The state needs to align their priorities and actions to save Great Salt Lake
Just last week, Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah leaders stood with business executives and philanthropists to announce a $200 million initiative to save the Great Salt Lake. The governor called the lake “part of the soul of Utah.”
In the past, Governor Cox has expressed dismay about “doom and gloom” from the high schoolers he’s met about Great Salt Lake. He said, “When we tell people that the sky is falling, what most people do is, they give up. … If the Great Salt Lake is already done, if it’s already dried up, we’re all going to die from toxic dust, then I’m just going to go ahead and water my lawn.” He also called a target level for the lake a “dumb thing.”
Governor Cox isn’t the only one in the state whose stance on Great Salt Lake hasn’t seemed serious enough to address the problems, and whose actions haven’t matched their spoken intent. Behind the scenes, key legislators are still squirreling away taxpayer money to fund the Bear River Development Project, which, by itself, would be a catastrophic blow to the lake because the Bear River is its largest tributary. Meanwhile, the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA) is hell bent on force feeding the Wasatch Front multiple new inland ports, totaling over 50,000 acres, most of which are on top of, or right next door to the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake wetlands. We cannot save the Great Salt Lake ecosystem if we amputate its wetlands. UIPA claims their ports will not destroy wetlands and that their opponents who dispute those claims, i.e. Stop the Polluting Port Coalition and many others are being dishonest with the public. To claim that smothering wetlands with roads, parking lots, massive warehouses, tens of thousands of diesel trucks, train tracks and a sea of asphalt and cement, miraculously doesn’t destroy them, is a fairy tale with an ugly, polluting ever after.
Taken together, these examples highlight a troubling pattern: while state leaders talk about saving the Great Salt Lake, even securing hundreds of millions in funding and declaring the lake central to Utah’s identity, their actions often tell a different story. From dismissing firm recovery targets to doubling down on projects that siphon water and pave over wetlands, the state’s record shows a lack of urgency and consistency. That history raises serious questions about whether these same leaders are the best stewards of new funding efforts.