By Harley L
The Great Salt Lake is the largest saline lake in North America, located approximately 15 miles northwest of the University of Utah. The Great Salt Lake is an essential natural element to Utah due to its ecological and economic significance. Notably, the Great Salt Lake is a critical layover for millions of migratory birds via the Pacific Flyway, provides billions of dollars in financial revenue, and ultimately safeguards public health (1). The Great Salt Lake has been in local headlines for several years due to the steep decline in water levels and surface area caused by water diversions, excessive usage, evaporation, drought, and climate change (2). This has contributed to a number of severe concerns ranging from toxic arsenic dust, depletion of habitats for wildlife, loss of local jobs, etc. On September 6th, 2023, a group of environmental organizations filed a complaint against several state entities aimed at restoring and protecting the Great Salt Lake. In this blog post, we will discuss the complaint and its components.
Anatomy of the
Complaint:
The complaint signifies the commencement of legal engagement from the environmental groups (plaintiffs) against the Utah state agencies (defendants). The environmental groups detail the claims, facts, parties, and relief they seek against the state agencies to the court. The complaint can be read in its entirety here: Great- Salt-Lake-2023-Complaint.pdf
Identification of Legal
Claims:
The complaint details specific legal claims based on Utah’s Public Trust Doctrine. The environmental groups claim that the state agencies have failed to fulfill their public trust obligations to maintain the Great Lake Salt elevation by disregarding upstream diversion. As mentioned, the state acts as the trustee, with a duty to protect state resources for the benefit of the public; under the public trust doctrine, the public owns many natural resources.
Jurisdiction and Venue:
The complaint cites Utah Code §78A-5-102(1), §78B-3-307(1), §65C-1-2, which provides the district court jurisdiction over this case due to the state agencies action (or lack thereof) directly impacting the county (Salt Lake County) where the Great Salt Lake resides. Furthermore, the complaint states that the court has personal jurisdiction over the state agencies as “defendants are state government entities and officials, sued in their official capacities, who reside and conduct their official business in the State of Utah.”
Factual Background:
The environmental groups provide an extensive, detailed analysis of the events leading to the crisis of the Great Lake Salt. This section focuses on events and facts that help form the basis of the complaint—partially focusing on unsustainable practice and their impact on the Great Salt Lake.
Claim for Relief:
While in most lawsuits,
we commonly see plaintiffs seeking monetary relief, however, the environmental
group seeks injunctive and declaratory relief here. This relief specifically
related to restoration of the Great Salt Lake elevation and modification of
water diversions, including public involvement and transparency.
In conclusion, the complaint initiating the Great Salt Lake lawsuit is critical in outlining the environmental group’s case, providing the state agencies and court with a clear understanding of the dispute and relief sought by the environmental group to preserve and protect the ecological integrity and economic significance of the Great Salt Lake.
(3)
(1) ABC4. (2023, September 6). Utah Sued by Conservation Groups over Failure at Great Salt Lake. ABC4. https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/utah-sued-by-conservation-groups-over-failure-at-great-salt-lake/
(3) Bagley, P. (2022, November 9). Ducks Limited. The Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2022/11/09/bagley-cartoon-ducks-limited/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is such an interesting case, particularly because it is a case against state agencies. I'm wondering if this gives the defendants an advantage; three state entities likely have more resources to put toward this case than the plaintiffs.
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious to see how politics may influence how this lawsuit proceeds, because of the differences in views between the plaintiff and defendant. Assuming the plaintiffs are more liberal and the leaders of the state agencies are more conservative, I can see this case getting political because environmental issues can be polarizing.
Homerun points. The difference in resources is, unfortunately, going to weigh in the defense's favor. What I am hoping, is that it climbs up the courts, broadens the attention and weight across multiple states (since the entire midwest would be affected by the GSL drying up) and balancing resources, and risking state org reputation.
DeleteSo in a way, I while I hope it the plaintiff's claims hold, I hope it is swift more than anything else so we can just move it up to higher courts before we all start breathing dust.
https://youtu.be/hd9uvlf5i0M?si=ukh2j4VTYk0QzgOp&t=9
Jenna, I also wondered about this while writing the blog. State agencies being sued in state court certainly made me think about judicial impartiality and our brief class discussion of retention elections for state court judges.
DeleteI am really grateful for this post. Even if no one did a post about this case, I was going to try to do all of this research myself out of interest, but you put it more succinctly, more unbiased, and more effectively than I could find online. The news articles do almost nothing for us.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting was the claim for relief not being monetary. Which, honestly, Im relieved to read. Not only would it serve the objective better to get action (or stop actions) related to GSL preservation, I assume it would also encourage agencies to settle or negotiate an agreement if they didn't need to pay a direct payout. This is, of course, completely speculative...
Part of the injunctive relief sought in the claim interests me: ". . . Defendants must then modify any diversions that are inconsistent with the restoration and maintenance of the Lake . . ." As I understand it, the upstream diversions are primarily used to farm alfalfa. Some estimate that as much as 68% of all available water in Utah is used for farming alfalfa and that 1/3 of all farmed alfalfa in Utah is exported to China. Alfalfa farming is reported to bring in roughly $500 million per year to Utah's economy (https://waterdesk.org/2022/12/one-crop-uses-more-than-half-of-utahs-water-heres-why/), and farmers of alfalfa have secured water rights from the state. Given the potential risks to Utah's greater economy (skiing alone, for example, contributes $1.29 billion to Utah's economy) and well-being, what could injunctive relief of this kind look like? If the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, could the Utah Department of Natural Resources use eminent domain to obtain water rights from the alfalfa farmers? I am somewhat familiar with Utah's "appropriation doctrine" as it applies to water law - which separates the ownership of land from the ownership of the water that may be on the same land. I usually hear how the state uses eminent domain in cases involving land; is eminent domain also applicable to water rights?
ReplyDeleteSeeing this case come into fruition since the Great Salt Lake preservations efforts started making headlines in recent years is a great relief as someone who will be living in Salt Lake County for the foreseeable future. Although these preservation efforts are polarizing and political, the shrinking of the GLS will have very real consequences. I am hopeful this case will shed more light on the importance the GSL has on our health, ecosystem, economy, and future to those who may be uniformed or indifferent. Thank you so much for breaking this case down in such a digestible and unbiased way! Like others have mentioned, I too find it hopeful that the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief rather than monetary. Hopefully this is will bring action, conversation, and education surrounding the importance of the GSL.
ReplyDeleteI love that you chose this issue for your post. This is a topic that is frequently brought up where I work, especially among the political science majors. A colleague's suggestion that sparked my interest was, what if the federal government stepped in and the GSL was made a National Park? Besides the obvious problem with political feasibility, this could be a great idea because it provides federal funds for conservation efforts but also increases tourism, sales tax revenue, and preservation. Depending on the Utah Legislature to allocate the funds needed for conservation and preservation, especially from legislators who do not take climate change seriously, seems like a lost cause, hence the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see where this suit goes, but either way, the Utah Supreme Court will finalize it if it survives long enough to be tried in District Court. Do you have any thoughts on making the GSL a National Park?
ReplyDeleteNikki, other than a national park, I think making the Great Salt Lake a national monument could be another consideration since this could be done by executive order, bypassing the need for congressional approval. However, that would require the Great Salt Lake to be federal lands/waters, and I don't foresee the state ever selling, trading, or donating the land to the federal government to make this happen.
DeleteThanks so much for this post, Harley! I am so grateful for you posting this interesting case so eloquently and well described. I moved here in Utah 19 months ago and I was not aware the Great Salt Lake was such in danger. I went there to see the lake last year and it looked so beautiful with all those birds and animals.
ReplyDeleteI am glad the environmental scientist group sued the state agencies and asked them to be responsible. Also, brought that issue to the public. I liked reading the complaint that you posted and support their argument. As many citizens rely on the lake for their employment, the issue should be solved before the problem gets worse. Not only employments, but also all the animals and the ecology system will be in danger. Paragraph 7, in the complaint says, "These ongoing and anticipated harms to the Great Salt Lake represent not only an economic and environmental catastrophe, but also a violation of the public trust". I agree with this statement and the proper authority should take an immediate action to solve the situation.
The shrinking of the Great Salt Lake has been a large source of anxiety for me the last couple of years. I continue to look for an escape route but find climate related crisis everywhere I turn.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful this suit was brought forward, even if I am skeptical of the success due to the perceived underdog status due to State agencies being the defendants. I do feel like the facts speak for themselves and although there may be ways to protect government agencies from being at fault in this suit, I can hope the issues facing the GSL, Utah and the West become more prominent and gain momentum for protection by a larger community.
Amidst this newly filed suit I was shocked to see another recent news story of a lithium company, Waterleaf Resources, that is looking to pump billions of gallons (a 225,000 acre feet area) from the GSL to remove lithium and then return the water. They claim it will have no environmental impact and will be completely safe. Forgive me if I have little faith and trust in this California based corporation that doesn't have stake in our community, but this seems outrageous in the midst of the crisis and controversy regarding the future of the GSL. I will be very interested to see if the lawsuit will stall, or raise more questions about the Waterleaf Resources proposal. Something I will certainly be keeping an eye out for.
I loved the structure, very well written Harley. I live right next to the Great Salt Lake, and this issue matters to me. Thanks for pointing out the Public Trust Doctrine. There is a great article from the Utah Law Review https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=ulr if anyone is interested. It does state that Utah has not constitutionalized its public trust doctrine, did you find anything on this? Reading it, I feel like I am peeling an onion, and this is an issue that is tied to so many issues with flowing water across other land and taxes. . Historically all water in the mountains and valley flowed to the Great Salt Lake, With our population increase, reservoirs, use and property owner rights, I am not sure we will ever have a full lake again. I am with Leighann, it was so great to see it fuller this year. Great post and I really need to educate myself more.
ReplyDeleteIn Hawaii, there is Ahupua'a. Loose translation means that everything is connected from the mountains to the sea, to take only what is needed, and to give back in some way. Another and crude way of saying this is to not shit where you eat.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's all the carcinogens I've absorbed, ingested, and inhaled while working on various machines that makes me unbothered when exposed to various vehicle exhaust fumes ~ most of the time. I haven't lived in a place of such heavy amounts of pollution until moving to Salt Lake. Breathing here in Salt Lake makes me feel like I'm gasping for air.
Admittedly I am liberal/progressive. I thought I was in the middle. I was sure of it ten years ago. I still do my best to see both sides. I love hearing a funny car roar down a drag strip, feel the sonic boom a fighter jet, and smell the exhaust from a CH-53E. I appreciate and indulge in modern life and technological/industrial conveniences. At the same time there needs to be ahupua'a. There needs to be respect for the environment, the ecosystem, and ultimately each other.
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.” -Abenaki
There is a lot parts and people involved and responsible for the Salt Lake. It infuriated me to see lawns with green grass during last year's record drought and heat. We live in a dessert.
This law suit is essential to taking steps toward protecting the environment, our health, and everyone else's bottom line. It's not enough. There has to be legislation at multiple levels addressing the corporations at the Salt Lake but everyone who wastes water on vanity like a lawn during record drought.
Sadly money, politics and the "movement" to discredit academia, science, medicine, teachers, and experts in their respected field will be a driving force in this issue.
I wonder if "but for" could apply if there can be causal link proven between the dust and pollution from the lake, the corporations there, and certain health conditions suffered by those near the lake and/or down wind from it.
Awesome writing Harley.