We Are 4% of the Way to Saving the Great Salt Lake

Sarah Witney • 5/8/2025

Summary: I led a team analyzing Utah’s water efforts. We’re only 4% toward saving the Great Salt Lake. Tweaking existing programs and adding smart rules could fix that.

At the end of 2023, Representative Raymond Ward of the Utah House of Representatives came to me and a group of other environmental science students with a problem.

The Problem
The Great Salt Lake is collapsing—mostly because we’ve prioritized short-term human water use over long-term environmental and human needs. The main culprit? Man-made diversions. Without them, the lake’s water levels would still be close to what they were in the 1960s. Instead, it’s currently about five feet below where it should be.

Things got especially bad in 2022, when the lake dropped to 12 feet below its healthy level. As it shrinks, it kicks up dust—dust filled with heavy metals and naturally occurring arsenic. That means big health risks for people nearby.

In response to dire scientific warnings in late 2022 that the lake could completely dry up, the legislature introduced water conservation programs—many market-based. But most lacked a critical element: they didn’t measure how much water was actually saved or whether that water made it to the lake.

Where We Are Now
By 2025, despite heavy rains and several policy efforts, the lake remains dangerously low—five feet below the bare minimum. While many conservation programs were launched, across the board, they failed to track how much water was saved or where that water ended up. For all we know, some of the programs may have inadvertently increased water use rather than reduced it.

Environmental Background
To understand why this happened, here’s some context. In the dry Western U.S., early settlers established a water rights system that rewarded full usage and penalized conservation. This system, based on “first-in-time, first-in-right,” gives priority to the oldest rights—especially in dry years—discouraging efforts to use less. This system was based on the desire to show appreciation for natural resources, which early settlers believed were granted by God, by putting it to good use. However, over the years, it shifted to be an unhealthy drain on the ecosystem.

Recent legal changes now allow people to lease unused water without risking their rights, including for environmental uses like helping the lake. However, these mechanisms don’t guarantee that water actually reaches the lake; it can still be diverted or leased elsewhere.

The Great Salt Lake is essential to Utah's economy, supporting industries like brine shrimp, mineral extraction, and skiing. It also protects public health by preventing toxic dust from blowing across communities. A healthy lake sits around 4200 feet above sea level. It’s fed by the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers, plus some groundwater—but much of that water is diverted for human use. While climate change plays a role, human diversion is the bigger factor long-term. Lower lake levels disrupt the economy, ecology, recreation, and public health.

How I Got Involved
To address this, Rep. Ward ran a bill to require the state to report on how much water was saved and where it went. The bill didn’t pass—so we were left in the dark again.

At that point, I took up the project. In collaboration with Rep. Ward, leading ecologists, program managers, and academic experts, I created a report tracking water saved, where it went, and other critical metrics like cost, delivery timeline, and policy recommendations.

Because the state doesn’t measure exact water amounts, we relied on expert estimates. I compiled a list of over 500 experts in water management, lake ecology, and related fields—spanning conservation programs, government, academia, the private sector, nonprofits, and more. From that list, we curated 12 leaders willing to share detailed estimates with us.

What We Found
Experts shared detailed numeric and written input. A few core themes emerged:

• We don’t measure how much water actually reaches the lake.

• Saved water often gets used elsewhere—sometimes for other crops, for example—rather than going to the lake.

• Political will is inconsistent. Wet years make us complacent. This is verified by the fact that, in 2025, only one Great Salt Lake–related bill passed.

These factors combine to create a stark reality: based on expert estimates, we are only 4% of the way to restoring the lake to a healthy level by 2054—a whole 30 years from now. Even settling for a 45% chance of saving the lake would still leave us only 5% of the way there. It’s clear that significant action is needed—not just to conserve water, but to ensure it actually reaches the lake.

Expert Recommendations
To improve our lake response, experts consistently recommended the following:

1. We need broad support.
Buy-in is crucial—from agriculture (which uses the most water), from policymakers (who craft laws and incentives), and from those responsible for enforcement. Without alignment across these groups, conservation efforts won’t last.

2. We need to measure progress.
Right now, we don’t track how much water is saved or where it ends up. We also lack solid data to assess the effectivness of programs definitively.

3. Saved water needs to reach the lake.
Many programs save water only for it to be redirected—often to more farming and other human consumptive uses. Water banking is underutilized, and programs aimed at buying water rights lack sufficient funding. Most policies still prioritize human use, making it difficult to focus on the lake.

4. Politics are messy.
Utah’s water politics are highly polarized. Also, wet years create a false sense of security, and many lawmakers avoid bold action due to political risk.

Policy Pathways: What Are Our Options?
We considered several paths forward and evaluated them for impact, feasibility, and cost.

Option 1: Market-Based Approaches
These include grants, tax breaks, and paying people to use less water or remove grass. They’re popular and politically safe, but we’ve already tried many of them. While they reduce water use on paper, the saved water often doesn’t make it to the lake. These programs also tend to be expensive.

Option 2: Regulatory Approaches
This would include stricter limits, new laws, or penalties. These could ensure saved water reaches the lake and improve accountability across sectors. But regulations are unpopular and hard to enforce—especially in rural or agricultural regions where water violations—especially by friends and family of the ones enforcing them—often go unreported, according to one well-connected expert in a water district.

Option 3: A Hybrid Approach
This combines existing voluntary programs with smarter regulations. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel—it fixes what’s already there. While this approach can be complex, it may be the most realistic and effective path forward.

Our Recommendation: A Hybrid Legislative Package
I and my collaborators believe that a single, clear, and practical solution would fare better than many scattered ideas. Too many options can lead to paralysis, and less disruptive regulations are more likely to pass. The best path is a bundled legislative package—a modern-day “New Deal” for the lake. Brigham Daniels, a legal scholar and important collaborator on this project, called this a “silver slug”: not a single magic fix, but a collection of targeted reforms working together.

Here’s what that could include:

• Fix the Agricultural Water Optimization Program (AWOP):
  Currently, farmers can grow more crops using the water they saved. We propose shifting that slightly. Instead, let them lease or sell their saved water to make a profit—but not use the water to expand. This rewards farmers financially and helps water reach the lake.

• Make Water Banking Actually Work:
  Utah has a water banking framework, but it’s barely used. We can expand awareness and access so every water right holder can participate. If it requires funding, it’s a worthwhile investment.

• Add a “River Tax” to Water Trades:
  Borrowing from Oregon, we could require a small cut of every water trade to stay in the original river or stream. That steady flow helps feed the Lake naturally. 

• Empower the Watershed Enhancement Trust (WET):
  Boost funding to the WET so it can actively purchase water through banks and ensure it reaches the lake. This gives someone actual responsibility for making change happen.

• Pay Farmers to Temporarily Stop Growing Thirsty Crops:
  Targeted, compensated fallowing—especially for water-hungry crops like alfalfa—could save up to 471,000 acre-feet of water annually. Although farmer resistance is commonly assumed, we lack data to back this up, meaning that farmers may be much more open to the idea than usually believed. We should either pilot a fallowing program or invest in research to learn what they’d support, emphasizing fair compensation in every instance.
  
  

Why This Could Work
This strategy meets key goals:

• It builds on existing structures.

• It empowers rather than penalizes farmers.

• It ensures saved water actually reaches the lake.

The Great Salt Lake is more than a body of water—it’s essential to Utah’s health, economy, and way of life. We’ve gone far past the point of half-measures. This hybrid approach won’t fix everything overnight, but it’s a practical, impactful step toward securing the water the lake—and everyone who depends on it—urgently needs.

For more information or any questions, please reach out to Sarah Witney at sarahwitney23@gmail.com. A public report and press release are forthcoming and will be mentioned in a future blog post—keep an eye out!