A recent article in the Lancet medical journal has been getting a lot of press for predicting that the global population will decline sooner than most experts predict — at 9.7 billion in 2064. But a) that’s still way too many people for this roasting planet and b) the authors are more optimistic about improvements in women’s education and access to birth control than many other demographers. You can read an excellent summary of the new study and the broader debates surrounding it, including some comments by UPEC’s own Derek Hoff.
Indonesia’s New Coronavirus Concern: A Post-Pandemic Baby Boom
With restrictions in place, millions stopped visiting clinics for contraceptives, says the government, which promotes family planning as part of its fight against child malnutrition…
The pandemic could lead to a ‘baby bust’ of almost half a million fewer births, a major think tank
projectsinsider@insider.com (Juliana Kaplan)
Brookings Institute economists predict that the coronavirus pandemic will lead to what they call a “baby bust” — not a baby boom…
Stephen C. Bannister: Our Faustian bargain with fossil fuels
By Stephen C. Bannister | Special to The Tribune · Published: 5 days ago
Updated: 5 days ago
Most of us have enjoyed the much cleaner air since the great COVID-19 shutdown-caused economic collapse. Everything damaging that we normally dump into our common airshed is reduced — carbon dioxide that increases climate warming and the pollutant precursors that cause regional haze we notice as bad air quality and bad health outcomes — and the result has been cleaner air for all to enjoy.
But this win has been accompanied by considerable social and commercial costs. The pandemic has sharply curtailed personal and business activities, causing lost incomes across the economy and damaging the poorest parts of society and business most heavily.
Is One Better than the Other for Our Planet? Have Small Families! Go Vegan!
For over 60 years, I’ve lived and thrived by eating fruits, veggies, legumes, nuts, seeds, grains, pasta, and some of the vegan options that have proliferated over the past two decades. I’ve been a vegetarian since I was two years old and able to say “no” to the meat on my plate. Thankfully, my mom was kind enough to not force me to eat it. So, for the first 20 years of my life, I was a vegetarian because I didn’t like the taste and texture of meat.
Then, as I got older, I learned about the massive and devastating impact of industrial-raised animals on our environment. For the next 30 years I included environmental reasons to my list for not eating meat. After the pain, anguish, and incredible suffering of the animals used, abused, and slaughtered by humans became clear to me, I switched to a completely plant-based diet about 11 years ago. Now I’ve added a desire to live nonviolently and lovingly protect all animals to the list of why I choose to eat a vegan diet.
And I am not alone. Roughly 1% to 4% of the U.S. population follows a dedicated vegan diet, translating to roughly 3 million to 10 million adults. While rigorous adherence is low, surveys by organizations like The Vegetarian Resource Group show that up to 33% of U.S. adults regularly or occasionally eat vegan/plant-based meals.
Survey Breakdown and Data:
- Committed Vegans (1%–3%): Gallup polls show about 1% of Americans explicitly identify as vegan, while broader consumer studies and Statista data place the number closer to 3% to 4% depending on how the question is framed.
- Occasional Consumers (33%): Data from The Harris Poll indicates that about a third of U.S. adults sometimes or often incorporate vegan meals into their routine, even if they don’t follow a 100% plant-based diet.
- Demographics: Vegan and plant-based diets are more common among younger adults (ages 18–34) and urban residents, with women adopting the diet at higher rates than men.
I’m sharing all of this because those who eat a plant-based diet and those who choose to have small families or no children are both positively impacting the environment and contributing to a more sustainable world. And there are also some big differences.
First, here are some similarities:
- Both can lower greenhouse gas emissions.
- Both are individual decisions.
- Both involve trade-offs.
- Neither is a complete solution.
Next, here are some important differences:
Having fewer/no children affects long-term population and future consumption. It is usually a one-time life decision that involves deeply personal questions about family and reproduction. And the environmental effects are realized over decades and depend on the future lifestyle of descendants.
Eating a plant-based diet affects current demand for food production. It is a daily, ongoing choice that can be changed. Primarily it concerns food preferences, health, ethics, animal welfare, and culture. And the environmental effects begin almost immediately through changes in food demand.
One common misunderstanding is that these choices are directly comparable in a simple “which is better?” sense. They operate on different timescales and through different mechanisms. Someone could have several children and live a very low-carbon lifestyle or have no children but have a large environmental footprint from frequent flying, high consumption, and/or extravagant energy use. Likewise, someone could eat a plant-based diet while still contributing significantly to emissions through other activities.
Overall, the two choices share the characteristic of reducing environmental pressure through individual behavior, but they differ substantially in their immediacy, reversibility, ethical considerations, and the pathways by which they influence the environment.
One aspect I found especially interesting is that the two choices also differ in how they fit into public discussions. A plant-based diet is often framed as a behavioral change – similar to recycling, biking, or reducing food waste. It’s something people can adopt gradually and adjust over time.
By contrast, having fewer or no children touches on identity, family, culture, and autonomy. Because reproductive decisions are so deeply personal, discussions about their environmental implications can quickly become emotionally and ethically complex. Most policymakers emphasize that any consideration of family size needs to respect individual reproductive freedom. And it must be stated (again!): women need legal, safe, and accessible options for birth control and ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
There’s also an interesting philosophical distinction:
- Plant-based eating primarily reduces the environmental impact of how existing people live and eat.
- Having fewer children changes how many future consumers there may be.
Both can contribute to reducing environmental pressures, but they reflect different ways of thinking about sustainability: one focuses on changing consumption, the other on changing population dynamics.
It’s a topic where thoughtful people may often disagree—not so much about the underlying science (for example, that livestock production and population both affect environmental outcomes), but about the ethical significance of those facts and how much emphasis each should receive in public policy or personal decision-making.
I want to end this blog with a few more personal details. My mom had 6 kids; I have 3 children while each of my 5 siblings has had 1 child. My only son is married with 4 kids and my 2 daughters (both in their late 20’s) say they don’t want to have any kids. One eats a vegan diet, and the other is mostly vegan – eating fish about once a week. Researching and writing this article has helped me see the various impacts of my choices, their choices, and the multiple ways we can either protect or destroy natural resources, ourselves, and this planet. It’s messy and complicated.
Thus, I’m sending you love and grace for the many choices you have made or are making every day to be good stewards of this land, our water, the air, and ALL the animals.
We will be at the VegFest 2026 on September 12, at Library Square, from 12 pm to 8 pm! Come to our booth to get to know us, get a little gift, and find some resources on how to be a more conscious resident and human in our Be-UTAH-ful state!
Click/Tap here to learn more about the VegFest 2026!
The Colorado River Water Crisis: How Population Growth, Economic Development, Climate Change, and Drought Are Reshaping the American Southwest
The Colorado River has long been considered the lifeblood of the American Southwest. Flowing approximately 1,450 miles from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to Mexico, it provides water for around 40 million people, irrigates nearly five million acres of farmland, supports tribal communities, powers hydroelectric dams, and sustains one of the most economically productive regions in North America.
Today, however, the river faces one of the most significant water crises in its history. Decades of rapid population growth, expanding economies, prolonged drought, and a warming climate have placed unprecedented pressure on a river system that was already fully allocated. The result is a growing imbalance between water supply and demand that threatens cities, agriculture, ecosystems, recreation, and energy production across the Southwest.
A River Supporting a Growing Population
When the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922, the basin’s population was relatively small. Today, major metropolitan areas—including Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Salt Lake City—have experienced extraordinary growth. Millions of new residents require drinking water, sanitation services, and infrastructure, all of which increase demand for Colorado River water.
Population growth has also fueled suburban expansion, landscaping, industrial development, and municipal water consumption. While many cities have improved water-use efficiency through conservation measures and recycling programs, total demand has continued to rise because there are simply more people relying on the river.
Research from the University of Colorado has found that population growth alone may have an even greater effect on future per-capita water availability than moderate climate change scenarios, highlighting the importance of managing demand alongside improving water efficiency.
Economic Growth and Agricultural Demand
Economic development throughout the Southwest has transformed the Colorado River into an engine of regional prosperity. The river supports tourism, manufacturing, technology industries, and energy production while also sustaining one of America’s most productive agricultural regions.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 70–80 percent of the Colorado River’s water use. Farmers grow crops such as alfalfa, lettuce, cotton, citrus fruits, and vegetables that supply markets across the United States and internationally. Although agriculture is essential for food production and rural economies, irrigation places enormous pressure on limited water supplies.
As cities continue to expand, competition between urban and agricultural users has intensified. Water managers increasingly face difficult decisions about balancing municipal growth, food production, environmental protection, and tribal water rights.
Climate Change Is Reducing Water Supply
While demand has steadily increased, climate change has reduced the amount of water entering the Colorado River system.
Scientists have found that warmer temperatures reduce mountain snowpack, accelerate snowmelt, increase evaporation from reservoirs, and dry out soils before runoff reaches rivers. Even in years with average precipitation, higher temperatures often result in less water flowing into the Colorado River.
Studies estimate that the river’s average flow has declined substantially since 2000, with rising temperatures responsible for a significant portion of that reduction. Climate projections indicate that continued warming could reduce future river flows even further if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.
The Impact of Prolonged Drought
The Southwest has experienced what many scientists describe as a “megadrought” during the 21st century. This prolonged period of below-average precipitation, combined with higher temperatures, has dramatically lowered water levels in the Colorado River’s largest reservoirs.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation’s two largest reservoirs, have reached historically low storage levels multiple times over the past two decades. These reservoirs serve as the primary water storage system for the Colorado River Basin and help regulate water deliveries throughout the Southwest.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, storage in these reservoirs declined by more than 33 million acre-feet between 2000 and 2023. Experts estimate that several consecutive unusually wet years would be needed simply to restore previous storage levels if water use remained unchanged—an increasingly unlikely scenario in a warming climate.
Looking Ahead
The Colorado River has supported the growth of the American Southwest for more than a century, but its future will depend on adapting to a new reality. Population growth, economic development, climate change, and persistent drought have fundamentally altered the balance between water supply and demand.
The crisis is not simply the result of one dry year or one policy decision. Rather, it reflects decades of increasing demand colliding with a shrinking and more variable water supply. While conservation, innovation, and collaborative management offer hope, long-term success will require sustained commitment from governments, businesses, farmers, tribal communities, and individual residents alike.
Protecting the Colorado River is ultimately about protecting the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend upon one of North America’s most important rivers.
Searching for Solutions
Due to the seriousness of the crisis, significant efforts are underway to improve the long-term sustainability of the Colorado River.
Potential Solutions and Suggested Action Items Include:
- Considering having smaller families. Average individual water consumption is about 150 gallons per day.
- Eliminating and down-sizing more data centers and other water-intensive industries.
Refer to UPEC blog of July 20, 2026 https://utahpopulation.org/blog/the-hidden-cost-of-the-cloud-how-data-centers-are-reshaping-communities-and-ecosystems
- Consuming less meat, especially, beef. This would decrease the need for feed stock, especially alfalfa which is water intensive. Refer to UPEC blog of July 8, 2026. https://utahpopulation.org/blog/are-there-too-many-humans-or-too-many-cows
- Expanding municipal water conservation programs.
- Investing in wastewater recycling and water reuse.
- Improving agricultural irrigation efficiency.
- Encouraging drought-tolerant landscaping (Xeriscaping).
- Negotiating updated water-sharing agreements among the seven basin states, Tribal Nations, and Mexico.
- Incorporating climate science into long-term water management.
- Restoring river ecosystems where possible.
The challenge is considerable because the Colorado River is governed by a complex system of interstate agreements, federal laws, tribal rights, international treaties, and environmental regulations. Cooperation among all stakeholders will be essential as existing operating agreements continue to evolve.
ChatGPT AI used in the generation of this Blog
AI Sources and References
U.S. Geological Survey. The Colorado River Water Crisis: Its Origin and the Future. 2023. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/colorado-river-water-crisis-its-origin-and-future
U.S. Geological Survey. Colorado River Basin. 2026. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/colorado-river-basin-0
U.S. Geological Survey. Rising Temperatures Impact Colorado River Resources. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/climate-adaptation-science-centers/rising-temperatures-impact-colorado-river-resources
University of Colorado Boulder. Population Growth and Climate Change: Increasing Pressure on the Colorado River. https://www.colorado.edu/program/hydrosciences/2018/08/21/population-growth-and-climate-change-increasing-pressure-colorado-river
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Basin Operations. https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/index.html
The Nature Conservancy. The Colorado River Is in Crisis. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-landscapes/colorado-river/colorado-river-in-crisis/
Associated Press. As Lake Powell Shrinks, Marinas Are Having to Adapt to Dwindling Water Levels.
The Hidden Cost of the Cloud: How Data Centers Are Reshaping Communities and Ecosystems
Every search query, streaming session, and AI-generated image passes through a data center somewhere — a warehouse of servers that, to most of us, is invisible. But for the people who live near these facilities, and for the ecosystems surrounding them, data centers are anything but invisible. As the AI boom drives an unprecedented wave of construction, a small but growing body of academic research is documenting the environmental and public health costs that come with this infrastructure: strained water supplies, degraded air quality, chronic noise, and disproportionate burdens on already vulnerable communities.
A Public Health Blind Spot We’re Only Now Filling
For years, data centers were treated as a purely economic and technological story — jobs, tax revenue, digital progress. Public health researchers are now pushing back on that framing. A 2025 review published in Frontiers in Public Health examined the rapid buildout of data centers in Virginia, the world’s largest data center market, and concluded that large-scale land conversion for these facilities alters local ecosystems and built environments in ways that indirectly affect health through loss of green space, increased heat exposure, air pollution, and psychosocial stress. Critically, the researchers found these effects to be cumulative and long-term, falling disproportionately on rural and historically marginalized communities rather than being spread evenly across a region. [1]
This is a recurring theme in the literature: data centers rarely introduce a single, easily measured hazard. Instead, nearby residents face overlapping exposures — diesel backup generators, cooling-tower emissions, electromagnetic fields, and continuous operational noise — that compound one another. A companion analysis from Environmental Health Sciences researchers makes a similar point, noting that communities near hyperscale facilities can experience simultaneous exposure to air emissions, water pollution, noise, and power-infrastructure effects, and that this “total body burden” of overlapping stressors can produce health effects beyond what any single exposure would cause on its own. [1]
A 2025 commentary in a peer-reviewed public health journal went further, framing the global data center boom itself as an emerging public health concern. The authors cited modeling suggesting that U.S. data centers could contribute to nearly 1,300 excess deaths annually by 2030, largely tied to fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation, with an associated public health burden exceeding $20 billion. Their central argument is one of urgency: empirical research on long-term health outcomes in “host communities” is still sparse, even as the industry expands at a pace regulators are struggling to keep up with. [2]
Water: The Resource Nobody Talks About Until It Runs Short
If air quality and noise are the impacts people can hear and smell, water consumption is the impact that’s easiest to miss — because it happens behind concrete walls, in cooling systems most residents will never see. This is where some of the most rigorous quantitative research has emerged.
A widely cited peer-reviewed study in Communications of the ACM, led by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, quantified what the authors called AI’s “secret water footprint.” They found that training a single large language model in a state-of-the-art U.S. data center can directly evaporate hundreds of thousands of liters of clean freshwater — water that would have tripled in volume had the same training taken place in data centers located in parts of Asia with different cooling infrastructure and climates. The same research team projected that global AI water withdrawal could reach 4.2 to 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027 — more water than the entire annual withdrawal of several mid-sized countries combined. Because this water is drawn from local municipal and groundwater supplies, the burden falls hardest on the specific watersheds and communities where facilities are sited, many of which already face drought stress or competing agricultural demand. [3]
Noise, Land Use, and the Slow Erosion of Livability
Beyond emissions and water, researchers point to a subtler but persistent form of harm: the constant hum of industrial-scale cooling fans running 24 hours a day. Public health literature on noise exposure more broadly has long linked chronic low-frequency noise to sleep disruption, elevated stress hormones, and cardiovascular strain — mechanisms that reviewers studying data centers specifically have flagged as a plausible pathway for harm in host communities, even though direct long-term studies of data-center noise are still limited. This gap is itself notable: multiple peer-reviewed reviews explicitly call out the scarcity of dedicated data-center health studies as a barrier to good policy, arguing that this absence of evidence should not be mistaken for an absence of risk. [1, 2]
Land-use change compounds these effects. Converting forests, farmland, or wetlands into server campuses removes natural heat buffers and green space precisely in communities that may already have less tree canopy and fewer environmental protections — reinforcing existing environmental justice concerns rather than creating entirely new ones. [1]
Utah’s Box Elder County: A Case Study Playing Out in Real Time
Nowhere illustrates this tension better right now than rural Box Elder County, Utah, where a fight over a single project has become a national bellwether for how communities respond when the AI infrastructure boom shows up at their doorstep.
The project, known as the Stratos Project, is a proposed hyperscale data center campus spanning roughly 40,000 acres of high desert land near Snowville, close to the Great Salt Lake. It’s backed by Kevin O’Leary — the Canadian businessman known to most Americans as “Mr. Wonderful” from Shark Tank — through his company, O’Leary Digital, in partnership with Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA), a state agency that helps the military make commercial use of its land. At full build-out, planners have discussed a facility drawing as much as 7.5 to 9 gigawatts of power, in a county of only about 65,000 residents. [5, 6]
In May 2026, Box Elder County commissioners unanimously approved the resolutions needed to move the project forward, touting job creation, tax revenue, and the project’s framing as a matter of national security in the AI race with China. The vote was contentious: hundreds of residents packed a fairgrounds meeting that had to be relocated to a larger venue, and many were frustrated that public comment wasn’t taken before the vote. [5, 6, 11]
Opponents — organized under names like the Box Elder Accountability Referendum Group (BEAR) and allied with Great Salt Lake advocacy group Grow the Flow — have centered their concerns on exactly the issues this blog covers: strain on already-scarce water resources in one of the driest basins in the country, air quality impacts from backup power generation, and the loss of habitat in a region that includes critical migratory bird habitat around the shrinking Great Salt Lake. [7, 9] The Sierra Club has estimated the project could increase Utah’s total carbon emissions by as much as 50% and consume electricity equivalent to more than twice the state’s current usage. [9]
O’Leary has pushed back forcefully on the water concerns, telling reporters he hopes the project becomes a model for how to do large-scale development “right,” and his company has floated design changes such as increased air cooling to reduce water use. [10] The dispute escalated further when O’Leary publicly suggested that some project opponents might be acting as proxies for the Chinese government — an accusation local critics rejected sharply. [4]
Residents attempted to force a public referendum on the county’s approval, but in late May 2026 the county attorney determined the underlying resolutions were administrative acts not legally subject to a voter referendum, a decision organizers have contested in court. [11] Meanwhile, facing sustained political backlash — including pressure from Utah’s own Senate President — O’Leary’s team has since agreed to shrink the project’s footprint by roughly half, and a lawsuit brought by residents and a nonprofit remains pending. [8, 10, 13]
The Box Elder fight matters beyond Utah because it compresses, into a few months, nearly every tension this article describes: opaque approval processes, disputed water and air impacts, a community that feels it was presented with a done deal rather than a genuine consultation, and a developer arguing that national competitiveness in AI justifies moving fast. Whether Stratos ultimately gets built at its original scale or a much smaller one, it’s likely to shape how other rural counties across the country approach the next hyperscale proposal that lands on their agenda.
Why This Matters Going Forward
The consistent message across this research isn’t that data centers are uniquely evil pieces of infrastructure — it’s that they’ve expanded faster than the science needed to responsibly govern them. Researchers studying the Virginia buildout explicitly recommend responsible site selection, prioritizing existing industrial land over greenfield development, and genuine community engagement through public hearings rather than after-the-fact notification. The UC Riverside water research team argues for the same principle applied to water: transparency in reporting, and engineering choices (like geographic load-balancing of computing tasks) that account for local water stress rather than treating all water sources as interchangeable.
What’s clear from the academic literature is that the digital infrastructure powering our AI-driven economy has a physical footprint with real consequences for the people who happen to live nearest to it — and that the research community is only beginning to catch up to an industry that isn’t waiting for the data to arrive.
Sources
Peer-reviewed / academic sources
- Gour, N., Ortiz, L., & Maibach, E. (2026). Health implications of the rapid rise of data centers in Virginia: an exploratory assessment. Frontiers in Climate. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2026.1648912/full
- Tao, Y., & Gao, P. (2025). Global data center expansion and human health: A call for empirical research. Eco-Environment & Health, 4(3), 100157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12273412/
- Li, P., Yang, J., Islam, M. A., & Ren, S. (2025). Making AI Less “Thirsty”: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models. Communications of the ACM, 68, 54–63. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03271
News and organizational sources on Box Elder County, Utah
- Slate (2026, June 1). Artificial intelligence: Why Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary wants to build a massive data center in Utah. https://slate.com/technology/2026/06/artificial-intelligence-kevin-oleary-utah-data-center.html
- Fortune (2026, May 11). Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary wants to build a massive $100 billion data center in rural Utah. Residents are revolting. https://fortune.com/2026/05/11/shark-tank-kevin-oleary-millionaire-utah-data-center-american-politics-protests-ai-tech/
- Deseret News (2026, May 12). Everything about Utah’s Stratos Project data center. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/05/12/everything-about-utah-stratos-project-data-center/
- Utah News Dispatch (2026, May 14). A Box Elder County group wants voters there to decide proposed data center’s fate. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2026/05/14/box-elder-county-group-wants-referendum-on-proposed-data-center/
- The Christian Science Monitor (2026, June 5). In Utah, growing pushback over a city-sized data center. https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2026/0605/utah-stratos-data-center-kevin-oleary
- Sierra Club (2026, May 6). Stratos Data Center Approval Threatens Great Salt Lake Basin (press release). https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/05/stratos-data-center-approval-threatens-great-salt-lake-basin
- KSL.com (2026, June 4). Kevin O’Leary agrees to dramatically cut Box Elder County data center project area. https://www.ksl.com/article/51506884/kevin-oleary-agrees-to-cut-box-elder-county-data-center-project-area-in-half
- Great Salt Lake Collaborative / Utah News Dispatch (2026, June 5). Trying to get the Stratos data center on the ballot, locals are now appealing to a judge. https://greatsaltlakenews.org/latest-news/utah-news-dispatch/trying-to-get-the-stratos-data-center-on-the-ballot-locals-are-now-appealing-to-a-judge
- Cache Valley Daily (2026, May 21). New Box Elder data center protest slated for May 23 on State Capitol steps in Salt Lake City. https://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/new-box-elder-data-center-protest-slated-for-may-23-on-state-capitol-steps-in/article_efdf8088-cf9b-4dd3-bda2-f65145ac49b3.html
- NBC News (2026, June 6). Utah residents sue officials over Kevin O’Leary data center plan. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/utah-residents-sue-officials-kevin-oleary-data-center-plan-rcna348720
Are There Too Many Humans or Too Many Cows?
It is common knowledge that the Colorado River and the Great Salt Lake are running out of water, at least in the sense that humans are diverting too much water for either the river or the lake to function as they did before western civilization arrived at their banks. But is the source of the problem too many people or too many cows?
Below is a version of the familiar graph of Colorado River water devoted to cows. It is from a recent report from NASA. It is well worth reading. The link is below the pie chart.
Meat of the Matter: Colorado River Over-Consumed – NASA Science
If you want to know even more about the Colorado River and its drainage area go to Richter et al, New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea in Hydrology & Environmental Science., 2024.c
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01291-0
Utah citizens who are paying attention rightly fear the death of Great Salt Lake. Below is a version of the pie chart of irrigated land use in Utah which shows that most of it is devoted to feeding cows. I suspect that much the 23% for pasture is also for feeding cows. as well as, perhaps, part of the 19% for irrigated hay fields.
There is a reason for this. More than 80% of the crops grown on irrigated land in Utah is for livestock because they do well in Utah’s climate, especially in the higher elevations where other crops don’t grow as easily.
Is there some hope for the Great Salt Lake. Although farming still uses most of Utah’s water, recent data suggests irrigation withdrawals may be starting to decline, thanks in part to more efficient systems – and the investment of the Utah Legislature in enticements for farmers to use less water.
View Full Factsheet Here Link to the full Utah State University report on state water use. Good visual presentation of data
This is only an introduction to the conundrum of human consumption and the finite water that supports it. And cows play an even larger role than one would imagine.
Power to the Local
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about all the bombs dropping on innocent civilians, messy global networks of oil production, blocked shipping channels, and the horrific amount of money being spent on death and destruction instead of life and renewal. And it has left me feeling overwhelmed, angry, and powerless.
And then I saw this short video on Daily Good (an email I received from Service Space / KarmaTube).
This 7-minute video changed my thinking and reinvigorated my soul.
We have a lot of power locally to make the kinds of changes that matter to us!
The “Localization Movement” is the idea of shifting economic, cultural, and political systems away from global, centralized structures and toward local communities. It emphasizes producing goods, making decisions, and organizing life at a smaller, more local scale.
The Localization Movement has been created as a response to globalization—the expansion of worldwide trade, multinational corporations, and the “growth at all costs” mentality. While globalization has a few benefits (like access to cheaper goods), it also weaken local economies, increases environmental damage, reduces cultural diversity, and concentrates power in large corporations.
Localization does just the opposite. It is a way to preserve cultural diversity, improve social cohesion, and enhance environmental integrity. It supports place-based thinking by valuing distinct local knowledge, traditions, and ecosystems.
Components of the Localization Movement include:
Support of local economies
- Buying goods and services from local businesses, farmers, and producers
- Keeping our money circulating within our own communities
- Supporting “Buy Local” initiatives and campaigns that strengthen small business
- Creating community gardens to increase the food security of our neighbors
- Participating in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and food co-ops
Shorter supply chains
- Increase local economic resilience
- Reduce transportation costs and emissions
- Make food production more sustainable
Increased community resilience and decision-making
- Greater control at the local level rather than distant governments or big corporations
- Stronger emphasis on democracy and participation
Cultural preservation
- Protection of local traditions, languages, and identities
- Support of indigenous knowledge and made-by-hand skills
So, with these new insights, I am energized to do more locally, excited to buy my produce weekly at farmers markets, and eager to engage more with my neighbors and my community. I hope you, too, will find ways to support Localization in your own way.
Let’s rely less on faraway systems we don’t control and strengthen the wonderful communities we live in!
Links to local Farmers Markets & Food Co-op:
Downtown SLC:https://www.slcfarmersmarket.org/
Opens June 6
Murray Park: https://www.murrayfarmersmarketut.com/
Opens July 25
Ogden:https://farmersmarketogden.com/summer/
Opens May 23
Park City:https://parkcityfarmersmarket.com/
Opens end of May
Provo: https://www.provofarmersmarket.com/
Opens June 6
Wheeler Farm:https://utahagenda.com/wheeler-sunday-farmers-market/
Opens May 24
Wasatch Food Co-op in SLC: https://www.wasatch.coop/#dataItem-k0p1t5kh
Grand Opening is May 20
Utah Population Keeps Growing but Slows in 2025
Recently there have been updates on the demographics of Utah for 2025
and projections for the future. The updates are provided at the
following two websites:
Utah’s population growth is slowing down. Here’s how it compares with
other states | KSL.com by Carter Williams, Jan. 27, 2026. Discussing a
recent U.S. Census Bureau report
Utah 2065: Long-Term Planning Projection (Vintage 2025) – Kem C.
Gardner Policy Institute Nov. 2025
The following provides a few of the key findings with some comparisons
to previous population numbers.
Utah gained nearly 36,000 new residents between July 1, 2024, and July
1, 2025, representing a growth rate of 1%, according to U.S. Census
Bureau data released on Jan. 27, 2026. That’s nearly a full percentage
point below its growth rate in 2024, but still strong enough to remain
one of the five fastest-growing states in the country.” (In 2024 Utah
added 50,392 residents. Policy Brief February 2025 State and County
Population Estimates for Utah: 2024 Authored by Emily Harris, Senior
Demographer, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.)
As the KSL article states “What Utah is experiencing is not all that
different from what other states are experiencing. The entire U.S.
population grew by 0.5% last year, a half-percentage point behind the
previous year.”
“With births and deaths remaining relatively stable compared to the
prior year, the sharp decline in net international migration is the main
reason for the slower growth rate we see today,” said Christine Hartley,
assistant division chief for estimates and projections for the Census
Bureau.
For the United States, federal demographers reported, “Net
international migration plummeted from 2.7 million in 2024 to 1.3
million in 2025, and it’s expected to drop to approximately 321,000 in
2026.” If the trend persists “the U.S. may reach negative net migration
for the first time in over 50 years.” (New Population Estimates Show
Historic Decline in Net International Migration, Population Estimates
Program Staff, U.S. Census Bureau, January 27, 2026.)
“Last year was the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic that net
migration didn’t surpass natural growth. Rising housing costs could be a
factor in the growth “moderation” that Utah is experiencing, as could
other factors leading to fewer people moving in, state experts
explained.” (From KSL Report)
The report from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of
Utah in Nov. 2025 provides a wealth of population data and projections
for the future. Their long-term planning projections indicate the state’s
population “will increase from nearly 3.6 million residents to 5.6 million
by 2065, an increase of 2 million people, or the approximate size of
Idaho today.”
The Feb. 27 UPEC blog on the Great Salt Lake discusses many of the
challenges that face the Great Salt Lake. If the Great Salt Lake becomes
an increasingly harmful environmental concern, this could decrease the
future growth in Utah.
In Summary: Utah is still growing rapidly, but there has been a recent
decline in population growth. Variables such as the current decrease in
international migration and components such as housing costs and the
health of the Great Salt Lake will help determine Utah’s growth in the
future.
Due to numerous factors, the Utah Population and Environment Council
encourages decreasing population growth in Utah. But not at the cost of
people’s lives and welfare. A future blog will further explore the
broader issues relating to the decrease in international migration.
The Lifeline We Cannot Afford to Lose: How Great Salt Lake Sustains Our Community’s Health and Future
The Great Salt Lake isn’t just a scenic backdrop to Utah’s Wasatch Front—it’s the lifeblood of our community’s health, economy, and very survival. Yet this vital resource is disappearing before our eyes, and with it, the foundation of a sustainable population and thriving communities across Northern Utah.
The science is unequivocal: preserving Great Salt Lake is not an environmental issue separate from human wellbeing—it is a public health imperative, an economic necessity, and a matter of environmental justice.
The Direct Threat to Public Health
When Great Salt Lake shrinks to unusally low levels, it exposes thousands of acres of lakebed containing not just salt, but heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, and lead—legacy pollutants from decades of mining, agriculture, and industrial discharge. This toxic dust doesn’t stay put.
Dr. Courtney Henley, a physician and board member of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, describes the scope of this threat: “The medical urgency arises from the pervasive nature of the threat. All living beings will inhale blowing lakebed dust, and every human resident in the path of blowing dust is impacted.”
The U.S. Geological Survey has confirmed that this isn’t hypothetical—it’s happening now. Recent USGS research shows that dust from the dry Great Salt Lake lakebed contributes to potential health risks, particularly for children in Northern Utah communities. Children are especially vulnerable due to their smaller body sizes and greater rates of dust ingestion, with exposure to heavy metals during early years potentially leading to developmental issues and long-term health problems.
The reality is stark: 2.5 million Utahns live downwind of the exposed lakebed. Every dust storm carries toxins into our lungs, our homes, and our children’s schools.
An Environmental Justice Crisis
The burden of the shrinking lake falls disproportionately on communities of color. Research published in the journal One Earth by University of Utah sociologist Sara Grineski and colleagues reveals a disturbing pattern: Pacific Islander and Hispanic residents living in northwestern parts of Salt Lake City suffer some of the worst dust pollution from the drying Great Salt Lake, and these communities also had the most to gain from restoring lake levels.
This disparity isn’t accidental—it’s the result of historical redlining that pushed many people of color into western, more industrialized neighborhoods. Now, as the lake dries, these same communities face the highest exposure to toxic dust.
But here’s the encouraging finding: Grineski’s research shows that raising lake levels would reduce dust exposure for everyone while narrowing the exposure gap between communities. As she notes, restoring the lake is “definitely a win-win.”
The Economic Cost of Inaction
The economic case for preserving Great Salt Lake is overwhelming. According to recent economic research by Dr. Albert Garcia at the University of Utah, Great Salt Lake dust is currently costing the local economy approximately $30 million annually. But that’s just the beginning. Over the next 20 years, negative health outcomes and premature deaths could set the Salt Lake area community back one billion dollars.
The broader economic impacts are even more staggering. Studies cited by scholars at the University of Utah’s Stegner Center project that economic losses from a declining lake could reach $25.4 billion to $32.6 billion over 20 years, with more than 6,500 jobs lost.
This isn’t abstract economic theory—it’s about real families, real livelihoods, and real communities. The lake directly supports over 7,700 jobs and contributes $1.9 billion annually to Utah’s economy through mineral extraction, brine shrimp harvesting, and recreation. But the ripple effects extend much further.
The Snow Connection: More Than Recreation
Great Salt Lake plays a surprising but crucial role in Utah’s famous powder snow. The lake contributes 5-10% to Utah’s snowpack and extends the ski season by 5 to 7 weeks. This isn’t just about recreation—Utah’s ski industry includes 20,000 jobs and contributes $1.2 billion each year to the state’s economy.
But there’s a more fundamental concern: as dust from the exposed lakebed settles on mountain snowpack, it causes snow to melt earlier, threatening the water supplies that our entire region depends on. A healthy lake means healthy snowpack, which means sustainable water resources for our growing population.
Learning from the Fate of Other Lakes
Utah doesn’t have to guess what happens when terminal saline lakes dry up—we can look at cautionary tales around the world. California’s Owens Lake dried up by 1926 after its water was diverted to Los Angeles. Today, it’s one of the single largest sources of PM10 particulate matter pollution in the United States, presenting major health concerns for 40,000 people in Owens Valley. Los Angeles County has spent over $2.5 billion trying to combat dust storms from the dried lakebed.
Dr. Henley warns of the parallel to our situation: “If Great Salt Lake dries up, the cities along the Wasatch Front will cease to exist and be replaced by urban graveyards and wastelands.” The Aral Sea in Central Asia and Lake Urmia in Iran tell similar stories of environmental catastrophe triggering social and economic collapse.
Population, Sustainability, and Our Shared Future
The relationship between Great Salt Lake and a sustainable population in Utah is direct and undeniable. A healthy lake means:
- Breathable air for the 2.5 million people along the Wasatch Front
- Economic stability through sustained industries and tourism
- Water security through lake-effect precipitation and preserved snowpack
- Livable communities that can attract and retain talented workers
- Environmental justice that protects our most vulnerable populations
Conversely, a dying lake means toxic dust storms, billions in economic losses, public health crises, water insecurity, and communities that become increasingly unlivable. Young professionals are already expressing concerns about relocating to Utah due to environmental and health risks. Tech companies struggle to recruit talent. Property values face decline. The ability to sustain our current population becomes increasingly questionable.
The Path Forward
The good news is that we’re not powerless. Great Salt Lake can recover if we act decisively. Record snowpack in 2022-23 temporarily raised water levels by 5 feet, demonstrating that the lake can respond to increased water flow. But temporary reprieves aren’t enough—we need sustained action.
This means:
- Water conservation at every level—agricultural, industrial, and residential
- Policy changes that prioritize water flow to the lake
- Continued monitoring of air quality and dust exposure
- Support for affected communities, especially those facing disproportionate impacts
- Public education about the lake’s vital role in community health
The science is clear: preserving Great Salt Lake isn’t about choosing between people and nature. It’s about recognizing that human communities and the natural environment are inseparably linked. A healthy lake means healthy people, sustainable economies, and thriving communities.
Conclusion
The Board of the Utah Population & Environment Council understands the connection between population sustainability and environmental health. Great Salt Lake is the perfect illustration of this truth. We cannot sustain a healthy population on the Wasatch Front without a healthy lake.
The question before us isn’t whether we can afford to save Great Salt Lake—it’s whether we can afford not to. Every dust storm reminds us that the clock is ticking. Every scientific study reinforces the same conclusion: the health of our lake and the health of our communities are one and the same.
The Great Salt Lake has sustained life in Utah for millennia. Now it’s our turn to sustain the lake—because in doing so, we sustain ourselves, our children, and the future of all who call Utah home.
The Utah Population & Environment Council (UPEC) advocates for sustainable communities through the preservation of our environment. Learn more at utahpopulation.org
Sources:
- Sierra Club, “Why the Shrinking Great Salt Lake Is a Public Health Crisis”
- U.S. Geological Survey, “Dust from the Great Salt Lake dry lakebed: a possible health risk”
- Grineski et al., “Harmful dust from drying lakes,” One Earth, 2024
- University of Utah research on economic impacts of Great Salt Lake dust
- Utah Division of Water Resources, Great Salt Lake Information
- Think Global Health, “Shrinking Shores, Rising Risks in the Great Salt Lake”
Images in this post were created using Canva.