Content uploaded by Sarah E. Null
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah E. Null on Jan 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Water Development, Consumptive Water Uses,
and the Great Salt Lake
1Sarah E. Null* and 1Wayne A. Wurtsbaugh
1Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 84322
*Correspondence: Sarah E. Null (sarah.null@usu.edu)
Abstract Utah’s Great Salt Lake covers 5500 km2 (2100 mi2) at its unimpacted elevation
and is the eighth largest saline lake in the world. Its highly productive food web supports
millions of migratory birds and the economic value of the lake is estimate at $1.5 billion in
2019 U.S. dollars. Droughts and wet cycles have caused huge fluctuations in lake level, area
and salinities, and this variation has masked anthropogenic impacts. Recent work, however,
has determined that consumptive water uses in the watershed have depleted inflows by ap-
proximately 39%, with 63% used by agriculture, 11% by cities, 13% by solar ponds, and 13%
by other uses. This has lowered the lake by 3.4 m, decreased its area by 51%, and reduced its
volume by 64%. Projected water development of the lake’s primary tributary could lower the
lake approximately 1.5 m more. Climate change, to date, has not noticeably influenced lake
level. Per-capita water use in Utah is the second highest in the nation and is 2.6-fold higher
than other semi-arid nations. Potential solutions exist to reduce consumptive water uses and
stabilize or increase Great Salt Lake water level. Water conservation is likely the most eco-
nomical solution, with permanently mandated water cutbacks costing $14 – 96 million ($5 to
$32 per person). Water conservation paired with water markets reduce costs further, costing
between $2 to $16 per person. Descriptions of potential solutions to reduce consumptive wa-
ter uses and stabilize Great Salt lake level are a starting point to encourage discussion. Strat-
egies have yet to be prioritized or thoroughly evaluated. Quantifying water diversions from
rivers that feed Great Salt Lake and consumptive water uses will allow Utahns to make de-
fensible decisions to manage water resources and the lake’s biology for long term ecological,
recreational, and economic benefit.
Keywords: Great Salt Lake; water level; lake elevation; depletion; terminal lake; salinity;
Utah
1 Introduction
Utah’s Great Salt Lake is the eighth largest terminal lake in the world and is one of
Utah’s most recognizable features. It supports a highly productive food web with microbial
mats, phytoplankton, and macroinvertebrates (Belovsky et al., 2011; Pace et al., 2016), pro-
vides wetland habitat for millions of migratory birds (Aldrich and Paul, 2002; Downard et al.
2014), and substantially contributes to the state economy through mineral extraction, com-
mercial brine shrimp harvest, and recreation (Bioeconomics Inc, 2012). However, water di-
versions and consumptive water uses from rivers that feed Great Salt lake have reduced the
lake level by about 3.4 m (11 ft) and lake area by over 50% Planned development of water
2
supplies in the watershed threaten to lower the lake further and reduce its ecological, cultural
and economic value (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017).
Diking of the shallow system (mean depth 4.5 m) and the disproportionate inflow of
freshwater into some sections has resulted in four bays with salinities ranging from freshwa-
ter to 34%. These salinity regimes, in turn, support very different biological communities,
ranging from freshwater fishes and invertebrates of the estuarine-line bays, to brine shrimp,
and to only halo-tolerant Archaea, bacteria and some algae in the most saline area.
Lake elevation affects the biology of Great Salt Lake by influencing salinity, nutri-
ents, water temperature, depth, lake habitat area, and exposed lakebed (Barrett and Belovsky
2020). However, to understand Great Salt Lake’s water level, it is necessary to understand
the hydrology of the lake and upstream water uses that reduce streamflow to the lake and thus
alter lake levels. Here we summarize the effects on Great Salt Lake elevation from water de-
velopment, diversions, and consumptive uses. We include long-term records of streamflows
to Great Salt Lake to demonstrate that lake level decline is primarily from water development
and consumptive uses. We discuss how Great Salt Lake elevation decline affects biology of
Great Salt Lake and its surrounding wetlands. The chapter ends with a discussion of the eco-
nomic benefits from saline lakes, opportunities to increase Great Salt Lake’s elevation, and
potential future water development changes along Utah’s Wasatch Front and their implica-
tions for lake level.
2 Great Salt Lake Hydrology
2.1. Water and Salt Balance
Streams flow into terminal lakes, but water leaves only through evaporation. In other
words, terminal lakes have no stream outlet. Major streams feeding Great Salt Lake include
the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers, which drain the west-slope of the Wasatch Range and
collectively make up approximately 65% of the lake’s inflows (Fig 1). Direct precipitation to
the lake surface accounts for about 33% of inflows, with the remainder from groundwater and
ephemeral West Desert streamflows (Bedford, 2005). Of the 65% of streamflow contribu-
tions to the lake, the Bear River provides 58%, the Weber River provides 15%, the Jordan
River provides 22%, and the remainder is from small streams.
3
Fig. 1. Great Salt Lake, watersheds, and major rivers, with recent high and low lake eleva-
tions
Prior to construction of a railroad causeway that divided the lake in half, the Great
Salt Lake was typical of a terminal lake, where dissolved salt concentration varied inversely
with lake volume (Loving et al., 2000). In 1959, Great Salt Lake was bisected by Union Pa-
cific Railroad Company’s railroad causeway, separating the lake into the north arm (Gun-
nison Bay) and the south arm (Gilbert Bay) (Fig. 1). The exchange of water and salt between
the north and south arms of the lake was forever altered. Additional causeways have further
divided the lake, with an automobile causeway to Antelope Island partially separating Farm-
ington Bay from Gilbert Bay, and a salt flume partially restricting interchange between Bear
River Bay and Gilbert Bay.
4
The Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers flow into the south arm (Gilbert Bay), providing
freshwater to the south arm of the lake and keeping the surface elevation approximately 0.27
m higher than the north arm (Mohammed and Tarboton, 2012) (Fig 1). Surface inflow to the
north arm is nearly all saline water from the south arm. The south arm has lower salinity
(typically 8-17%) and higher biodiversity since it receives nearly all of the streamflow. With
little fresh water, but high evaporation, the north arm is often completely saturated with salt
(~27%) (Johnson et al. In Press).
Some water and salt flows through the railroad causeway at a breach and through the
causeway fill. Two rectangular culverts were originally built for boater access between the
north and sourth arms of the lake. They provided bi-directional flow between the north and
south arms of the lake, but were closed in 2012 and 2013 because they were subsiding into
the soft lakebed sediment (White et al., 2015). After three years of negligible water and salt
exchange, Union Pacific breached the causeway in 2016, which allowed water exchange be-
tween the north and south arms of Great Salt Lake. This brought the elevations of the north
and south arms closer to each other. Nevertheless, elevation and salinity differences between
the north and south arms remain, with surface flows moving less-salty water from the south
arm into the north arm. However, there is a counter-current flow near the lakebed, as very
dense, saline water moves from the north to the south arm (Fig. 2). This dense water does not
mix readily with the more buoyant water in the south arm, creating a deep brine layer, or
monimolimnion. Decomposition of organic matter in this layer makes it anoxic with high
concentrations of toxic hydrogen sulfide. Brine shrimp and brine flies cannot survive in this
layer. Wind events create turbulence that erodes the deep brine layer, bringing its volume
into equilibrium with the inflowing brine from the north. Jones and Wurtsbaugh (2014)
roughly estimated that 40% of the deep brine layer is entrained into the surface layer each
year.
Fig. 2. Bi-directional water and salt transport between the south and north arms of Great Salt
Lake. At most lake levels, evaporation brings the north arm to saturation and NaCl precipi-
tates to the bottom. The deep density flow from the north to the south arm creats a semi-sta-
ble deep brine layer at a depth of about 6 m. Wind mixing entrains a portion of this layer into
the surface layer of the south arm.
2.2. Fluctuating Lake Levels Through Time
Lakes are integrators of droughts, floods, land use, and water use (Schindler, 2009), so
the elevation of Great Salt Lake varies through time (Baxter and Butler 2020) (Fig. 3). Rec-
orded lake elevations have ranged by over 6 m (20’) in the past 170 years, with lower lake el-
evations approximately halving lake volume and area (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017) (Fig 1). The
shallow bays on the east shore of the lake are impacted even more by water diversions and
5
drought. In 2016, when the lake reached its lowest recorded elevation, about 75% of Bear
River Bay and Farmington Bay were dry. These bays have fresher water than the north and
south arms, so low water levels greatly reduce important bird habitat and the biodiversity of
the lake (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017).
Fig. 3. Great Salt Lake south arm elevation (USGS gage 10010000 – Great Salt Lake at Sal-
tair Boat Harbor). If the north arm is included, the whole lake reached its lowest elevation in
2016 (1277.5 m; 4191.2 ft.). South arm elevation was artificially high in 2016 because cause-
way culverts were closed, allowing for negligible water exchange between the north and
south arms.
2.3. Constant River Flows Through Time
Despite droughts and pluvials that cause marked changes in lake levels, there has not
been a significant long-term streamflow trend in the measured record from watersheds that
drain to Great Salt Lake (Fig. 4). In fact, a tree-ring reconstruction of streamflow identified
medieval droughts that persisted for decades, but identified no long-term, climate-driven
changes to precipitation or streamflows in the past 150 years (DeRose et al., 2015). Gillies et
al. (2012) documented an overall slight increase in precipitation in Utah over the 1950-2003
period. Consequently, papers that attribute Great Salt Lake decline to climate change have
been debunked (Wine et al., 2019).
6
Fig. 4. Estimated streamflows in Great Salt Lake headwater streams upstream of diversions.
Flows in the Bear River are based on tree-ring reconstructions (figure reprinted from
Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017).
3 Water Development and Consumptive Water Uses
While Great Salt Lake elevation responds to precipitation changes from droughts and
floods, those natural events do not have a persistent trend on lake elevation. On the contrary,
Great Salt Lake decline has coincided with water development since pioneers inhabited Salt
Lake Valley and the Wasatch Front. Utah had a pronounced dam-building era from the
1930s to the 1990s (Fig. 5), which largely coincided with water development throughout the
American West (Reisner, 1993). Today, Utah has an elaborate system of water infrastructure
(Fig. 6), including major federal projects like the Central Utah Project that transfers water
from the Colorado Basin to the Salt Lake Watershed, the Weber River Project, and the Provo
River Project. In addition to reservoirs, pipelines, and canals, pumps and diversion structures
take water directly from rivers to irrigate fields.
Fig. 5. Cumulative reservoir capacity in the Bear, Weber, and Jordan watersheds, 1895 –
2019 (data from National Atlas 2006).
7
Fig. 6. Utah watersheds and water infrastructure.
Diversions re-direct water away from streams to other uses, usually agricultural or ur-
ban uses. However, some diverted water eventually finds its way back to the river down-
stream and flows to the Great Salt Lake. A small but growing literature has explored water
pathways from inefficient irrigated distribution systems (Jensen 2007; Beolens and Vos
2010). This water is not truly ‘lost’ from the system if it eventually returns to downstream
ground and surface water bodies. True consumptive water uses, sometimes called depletions,
include water that is consumed, evaporated, or transpirated – water that will not return to
Great Salt Lake or the streams that feed it. It is consumptive water uses that are important for
considering relationships between water development, water use, and Great Salt Lake eleva-
tion decline.
Consumptive water uses were calculated by the Utah Division of Water Resources
since 1847, when record-keeping began in this area (Wurtsbaugh et al. 2017). Consumptive
water use is split among multiple groups. Irrigated agriculture uses 63% of water, mineral
extraction from Great Salt Lake uses 13%, cities and industry use 11%, impounded wetlands
use 10%, and evaporation from reservoirs use 3% of water (Fig 7a) (Wurtsbaugh et al. 2017).
Hydrologic modeling has shown that if no diversions or consumptive water extractions had
8
occurred, then Great Salt Lake level would be 3.4 m (11 ft.) higher than it is today (Fig 7b).
Overall, water development and consumptive uses of water have reduced streamflows by
39% (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017). Consumptive water uses have decreased the area of the lake
by 51% and lake volume by 64%.
Fig. 7. A) Estimated consumptive water use by user group from 1850 to 2013. B) Measured
USGS lake level (red) and modeled lake level had consumptive water uses not occurred
(green) (figure modified from Wine et al., 2019).
Variable lake elevations, caused by water depletions, droughts, pluvials and salt ex-
traction, have had a large effect on the salinity of Great Salt Lake. The lake contained ap-
proximately 5 billion metric tonnes of salt. During an unusually wet cycle in the mid-1980s,
the rising lake level threatened infrastructure encroaching around the shoreline, and a pump-
ing project was undertaken to move water to the desert west of the lake. Along with the wa-
ter, approximately 0.5 billion tonnes of salt were deposited in the west desert. Despite an in-
vestment of $72 million, the pumps were only used for about 24 months until June 1989
because the pluvial ended, naturally lowering the lake (White et al. 2015).
The natural wet and dry cycles have a large influence on the salinity. When the lake
reached a high level in in 1985, salinities in the south arm decreased to 5.8%. In contrast,
when the lake reached it’s near-lowest level in 1961, salts were concentrated to 28%.
4 Great Salt Lake Elevation and Biology
4.1. Habitat Connectivity with Bays and Wetlands
9
Great Salt Lake elevation affects lake and wetland biology (Fig. 8.) Farmington and
Bear River Bays, the large bays on the east side of the lake, function as estuaries, with salin-
ity gradients from freshwater near inflows, to hypersaline conditions near their connections
with Gilbert Bay. Salinties also vary greatly with droughts and pluvials (Wurtsbaugh et al.
2012). Increasing salinities reduce biodiversity (Hammer 1986), but overall, the bays are
highly productive and diverse. Under hypersaline conditions, the invertebrate community is
dominated by brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) and brine flies (Ephydra spp.). As salini-
ties drop below 6-7%, macroinvertebrates like corixids (water boatmen) can flourish and prey
on brine shrimp, and the community becomes dominated by cladocerans, copepods and chi-
ronomids in the benthic zone. Near river inflows the bays contain a variety of fish species
(Armstrong and Wurtsbaugh In Press 2019). Both bays are important habitat for shorebirds,
migratory waterfowl, and other species (Paul and Manning 2002; Wurtsbaugh 2018), and wa-
terfowl hunting is an important component of the $136 million spent on recreation at the lake
(Bioeconomics 2012; Aldrich and Paul 2002).
Fig. 8. General relationships between Great Salt Lake elevation and biological parameters
(UDNR FFSL, 2013)
Due to water use and drought, over 75% of Farmington and Bear River Bays lake bot-
toms have been exposed in recent years, causing vast playas that are a source of dust for the
millions of residents along the Wasatch Front (Hahnenberger and Nicoll 2014; Perry et al. In
Press 2019). This is especially important for Bear River Bay, where low water levels in 2018
resulted in a 15 km dry section between it and Gilbert Bay (Fig. 9).
10
Fig. 9. Abandoned sampling device on the dessicated portion of Bear River Bay caused by
water use and drought. Photo: Sept. 2019 when over 150 km2 of the bay was dry.
4.2. Salinity and Great Salt Lake Biota
Salinity has an inverse relationship with lake level, so as streamflows decrease, salin-
ity increases (Fig. 10). Microbial mats surround the perimeter of Great Salt Lake and are sen-
sitive to increased salinity. They contribute to the formation of microbialites, which develop
when cyanobacteria and periphytic algae reduce the pH and cause limestone structures to
form (Boyd and Lindsay 2020). They are nearly the only solid substrate in the lake, and as
such, are important habitat for larval brine flies (Ephydra spp.) that feed on the microbial
community (Pace et al., 2016; Wurtsbaugh et al. 2011; Collins 1980). Ongoing research is
investigating the salinity thresholds of Great Salt Lake microbial mats and the health of mi-
crobiolites.
Fig. 10. Estimated whole lake elevations and salinities if Great Salt had not been divided by
a railroad causeway. Derived from Null et al. 2013.
When the north arm is saturated, conditions are intolerable for most phytoplankton
and macroinvertebrates; however, a diversity of bacteria and Archaea thrive in the hyper-
saline water (Baxter and Zalar, 2019; Dalmet et al. 2020).
The moderate salinity of the south arm, which averages 13%, supports large popula-
tions of macroinvertebrates like brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) and brine fly (Ephydra
cinera). When Great Salt Lake salinity exceeds approximately 12%, brine shrimp become
11
physiologically stressed and their production begins to decline, but they are abundant at least
up to salinities of 20% (Barnes and Wurtsbaugh, 2015; Chapt.xxx). Brine flies have higher
salinity tolerances, but their growth also declines as salinities climb above 12%. Brine
shrimp and brine flies are the most important food resource for birds inhabiting the south
arm. Consequently, increasing salinity due to water development is a potential threat to the
Great Salt Lake food web. For example, 0.5 to 5.5 million Eared Grebes (Podiceps nigricol-
lis) migrate to Great Salt Lake to feed on brine shrimp and brine flies (Conover 2020;
Wurtsbaugh et al. 2011). While doubling their weight at Great Salt Lake, Eared Grebes lose
the ability to fly. Thus, if the lake became too saline and brine shrimp production were una-
ble to support the Eared Grebe population, they would be stranded and unable to fly to other
lakes with more abundant food sources.
The solid-fill railroad causeway complicates biological effects of salinity (Fig. 2). As
mentioned above, streams flow into the south arm, while the north arm typically remains sat-
urated. While unnatural, this maintains a range of salinities in GSL. Under normal condi-
tions salinities in the south arm support high densities of brine shrimp and brine flies, a diver-
sity of phytoplankton, and large populations of Eared Grebes, Phalaropes and other birds that
feed on the macroinvertebrates. During exceptionally wet years, such as those in the mid-
1980s, salinity in the south arm becomes too low (6%) to support brine shrimp. However,
during these events the salinity in the north arm declines to around 21% and high densities of
brine shrimp may be present (Wurtsbaugh and Berry 1990; Wurtsbaugh 1992). A range of
salinities also supports phytoplankton biodiversity, as phytoplankton species vary with salin-
ity though time and by lake depth (Belovsky et al., 2011).
4.3. Land-Bridges and Bird Rookeries
Lake islands begin to connect to land when lake levels drop below 4,202 feet. When
lake level falls to 4,195 feet, all islands are accessible by land or are separated only by shal-
low water (Fig. 7) (UDNR FFSL, 2013). When land-bridges form, predators and people can
reach bird rookeries. For example, a large population of White Pelicans (Pelecanus
erythrorhynchus) nest on Gunnison Island in the north arm of Great Salt Lake. Shallow,
wadeable water separates the island from the mainland at about 4,197 feet and a land-bridge
forms when lake levels drops below about 4,193 feet (UDNR FFSL, 2013). Great Salt Lake
level has consistently been lower than 4,197 feet since 2012 (Fig. 2), threatening one of the
largest White Pelican rookeries in North America (Kijowski et al. 2020).
4.4. Dust
Water development in the basin has exposed 2,100 km2 of lakebed. Dessicated saline
lake beds generate fine dust that harms human health (Griffin and Kellogg 2004) and agricul-
ture (Micklin 2007). Impacts have been well-studied at the Aral Sea in Central Asia where
12,700 km2 of lakebed was exposed due water development for agriculture (Crighton et al.
2011; Micklin 2007; Indoitu et al. 2015). In California’s small (285 km2) Owens Lake, dust
from the dried lakebed has exceeded US air quality standards for large particulate particles
(PM10) (Ramboll Environ US Corporation 2016) and allegedly increased the incidence of
lung infections, asthma and other respiratory diseases in the area (Kittle 2000). To mitigate
this dust problem the City of Los Angeles will spend $US 3.6 billion over 25 years (Ramboll
Environ US Corporation 2016). The area of exposed Great Salt Lake sediments is over 7
times that of Owens Lake, and the population near the Great Salt Lake is 85 times higher than
12
the sparse population near Owens Lake. Consequently, the potential impact of dust for the
Wasatch Front is of concern.
Studies on dust emissions from the exposed bed of Great Salt Lake are just beginning.
There are no epidemiological studies of the impact of playa dust on human health, but the po-
tential risks are high given results from the dried Aral Sea and Owens Lake. Hahnenberger
and Nicoll (2014) found that dust that originated from Great Salt Lake and reached Salt Lake
City was important, but other dust sources west of the city were problematic for the city more
frequently. A recent study by Perry et al. (In Press 2019) found that only about 9% of the
currently exposed lakebed is likely to produce dust during wind events. Surface crusts and
vegetation protect other areas from wind scour. However, Perry found that if all the protec-
tive crusts were destroyed by rains, natural erosion and human activities, 22% or 460 km2, of
the exposed lakebed would produce dust. Exposed lakebed area would increase or decrease
by 23-46% for each meter change in lake level, depending on bay. Consequently, any addi-
tional water development in the basin will increase the potential for dust production.
Perry also analyzed lakebed sediments for heavy metals and found that nine elements
exceeded the Residential Regional Screening Levels established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA 2019). Four of these elements (arsenic, lanthanum, lithium, and zir-
conium) had some values that exceeded the EPA’s Industrial Screening Levels. However,
mercury concentrations were well below either screening level. These metals will not neces-
sarily cause a health risk depending on exposure to the dust. Regardless, site-specific expo-
sure assessments should be done for the most problematic metals (Perry et al. In Press 2019).
5 Potential Solutions to Reduce Consumptive Water Uses and Stabilize Great Salt
Lake Level
Saline lakes are valuable. In 2012, Great Salt Lake generated approximately $1.3 bil-
lion of Utah’s gross domestic product (Bioeconomics Inc, 2012), or about $1.48 billion in
2019 dollars, assuming an average inflation rate of 1.62%. Of that amount, about 85.5% is
generated from mineral extraction, 10.3% from recreation, and 4.3% from the brine shrimp
industry (Bioeconomics Inc, 2012). In addition to the quantifiable economic value, Great
Salt Lake is immensely valuable ecologically for the millions of birds that utilize the ecosys-
tem. Conversely, the vast lakebed, when dried, becomes a source of dust that can cause
costly health problems for millions of residents in greater metropolitan Salt Lake City (Perry
et al. In Press 2019).
5.1. Mechanisms to Preserve Saline Lakes Globally
Elevations to maintain desired ecosystem services of Great Salt Lake have been esti-
mated (UDNR FFSL, 2013); however, minimum streamflow requirements or mechanisms to
maintain lake elevation have not been developed. A wide array of strategies have been im-
plemented to preserve other saline lakes (Table 1). For example, litigation-driven water con-
servation at Mono Lake (Hart 1996), water purchases from willing sellers at Walker Lake
(Elmore et al. 2016), and an inter-basin water transfer at the Dead Sea (Gavrieli et al. 2011)
are varied mechanisms to maintain lake elevations. For other saline lakes, substantial
changes have been tolerated to preserve a remnant of the lake or to maintain select ecosystem
services. Diking has reduced Aral Sea area to about 5% the size of the original lake, allowing
13
salinities to remain low enough to support a fish community (Micklin, 2016). Shallow flood-
ing, managed wetlands, and gravel mitigate for airborne dust at Owens dry lakebed (Gutrich
et al., 2016), while shallow flooding, ponds, and berms are used at Salton Sea to maintain
some minimal habitat and reduce airborne dust (California Natural Resources Agency, 2015).
Table 1. Mechanisms to restore saline lakes
Restoration
Goal
Mechanism
Lake (Location)
Increase lake
elevation
Litigation and water con-
servation
Mono Lake
(California, USA)
Environmental water pur-
chases
Walker Lake
(Nevada, USA)
Inter-basin water transfer
Dead Sea
(Jordan, Israel, and
Palestine)
Reduce lake
area
Diking
Aral Sea
(Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan)
Mitigate dust
and preserve
habitat
Shallow flooding, managed
wetlands, gravel cover
Owens Lake
(California, USA)
Habitat ponds, berms, shal-
low flooding
Salton Sea
(California, USA)
5.2. Opportunities to Preserve Great Salt Lake Level
Utah has over 3 million people with about 80% of the population living in the metro-
politan Wasatch Front (Fig 1). Utahns have the second highest per capita water use of the
United States at 1109 liters per person per day (293 gallons per person per day) (Office of the
Legislative Auditor General, 2015). Water use far exceeds that of other arid regions in the
world (Fig. 11). Permanently implementing water cutbacks to urban and agricultural water
users could cost between $14 – 96 million ($5 to $32 per person), depending on upper and
lower cost estimates (Edwards and Null, 2019). However, with a water conservation market
between water users and watersheds, costs drop substantially to $6 – 48 million ($2 to $16
per person). Water conservation measures are varied and could include low water use toilets,
showers, and washing machines, urban and agricultural water scheduling, turf conversion,
rain barrels, and more (Edwards et al., 2017). These costs are inexpensive, although oppor-
tunity costs given by lost benefits of consumptive water uses could also generate supply
curves for water to Great Salt Lake (Genova et al. 2019). Proposed state legislation to enable
water banking in Utah may facilitate water trading in the future. Water banking allows farm-
ers or other water users to forego their water use without forfeiting water rights. It enables
water trading between willing water sellers and buyers and may have the potential to facili-
tate dedicated streamflows to Great Salt Lake.
14
Fig. 11. Per capita water use in Utah compared to that other arid regions. Data derived from
Pacific Institute (2013).
Some urban water districts are considering implementing green infrastructure such as
rain barrels, retention ponds, permeable pavement, or bioswales to recharge groundwater and
baseflows (Prudencio and Null, 2018). However, this approach is unlikely to offset antici-
pated drying from climate change (York et al. 2015). A menu of potential strategies to pro-
vide water to Great Salt Lake has been developed, including water conservation, groundwater
management, reducing vegetation around the lake, applying the Public Trust Doctrine used to
preserve Mono Lake, removing dams, enlarging dams, and inter-basin water transfers
(SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2017; Clyde 2016). The list is a starting point to en-
courage discussion and strategies have yet to be prioritized or thoroughly evaluated.
5.3. Future Changes
Consumptive water uses have caused Great Salt Lake elevation to decline by 3.4 m
(11 ft.) since pioneers colonized Salt Lake Valley (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017). Utah’s popula-
tion is anticipated to double by 2060 and 80% of the population lives along the Wasatch
Front in the Great Salt Lake watershed. This suggests that water development and diversions
to urban and agricultural users will change and evolve in coming decades.
In fact, considerable water development of the Bear River for urban and agricultural
use is being considered. The Bear River Compact between the States of Utah, Idaho and Wy-
oming envisions the development of 1,600 million m3 (1.3 million af) of water. If all of this
water is developed, it would lower the lake more than 1.6 m (5.4 ft.) beyond what has already
occurred. This would raise salinity to over 22% and brine shrimp populations would be
greatly diminished. Idaho and Wyoming have not yet funded projects to develop their water.
But in 1991, the Utah legislature passed the Bear River Development Act, which directs the
state to develop 270 million m3 (220,000 af) of surface water in the Bear River and its tribu-
taries through construction of reservoirs and associated facilities. Hydrologic modeling sug-
gests that Utah’s Bear River Development Project, which is estimated to cost $1.5 billion,
would lower Great Salt Lake by an additional 20 cm (8 in) (Wurtsbaugh et al., 2017).
15
Utah has not fully developed its share of water from the Colorado River according to
the Colorado River Compact and transfers of water have been proposed (SWCA Environ-
mental Consultants 2017). Cost estimates are unavailable, although the proposed Lake Pow-
ell Pipeline to southwest Utah is estimated to cost $1.1 to $1.8 billion (LPP 2019). While in-
creasing water supply appears to be a costly, but possible, solution to maintain Great Salt
Lake elevation, previous research has shown that interbasin transfers temporarily mask water
supply problems, but do not address underlying problems of unsustainable water use and de-
velopment (AghaKouchak et al., 2015). In other words, interbasin water transfers have been
shown to be a temporary fix that backfires in the long-run (Gohari et al., 2013).
6 Concluding Remarks
Population growth and development in a semi-arid climate elicits questions like: How
will water development and operations affect flows to the Great Salt Lake and surrounding
wetland habitats? What is the role of water conservation, water markets, stormwater manage-
ment, water infrastructure, and coordinated management of existing facilities to simultane-
ously maintain human benefits and preserve ecosystems?
Restoration of other terminal lakes has shown that it is more costly to restore lakes
and the ecosystem services they provide than to preserve them from the outset. For instance,
Libecap (2009) estimated that the costs of litigating the out-of-basin water transfers for Cali-
fornia’s Mono Lake over 20 years likely exceeded the actual value of the water. Mitigating
for airborne dust in Owens dry lakebed has already cost over $1 billion, and that does not in-
clude restoration of the lake (Gutrich et al., 2016). It is estimated to cost $3.6 billion over 25
years (Ramboll Environ US Corporation 2016). Even securing water for terminal lakes is
costly. As of 2016, $57 million had been spent purchasing about 20,000 af of water from
willing sellers to increase the elevation of Walker Lake (Null et al. 2017).
Large declines in lake level and salinity threaten the unique biology of Great
Salt Lake. Quantifying water diversions from rivers that feed Great Salt Lake, consumptive
water uses, and total streamflow that reaches Great Salt Lake will allow Utahns to make de-
fensible decisions to manage water resources and GSL biology for long term ecological and
economic benefit. Utah has potential opportunities and multiple alternatives to improve wa-
ter management and maintain water supply to Great Salt Lake.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially supported from a National Science Foundation CAREER
Award (#1653452). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation. Craig Miller of the Utah Department of Water Resources shared data
and guided the development of the hydrological depletion model for Great Salt Lake. David
Tarboton shared hypsographic data allowing us to predict exposed lake bed area. Peter Wil-
cock, Justin DeRose, Maura Hahnenberger, and Jonnie Moore participated in the develop-
ment of a earlier paper documenting the decline of Great Salt Lake.
16
REFERENCES
AghaKouchak, A., Norouzi, H., Madani, K., Mirchi, A., Azarderakhsh, M., Nazemi, A.,
Nasrollahi, N., Farahmand, A., Mehran, A., Hasanzadeh, E. (2015) Aral Sea syndrome
desiccates Lake Urmia: call for action, Journal of Great Lakes Research 41(1), pp. 307–
311.
Aldrich, T. W. and Paul, D. S. (2002) Avian Ecology Of Great Salt Lake. In: Gwynn JW (ed)
In Great Salt Lake: An Overview Of Change. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt
Lake City, Salt Lake City, pp 343-374.
Armstrong T, Wurtsbaugh WA (In Press 2019) Impacts of eutrophication on benthic inverte-
brates & fish prey of birds in Farmington and Bear River Bays of Great Salt Lake. Final
Report to the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Salt Lake City.
Barnes, B. D. and Wurtsbaugh, W. A. (2015) The effects of salinity on plankton and benthic
communities in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA: a microcosm experiment, Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72(6), pp. 807–817. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-
0396.
Barrett, K.L. and G. Belovsky. (2020) Invertebrates and phytoplankton: a delicate balance
across salinity gradients. In Baxter, B.K and Butler, J.K., Eds. Great Salt Lake Biology: A
Terminal Lake in a Time of Change. Springer, Netherlands.
Baxter, B.K. and Butler, J.K. (2020) Climate Change and Great Salt Lake. In Baxter, B.K and
Butler, J.K., Eds. Great Salt Lake Biology: A Terminal Lake in a Time of Change.
Springer, Netherlands.
Baxter, B. K. and Zalar, P. (2019) The Extremophiles of great salt lake: complex microbiol-
ogy in a dynamic hypersaline ecosystem, in Model Ecosystems in Extreme Environments.
Elsevier, pp. 57–99.
Bedford, D. (2005) Utah’s Great Salt Lake: A complex environmental-societal system, Geo-
graphical Review. Wiley Online Library, 95(1), pp. 73–96.
Belovsky, G. E., Stephens, D., Perschon, C., Birdsey, P., Paul, D., Naftz, D., Baskin, R., Lar-
son, C., Mellison, C., Luft, J., Mosley, R., Mahon, H., Van Leeuwen, J., Allen, D.V.
(2011) The Great Salt Lake Ecosystem (Utah, USA): long term data and a structural
equation approach, Ecosphere 2(3), pp. 1–40.
Bioeconomics Inc. (2012) Economic significance of the Great Salt Lake to the State of Utah.
Great Salt Lake Advisory Council. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Boelens, R., and J. Vos (2010) The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: Water
productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade, Agr.
Water Management, 108, 16-26, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.013.
California Natural Resources Agency (2015) Salton Sea Species Conservatin Habitat Moni-
toring and Adaptive Management Plan. Prepared by Cardno Inc. and Environmental Sci-
ence Associates. 64 pages. Available online: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-
Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Engineering-And-Construction/Files/Design-Build/Salton-
Sea-Reports/07_Monitoring_Adaptive_Mgmt_Plan.pdf.
Clyde S.E. (2016) Water rights for Great Salt Lake: is it the impossible dream? p 1-29, Utah
Water Law, CLE International, Salt Lake City, Utah http://wwwclydesnowcom/im-
ages/Articles--Great-Salt-Lake-Paper-2016-01090010xB165Bpdf.
Collins N. (1980) Population ecology of Ephydra cinerea Jones (Diptera, Ephydridae), the
only benthic metazoan of the Great Salt Lake, USA. Hydrobiologia 68:99-112.
Conover, M. R. (2020) Is Great Salt Lake the only think keeping Eared Grebes from going
extinct? In Baxter, B.K and Butler, J.K., Eds. Great Salt Lake Biology: A Terminal Lake
in a Time of Change. Springer, Netherlands.
17
Crighton E.J., Barwin L., Small I., Upshur R. (2011) What have we learned? A review of the
literature on children's health and the environment in the Aral Sea area. Int J Public
Health 56:125-138. doi:10.1007/s00038-010-0201-0.
DeRose, R. J., Bekker, M.F., Wang, S-Y., Buckley, B.M., Kjelgren, R.K., Bardsley, T. Rit-
tenour, T.M., Allen, E.B. (2015) A millennium-length reconstruction of Bear River
stream flow, Utah, Journal of Hydrology 529, pp. 524–534.
Downard, R., Endter-Wada, J. and Kettenring, K. (2014) Adaptive wetland management in
an uncertain and changing arid environment, Ecology & Society, 19(2).
Edwards, E.C., Bosworth, R.C., Adams, P., Baji, V., Burrows, A., Gerdes, C., Jones, M.
(2017) Economic Insight from Utah’s Water Efficiency Supply Curve, Water 9(3), p. 214.
Edwards, E.C. and Null, S. E. (2019) The cost of addressing saline lake level decline and the
potential for water conservation markets, Science of The Total Environment 651(1), pp.
435–442.
Elmore, L.R., Null, S.E. and Mouzon, N.R. (2016) Effects of environmental water transfers
on stream temperatures, River Research and Applications 32(7), pp. 1415–1427.
EPA (2019) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)--Generic Tables.
https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables.
Gavrieli, I., Lensky, N.G., Abelson, M., Ganor, J., Oren, A., Brenner, S., Shahar, H. (2011)
Red Sea to Dead Sea water conveyance (RSDSC) study: Dead Sea research team, Rep.
GSI/10/2011.
Génova, P.A., S.E. Null, Olivares,M.A (2019) An economic-engineering method to allocate
water between instream and off-stream uses. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 145(3): 04018101. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001026.
Gillies R.R., Wang S-Y., Booth M.R. (2012) Observational and Synoptic Analyses of the
Winter Precipitation Regime Change over Utah. J Clim 25:4679-4698.
Griffin D.W., Kellogg C.A. (2004) Dust storms and their impact on ocean and human health.
EcoHealth 1:284-295.
Gohari, A., Eslamian, S., Mirchi, A., Abedi-Koupaei, J., Bavani, A.M., Madani, K. (2013)
Water transfer as a solution to water shortage: a fix that can backfire, Journal of Hydrol-
ogy 491, pp. 23–39.
Gutrich, J.J., Gigliello, K., Gardner, K.V., Elmore, A.J. (2016) Economic returns of ground-
water management sustaining an ecosystem service of dust suppression by alkali meadow
in Owens Valley, California, Ecological Economics 121, pp. 1–11.
Hahnenberger M., Nicoll K. (2014) Geomorphic and land cover identification of dust sources
in the eastern Great Basin of Utah, U.S.A. Geomo 204:657-672.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.013.
Hammer U.T. (1986) Saline lake ecosystems of the World. Dr W. Junk, Dordrecht, Dor-
drecht.
Hart, J. (1996) Storm over Mono: The Mono Lake battle and the California water future.
Univ of California Press. ISBN: 0520203682.
Indoitu R., Kozhoridze G., Batyrbaeva M., Vitkovskaya I., Orlovsky N., Blumberg D., Orlov-
sky L. (2015) Dust emission and environmental changes in the dried bottom of the Aral
Sea. Aeolian Res 17:101-115. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2015.02.004.
Jensen, M.E. (2007) Beyond irrigation efficiency. Irrigation Science 25: 233-245.
doi:10.1007/s00271-007-0060-5.
Johnson WP, Wurtsbaugh WA, Belovsky GE, Baxter BK, Black F, Angeroth C, Jewell P,
Yang S (In Press) Geochemistry of Great Salt Lake. Encyclopedia of Water: Science,
Technology, and Society 2019.
18
Jones E.F., Wurtsbaugh, W.A. (2014) The Great Salt Lake’s monimolimnion and its im-
portance for mercury bioaccumulation in brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana). Limnol
Oceanogr 59:141-155.
Kijowski, A.M., Neill, J., Wickline, A., Swift, J. Butler, J.K., Kimberly, D.A., Van Leeuwen,
J., Luft, J., Stone, K. (2020) American White Pelicans of Gunnison Island, Great Salt
Lake, Utah. In Baxter, B.K and Butler, J.K., Eds. Great Salt Lake Biology: A Terminal
Lake in a Time of Change. Springer, Netherlands.
Kittle S. (2000) Survey of reported health effects of Owens Lake particulate matter. Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Bishop, California. 10 p.;
http://www.gbuapcd.org/Information/SurveyofReportedHealthEffectsofOwensLakePar-
ticulateMatter.pdf.
Libecap, G.D. (2009) The tragedy of the commons: property rights and markets as solutions
to resource and environmental problems, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 53(1), pp. 129–144.
Loving, B.L., Miller, C.W. and Waddell, K.M. (2000) Water and salt balance of Great Salt
Lake, Utah, and simulation of water and salt movement through the causeway, 1987-98,
Water-Resources Investigations Report. U.S. Geological Survey.
LPP (Lake Powell Pipeline) (2019) Washington County’s Repayment Options for the Lake
Powell Pipeline fact sheet. Available online: https://lpputah.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2019/01/LLPFactSheet-Repayment-Options-012819.pdf.
Micklin P. (2007) The Aral Sea disaster. AREPS 35:47-72. doi:10.1146/an-
nurev.earth.35.031306.140120.
Micklin, P. (2016) The future Aral Sea: hope and despair, Environmental Earth Sciences
75(9), p. 844.
Mohammed, I.N. and Tarboton, D.G. (2012) An examination of the sensitivity of the Great
Salt Lake to changes in inputs, Water Resources Research 48(11). doi:
10.1029/2012WR011908.
Null, S.E., Mouzon, N.R. and Elmore, L.R. (2017) Dissolved Oxygen, Stream Temperature,
and Fish Habitat Response to Environmental Water Purchases, Journal of Environmental
Management 197(15), 559-570.
Null S.E., Wurtsbaugh W.A., Miller C. (2013) Can the causeway in the Great Salt Lake be
used to manage salinity. 2 p. Friends of the Great Salt Lake Newsletter Vol. 19(1).
http://works.bepress.com/wayne_wurtsbaugh/143/.
Office of the Legislative Auditor General (2015) A Performance Audit of Projections of
Utah’s Water Needs. Report to the Utah Legislature Number 2015-01. 82 pages. Availa-
ble at: https://water.utah.gov/1AuditProjectionsUtahWater Needs.pdf.
Pace, A., Bourillot, R., Bouton, A., Vennin, E., Galaup, S., Bundeleva, I., Patrier, P., Dupraz,
C., Thomazo, C., Sansjofre, P. and Yokoyama, Y. (2016) Microbial and diagenetic steps
leading to the mineralisation of Great Salt Lake microbialites. Scientific reports 6,
p.31495.
Pacific Institute (2013) The World's water, Vol. 7. http://worldwater.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2013/07/ww8-table2.pdf.
Paul D.S., Manning A.E. (2002) Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Five-Year Report (1997–
2001). Publication Number 08-38. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City,
Utah, USA.
Perry K.D., Crosman E.T., Hoch S.W. (In Press 2019) Results of the Great Salt Lake dust
plume study (2016-2018). Final Report to Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Salt Lake
City, UT. 319 p.
19
Prudencio, L. and Null, S.E. (2018) Stormwater management and ecosystem services: a re-
view, Environmental Research Letters 13(3). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa81a.
Ramboll Environ US Corporation (2016) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District:
2016 Owens Valley Planning Area PM10 State implementation plan. Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control District, Bishop, California. 1494 p.
http://www.gbuapcd.org/Air%20Qual-
ity%20Plans/OVPA_SIP_2016/2016_SIP_FINAL_20160413.pdf.
Reisner, M. (1993) Cadillac desert: the American West and its disappearing water. New
York, NY: Penguin Books.
Schindler, D.W. (2009) Lakes as sentinels and integrators for the effects of climate change on
watersheds, airsheds, and landscapes, Limnology and Oceanography 54(6, part2): 2349–
2358.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (2017) Water for Great Salt Lake. Prepared for Great Salt
Lake Advisory Council. Salt Lake City, UT. 54 pages.
UDNR FFSL (Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands) (2013) Final Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan and Record of
Decision. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants. Salt Lake City, UT. 391 pages.
Available at: https://ffsl.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/OnlineGSL-CMPandROD-
March2013.pdf.
White, J.S., Null, S.E. and Tarboton, D.G. (2015) How Do Changes to the Railroad Cause-
way in Utah’s Great Salt Lake Affect Water and Salt Flow?, PloS One. 10(12), p.
e0144111.
Wine, M.L., Null, S.E., DeRose, J.R., Wurtsbaugh, W.A. (2019) Climatization—Negligent
Attribution of Great Salt Lake Desiccation: A Comment on Meng (2019), Climate 7(5), p.
67.
Wurtsbaugh W.A. (1992) Food web modifications by an invertebrate predator in the Great
Salt Lake (USA). Oecologia 89:168-175.
Wurtsbaugh W.A. (2012) Paleolimnological analysis of the history of metals contamination
in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Final report to the Utah Division of Water Quality,
Salt Lake City, Utah. 44 p. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/wats_facpub/556/.
Wurtsbaugh W.A. (2018) Effects of eutrophication on birds in three bays of Great Salt Lake:
A comparative analysis with Utah DWR Waterbird Survey Data. Final Report. Utah Divi-
sion of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/wats_fac-
pub/1012/
Wurtsbaugh, W.A. and Berry, T.S. (1990) Cascading Effects of Decreased Salinity on the
Plankton Chemistry, and Physics of the Great Salt Lake (Utah), Canadian Journal of Fish-
eries and Aquatic Sciences 47(1), pp. 100–109. doi: 10.1139/f90-010.
Wurtsbaugh W.A., Gardberg J, Izdepski C (2011) Biostrome communities and mercury and
selenium bioaccumulation in the Great Salt Lake (Utah, USA). Sci Total Environ
409:4425-4434. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.027
Wurtsbaugh W.A., Marcarelli A.M., Boyer G.L. (2012) Eutrophication and metal concentra-
tions in three bays of the Great Salt Lake (USA). 2009 Final report to the Utah Division
of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah. 70 p. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/view-
content.cgi?article=1548&context=wats_facpub.
Wurtsbaugh, W.A., Miller, C., Null, S.E., DeRose, R.J., Wilcock, P., Hahnenberger, M.,
Howe, F., Moore, J. (2017) Decline of the world’s saline lakes, Nature Geoscience 10:
816-821.
20
York, C., Goharian, E. and Burian, S.J. (2015) Impacts of large-scale stormwater green infra-
structure implementation and climate variability on receiving water response in the Salt
Lake City area, American Journal of Environmental Sciences 11(4), p. 278.
