems
St. George Area
Turf grass Actual water use Actual water use for

water needs for metered systems unmetered systems
Source: Utah Department of Natural Resources - State of Utah Water Use Data Collection Program Report
Note: Economists view water pricing as an area of public policy ripe for what is
called Pareto improvement - a change in allocation that harms no one and benefits someone or society as a whole.

Limiting Municipal and Industrial Water Use Growth
Efficiency and conservation in new and existing M&I water use creates Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
savings for future growth and can also conserve water to be delivered to Benefits Low High
Great Salt Lake. Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
Policies for water-smart M&I growth financially incentivize high water-use efficiency in Costs, Challenges,
new development. Policies can require that conservation savings partially or fully offset and Adaptations Low High
Financial cost* 1 2 3 4 5
new water demand in existing M&I uses. Offsets can be tailored to meet local community
needs and facilitated by water providers. These efforts reduce market pressures for “buy- Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
and-dry” agriculture-to-urban water transfers and increase the ability to lease or purchase Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
agricultural water for Great Salt Lake. Water-smart growth implemented now helps deliver Feasibility Low High
ongoing, long-term water use reductions and avoids future water conservation costs. More Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
aggressive implementation of water-smart practices (up to considering water-neutral Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
growth) could secure water demand offsets over the next 30-40 years. Note: Water potential estimate results from avoiding 80,000
acre-feet/year of depletion from developing new water
supplies to meet anticipated growth in demand.
WATER NEUTRAL GROWTH Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
through efficiency, conservation and offsets
Water Savings Financial Compensation
Policy options
- Water offset policies and tools in
Increased Commercial, Industrial, Reduced the M&I sector
depletions from Institutional, Residential depletions in
- More aggressive state water conserva-
M&I growth M&I Sector existing M&I uses
tion goals and limits on new large M&I
uses in Great Salt Lake Watershed
Key facts and insights - Integrated land use and water
planning for water smart growth
n Growth – Utah is projected to grow by 2.2 million people between 2020 and 2060, - Highest current water efficiency
exceeding the 1.8 million people it added between 1980 and 2020. About 85% of standards for new and redeveloped
projected population and employment growth will occur in Great Salt Lake Watershed. construction
- Fixture/appliance replacements and
n M&I water depletions – Depletions will potentially increase 80,000 AF between
landscape conversions for existing M&I
2020 and 2060 due to projected population growth, climate warming, and
users
diminishing returns on conservation and efficiency gains.
- M&I rate increases
n Water demand offset policies – Successfully implemented nationally, these policies - Advanced metering infrastructure
create ways to estimate water demand in new developments, calculate savings of to support transparent billing and
water efficiency measures, and verify conservation savings and return on investment conservation tracking
from water use offsets. Offset ratios can be structured to accelerate savings and also Tradeoffs
secure some water for Great Salt Lake in the near term. - Adjusting expectations from
drought adaptation to climate change
n Programmatic investments – Water efficiency and conservation are realized
resilience
through educational, incentive, and regulatory approaches. Accelerating water
- Acceptance of new urban forms
demand management will require public and private investments in institutional
(increased residential density, low
programs to implement change across all M&I uses. water landscapes)
- Equity of implementation across
Policy options and tradeoffs communities (rationale for state-level
policy action)
Effective and equitable water-smart M&I growth requires existing M&I users to create water - Scaling up water smart growth policies
conservation savings. It also needs new development to meet the highest water efficiency for watershed-scale implementation
standards when using those savings offsets. Combinations of on-site and off-site efficiency - Transaction costs
measures ensure new and redeveloped construction uses less new water in overall - Ability to secure water demand offsets
developments. Policy options include those listed to the right. declines over time

Water Banking and Leasing
The State of Utah or the Great Salt Lake Trust could lease water for Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
Great Salt Lake, reallocating water from willing sellers to willing buyers. Benefits Low High
Water leasing enables water rights holders to voluntarily lease all or some of their water Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
without forfeiting their water rights. Water banking is one mechanism to lease water, Costs, Challenges,
facilitated by Utah’s 2020 Water Banking Act under Utah Code 73-31-101(20). Water and Adaptations Low High
Financial cost* 1 2 3 4 5
banks can connect buyers and sellers through intermediaries and institutional processes.
Potential exists to lease up to 200,000 - 300,000 acre-feet of water annually for Great Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
Salt Lake. This solution should be paired with water shepherding, agriculture water Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
optimization, and water-neutral M&I conservation to deliver water to the lake.
Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
Key Facts and Insights Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
Water banking and leasing enables water *Leasing 200,000 acre-feet per year might cost between $30
n How it works right holders to lease some or all of their water and $60 million per year, depending on the market price to
to the
o Water leasing does not forfeit lake without
water rights.forfeiting water rights. lease water.
o Water right priority transfers
Water to leases
Shepard leasedprovided it does
water to Great not impair
Salt Lake.
other water rights.
Rights
Agricultural water optimization reduces agricultural
o Water leases may be restricted to the amount of water historically consumed.
depletions, making water available for Great Salt Lake.
Policy Options and Tradeoffs
o Requires a change application to deliver water to Great Salt Lake. Water managers and policy-makers
n Cost per acre-foot – Existing water markets suggest the cost per acre-foot may could regulate water leases to
Achieving water-neutral M&I growth through conservation,
range between $150 and $300. Prices
not through will
water differandbyleasing,
banking priority date,
increases thelocation,
amount and other
minimize unintended consequences.
factors, making them highly variable.
of water that could be leased from agriculture for the lake. Water leasing and banking policy
options and tradeoffs include, but are
n Relative cost - Water banking is a relatively cheap option to deliver water to Great
not limited to, the following:
Salt Lake because infrastructure needs are small. New infrastructure includes
additional streamflow gages for water shepherding. Transaction costs include legal Policy Options
and hydrologic expertise. - Increase water prices to
incentivize leases.
n Part of a portfolio of solutions – Agriculture water optimization reduces depletions - Exclude M&I buyers to facilitate
so that a portion could be voluntarily leased to Great Salt Lake. Leased water must urban conservation.
be shepherded to Great Salt Lake with improved streamflow gaging and monitoring. - Expect water leases to cost more
Water-neutral municipal and industrial (M&I) growth should focus on efficiency, in dry years and less in wet years.
conservation, and offsets to reduce competition for leased water. - Irrigation companies or large
agricultural users could lease
water volumes large enough to be
shepherded to the lake.
Tradeoffs
Water
- Less water for agriculture.
Rights Agriculture water optimization conserves - Transaction costs for legal and
water, making it available for Great Salt Lake. hydrologic expertise.
Water banking and leasing enables water - Externalities, or side effects, of water
right holders to lease some or all of their water
leasing are common.
to the lake without forfeiting water rights.
- Negligible effect on Great Salt Lake
Shepherd leased water to Great Salt Lake. without water shepherding.
Water-neutral M&I growth through conservation, not
through water banking and leasing, increases the amount of
water that could be leased from agriculture for the lake.

Active Forest Management in Great Salt Lake Headwaters
Thinning Utah’s forests is not guaranteed to substantially increase the amount Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
of water reaching the GSL. Although thinning can improve forest health and
Benefits Low High
reduce the risk of severe wildfire, it does not always increase streamflow. Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
Watershed restoration through the thinning of overgrown forests may reduce water Costs, Challenges,
loss to evaporation and transpiration and thus increase streamflow. Research over and Adaptations Low High
the past century has shown that extensive timber harvest can and often does lead Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
to increased water yield, especially in wetter areas and when the entire canopy is
removed. However, this does not necessarily hold for forest thinning. In the past Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
decade, a growing body of research has shown both increases and decreases in
streamflow following canopy reduction. Mechanisms for reduced streamflow include Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
increased water use by vegetation regrowth, increased sublimation and evaporation of Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
exposed snowpack, and increased soil evaporation from removing canopy shade. Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
Key Facts and Insights Policy Options and Tradeoffs

n Forests in Utah are overgrown - Like much of the west, Utah forests are overgrown Forest management and thinning
with even-aged trees and extensive ground cover which together increase the risks of over-stocked forests are likely to
of high intensity fires and widespread forest mortality due to warming climate. reduce the risk of severe wildfire
n Streamflow may increase or decrease – In the past decade or so a growing body and improve forest heath bringing
of research has shown both increases and decreases in streamflow following canopy important non-water benefits.
reduction. However, whether active management,
such as thinning, delivers runoff
n Beetle-Kill Mimics Forest Treatment – Extensive tree mortality events driven by
increases is complicated and varies
pine beetle infestations mimic forest thinning treatments in terms of runoff. Research
by slope angles, aspect, elevation,
on these events shows no large-scale increases in streamflow.
and species. These treatments may
n Uncertain Effects – There are many reasons to improve forest management, but the contribute modest additional runoff
impact of tree thinning on Great Salt Lake inflows is unclear and likely to be minimal. but also have the potential to backfire
Concerningly, there is a potential to decrease flows. and decrease streamflow.
Policy options
- Removal of invasive species in riparian
Increased flow post- Decreased flow post-
Pre-Treatment areas
treatment scenario treatment scenario
- Mechanical thinning of dense forests
Interception and Reduced Reduced - Prescribed fire to remove understory
evaporation Interception and Interception and fuels
evaporation evaporation
Tradeoffs
Transpiration Reduced Reduced - These treatments do not make sense in
Transpiration Transpiration
all Utah forests
Additional - Fuels or thinning treatments have
Transpiration from more positive influences when
new growth and returning forests to a pre-1800 density
sublimation from
exposed snow
and fire regime
- Removal of riparian vegetation
adversely affects water temperature
and aquatic ecosystems
Runoff Stream Increased Stream Reduced Stream
Runoff Runoff

Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Optimization
Mineral extractors working on Great Salt Lake collectively hold over 600,000 Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
acre-feet of water rights. The state is currently working with these companies to Benefits Low High
encourage innovative processes for new mineral development. Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
In 2020, mineral extraction companies working on Great Salt Lake depleted a total of Costs, Challenges,
and Adaptations Low High
182,000 acre-feet of water. These companies rely upon the evaporation of lake brines in
their extractive processes. However, brines have become harder to reach due to low water Agriculture changes 1 2 3 4 5
levels. The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) is currently working with Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
industry to encourage technologies that are not reliant on evaporation and those that Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
reduce water depletions. Feasibility Low High

n Economic Contribution – A study was conducted in 2010 by the Great Salt Lake
Advisory Council that reported approximately $1.13 billion in economic output from
the Great Salt Lake mineral industry.* Policy Options and Tradeoffs
n Critical Minerals – Three critical minerals of the state, Potash, Lithium, and Eliminating mineral production on
Magnesium, are currently found in Great Salt Lake in marketable quantities and GSL has economic consequences and
currently in production. threatens a key source of three of the
state’s critical minerals. However, Great
Salt Lake cannot sustain continued
Evaporation Ponds on Great Salt Lake water diversions and depletions at
the rate seen in previous decades. The
state is encouraging innovation and
sustainability in the development of
Lithium on the lake.
Source: Aerial Image from Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, Johnson Space Center, 2022.
* Great Salt Lake Advisory Council. (2012). Economic Significance of the Great Salt Lake to the State of Utah. Retrieved from: http://deq.utah.gov.

Import Water
Importing water to Great Salt Lake from the Pacific Ocean (or other Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
sources) is feasible but would be expensive, slow, and controversial.
Benefits Low High
Delivery of 500,000 acre-feet per year could be achieved through a 13.3-foot diameter Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
pipeline stretching 700 to 800 miles from the Pacific Ocean, depending on the route. Costs, Challenges,
Without the construction of tunnels to bypass higher elevations, the pipeline would need and Adaptations Low High
to pump water over the Sierra Nevada mountains (6,500 to 7,000 feet). Figure 17 shows Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
one possible route and the elevation profile along the way. However, nearly unlimited
route options exist including from the Gulf of California, or importing freshwater from the Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
Missouri/Mississippi drainage or the Snake River drainage. The latter two options are less
likely due to current demands on those sources. Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
Key Facts and Insights Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
n Interstate Project – The pipeline would be an interstate project crossing California,

Nevada, and possibly a portion of Arizona, depending on the route selected. Policy Options and Tradeoffs
Construction across states and installing an intake structure in the Pacific Ocean
would likely require federal involvement. This large pipeline would probably traverse Intake Location Options
highly developed urban areas. – Coast of California
– Gulf of California
n High Cost – Based on similar completed projects, the total cost could exceed $100 – Missouri/Mississippi River basin
billion for the studies, design, and construction of a pipeline, depending on the route – Snake River basin
chosen. Tradeoffs
n Intermittent Use – During wetter years, the pipeline would likely not be used – High costs and complications
because natural inflows could supply the demands for Great Salt Lake. – Inter-state (potentially international)
project
n Unknown Impacts – Importing salt water to Great Salt Lake may impact the lake – Unknown ecological impacts
in unanticipated ways. Understanding impacts requires further study of potential – Water likely unavailable in river basins
treatments for imported water, which would further increase project costs. because of current demands
n Long Process – Project completion would likely take decades. In addition to

significant construction time, completion would depend on environmental, cultural,
and economic impact studies.
Figure 17: Elevation Profile for Importing Water from the Pacific Ocean to Great Salt Lake
7,500 ft.
7,232 ft.
6,750 ft.
6,000 ft.
5,250 ft.
4,500 ft.
3,750 ft.
3,000 ft.
2,250 ft.
1,500 ft.
750 ft.
0 ft.
100 miles 200 miles 300 miles 400 miles 500 miles 600 miles 688 miles
Distance: 688 miles • Elevation Gain/Loss: 20,135 ft. /15,931 ft.

Source: Google Earth elevation profile of potential pipeline route from California coast to Great Salt Lake.

Increase Winter Precipitation with Cloud Seeding
Cloud seeding can marginally enhance the amount of snowfall in Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
mountainous regions of primary water sources.
Benefits Low High
Water brought to the lake
Summary Air quality improvements
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Under certain weather conditions, it is possible to intentionally modify snowstorms using Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
existing cloud seeding methodologies. However, the amount of additional snowpack Costs, Challenges,
is uncertain and can vary between project types and locations. The amount of runoff and Adaptations Low High
produced is also uncertain. Program evaluations in Utah suggest cloud seeding could Financial cost 1 2 3 4 5
produce an average annual increase in snowfall between 4% and 13%, though more
research is needed to improve these estimates. Peer reviewed research documenting 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural shift
increased snowfall or runoff from cloud seeding is minimal.
Key Facts and Insights Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5

n Ongoing Research – Several experiments have shown cloud seeding increases
precipitation in wintertime storm systems. However, the ability to measure runoff
resulting from cloud seeding is low and objective evaluations on non-randomized
operational projects continue to be challenging. Policy Options and Tradeoffs
n Ground and aircraft-based Seeding – Wintertime cloud seeding projects use The primary limitation to expanding
aircraft and ground-based systems that disperse silver iodide to seed clouds. cloud seeding in Utah is budgetary
constraints and program evaluation.
n Low State Investment – Utah’s budget for cloud seeding remains relatively low
With additional funding, the state
compared to other Mountain West states. Local entities typically pay operational
could consider the following options.
costs (most often water conservation districts).
Policy Options
- Sponsor cloud seeding programs
Figure 18:
directly
Cloud Seeding Cloud Seeding - Target new mountain ranges
Generators and Generators 2021
- Expand cloud seeding beyond what
Program Areas Cloud Seeding local entities can support
Expansion Areas
- Improve methods for evaluation of
Current Cloud
cloud seeding programs
Seeding Areas
Tradeoffs
Ogden - Expenditure of public funds on a
Area policy which yields an indefinite
water quantity.
- Public perception of cloud seeding
- Public concerns of safety
For relevant research on cloud seeding,

please see the following:
Provo
Area
• Rauber, M. et al. (2019). Wintertime
Orographic Cloud Seeding – A Review.
Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 58 (2117-2140). https://doi.
org/10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0341.1
• Friedrich, K. et al. (2019). Quantifying
snowfall from orographic cloud seeding.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 117(5190-5195). https://doi.
Esri, CGIAR, USGS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land
Management, EPA, NPS org/10.1073/pnas.1917204117

Raise and Lower the Causeway Berm
Raising the adaptive management berm at the Union Pacific Railroad Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
causeway breach between the North and South Arms of Great Salt Lake
Benefits Low High
would effectively act as a dam. This would keep freshwater inflows of the Water brought to the lake 1 2 3 4 5
major tributaries in the South Arm where salinity levels are reaching a Air quality improvements 1 2 3 4 5
Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
critical threshold.
Costs, Challenges,
Summary and Adaptations Low High
The Union Pacific Railroad causeway bisects GSL into the North and South arms. A breach Agriculture changes 1 2 3 4 5
in the causeway allows water interchange between the two arms and can be altered by the Extractive industry changes 1 2 3 4 5
adaptive management berm that slows flows between the arms. Raising the elevation of Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
the adaptive management berm above the current surface elevation of GSL will effectively Feasibility Low High
act as a dam between the two arms. By restricting flows between the two arms, the Speed of implementation 1 2 3 4 5
elevation of the South Arm rise and salinity will be reduced. This solution will amplify the Legal/regulatory feasibility 1 2 3 4 5
benefits of conservation efforts, water purchases, and other methods for the South Arm. Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
Key Facts and Insights Lake Level Modelling

n Modifying the Berm – Current work is underway to develop a decision-tree to assess The Great Salt Lake Integrated Model
the timing of raising and lowering the berm. Raising the berm addresses critical used by the Utah Division of Water
salinity concerns in the South Arm and is intended to be a short-term solution. Resources allows for simulation of berm
scenarios. Different berm elevations
n Funding – An appropriation made in 2021 allows immediate implementation of
(4,187.0 ft., 4190.5 ft., and 4,290.0
the project.
ft.) were analyzed along with three
n Salinity Advisory Committee – On January 19th, 2023, the Salinity Advisory different lake inflow scenarios (low,
Committee recommended adaptive action, including raising the top level of the medium, and high). For the lowest
control berm, be taken to reduce the trajectory of salinity in the South Arm while inflows simulated, the impacts of
lake levels are low (below 4,192 feet). It was recommended that this action is taken berm closure are minimal, indicating
as soon as practicable with consideration of lake dynamics. the importance of other options
n All major inflows are in the South Arm – Freshwater inflows from major tributaries for increasing inflows to the lake in
flow into the South Arm, creating a major salinity difference between the two arms. conjunction with raising the berm.
n North Arm considerations – The North Arm of GSL does not support an ecosystem
dependent on specific salinity levels. The North Arm also has a thick salt crust that
is not as prone to erosion and is less likely to contribute to poor air quality than
exposed lakebed in the South Arm.
Table 5: Lake Elevation (ft.) Given Different Inflow and Berm Figure 19: South Arm Water Surface Elevation with Berm
Elevation Scenarios Raised to 4,190.5 ft.
4,200
Water Surface Elevation (ft.)
Water Surface Berm Elevation 4,187 ft. Berm Elevation 4,192 ft.
4,198
Elevation (ft.) South Arm North Arm South Arm North Arm 4,196
4,194
High Inflow 4,190.3 4,189.7 4,191.6 4,187.5 4,192
1 Year
4,190 4,192 ft. Berm

Medium Inflow 4,188.9 4,188.3 4,189.9 4,186.7
4,188
Low Inflow 4,187.3 4,186.8 4,187.7 4,186.1 Current Berm
4,186
High Inflow 4,191.2 4,190.8 4,192.4 4,188.9 4,184
3 Years
4,182
Medium Inflow 4,188.7 4,188.0 4,190.2 4,185.7
4,180
Low Inflow 4,185.9 4,184.7 4,186.4 4,184.0 0 12 24 36 48 60
High Inflow 4,192.1 4,191.6 4,192.7 4,190.7 Months Since the Beginning of Simulation
5 Years
Medium Inflow 4,188.6 4,187.8 4,190.2 4,185.2 Low Inflow - 4,187 ft. Berm Low Inflow - 4,192 ft. Berm
Low Inflow 4,184.8 4,182.5 4,185.0 4,182.2 Medium Inflow - 4,187 f.t Berm Medium Inflow - 4,192 ft. Berm
Note: Inflow scenarios in this table are different from the Lake Elevation Target section. High Inflow - 4,187 ft. Berm High Inflow - 4,192 ft. Berm
Low Inflow = 800 KAF, Medium Inflow = 1,800 KAF, and High Inflow = 2,700 KAF.
Source: Great Salt Lake Integrated Model simulations, Utah Division of Water Resources, 2023 Source: Great Salt Lake Integrated Model simulations, Utah Division of Water Resources, 2023

Mitigate Dust Emission Hotspots
Implementing dust control measures on exposed portions of the Great Expert Assessment Scorecard Results
Salt Lake lakebed would reduce the impacts of dust on human health.
Benefits Low High
Dust plumes from the Great Salt Lake lakebed have increased in frequency and severity as Biological health 1 2 3 4 5
the lake has receded. These dust episodes pose an immediate health risk to all residents Costs, Challenges,
along the Wasatch Front due to inhalation of particulate matter (i.e., PM10) and high and Adaptations Low High
concentrations of arsenic, which could increase the risk of certain cancers. Dust hotspots Financial cost* 1 2 3 4 5
exist in all four quadrants of the lake and represent about 9% of the exposed lakebed. Over
time, the fraction of the lakebed capable of producing dust will increase as the protective Cultural shift 1 2 3 4 5
surface crust that formed as the lake receded gradually erodes.
n Dust Hotspots – The number of dust hotspots is linearly related to lake elevation and *Cost is dependent upon chosen dust
mitigation technique
will decrease by approximately 6.4% per foot of lake-level rise. 50% of the dust hotspots Source: Great Salt Lake Strike Team
occur at elevations below 4,198 feet. 80% occur at elevations below 4,202 ft.
n Air Quality Linkages – Dust from GSL will likely lead to violations of the National Policy Options
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the U.S. EPA. Designation as
Dust control measures (DCMs) have
non-attainment for PM10 will trigger a mandatory and costly State Implementation
been studied extensively at Owens
Plan (SIP).
(Dry) Lake. DCMs mitigate dust by 1)
n Human Health Linkages – Dust from GSL can adversely impact human health due physically covering the dust hotspots
to high PM10 concentrations (acute exposure risk) and high arsenic concentrations in with water or gravel, 2) treating the
the dust (chronic exposure risk). surface to strengthen the protective
surface crust, and 3) installing
n Snowpack Linkages – A shrinking GSL produces less lake-effect snow and increases
vegetation or structures to reduce wind
the dust deposited on the snowpack. The dust significantly darkens the snow,
speeds near the surface of the lakebed.
increasing the spring melt rate of the snowpack by several weeks.
Specific DCMs that could be applied to
n Implementing Dust Control Measures is Expensive - The Los Angeles Department GSL include, but are not limited to:
of Water and Power has spent more than $2.5 billion on federally-mandated dust – Raising the water levels for the lake as
mitigation efforts at Owens (Dry) Lake due to violations of the NAAQS for PM10. a whole
Great Salt Lake is 15 times larger than Owens lake. – Strategically raising the water levels in
Farmington and Bear River Bays using
Figure 20: Great Salt Lake Dust "Hot Spot" Elevation Survey Extrapolated for berms
– Levelized flooding of the worst dust
Current Lake Level
emission areas
Current Lake Level – Applying crushed gravel to the worst
Fraction of "Hot Spots"Covered by Water
100%
dust emission areas
90% Extrapolated Data Based
Upon 2016-2018 Survey – Strategic seasonal flooding to reform
80% 80% Mitigation
70% surface crusts
at 4202.2 ft.
60% – Applying a surface crust-generating
50% 50% Mitigation solution using aircraft on a seasonal
40% at 4197.6 ft. basis
30% – Installing managed vegetation
20% systems (e.g., drip irrigation systems)
10% – Installing physical barriers
0% such as snow fences
4,188 4,190 4,192 4,194 4,196 4,198 4,200 4,202 4,204 4,206 4,208
GSL Elevation (ft.) - Ongoing mitigation costs
- No improvements for Great Salt Lake
Note: Utilizing DCMs other than water requires capital costs of $20 - $30M per mi2 with additional ongoing maintenance ecosystems, brine shrimp, or mineral
costs of $0.2 - $0.5M per mi2 per year. The surface area of current dust hotspots exceeds 75 mi2 but could increase to 200
mi2 in a decade as the protective surface crusts begin to erode.
extraction.
Source: Analysis by Kevin Perry, 2022

Recommendations
The Great Salt Lake Strike Team supports the data and research needs of state
decision-makers. The Strike Team does not advocate for specific policy positions but
does respond to requests to share technical expertise and evidence-based assessment.
The governor and Legislature have requested recommendations from the Strike Team to inform
state actions in the near term. Consistent with this approach, the Strike Team offers six specific
recommendations for gubernatorial and legislative support in the coming year.
1. Leverage wet years. The current wet year offers a significant opportunity to make progress
on the lake elevation. Do not miss this opportunity.
2. Set a lake elevation range goal. Adopt a lake elevation target level range based on
analysis prepared by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. Preliminary
analysis suggests a range in the 4,198-4,205-feet elevation level will maximize benefits
across many factors. Meeting this goal requires policymakers to focus on inflows that both
fill and maintain targeted elevation ranges.
3. Invest in conservation. Conservation to increase the inflows to, or decrease withdrawals

from, Great Salt Lake should be implemented to stop the decline in lake levels and
initiate restoration.
4. Invest in water monitoring and modeling. Additional investment in water intelligence

will allow the state to be more responsive and effective to challenges. The Strike Team
suggests a more than doubling of current state investments in accurate and timely
measurements and forecasts that will help inform and guide state decisions.
5. Develop a holistic long-term water resource plan for the watershed. The Utah
Department of Natural Resources is currently developing the Great Salt Lake Basin
Integrated Plan in partnership with water users, universities, environmental groups and
government agencies. When finished, it will provide actions to ensure a resilient water
supply for all water users in the basin, including Great Salt Lake. Resources should be
allocated to the effort and all should be encouraged to participate.
6. Request in-depth analyses on policy options. The governor and Legislature can direct
the Great Salt Lake Strike Team to further model specific policy options and parameters
to identify the most water-efficient, cost-effective, and high-return options. Analyses can
be completed and delivered by September 30, 2023, to allow for policy development
proposals before the 2024 General Legislative Session.
In addition to addressing the health of Great Salt Lake, these strategies and investments will
increase Utah’s capacity to address other statewide water challenges. The Strike Team’s model
partnership of Utah’ research universities and state agencies stands ready to support state
leaders in this important work.

Notes:

Photo credit: Kelly Hannah

GSL FinalAssess v27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSL FinalAssess v27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSL FinalAssess v27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Photo credit: Kelly Hannah

Great Salt Lake

Declining water levels threaten economic activity, public health, and

This approach aims to be impartial, data-informed, and solution-oriented. The peer-reviewed

William Anderegg Craig Buttars Joel Ferry

Natalie Gochnour Kim Shelley Brian Steed

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 1

CO-CHAIRS TEAM MEMBERS

William Anderegg Leila Ahmadi Bethany Neilson

2 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

Data and Insights Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Target Lake Elevation Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 3

The Strike Team offers six major insights and recommendations

smaller contributing factors include

decreasing. This decrease reflects 2500

4 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

• Optimize municipal and Year

4,19310precipitation will likely be overwhelmed by increases

mineral extraction 20 Middle half

150 +11°F Trend

• Mitigate dust transmission 30 Range

lake is a fundamental policy lever 20 Middle half

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 5

Taylor R. Randall, President Noelle E. Cockett, President

6 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

Figure 1: Average Annual Elevation of Great Salt Lake, 1903–2022

Contemporary Record High Average Record Low

1987 1995 2022

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 7

8 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

INSIGHTS: NATURAL FLOW

Figure 3: Natural Flow in the Contemporary Period, 1989-2020

0 Bear River Jordan River Weber River West Desert

Average Natural Flow by Basin, 1989-2018

49.9 24.5% 19.8% 5.8%

Source: Great Salt Lake Water Budget, Utah Division of49.9

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 9

Figure 4: Bear River Annual Streamflow, 1903-2022

1000 Contemporary Period

10 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

INSIGHTS: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Figure 7: Estimated Contribution of Impacts on Current Record Low Elevation

Direct Evaporation from Climate Warming

Natural Variability (Precipitation and Runoff Efficiency)

Policy Lever Natural and Human Consumptive Use

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 11

12 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

Figure 9: Human Water Depletion by Type in the Contemporary Period, 1989-2020

Average Depletion (KAF/year)

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 13

Average Depletion (KAF/year)

14 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment

Figure 11: Projected Trends in Temperature, Precipitation, and Evaporation in the

Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment 15

planning. 4,195 ft. 629-1,213 270-854 127-711 95-679

• Average Streamflow – The contemporary average inflows

16 Great Salt Lake Policy Assessment