Reader comments
Plans stir up debate about Great Salt Lake's fate

When I was a boy you could swim in the Great Salt Lake where the old Black Rock and Silver Sands resorts were. Now you can hardly walk there. There a thousands of dead Seagull carcasses imbedded in the sand near "Saltair." "Salt Air," indeed. It stinks, and it can't be healthy.

If the state can't manage the lake as it is, how can they be trusted to expand mineral extraction. It is the reduction of natural minerals, and the disposal of human waste which makes the lake -- at many locations -- stink.

I am pro-business, but I am not pro ALL businesses, and I think this one needs to be looked at carefully.

Atwood is confused about many things. The best thing for the lake is removing minerals from the north arm. The causeway prevents mixing and makes the north arm of the lake more salty than it should be. The north end ecosystem suffers.

This scientific fact is well studied and documented. All a person has to do is look at the lake on google maps or search "great salt lake north arm salinity" to see that there is a big human caused problem. The problem is too much minerals and no outlet. The south arm salinity ranges from 3%-16%. The north arm ranges from 16% to 28%. Brine shrimp don't survive well in the north arm so birds don't go there to eat them. The hyper-saline water is toxic to almost all native plants and animals.

Removing minerals and letting more inflow from the south arm ought to reduce salinity in the north arm. That's good for the environment. It's good for the lake, good for the plants and animals. If there's also a financial benefit for somebody for helping heal the lake, so much the better.

There is a lot of potential for recreational use of the GSL and often wondered why it has not been developed more. The old open air rail cars were enjoyable and families would travel the rail to visit and swim the lake. The old boardwalk had many vendors and food stands and souvenir shops.

One person tried to re-establish a recreational use pavilion but he met high resistance and assistance to make it come to fruition. At one time the lake provided most of the Salt Lake area an inexpensive and easy to access use of the lake in summer months.

The lake has been neglected far too long and a loss for the state to ignore it and let it be used as a dumping sight. The road to antelope island needs to be redesigned to allow equalization of the salanity and ecosystem of the entire lake. The state should limit the mineral extractions and reduce hazardous waste going to the lake. We have 2 bodies of water (Utah lake & the GSL) in close proximity of major cities but neither get very much use for recreation. Developement of the lakes should be private but state monitored.

Perhaps mineral extraction alone could help the lake's north arm, but GSL Minerals' process will remove millions of gallons of water from the lake without altering the chemical composition of the little water that remains. The solution is to leave more water in the lake, not less. If a GSL Minerals could employ a process that removed minerals and returned fresh water to the lake, your argument would make sense.

I am glad this discussion is happening. Another concern is Kennecott's plan to dispose of their toxic plume water into the lake. This water is currently pumped from Herriman to Magna into collection ponds, but with Kennecott looking to modify their permit, I am afraid we'll see this toxic waste end up in the lake.

It's not the lake that is out of control, it's this article. The company wants to make use of an unused portion of the lake. It's not like they propose draining the lake! Get a grip. If you are so anxious about it, why don't you invest you millions to buy the land and lock up the mineral rights. Until you own it, back off and stop trying to take away the rights of property use of others.

The great salt lake is a resource. It smells the valley up, not its time for it to pay us back.

Heaven knows we could use the tax dollars.

The north part of the GSL is to salty for most life anyway. Taking the minerals our will not only benefit the economy but the ecology as well.

I rely heavily upon those who have studied and understand the issues and ramifications involved with GSL development and protection. I prefer a "go slow" approach so that long-term sustainabiliy is not compromised.

In this instance, it seems to me that Ms. Atwood's pleas for more earnest oversight and management are warranted. We don't have to stop all development, but we do have a responsibility to do it right from the outset.

use the resources of the lake. Birds and Shrimp are using the Lake, why not the people also. I get very tired of hearing a minority few tell the majority what to do. Good example Legacy Highway.

If the resources are there lets use them. Any more we cannot go on public land without a permit. We cannot see the beauty of the state without paying a fee. You pick up a few rocks on public land and you have the SWAT Team working you over for doing something illegal.

Orwell's 1984 just took a little longer than we thought.

Exactly. The evironmentalists aren't getting their way, so they're running to their sympathetic allies in the Media in order to get their hysterical assertions taken seriously.

There are so many recreational possibilities there! Do you know they rent surfboards at the gift shop?

Just like every environmentalist, Atwood stands opposed to the development of natural resources, and sees human beings as enemies to native ecosystems. The truth is that this planet and all its natural resources, if left undeveloped, unused and unkept, would not support a high quality of life for ANY of its inhabitants; whatever their genus.

Environmentalists would religiously study every idea to death. The proposed expansion of mineral extraction would improve local quality of life and greatly improve human quality of life GLOBALLY, as it would provide essential nutrients for food production in-and-for the hungry residents of Third-world countries. Selfishness does not become us. Let us share the bounty of this great local resource.

It is very important to keep in mind that the way in which the minerals are extracted from the lake is to evaporate water away. They don't just take out the minerals and then put the water back into the lake. To get more minerals, you need to evaporate more water. That is not good for the environment and it doesn't lower the salinity of the lake. It also does have the effect of "draining the lake" in that it makes it lower than it would be otherwise.
Also, each and every resident of Utah already owns a share of the lands in question. That is the point here. We are talking about a public resource. Think in terms of your neighborhood park. What would your reaction be to the land being converted to an industrial use? Then add in much further reaching environmental implications due to the scale of the Great Salt Lake.
You may think more evaporation ponds and jobs is a good policy decision, but don't confuse yourself or others about the implications and impacts of such a policy by falsely pretending a superior understanding of the science.

Apparently, according to "out of control" at 707am, all us little people shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion.

Opinions on the GSL should be reserved only for people rich enough to buy huge amounts of real estate, eh? If you're not a multimillionaire, step aside?

You disgust me.

If it's not too much trouble, could someone from the environmental community either:

1. tell us what laws state officials have broken; or

2. describe in some detail the catastrophe that is occurring, or will occur, if the management scheme isn't changed to the environmentalists' liking?

I am genuinely confused about both matters.

The State says it has its comprehensive management plan, which is up for renewal shortly, and is following the law.

The environmentalists say, effectively, that they have a bad feeling about how things are going and therefore things should be done differently.

They don't say what violations of the law have occurred.

They don't say what terrible things have happened because of the multiple use approach the state uses.

Can someone enlighten us?

As residents we are all part-owners of the lake, so it's important for us to all pay attention to this and make our voices heard.

This is a complicated situation with a large impact going forward, both financially and in terms of what the lake will be like for our grandchildren. Big decisions that are good to think through carefully before decisions are made.

I don't have any special knowledge or information about the proposal, but I do know Dick Buehler is a compentent land manager and a good administrator. If additional "help" is needed to give the lake proper evaluation, I think it would be best to do that rather than to consider a whole new agency or organization.

The division is governed by laws as to what they can do and cannot do. If they are following the law, don't "bash" them, ... if not correct the problem. If the laws need changing, address your concerns to your elected representatives.

You don't understand the problem with the north arm of the lake. Because it has no outlet there is a constant flow of water through the causeway from south to north. The south arm has an outlet - the gaps in the causeway. This makes the south arm unnaturally fresh and the north arm unnaturally salty. Putting more evaporation ponds on the north arm means pulling water out, which pulls more water through to the north arm, reducing the salinity of the north arm and perhaps the lake as a whole.

People should go to the lake and look before believing Atwood. Or maybe Atwood should read the research before claiming to be Casandra. Casandra had magical powers and was mythological. Now a days we try to use real life science and policy.

Or maybe the reporter or editor could have done some scientific fact checking.

Atwood is the last person to "manage" this lake! She is the same one who said we "needed the pumps" 25 years ago, because she "was correct" about the increasing level of the lake. Has she ever been on the causeway and listened to the sound of 3 8' culverts passing water to the north arm of the lake on a hot day? Her current envionmental alarmist reasons are founded in "scientific fact" as much now as then.
Evaporation is the only life cycle for the north arm. If we can get paid for it all the better!