A new study from the University of Utah says that large-scale engineered mitigation of Great Salt Lake dust would be enormously expensive with decades of ongoing investment—while restoring the Lake would prevent many of those costs.
“When evaluated alongside the engineered options presented in this report, restoration may represent a lower-impact and potentially more sustainable long-term pathway,” Description and Costs of Potential Dust Control Options for Great Salt Lake says. “A healthy lake suppresses dust emissions while providing co-benefits including wildlife habitat, recreation, and economic stability. By contrast, many engineered DCMs [dust control measures] require permanent landscape alteration and sustained long-term maintenance commitments.”
The study, which provides the most comprehensive assessment of potential dust control options for Great Salt Lake to date, was produced by The Wilkes Center for Climate Science and Policy, with University of Utah Atmospheric Scientist Kevin Perry as the primary author.
Key Findings:
Dust is growing as Lake levels decline
- As Great Salt Lake shrinks, more lakebed becomes exposed and vulnerable to wind erosion.
- Today, there are over 800 square miles of exposed lakebed and roughly 70 square miles function as active dust hotspots.
- That could expand to up to 187 square miles if surface crusts degrade or groundwater declines.
- This area does not account for further lake shrinkage, which could expose additional lakebed and create more areas generating dust.
Exposure to Great Salt Lake dust is a major health concern
- Great Salt Lake dust is linked to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and premature mortality.
- Communities closest to Great Salt Lake are most vulnerable, as are children, older adults, and those with preexisting health conditions.
- Dust events are most likely during spring and fall, when dry surface conditions coincide with wind events.
- Dust emissions could cause costly federal “nonattainment” designations under the Clean Air Act.
Scientific data on dust remains limited
- Without a comprehensive dust monitoring network, there are critical questions left unanswered, like which communities face the greatest exposure, where concentrations of particulate matter present, and the associated health risks.
- The Utah Division of Air Quality is expanding and modernizing its air quality network around Great Salt Lake.
- Dust mitigation decisions should be driven by science and public health data.
No single mitigation approach will be effective everywhere
- The report evaluates multiple dust control measures, including:
- Water-based options (wetting, flooding, vegetation, brine caps)
- Non-water options (gravel, tillage, surface roughness structures)
- Water-based controls are usually more effective, but limited by water supply and potential impacts on lake levels and ecosystems. They are also more expensive and require sustained infrastructure and long-term water inputs.
- Non-water controls avoid ongoing water demand but their effectiveness and scalability depend strongly on site-specific conditions.
- The most effective approach would likely combine multiple strategies tailored to local conditions.
- Dust control methods from Owens Lake and the Salton Sea provide valuable guidance, but the methods will require local testing and adaptive management.
Large-scale engineered dust mitigation would be enormously expensive
- Estimated costs range from $3.2 billion to over $31 billion, depending on the mitigation strategy employed.
- If dust-active areas expand, total mitigation costs could increase ~2.7x, making prevention critical.
- Cost-effective strategies will combine multiple approaches tailored to local conditions.
Restoring lake levels is likely the most sustainable and cost-effective option
- Restoring inflows would reduce dust naturally, avoid massive infrastructure costs, and should be evaluated alongside engineered options.
- A healthy lake would also provide benefits like wildlife habitat, recreation, and economic stability.
This report is a decision-making framework, not a prescription
- The report does not determine whether dust mitigation is required.
- It provides tools to help policymakers evaluate when mitigation may be needed, what options exist, what they would cost, and how they compare to prevention strategies.
