Peril for Utah and Great Salt Lakes. An illegal attempt to silence me and seize all my family's assets. A sick niece stuck in the hospital for Christmas. The stress of trying to get Taylor Swift tickets.
There has been a sense of scarcity. There has been a millennial drought. There has been the normal refusal to acknowledge that anything was wrong.
I've been feeling wrung out.
December has been different.
After holding back for twenty years, atmospheric rivers finally rushed over the orographic barricade. Storms came as they did when I was a boy. I put studded tires on my bike for the first time in four years. School was delayed.
The return of water to our catchment changed something in my heart. It felt alright to take an afternoon off. We spent a lot more time together as a family. I rode my bike across Utah Lake. Rolling on a brittle skin held up by 100,000 acres of still water. Inches from the 10 million fish biding their time.
My little brother Sam has a much better social life than me. He has slowly been initiating me into some of his traditions. He asked if I wanted to jump into the Provo River at "the rock" on New Year's Eve. Of course I did.
After skating across the frozen water, it felt amazing to be plunging into the flowing water. I got a brain freeze, but it didn't even feel cold. It just barely started to penetrate the numbness that has been so heavy this year. It reminded me of my smallness. The water is all connected through the channels and aquifers. All pushing towards Great Salt Lake. The same water.
We are ringing in the new year in the Provo River with snow falling all around. Not all the creatures are impressed. The trees don't care. But with the water, we will cycle through another year. Purified by vaporization. Transformed by adiabatic cooling. Reactivated by the fall. Seeping and rushing through the rheic and hyporheic to the endorheic. Thanks to the sun, all rivers flow back to the sky.
And take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind Down the foggy ruins of time Far past the frozen leaves The haunted frightened trees Out to the windy beach Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky With one hand waving free Silhouetted by the sea Circled by the circus sands With all memory and fate Driven deep beneath the waves Let me forget about today until tomorrow
The last five years have seen a tectonic shift in energy. The dominance of fossil fuels has been forever shaken by the rise of renewable energy. The International Energy Association (IEA)—long known for its dismissal of renewables—has finally acknowledged that we are experiencing peak fossil. From here on out, the share of fossil fuels in the global energy system will decrease. It’s just a matter of how quickly.
Things are changing so rapidly that it’s hard to stay up to speed. In addition to the dizzying rate of innovation, bad actors have ramped up their disinformation campaigns. Fossil fuel companies and petrostates can no longer deny the effects of climate change and air pollution, but they are now frantically trying to deny the viability of renewable energy. Just search “renewable energy” on YouTube to get a sense of the misunderstanding and disinformation. However, I think this hasty transition from problems denial to solutions denial is a sign that fossil fuel interests have seen the writing on the wall. Indeed, clean energy is extremely popular and non-partisan. Support for research and deployment of renewable technologies has a super majority in every county in the U.S.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, renewable energy has quietly marched forward. While unqualified skeptics claim that renewables are a “failed path,” wind and solar have almost completed their takeover of global energy growth. Last year, renewables constituted just over 90% of all new energy infrastructure, and the IEA projects that 95% of all growth through 2025 will be renewable. We are experiencing an energy transition that is faster and more profound than the Industrial Revolution.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has supercharged the transition as more countries decide it’s not cool for a foreign dictator to be able to jack up their energy prices at home. For example, Europe’s early investment in renewables saved them $50 billion in fuel costs alone this summer as fossil fuel prices skyrocketed.
The transition to renewables is also creating stable, high-quality jobs in mining and manufacturing. Our energy workers have long been under-compensated and forced to absorb the economic shocks of OPEC and global oil markets. We are looking at tens of millions of career level jobs in the U.S. and globally.
Last December, we published a renewable energy report for some of Utah’s congressional delegation. We will update the report next month, but I wanted to share some of the most important research and market developments from the past 12 months. Here are five important "take-homes" about the clean energy revolution.
1. The bleeding is no longer getting worse
Two weeks ago, Pierre Friedlingstein and company released the 2022 global carbon budget. This is the most definitive assessment of what is going on with the Earth’s carbon cycle.
The panel on the left shows human carbon emissions and natural carbon sinks. The gray and orange wedges show annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and land use. Check out the top of the chart over the past few years. The growth in emissions has stopped! This is thanks to the hard work of billions of everyday citizens, millions of activists and innovators, and thousands of companies and governments around the world.
Before we declare victory, let’s look at the panel on the right. The cumulative amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will keep on climbing until our emissions drop to zero. We are still a long way from that, but with emissions flat, we are poised for a rapid descent. If we keep the pressure on, ten years from now, the emissions figure will look like a boa constrictor that swallowed an elephant.
2. The energy system of tomorrow will be healthy and efficient
Last month, Tansu Galimova and team published an analysis of how the transition to renewable energy would affect air pollution. The short answer was, there won’t be any more of it. They predict a 97% decline in air pollution.
Currently, 99% of the world’s population is breathing unhealthy air, with over 10 million premature deaths from fossil fuel pollution annually. That is more loss of life than all communicable diseases and nutrition deficiencies combined. The health and economic benefits of this transition are hard to fathom, but they surely exceed the operating expenses of the entire global energy system.
Clean energy isn't just good news for the climate. We are all going to be healthier, happier, longer lived, and less afflicted by heart disease, cancer, reproductive disfunction, and neurodegenerative conditions.
3. But how much is this going to cost?
That sounds great, but I’m sure some of you are asking, “can we afford such a dramatic transformation in the energy system?” Rupert Way and team answered this question in a groundbreaking study this year. They tallied up all the expenses of our current fossil-fuel based energy system and compared that to the cost of a global transition to renewable energy. How much is it going to cost? Negative $12 trillion.
Because renewable energy costs so much less than fossil fuel energy, a rapid transition saves the global economy trillions. Buying the coal, oil, and gas to run the current energy system accounts for 75% of total expenditures. Renewables cost money to install and maintain, but they don't consume any fuel.
These new economics explain why every country in the world is investing so much in renewable energy. Whoever transitions fastest will have an enormous economic advantage.
These savings don't only exist at the macro-economic level. Conservative estimates indicate savings of several thousand dollars per household each year in the U.S.
Just to be clear, Rupert only considered the economic costs of running the energy system. They didn’t include the human health and environmental benefits. If you include those, the savings are closer to $50 trillion through mid-century. I thought this Voltz episode on the paper was well worth a listen.
4. But what about supply chains?
You may be thinking, “That’s great that the energy transition is economically and environmentally beneficial, but given the state of our global supply chains, we won’t be able to transition on schedule.” Two papers have recently come out on this topic.
Lowe and Drummond tested the feasibility of “logistic substitution” of our current energy infrastructure with renewables. They found that there were no physical or raw material showstoppers to this transition. In fact, they projected healthy surpluses of all the critical minerals necessary for the transition and projected major reorganization of energy over the next two decades thanks to the incredible economics of wind and solar. Investment markets have come to the same conclusion, with lithium stocks sharply dropping after investors realized that supply was well ahead of demand.
The second paper is by Christian Breyer and 24 other world-class energy researchers. They found that all the technological and supply chain provisions were already in place for a truly sustainable civilization. They summarized the research on the best economic and human rights policies to ensure a rapid and just transition.
The widespread claims that a large-scale energy transition isn't feasible are either misinformed or misguided.
5. What will the new energy system look like?
Dmitrii Bogdanov and a team of global energy researchers published a landmark study last year that used high-resolution energy system models to simulate the global energy system over the next 30 years. There are so many important messages in the paper, but here are two of the coolest IMO.
First, by electrifying everything, we double efficiency. Currently, around 60% of the primary energy we get from fossil fuels is lost as heat. By using wind and solar to create electricity directly, and then using electricity in transportation, heating, manufacturing, and everything else, we will be able to supply reliable and affordable energy to every human on Earth for the same amount of primary energy we use today. Just like my grandpa always said, “there’s enough for everyone, if you don’t waste what God has given you.”
Second, the primary renewable energy source depends on where you are. Most of the world’s population lives in areas where solar can provide more than enough energy. Solar is already the cheapest energy source on earth. Because most energy consumption occurs during the day, the intermittency of solar is easy to manage with transmission and short-term storage.
For areas farther from the equator, wind, hydro, and geothermal come into play. This map shows Dmitrii’s assessment of the least-cost and most-reliable renewable energy solution for every country on Earth.
Bonus: But why transition when China isn't doing anything?
This is one of the most common criticisms I hear when discussing energy policy. Besides being a bandwagon fallacy, it is patently false. China has read the tea leaves and is winning the renewable energy race. Indeed, China is deploying more renewable energy than the E.U., U.S., and India combined.
China is also dominating investment in the energy transition, more than doubling the U.S. showing. This is important because the countries who invest in cheap and clean energy now will have a major geopolitical advantage in quality of life, economic prosperity, and ideological competition.
My colleague Christian Breyer summed it up succinctly in a message to John Curtis' office a couple months ago:
The fundamental message is very simple: Any leading economy in 2030 has an energy system largely based on renewables, or it will decline and not be anymore a leading economy in the 2030s and 2040s. The reason is trivial: least cost. No other energy supply option is lower in cost. Clean air and phasing out of CO2 plus many jobs we get on top.
Conclusion
In summary, things are moving in a really positive direction. However, there remains a lot of work to do. In our report, we recommend the following:
Talk with your friends, neighbors, and political leaders about the huge opportunities in renewable energy
Put a price on pollution (reduce energy system externalities)
Set binding renewable portfolio standards
Provide support for energy workers, utility companies, and rural communities during the transition
Cut red tape that currently slows the construction of renewable energy production and transmission infrastructure
Just a few hours ago, the state announced that they were formally rejecting the proposal to build artificial islands on Utah Lake. I was in a graduate student meeting when my phone started buzzing. The following headline popped along with a sideways picture of Lake Restoration Solutions' Army Corps application:
It is just a stub of an article by Ben Winslow reporting that the Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands had determined that LRS' proposal would "not pass constitutional muster and be detrimental to the citizens of the state of Utah." The other news outlets are now releasing their takes (Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, Daily Herald, KSL, and Brig and Andrew).
The 94-page record of decision from the division has a lot more information. There is a play-by-play of all their interactions with LRS since 2017 and an extensive legal analysis explaining why they were cancelling the application.
From my perspective, the most interesting and important part of the rejection isn't the confirmation of the environmental deficiencies of the project. Those have been discussed at length elsewhere. What's really novel is that the division doesn't just reject this specific version of the project, they conclude that the premise of land transfers like this is unconstitutional.
For those of you who have been following closely, this is not news. Nearly four years ago, a undergraduate environmental studies student named Andrew Follett laid this out clearly in the Hinckley Journal of Politics law review. However, the fact that the state is now saying it is really significant.
This only happened because of the intense and sustained involvement of thousands of everyday citizens in Utah Valley and across the state. The community organizing of the Utah Lake Conservation Coalition and the legislative leadership of Representative Keven Stratton were key to making this happen.
The question remains, will the legislature repeal the flawed 2018 law that started this boondoggle? They will have a chance in 2022, but it's unlikely unless they hear from us. Here is what we need to do:
Too many people on the bus from the airport Too many holes in the crust of the earth The planet groans Every time it registers another birth
Paul Simon
Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.
Yogi Berra
Back in the innocent days before the pandemic and the lawsuit, my college interviewed me about what individual people could do to live more sustainably. I told them my three recommendations, and they made this cute video a few months later:
While none of us can solve air pollution and climate change on our own, it is empowering to know that we can substantially reduce our personal contribution to these problems by making thoughtful changes in our transportation, diet, and public participation. Additionally, these individual choices contribute to systemic change through personal example, economic pressure, and the political process. I have seen this play out on issues ranging from protecting Utah Lake to accelerating the local transition to renewable energy.
I redrew this figure from Project Drawdown to show both of their sets of ranked climate solutions. The ongoing renewable revolution is making Scenario 2 (the better one) more likely. The conclusion is that we need to transition to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.
A couple weeks later, I heard from a colleague who had seen the video. He said that he appreciated the thought but wondered why I didn't recommend the most effective way of reducing your environmental footprint: having fewer children. He cited what has become a highly-cited paper in sustainability circles, entitled: The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions by Wynes and Nicholas 2017.
The paper has some valuable insights, including the titular conclusion that the effectiveness of various climate-smart choices is usually not reported in textbooks. I see this all the time in the real world (check out this pretty but useless animated infographic by Columbia University). Many people do not know what changes could effectively help us create a sustainable future, and most people do not know how to prioritize potential changes. For example, implementing a single meatless day a week has almost no effect on environmental footprint, while switching to a plant-rich diet reduces agricultural emissions and use of water, land, and nutrients by approximately 90%.
This cutting-edge paper by Kim et al. compares the greenhouse gas footprint of different diets for almost all countries (click for higher resolution version). In the U.S., you can reduce your dietary greenhouse gas footprint from around 2 tons to 200 kg of CO2 by switching to a plant-based diet. That means we could feed nine people with the resources we currently use to feed one.
But as Mark Twain might have said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Wynes and Nicholas conclude definitively that the most effective personal action is having fewer children. They rank this choice as 30-times more effective than the next recommendation of living car-free (60 versus 2 tons of CO2 saved). This conclusion was the perfect material for a whole constellation of smug infographics (good coverage by Vox here).
I teach all my students that the most important time to exercise their critical thinking is when they are confronted with information they agree with. It is so easy to welcome confirmatory evidence while dismissing data that doesn't match our prior beliefs. It is comforting and validating to collect numbers and arguments that we want to believe. However, if we are committed to learning, we should cultivate a taste for having our beliefs challenged. Whether or not Wynes and Nicholas' argument appeals to you, let's give their reasoning a real look.
One disclaimer before we dive in. Arguments about overpopulation have a long and troubled history that I can't unpack in a single blog post. Giorgos Kallis has a good book on the topic that is reviewed by the Inquisitive Biologist here. Rather than wrestle with the xenophobic and elitist worldviews of many population control advocates, I'm going to take Wynes and Nicholas' argument in good faith. Let's simply ask the question, is having one fewer child the most effective choice we can make to protect the environment?
Here is a figure of global fertility rate, expressed in the lifetime number of children per woman:
The fertility rate has halved in 50 years and is now approaching replacement (an average of 2 surviving children per woman). This reduction in reproduction is even more marked in the high-income countries that dominate carbon emissions and consumption generally. It appears that the recommended "change" is something that most educated, wealthy people are already doing. This decrease has happened much faster than predicted, and current population projections are half of what demographers used to expect: 9 billion by 2050. If you consider population growth a problem, it is well on its way to solving itself.
This figure shows the fertility rate versus per-capita wealth by country:
Notice that almost all industrialized countries are at or below replacement. This means that more than 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions are occurring in countries that are at or below replacement.
The global environmental footprint of humanity is the product of the number of people and the average per-person consumption. When we are talking about total amount, it's the mean that matters, not the median. For those of you who have taken math recently, you may remember that the mean is highly sensitive to extreme values. One very high number can outweigh thousands or millions of low numbers.
The pattern of global consumption is a lesson in extremes. The wealthiest 2,200 people have more money than the 4.8 billion poorest. Look at this intra- and international analysis of per-capita carbon emissions compiled by the Carbon Brief:
Everyone is not equally responsible for the planetary problems we are facing. The top 1% of emitters are responsible for a quarter of global emissions, and the top 10% of emitters account for well over half. It turns out that it's not primarily the number of people that is causing the problem, it's the amount of consumption per person that is driving global environmental degradation.
This led global ecologist Jonathan Foley to write in 2015, "Instead of the 'Population Bomb' of the 1960s, we now have an even larger 'Consumption Bomb', and we don’t now how to diffuse it. And this bomb may well define our relationship to the environment for the 21 century and beyond."
Beyond the first-principles analysis of variation in fertility rate and consumption, there is a fundamental flaw in Wynes and Nicholas' method of calculating future emissions. To estimate the savings of having one fewer child, they use a method proposed by Murtaugh and Schlax in 2009. They apply a projected consumption curve that assumes stable or increasing per-capita consumption through 2100. They then divide the summed emissions between the parents and call it a day.
There are at least two problems with this method. First, it doesn't reflect the actual trend of decreasing per-capita emissions. New technologies, increasing efficiency, and cultural changes have thankfully allowed us to now produce much more wealth per unit of CO2 than we did in the past. Indeed, normalized emissions have dropped by 50% since 1990, and the rate of decline is rapidly accelerating thanks to the renewable revolution. Second, if we accept their assumption that per-capita consumption is going to dramatically increase, we are toast no matter how few children we have. If everyone currently on the planet lived an American lifestyle, we would need 5.1 Earths to support the current 7.8 billion people. We can easily outstrip the capacity of the planet without adding any more mouths.
For moral and practical reasons, our focus should be rapidly decreasing per-capita consumption. We see this conclusion in thoughtful secular and religious teachings. Barry Commoner wrote in 1973,
When any environmental issue is pursued to its origins, it reveals an inescapable truth – that the root cause of the crisis is not to be found in how men interact with nature, but in how they interact with each other – that, to solve the environmental crisis we must solve the problems of poverty, racial injustice and war.
The scriptures of the restoration laid out the same truth more than a century prior:
For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures. I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
But it must needs be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.
We need to replace the disproven consumerist model of humans versus the environment with the traditional ecological and Indigenous view of human society and economy as embedded components of the larger Earth system.
Are there limits to how many people the Earth can support? Of course. Are the current ecological threats to our civilization primarily caused by overpopulation? No. If we live within our means and sustain those who sustain us, the Earth will be perfected, and there will be enough and to spare for all human and nonhuman peoples.
Here is my response to my colleague about the paper:
Thanks for reaching out and happy thanksgiving. I saw this paper when it came out, but didn’t read it in detail until now. It’s an important study and a crucial question. Their point about most textbooks not focusing on what matters most is really important. However, I do have a few issues with their first recommendation and specifically with their method of assessing the CO2 footprint of having a child.
First, they apply average historical consumption rates to the child. The intra and international variation in per capita consumption ranges two orders of magnitude. If a family implements all (or even some) of the best available practices, the footprint of their child would be much smaller, and therefore the decrease of not having a child much less. More importantly, in my opinion, the influence of having a child in such an environmentally engaged and concerned family could accelerate the transition to clean energy that we desperately need. If that doesn’t happen quickly, then increasing consumption will push us past any climate targets even if no one else is ever born.
Second, the analysis thankfully is applied to developed countries, rather than across socioeconomic stages. Overpopulation has long been blamed for many environmental crises, though the argument is usually reserved for low and middle income countries, which have a fraction of the consumption of upper income countries. However, in the case of this study, the authors neglect the issue of immigration. They assume that if one less child is born in a developed country, then there will be one fewer consumer in that country. Recent trends in immigration show that isn’t the case (sustained immigration to developed countries has offset some or all of decreases in fertility).
Third, population growth has shown to basically scale negatively with socioeconomic development, dropping to replacement or below in the most developed countries. What scales in the wrong direction is consumption. Looking through time or across socioeconomic levels, the fewer children a family tends to have, the more that family tends to consume.
Together, this leads me to the conclusion that focusing on decreasing consumption and catalyzing the transition to renewable energy and sustainable lifestyles are much more important than trying to limit fertility. We have the technology and financing to implement a rapid decarbonization of our economy over the next 20 years (do you know Project Drawdown and Rewiring America?). My conclusion is that we need all hands on deck to make sure this happens rapidly and equitably. On a PR level, population control measures are a nonstarter for many conservatives. On a practical level, I don’t think they could ever be effective given rates of increase in consumption.
I talk about the population versus consumption focus some in this Kennedy Center lecture.
During the interim legislative session on August 17th, the director of Utah's Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands declared that the proposal to use Utah Lake for the world's largest dredged island project was legally unsound and unconstitutional. She additionally explained that Lake Restoration Solutions (LRS) had not provided adequate scientific evidence for the state to evaluate their proposal, which has been on file since 2017.
Director Barnes pulls no punches during the most important 9.5 minutes in the great Utah Lake debate. The transcript of the announcement and subsequent discussion is included at the bottom of this post.
The announcement clearly represents a huge setback for LRS and a huge win for Utah Lake, though the full implications are still unclear.
One of the things I hope everyone takes away from this is that normal citizens can have a huge influence on public events. LRS had a huge dollar advantage, connections with politicians, and a four-year head start. They didn't stand a chance against our rag-tag group of retirees, stay-at-home parents, and volunteer professionals. When we insist, truth and common sense still count.
Henry and a hundred swallows and blackbirds contemplate the wild and vast Utah Lake.
Here are some of the questions to consider as we transition to a post-LRS world:
When will the state announce the formal rejection of LRS's proposal, and will this stop LRS's Army Corps dredging application and attempt to secure $893 million from the EPA?
Will there be political reprisals against the state employees and agencies involved in this decision, or will the executive branch ensure freedom of speech and separation of powers?
Now that the premise has been deemed unconstitutional, will the legislature repeal the 2018 law that made the consideration of LRS's proposal possible?
How can we improve the ecological understanding of the legislature and the public regarding Utah Lake?
How can we best work with the legislature and the new Utah Lake Authority to expand science-based restoration efforts and enhance our community's connection with the lake?
Why are there so many pro-LRS members of the new Utah Lake Authority (check out this eye-opening analysis by several concerned citizens)?
How can we strengthen the Utah Lake Conservation Coalition and other community watchdog groups to improve accountability, transparency, and wise planning?
Melissa Stamp and her crew organize volunteers for a Saturday work session at the Provo River Delta Restoration Project. Over just a few years, the public's interest and support of Utah Lake have blossomed.
As we think about what kinds of efforts to support, here are eight prioritized recommendations from our Getting to Know Utah Lake report:
Rehabilitate our cultural connection with the lake through outreach, education, and experiences with the lake
Create a permanent conservation easement around the lake to ensure ecological health, public access, and long-term quality of life for our rapidly growing community
Increase river flow to the lake through better water laws and conservation by water users, including farmers, industries, and cities
Reduce pollutant flows to the lake by upgrading wastewater treatment and improving urban and agricultural runoff management in the watershed
Continue invasive species removal and habitat restoration in ecologically sound ways
Integrate the health and conservation of Utah Lake into strategic planning of future development in the valley
Protect the lake from dangerous proposals that threaten its health and our future
Support basic and applied research about the lake’s ecology and sustainable practices for its watershed
An island of freshwater in the arid expanse of the Great Basin.
Unofficial transcript of Director Barnes’ report to the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee:
Jamie Barnes: Thank you Mr. Chair. Again, Jamie Barnes, Director of Forestry, Fires, and State Lands. Well, thanks for giving me the opportunity today to update you on HB240 and the Utah Lake Restoration Project. Prior to getting into the update, I want to be clear that the Division does not take a position on this project. We've been working openly and in a friendly manner with Lake Restoration Solutions and looking at all options to enhance the quality of Utah lake. Since the implementation of HB240, the Division has been working towards addressing the key elements of the legislation, which is the recommendations for standards, criteria, and thresholds, and obviously the disposal of sovereign lands. In addition, the Division has been working with the agents of Lake Restoration Solutions on technical issues with regard to the application. These include: entity incorporation, application-party discrepancies, exchange versus disposal discrepancies, location of the project, and an application that predates the legislation.
With regard to the proposal, the proposal associated with the application lacks the scientific data to report the recommendations referred to in 1A of the legislation. This also makes it challenging to update you on the specific details required by the legislation at this time. However, more importantly for today is the disposal element associated with this project. When HB240 took effect, we met with the agents of Lake Restoration Solutions. We asked them to submit a legal memo to the Division regarding the fee simple disposal issue for this project. Since that time, the memo submitted has undergone extensive legal review by the Attorney General's Office who is our legal counsel. I have been advised by our legal counsel that there are material and substantive legal issues with the proposal submitted by Lake Restoration Solutions and that it is detrimental to the state of Utah and the public trust. The proposal is unconstitutional and is not legally sound.
Now, I understand that this is a case of first impression, but this project presents a risk to the state of Utah. There is a possibility of permanent loss of sovereign land to a private entity, the exposure to the state based on a fiduciary duty attributable to sovereign land, and impermissible infringement on public access to a state asset. Now, I know that's a lot to take in, but that's the update that I prepared for you today, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Botanist Blake Wellard identifies some of the rare native plants that are recovering from the lake's rich seed bank. Blake and other specialists have described Utah Lake's wetlands as the most intact and diverse of any in Utah.
Keven Stratton: Thank you, is there any committee discussion? Senator Iwamoto.
Jani Iwamoto: I just had that still on, but I appreciate that. Do we get to see the report?
Barnes: Well this is just an update. We haven't made a formal recommendation. This is just a status update
Iwamoto: Because, I had a lot of questions about it and what the problems are with the lake and remediation. I know the carp are gone, and we didn’t seem to have an algae bloom problem, and just issues with the sovereign land and storage for water that we would be losing.
Barnes: Yeah, I’m happy to discuss those in detail with you.
Iwamoto: I would like to.
Stratton: Further discussion? Seeing none, I want to thank you for the report and the update. I recognize that this is a big task, and I would just say is the…as we look at Utah Lake that the effort is that it become its best version and what we’re doing, and maybe I would just invite you certainly this is one option of others. And do you have any updates on the algal bloom circumstance or the anything else that you’d like to comment today on the Utah Lake that is in your care and supervision, Director?
Ingrid learns to paddle-board on Utah Lake. As we decide how to conserve and restore Utah Lake, are we being good ancestors?
Barnes: Well, I will just say that I think there's a misconception that Utah Lake is getting worse, and I think that depends on who you talk to. My Division is currently taking management actions to improve the quality of Utah Lake. And I think over time that we’ve seen Utah Lake improving. There are a lot of things that are currently being done on Utah Lake to improve and enhance the quality of the lake, and I think that's what we need to continue to is: we need to look at all options to enhance the quality of Utah Lake and to make it a functioning ecosystem. It's important that we start taking proactive measures on the lake and not be reactive. And, I'm hopeful that with the funding that the legislature has given us–that we're very thankful for–that we can continue to improve Utah Lake.
Stratton: Thank you Director, and again it's certainly, I want to emphasize the legislative intent, and I think certainly aligned with the executive branch’s intent to see that that lake becomes its very best version. And that's going to take a lot of work and effort. A heavy lift for all of us, so continue those efforts and look forward to continued updates and a final report as we move through the interim session. Thank you, Director.
A man fishes in the expansive and glorious Utah Lake.
I’ve been studying lakes since 2007. In 15 short years, I’ve worked on aquatic ecosystems from Alaska to France to the Tibetan Plateau. I’ve never encountered a waterbody as important or imperiled as Utah Lake.
The lake seems out of place and out of time. A fragment of freshwater cupped by the 200,000-square-mile Great Basin. A remnant of the Pleistocene that has witnessed some of the most dramatic events in geologic and human history, including the draining of Lake Bonneville and the rise and fall of dozens of Indigenous and immigrant civilizations.
Like most waterbodies in the U.S., Utah Lake has problems, including algal blooms and invasive species. However, decades of cooperative science and community-based restoration have put Utah Lake onthe road to recovery. The June Sucker are rebounding, invasive species are being removed, public access is expanding, and algal blooms are declining for most of the lake. Perhaps most importantly, our community is embracing the lake—learning about its unique ecology and renewing our commitments as stewards of this part of God’s creation. Visitation has doubled in just a few years, community groups are organizing service and leisure events, and our leaders are leveraging their funding and influence to protect Utah Lake.
A short film by Leika Patch on the status and recovery of Utah Lake.
At this crucial moment of healing, a limited liability company called Lake Restoration Solutions (LRS) is proposing to turn Utah Lake into a construction site for the world’s largest dredged island complex. They claim without evidence that their island city will help the lake and are asking the people of Utah to give them an undisclosed amount of public land within and around the lake as compensation. Though LRS has disclosed few details about its island developments, leaked documents suggest they could make $11 billion from the land transfer alone. You can read LRS’s dredging application here and six independent evaluations of the project here.
I wrote a blog post last November describing seven problems with LRS’s proposal. There have been major revelations since then, and I thought an update was in order. This post is longer than the last one, but I hope you take the time to read it. Whatever your current position on the island project, this issue is too important to stay on the fence. Utah Lake needs all of us to be informed and engaged. I look forward to your criticisms and questions in the comments.
This dramatic shot by Jeff Beck captures the beauty and tumult of the current Utah Lake situation.
Problem #8. Failure to answer questions about liability
One of the biggest concerns about this project is the enormous economic and environmental risk it imposes on the people of Utah. LRS is proposing a 20+ year construction experiment using unproven methods at an unprecedented scale. If engineering, environmental, or economic complications occur at any time, LRS is a limited liability company that could declare bankruptcy and walk away. They have repeatedly failed to explain who would be responsible for cleanup if the project goes belly up.
American Fork’s mayor asked LRS President Jon Benson about this directly at the Utah Lake Commission meeting in January. Benson responded, “that’s an interesting question . . . It’s a legal question it sounds like to me about liability, and I’m not sure I know the answer right away.” Benson turned to an LRS permitting specialist, who said, “I can kind of hedge around, but I don’t know that I have the exact answer of liability.” LRS has been giving this same non-answer for years (listen to CEO Ryan Benson table the issue in this 2018 recording).
Under pressure from a skeptical public, LRS changed its narrative in February. Just over an hour into this contentious Vineyard city council meeting, Jon Benson dismissed concerns about economic and environmental risks as “emotional” and then claimed, “there’s not risk—financial risk to the state beyond the 10 million dollars as I’ve tried to be clear about and articulate”. He was referring to the $10 million loan guarantee given to LRS by the state legislature in 2021. However, he was conveniently ignoring the much larger risk of a failed project, which could leave our community with billions of dollars of environmental cleanup and decades of lost recreation, conservation, and economic benefits.
A few days later at an invitation-only event at the Grand America Hotel, LRS leadership mentioned their intention to put up a performance bond for the work. I was encouraged by this news, but whether it provides real protection depends on the details. For example, if LRS uses federal funds for the performance bonds (they are seeking $893 million from the EPA), the liability still falls on taxpayers. Likewise, if they only bond enough to finish the dredging or construction, it leaves the public with the cost of removing the islands and restoring the lakebed should their experiment damage the lake, as more than 130 independent experts believe it would.
It is not a surprise that LRS is cagey about responsibility. One of the hallmarks of megaprojects like this is a push to privatize profits while socializing the risks. Andrew South, a professor of Civil and Construction Engineering from BYU, gave a speech on the topic in February:
Megaprojects bring a full slate of known risks, but a proportionately higher number of unknown risks. Who bears the burden of these risks? Evidence has demonstrated that regardless of contractual risk transfer, when challenges grow large enough, it is always the public and its government that pay the cost. Whether financial, environmental or social. Unintended consequences due to future technical challenges and unforeseen negative economic or environmental impacts are not paid by project promoters, but by the generations of the public.
Parasailers enjoy a Utah Lake sunset from the sky. Photo by Jared Tamez.
Problem #9. Failure to tell us what they plan to do
Paradoxically, the further along this project gets, the murkier the details become. LRS’s original 2017 proposal was the clearest picture of their plans we’ve seen. The former project leads provided a timeline (>30 years), estimates of the island population (up to 500,000), details about invasive species removal (poisoning the entire lake with rotenone), and a general breakdown of the proposed $6.5 billion budget. They were even forthcoming about the fact that dredging a billion cubic yards of sediment would take “60 dredgers working 20 hours a day, six days a week, for eight years.” The project was no more viable than it is today, but at least we knew what they were trying to do.
When the Benson brothers took over sometime in 2019, they pulled a Bruce Wayne and took the project underground. To my knowledge, LRS has still not organized a single public meeting, though they have spent “years meeting with interested parties and government officials”. For their Army Corps dredging application, they had to disclose 48 closed-door meetings in 2021 alone, not counting meetings with politicians and investors (though some of these meetings have since come to light through GRAMA and FOIA requests). This lack of public engagement is stunning for a project that describes itself as “the largest fresh water restoration project in the United States” and Utah’s biggest public-private partnership.
While avoiding public input, LRS has been trying to distance themselves from unpopular aspects of their proposal. For example, in the February Vineyard city council meeting, LRS was asked about their claims that the islands might house 500,000 people. Jon Benson seemed indignant: “It’s in the proposal, and now we’re getting blasted for it.” However, when asked to give an updated estimate, Benson said, “I don’t want to give a number that I have to come back and say we need a little more to make it work.” For the rest of the meeting, Benson dodged all logistical questions. The placement of roads—not their call. The number and configuration of islands—impossible to know. Opposition from Provo, American Fork, and Orem—unfair and uninformed. The infamous skyscrapers from their promotional materials—only in there because of environmentalists! “The placement of islands could change a lot, it could change significantly, or no islands. I mean, there’s a lot of ways this could go as we get into this process.”
There has also been a blurring of detail in LRS’s written materials. At the Utah Lake Summit in January, Benson promised that their forthcoming Army Corps application would be “replete with science, data, and all the research that we’ve been doing”. At the same event, their lead lobbyist Jeff Hartley said the application had “over 100 pages of citations to peer-reviewed science”, falsely claiming that they were legally prohibited from sharing the application with the public. When the application finally came out, it was easy to see why they didn’t want to release it. There was less specificity than had been in the 2017 proposal and almost no science, new or old.
Here is an excerpt of an independent review of the application led by Sam Rushforth, the emeritus dean of the College of Science at UVU with more than 50 years of research experience on Utah Lake:
While the application does include a required wetlands survey, it does not present any new water or sediment chemistry data. Likewise, it provides no new evidence that the proposed modifications would be beneficial to Utah Lake in any way. Instead, LRS claims that they will perform this research later, in some cases after the beginning of dredging.
In addition to not presenting new data, LRS disregards many available studies about Utah Lake. The application cites a total of 12 peer-reviewed studies, only 4 of which were published since 1994…The disregard of this information—whether intentional or unintentional—is not reassuring from a group that claims to be capable of reengineering the lake from the bottom up.
All six groups that have made their analyses of LRS’s application public note the lack of clarity about what is being proposed. LRS seems to have learned that specificity is dangerous. If you never pin down your plan, you can always dismiss criticisms as premature or sue critics that are on the right track.
In summary, LRS is very confident that their project will be awesome for the lake and our valley. They just don’t think we need to know how, who, when, or why. The nebulousness leaves me with the same feeling as this Vineyard city council member: “You’re saying, ‘We have an idea, and it could take all these various forms, but we don’t really have any substance beyond that,’ so I don’t see why we are debating it.”
The project layout from LRS's application to the Army Corps of Engineers. The application is supposed to allow the public and the Corps to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. Unfortunately, the application only satisfied 8 out 51 Army Corps requirements, based on an independent analysis led by Deeda Seed. They conclude, “LRS has failed to satisfy these prerequisites, putting the Corps and the public on unfair footing from the outset.”
Problem #10. Backwards science
Since our first encounter in 2018, it’s been clear that LRS has an unconventional understanding of the scientific method. They have ignored available studies, never reached out to the Utah Lake Science Panel, and made repeated blunders about basic science. For example they claimed that Utah Lake evaporation was not a source of downwind precipitation, they interpreted the most pertinent lake sediment study backwards, and they’ve refused to share the methods behind their claims of massive project benefits (LRS was recently forced to admit that their water storage and evaporation numbers were largely made up when challenged by actual water managers and hydrologists). I initially thought these rookie mistakes were just a consequence of inadequate expertise, but now I fear that LRS’s anti-science tendencies are rooted in a conflict of interest that goes much deeper. They’ve decided what the lake needs based on a business model.
I pointed out last November that LRS had “no PhD-level environmental or ecological scientists” on their team. This observation was based on their own materials, including multiple team rosters, their proposal, and their website. If I was wrong, they could have easily corrected the record by releasing their list of scientists. Instead, they responded by suing me for $3 million, filing a motion to keep their list of experts confidential, and releasing the name of a single PhD engineer, who they falsely claimed had 7,000 peer-reviewed publications. The bluster and fibs didn’t surprise me—we’ve seen a lot of this from LRS—but their confusion about engineers and scientists was puzzling.
Any major restoration project needs both scientists and engineers. The scientists diagnose the problem, sharing their data and recommendations publicly to explore multiple options. After stakeholder and public input, a restoration plan is developed, which the engineers implement. Just as scientists can’t carry out restoration without engineers, not even the world’s best engineers can help an ecosystem if not guided by rigorous science. Dr. Hans Paerl, a global expert in lake restorationdescribed one such engineering first blunder in this recent episode of Radio West.
Lake Taihu is one of the largest freshwater lakes in China, and not dissimilar to Utah Lake in some respects (large, shallow, and lowland), though its algal bloom and pollution problems are much worse. In the early 2000s, some well-intentioned politicians and engineers decided to try a hard-path engineering shortcut. Rather than doing the difficult work of reducing wastewater and agricultural nutrient sources, they began an extreme campaign of dredging and hydrological modification. The misguided modifications cost $5 billion and ended up making the algal blooms much worse, cutting off the water supply for ~20 million people. Dr. Paerl gave the following synopsis:
The problem is that the engineers got in the room first… It was a decision that was made without really taking the ecology of the system into consideration. I think the lesson is that ecological systems, they don’t operate like physical things like building a building or a bridge or a dam—you know physical structures that engineers would typically work on.
With the stakes of Utah Lake restoration so high, why would LRS disregard available evidence and try to stifle scientific debate? I’ve concluded that it’s because their business model only works if they build and sell islands. Rather than beginning with research into what the lake might need, LRS started with a funding mechanism: selling land on artificial islands. They have been dredging up justifications and arguments to support this path ever since. When investors have millions or billions of dollars riding on a pre-selected “solution,” there is a pretty strong incentive to disregard any contradictory evidence and disparage any skeptical experts. Though LRS’s supporters say they are the only ones concerned with “science and facts,” LRS’s conflict of interest won’t let them consider any options that don’t involve islands. As one community leader in Saratoga Springs said, “LRS has never met a problem that can’t be fixed by islands.” George Handley described LRS’s single mindedness this way:
The myth [of an irreparable Utah Lake] has persuaded many of our elected officials that only a proposal to create and pave islands in the middle of the lake will save it. This is the mindset of the surgeon who never met a problem that surgery couldn’t solve. It’s time for a second opinion. It is our collective responsibility to ask what the body of the lake is telling us it really needs.
In restoration ecology, like in medicine, the first rule is to “do no harm.” That requires extremely rigorous analysis of all available evidence and clear-eyed consideration of all available options.
An American avocet hunts and looks for a mate on Utah Lake. Photo by Jeff Beck.
Problem #11. Disdain for debate and free speech
The constitutionally protected right to free speech is especially important when deciding issues of public concern. As Americans and Utahns, it is our responsibility to scrutinize and speak out about proposals that impact our community. The future of our state’s largest freshwater lake is certainly such an issue.
LRS says they welcome criticism and debate, but their actions tell a different story. Rather than demonstrating the viability of their proposal in the public square, LRS has used legal actions to silence critics and sought to influence “interested parties and government officials” behind closed doors through political favors, campaign donations, and offers of real estate. They have attacked the character of anyone who questions them and then played the victim when confronted with details from their own proposal and past statements.
Their fear of open dialogue has led them to suppress questions and criticisms on both social and traditional media. LRS has deactivated comments on their YouTube channel and banned so many people from their Facebook page that sailors from the Utah Lake Yacht Club created a parallel site to allow actual discussion. I have heard from multiple reporters that LRS has harassed them when their coverage wasn’t completely complementary.
If they have such a great project, why is LRS so anxious to avoid free speech and debate? Their statements give us some clues. When asked about public involvement this last summer, their CFO stated, “we are just about to really commence on our public outreach,” and that the public should “just kind of keep on monitoring the progress to show their support.” In January, their lead lobbyist said, “we welcome the opportunity to tell you what we’re doing. We’ve done it lots of times, we have lots of events, lots of forums, and we will have more. You will hear about it.” In February, their president said their public events would start in April.
It’s not the delayed timeline that disturbs me most (heavens knows, I’m 6 months behind on everything at this point); it’s their conditions on speech that raise red flags. LRS only wants “constructive” criticism. They only want the kind of “free” speech that supports and advances their project. They envision a one-way relationship where they inform us of their plans, and we cheer them on from the sidelines.
This patronizing belief is evident in their public relations campaign. LRS still hasn’t bothered to host a single event for public input, but they have expended substantial resources on billboards, paid TV and radio spots, and catered press conferences. At the same time, LRS has falsely claimed it would be inappropriate for the public or experts to weigh in at this stage, as if they are somehow entitled to a multi-year monopoly on the airwaves.
Unfortunately, this disdain and dismissal of the public appears to be a pattern. LRS’s CEO has spent years fighting to keep the public from knowing how he used millions of dollars of tax money to lobby against endangered species. LRS’s lead lobbyist apparently considers himself so far above public accountability that he dismissed Draper citizens as clowns and trolls when they pointed out his major conflicts of interest and potential misuse of their tax money.
LRS’s campaign to advance their project through intimidation and attacks has caused real damage to legitimate restoration efforts, creating an environment of distrust and suspicion in our community. After LRS served local community group Conserve Utah Valley with an invasive subpoena, Craig Christensen said:
We try to work in good faith to bring more transparency and collaboration to solve issues surrounding the challenges facing Utah Lake. We wish the developers would focus on involving the public in their plans instead of using the law to antagonize those who want to participate.
My lawyer Whit Krogue captured LRS’s position even more succinctly when she wrote, “LRS’s actions suggest that it does not want public involvement…until it has the resources, permitting, and legislative support to overcome it.”
Ron Madson took us out for a sail last month, and we couldn't resist going for a dip. Between their negative advertising about the lake and their intimidation lawsuit, LRS seems to be trying to keep us from visiting or talking about Utah Lake. Do we want to live in a society where only those who can afford to retain permanent legal counsel can fully participate in public debate? Will we tolerate legal actions that dodge the hard questions and instead seek to silence citizens who are trying to understand and speak out about what is going on? These are no longer rhetorical questions.
Problem #12. Double speak and double standards
One of the most consistent and discouraging behaviors I’ve seen from LRS is dishonesty. From misrepresenting the history and status of the lake to mischaracterizing their own lawsuit, they seem to have a moving standard of truth. Maybe this kind of factual flexibility is typical in real estate speculation, but when the future of Utah’s largest freshwater lake is at stake, we need an absolute commitment to transparency and rigor. Here are eight inconsistencies and blatant deceptions that I think are pertinent as we decide if LRS is a trustworthy partner.
1. LRS has grossly misrepresented current and past restoration work on Utah Lake, claiming in essence thatnothing is being done. At the same time, LRS is waging a majormedia campaignto stokenegative stereotypesabout the lake, calling it gross, broken, a cesspool, and an eyesore. In reality, a coordinatedrestoration programincluding hundreds of innovative and highly successfulprojectshas put the lake on theroad to recovery. For example, state and local partners achieved ~80% carp removal and 70% phragmites control in less than a decade, senior water rights have beensecured, nutrient limits have beentightened, and habitat restoration of lakeshore and lakebed isexpanding. Thanks to these efforts, the June Sucker are rebounding, lake visitation is rising, and algal blooms aredeclining. Rather than learning from and supporting these innovative and successful restoration efforts, LRS portrays current work as futilepilot programs. According to LRS, islands are our only option for “comprehensive restoration”.
2. Depending on who they are talking with, LRS will either say their project is shovel-ready, or that they are years away from even starting. For example, they told the Vineyard city council, “This is going to be a long process though, and I think people are thinking we’re about to go do something. We’re not even close to starting dredging.” At the same time, leaked financial materials they were circulating to potential investors indicated that dredging and raw land sales were planned for 2023.
3. Tangled timelines are part of a larger LRS mischaracterization about the environmental permitting process. LRS has falsely claimed that they were prohibited from releasing their Army Corps application and that it’s not appropriate for experts or the public to weigh in about their project until the NEPA process officially begins. The opposite is true. Best practices and LRS’s own invitation from last year invite robust public participation from the very beginning of project design. More broadly, LRS has misrepresented the Army Corps and NEPA as infallible protections against all environmental harm. Jon Benson stated “if it’s going to make it worse, you wouldn’t receive the permits. The project would end at that at that stage.” In fact, over 99% of projects submitted for NEPA and Army Corps review are approved. A recent report on the Army Corps notes:
Two National Academy of Sciences panels and the Department of the Army Inspector General concluded that the Corps has an institutional bias for approving large and environmentally damaging structural projects, and that its planning process lacks adequate environmental safeguards. Less environmentally damaging, less costly, nonstructural measures that would result in the same or better outcomes are routinely ignored or given short shrift. This results in projects that are unnecessarily destructive, costly, and, in many cases, simply not needed.
NEPA is not a guarantee that federal bureaucrats will protect us from irresponsible projects. It is a mechanism that allows local citizens to defend themselves by actively asking questions, challenging stated benefits, and demanding details. LRS’s misrepresentations are meant to discourage public debate and give a false sense of security about their project.
4. When I called LRS’s funding structure “shady” last November, it turns out I’d only scratched the surface. LRS has been all over the map about their funding amounts and sources. They have described the project as Utah’s largest public-private partnership but claim that no taxpayer dollars will be spent. Nevertheless, they are seeking $893 million in subsidized federal loans—representing potentially $200 million of taxpayer-funded financial benefit. Their private sector funding is just as convoluted. In 2019, they claimed to have global investors lined up for the various project phases. Last year, they said they had “signed engagements with some of the largest environmental and impact-oriented funds in the world,” who they couldn’t identify because of nondisclosure agreements. They now say their funding is “all from domestic sources but mostly just from here in Utah.” However, it is unclear if this refers to the actual funding sources or the U.S.-based financial institutions managing the investments.
5. LRS claims their project will deliver “$6.5 billion dollars of environmental work—improvements to be done for the lake.“ However, their project budget reveals that most of this investment would be used to build and develop islands—activities that would damage not restore the lake. Indeed, they appear to have backed away from almost all true restoration work, leaving the habitat, invasive species, and water work to the state and local partners who are already making excellent progress. This led a government official who previously supported islands to tell me that LRS’s project brings zero added value, “Everything that’s being promised is already being executed.”
This sunset panorama by James Huston reminds us how Utah Lake is the defining feature of our valley.
6. LRS has falsely claimed to be working with or endorsed by multiple community, city, state, and federal organizations. In December, LRS told the press they’d received a “fabulous endorsement” from the EPA. However, the actual announcement showed that LRS was one of only eleven projects not invited to submit an application to the EPA’s loan program. The Mayor of Vineyard told me that LRS said they had permitting in place and were “under contract” with the EPA—presumably one of the reasons the mayor signed a letter committing $5 million of city funds to the project without city council approval. LRS’s investment pitch reads, “LRS is a private/public partnership between the LRS team, government agencies, the state of Utah, local municipalities, and renowned real estate developers.” However, the state says it hasn’t received the required information to even evaluate the proposal, and except for Vineyard’s unauthorized letter, LRS hasn’t identified any supporting cities. LRS has falsely claiming that local environmental groups were on board, and they have been called out by a federal official for falsely stating that they were working with their organization.
7. Despite standing to make billions in taxpayer-subsidized profits, LRS insists that it’s their critics who have ulterior motives and personal agendas. They have accused their opponents of lacking transparency and spreading misinformation, even when that misinformation comes from LRS’s own materials and statements. They have asked to be personally invited to any opposition meetings, though they have never invited or even allowed critics to attend their events. They have strangely complained about not being allowed to share their data, though the state has been waiting for more details since 2018. They have criticized cities who have met with their opponents, though LRS has repeatedly met with city, county, and state officials with no representation from the other side.
8. Most personally, LRS has repeatedly misrepresented their own lawsuit against me. In February, when we responded to their allegations and counter-sued under Utah’s anti-SLAPP statute, LRS circulated a press release to the media. Though their lawsuit specifically seeks an injunction that would permanently prevent me from making any “derogatory” comments about their proposal in the future, here is how they described their lawsuit (the underlining is their own):
In our complaint, we ask that Mr. Abbott stop making false statements about Lake Restoration Solutions and its Project to restore Utah Lake. We also ask that those false statements be removed from Mr. Abbott’s social media and other websites.
Notably, we do not ask him to stop participating in the public process or sharing his criticisms and opinions about the Project… The complaint focuses solely on his defamatory and false statements.
They closed their press release by accusing me of grandstanding, as if them suing me was somehow my master plan. “We intend to prove our case in a court of law, while Mr. Abbott seems intent on creating a public spectacle to promote his own personal agenda.”
Representative Casey Snider asks questions about the behavior and approach of LRS during the committee hearing of HB240. The law amended the 2018 HB272 that paved the way for the transfer of Utah Lake sovereign land to private developers.
Problem #13.A history of misusing public funds and ethical conflicts
As a scientist, I naively assumed that the Utah Lake debate would be decided by scientific evidence. The lawsuit forced me to take a much deeper look into the relationships behind the island proposal. As I dug into the background of the proponents, I was shocked and saddened by what I found. I hate personal attacks, but I believe these details are directly pertinent to the question of whether LRS is the right group to take the reins of Utah Lake restoration.
As shallow as they are in scientists, LRS is deep in lobbyists and lawyers. They have six registered lobbyists, including Jeff and Greg Hartley, who have been described as some of the most powerful influencers on capitol hill because of their connections with former Speaker of the House Greg Hughes. During their time with the former speaker, Hughes was caught in a dizzying string of controversies that led to a federal probe into conflicts of interest with UTA and his resignation from the Inland Port Authority just weeks after appointing himself because of undisclosed land holdings. Self-described oil and gas “dirty lobbyist” Jeff Hartley himself has been caught up in a series of ethical conflicts. Hartley was simultaneously lobbying for the city of Draper and Geneva Rock, he physically prevented journalists from recording arrests during an Inland Port protest, and he is still working for both the City of Vineyard and LRS without disclosing the conflict to the city council in an apparent breach of contract.
Even more concerning, LRS’s CEO Ryan Benson has a history of faux-conservation activities and personal enrichment from public funds. Though he presents himself as a champion of the private sector, his two environmental consulting firms have together taken $12 million in taxpayer dollars while refusing to disclose how they used the funds. Big Game Forever (BGF) has been seeking to delist the gray wolf (a species that does not currently occur in Utah), and Stag Consulting has been trying to keep the greater sage grouse (which is in decline across the West) from being listed as threatened.
Questions about state payments to Benson’s organizations led to a legislative audit, which found BGF had comingled private funds with state money, and that there were inadequate safeguards and fiscal accountability. Benson reported to the state that BGF had more than 100,000 members, but independent reporting found fewer than 600 members, based on the membership fees reported in taxes.
Indeed, Benson’s anti-science advocacy has raised the ire of hunters and sportsmen across the West, who have spoken out about his companies' misuse of hunting license fees, attacks on public land and public hunting, and concerns about shifting money among 10 nonprofit and private organizations. Randy Newberg, one of the most prominent hunters in North America, takes Benson's groups to task, calling them "Johnny-come-latelys" and "carnies of crisis" who have muddied the water and harmed collaborative restoration and conservation efforts:
I'm referring to a group that tried to say they were representing hunters in the wolf issue, and they screwed us over so bad that if they would have just shut up and went home, we would have a way better outcome, a quicker outcome... I mean let's face it, there are some people who know that a crisis is an opportunity to profit, and nobody has built a franchise model any better than those groups out of Utah. And I don't mean to make this a bash those guys thing, but they stick their nose where it doesn't belong, they don't have any professional qualifications like you do. They’re manned by attorneys and other stuff.
Benson's groups even got called out by three of the most powerful pro-hunting organizations in the country when they emailed a press release to all 535 members of the U.S. congress falsely claiming endorsement. The groups issued a joint public statement to disavow all affiliation:
Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act...Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.
In combination with multiple donations to county and state politicians, LRS looks much more like a political action committee than a restoration company.
Consulting firms run by LRS CEO Ryan Benson have received more than $12 million since 2012 for largely undisclosed state and federal lobbying (financial data from government transparency details: BGF and Stag Consulting).
Problem #14. Misleading comparisons
LRS insists that artificial islands are routinely used for ecological restoration, and that there are more than 70 comparable projects in the U.S. alone. They have cited Sea World, Galveston, Florida’s Venetian Islands, New Orleans, and Dubai as examples of why we shouldn’t be afraid of dredging. Even though these projects are much smaller than the Utah Lake islands, let’s dig a little deeper into LRS’s examples.
LRS claims that projects like theirs are common and highly successful. This comparison by Conserve Utah Valley shows that there are indeed several artificial island projects around the world. However, it also shows that the size and budget are way out of proportion for this project. LRS’s plan would be the world’s largest dredged island chain and the largest dredging project ever considered by the EPA or Army Corps.
In the 1940s, the city of Galveston tried repeatedly to use taxpayer money to dredge and fill an area in the East End Flats. Though the reclaimed land would be for private real estate development, the Mayor of Galveston called it “the biggest bargain ever offered to the taxpayers.” A concerned citizen wrote a Warning to Taxpayers in the local newspaper, concluding, “Galveston is well stocked with egotistical, self-appointed planners and brain trusters, who are always ready to furnish the scheme if taxpayers can be deceived into putting up the cash.” Citizens voted down the proposal, though the developers eventually moved forward with their own money, contributing to extensive wetland destruction.
Florida’s island chains near Miami are another illuminating case study. Biscayne Bay was a vibrant lagoon and estuary. During a land boom in the 1920s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hastily constructed about a dozen “spoil” islands with dredged sediments from the bay. The islands and causeways disrupted circulation and put thousands of people in areas vulnerable to flooding. The dredging altered the bathymetry of the bay, exacerbating the effects of a category 4 hurricane in 1926, which devastated the developments. By 1930, plans for additional islands were cancelled to avoid “further mutilation of the waterway”. However, 75% of the bay had been dredged and coastal wetlands had been almost eliminated. Erosion from the spoil islands increased turbidity, killing vegetation, coral, and other sea life across the bay. To this day, more than half of the remaining sea floor is barren, and invasive plant specifies dominate the spoil islands. This may look like success to LRS because “ultra-luxury” estates were built on the islands, including the Anheuser-Busch mansion where Al Capone vacationed.
Zooming out a bit, we see that dredging and land creation projects have caused some of our nation’s worst ecological degradation and even human tragedies such as flooding during Hurricane Katrina. A recent report on Army-Corps-approved projects gave the following context:
The environmental damage has been so great that Corps projects are recognized as one of the leading reasons that North America’s freshwater species are disappearing five times faster than land based species and as quickly as rainforest species. Large-scale structural projects planned and constructed by the Corps have also increased flood risks for many communities, reduced water quality, impaired recreational opportunities, and damaged economies that rely on a healthy environment.
If we consider international examples, artificial islands have an even worse track record. China’s 940-acre Ocean Flower Island project cost $24 billion and destroyed coral reefs and oyster beds. Because of environmental shortcuts, 39 high rises had to be demolished, contributing to the developer’s $300 billion of debt. Japan’s Kansai Airport became the most expensive civil works project in modern history. Despite having some of the world’s best engineers, the artificial island sunk 8 feet more than expected (it continues sinking today). Between the cost overruns and continued instability, the project is considered one of the world’s largest geotechnical engineering disasters, costing more than $30 billion.
An overview of the six island chains that were planned for the coast of Dubai.
Most famously, the artificial islands in the Persian Gulf demonstrate how it is possible for a single enterprise to simultaneously be an economic failure, an environmental disaster, and a human rights catastrophe. The attempted construction of more than six archipelagos of islands in Dubai created massive ecological damage, including triggering algal blooms, degrading water quality, eroding coastlines, and asphyxiating sensitive coral ecosystems. Despite cutting costs by using forced labor, the developers ended up $60 billion in debt.
The similarities between the Dubai islands and LRS’s scheme are more than skin deep. LRS’s Director of Planning & Design is Robert Scott, who is described in LRS documents as the general manager of design and planning for Palm Deira and The World (two of the failed Dubai archipelagos). When I and others brought up this point, LRS said it was an unfair criticism because Scott was just the architect. LRS has since gone to great lengths to distance itself from the Dubai islands, including suing me for pointing out the connections. They may have even let Scott go, who no longer appears on LRS’s team page.
Screen capture of LRS’s private presentation to state officials from September of 2020. In February of 2022, Jon Benson told the city of Vineyard that “Dubai and this project have nothing in common, in my opinion.”
To their credit, LRS has brought up one island creation project that is motivated by restoration. Marker Wadden is a Dutch project to undo damage from a botched land creation attempt from last century. In 1932, the Dutch completed a “closure dike” that cut off a 420 square-mile bay of the North Sea. The Dutch intended to drain the area to create polders, but the land reclamation stalled in the 1960s. After completing another mega-dike in 1976, the huge Markerwaard development was indefinitely put on hold because of political and environmental concerns. However, the massive hydrological modifications were already doing their damage. The dikes transformed what was previously a dynamic and productive tidal ecosystem into a series of stagnant reservoirs. The artificial shorelines provided little habitat, and the loss of tidal circulation caused the water to turn brackish and then fresh. The changes also disrupted sediment transport causing erosion and the accumulation of silt. These alterations killed off the benthic community and caused a cascade of ecological collapses.
Since 2012, the Marker Wadden project has been trying to mitigate some of this damage by creating uninhabited artificial tidal flats and wetlands. Thanks to public funding, the project has been partially successful, and the media coverage has been overwhelmingly positive. However, Marker Wadden has also revealed the limitations of this kind of damage control. A 2021 analysis of the project found that most of the initial promises were not achieved. For example, using locally dredged silt proved expensive and slow, so the dredging company imported sand from another project, undermining two of the original project goals (removing silt from the reservoir bottom and developing new dredging techniques). Likewise, the scientific research activities were cut, and the water quality goals were replaced by a focus on island size and speed of construction. The authors conclude, “Whereas the public value to be created was initially broadly defined, it fell apart in disconnected tracks.”
However, I don’t want to bash Marker Wadden. It’s just a project that is trying to make the best of a bad situation. The main lesson from this story is that megaprojects and miracle cures bring along huge risks. We should fix Utah Lake by restoring its water flow and reducing pollutants, not by trying to make it into something it never was. Unlike the Great Salt Lake, which we sliced and diced into six independent basins, Utah Lake is still intact. That means we still have a chance at real restoration—at least if we can dodge the silver bullets. As taught in both ecology and environmental engineering, the chief cause of problems is solutions.
I’ll end with a comparison that LRS has never mentioned, but one that I think is extremely relevant. Lake Balaton is a large and shallow lake in Hungary with similar chemistry and hydrology to Utah Lake. Starting 150 years ago, a series of mistakes triggered a familiar cycle of interventions and unintended consequences. Flow control structures were installed to keep the lake level from fluctuating. Invasive eels and carp were introduced to supercharge the fishery and decrease algal blooms. Barriers were constructed to protect the shoreline from ice and wave erosion. This taming of the lake let development extend right to the shoreline, leading to wetland destruction and nutrient loading from wastewater. In the 1970s, the lake’s food web and ability to remove pollutants collapsed, causing toxic algal blooms and mass fish kills. A recent study on Lake Balaton’s mismanagement sounds uncannily like a description of LRS’s proposal.
Reasons for the negative results/impacts of the introduced interventions are: insufficient level of technical or scientific knowledge at the time of planning and implementation; poor decision support systems and mechanisms; insufficient consultation with local people and experts of other fields; lack of integrated approach, both in terms of territorial and interdisciplinary aspects; and pursuing of short term economic or political benefits.
Thankfully, the local community learned from these failures and changed directions in the 1990s. Just like the June Sucker Recovery Program, scientists and managers implemented a community-driven restoration plan. This included wastewater treatment, restoration of wetland habitat, agricultural improvements, and even some targeted dredging. As expected, the lake’s recovery was not immediate. However, the community stuck with the adaptive management plan, and over 20 years, the lake began to heal. Though full recovery will likely take another few decades, Lake Balaton is now an international tourist destination and a major source of national pride.
Native vegetation recovers after phragmites removal near Saratoga Springs. Science-based restoration and community support are bringing new life to Utah Lake. Will we be wise enough to let the sun rise or repeat the mistakes of the past? In this delicate moment of recovery, we need everyone informed and engaged. Photo by Jeff Beck.
So, what can we do?
The first thing is to repeal the law that opened the door to giving away our sovereign lands. Look up your state representative and senator and ask them if they will help repeal HB272 from 2018. You don’t need to moralize or shame them—there were many sincere legislators who believed the law would help the lake. Indeed, most of the legislature voted for the amendments this last session that added some guardrails to the process (thank you Representative Stratton and Senator Bramble!). However, we need to reestablish the lake's constitutional protections for sovereign land so we can get back to real restoration work. LRS is going to complain that we need to let the process play out. However, they have already had three years to prove they were capable of restoring the lake, and they haven't even submitted the required information to the state. Do we really want to keep subsidizing their venture while they undermine legitimate education and restoration efforts?
You can also submit a comment to the Army Corps expressing your thoughts, questions, and concerns. Send your respectful email to the point of contact here.
Finally, you can go explore and enjoy the lake. There is nothing more motivating and rejuvenating than experiencing Utah Lake. There are a bunch of great ideas on the Utah Lake Commission website. Share your experiences with your family and friends to help our community rediscover this amazing ecosystem at the heart of our community.
As the lake freezes, rafts of windblown ice create unique patterns. Let's make sure the lake is still here for our kids and grandkids.
