by Leia Larsen, Standard Examiner. Photo by Benjamin Zach 

Could an inland port opening on the south shore of the Great Salt Lake potentially benefit a landfill looking to open to the north, on Promontory Point? The two sites seemed linked by a lot more than their proximity to the lake.

A bill rushed through the end of the 2018 Utah Legislative Session created an Inland Port Authority to oversee construction and operation of one of the largest international trade hubs in the nation’s interior. Gov. Gary Herbert inked the bill and made it law Friday, despite pleas from Salt Lake City officials and Salt Lake County residents for his veto.

Meanwhile, operators of Promontory Point Resources and its parent company, ALLOS Environmental, are building a large landfill facility on Promontory Point a few thousand feet from the Great Salt Lake near the Union Pacific causeway.

PPR has already invested millions in the site, so it came as a surprise when the company seemingly abandoned its plans to seek out-of-state waste last month by suddenly withdrawing an application for Class V status. 

It seems the Class V permit may have been denied anyway, since a March 1 report by a consultant for the Department of Environmental Quality found no need for another Class V landfill in Utah.

PPR representatives tried to block that report from becoming public. The landfill owners also claimed they are focusing on developing the site under the existing Class I permit.

Continue reading here.

February 14, 2018

Scott T. Anderson

Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control

P.O. Box 144880

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880

dwmrcpublic@utah.gov submitted via email only Re: Public Comment on Promontory Point Landfill Modification

Dear Director Anderson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modification to the Promontory Point Resources, LLC Landfill monitoring wells. We make these comments on behalf of FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake and Sierra Club, which are greatly concerned about the level of subjectivity in the location of the monitoring wells, and respectfully requests that the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control withhold any permit modification or approval until it is determined whether the placement of the wells would allow the wells to perform their intended function of detecting the release of contaminants.

FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake (FRIENDS) is a non-profit organization that has, as its mission, the preservation and protection of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem as well as Great Salt Lake’s watershed, and the organization seeks to increase public awareness and appreciation of the Lake through education, research, advocacy, and the arts. The organization has long been involved in the protection and restoration of Great Salt Lake, its ecosystems and its watershed, advocating for ways in which the public may enjoy these resources by fishing, bird-watching, boating, photographing, hiking and studying these natural areas. On behalf of its members, FRIENDS frequently participates in agency processes that affect Great Salt Lake. FRIENDS considers this participation to be critical to its mission and to be valuable as a means of influencing the administration of lands that will lead to the protection and preservation of the Greater Great Salt Lake watershed.

As America’s largest grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club has more than 3.5 million members and supporters nationwide and more than 5,600 members living in Utah. In addition to helping people of all backgrounds have meaningful outdoor experiences, the Sierra Club works to preserve and restore our remaining wild places, to promote the responsible use of the Earth’s resources and ecosystems, and to safeguard the 2 health of communities through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and litigation.

Promontory Point Resources, LLC seeks to modify its existing Class I Permit for the Promontory Point Resources, LLC Landfill after constructing the landfill over the top of at least two of the originally-approved monitoring well sites. The Public Notice Provided purports that the well locations will meet the 500 foot requirements of Utah Code Ann. R315-308-2(2), but there is no agency analysis to show that conclusion to be accurate. Before approving the new monitoring well locations, the Division should independently determine whether the wells are no further than 500 feet from the boundary of the landfill. Further, Utah Code Ann. R315-308-2(2) requires that the placement of groundwater monitoring wells be at "appropriate locations to yield samples from the uppermost aquifer and all hydraulically connect aquifers” and that the downgradient wells are installed at the "closest practicable distance hydraulically down gradient from the unit boundary not to exceed 150 meters (500 feet)”. There is no analysis or evidence to establish that these additional requirements of Utah Code Ann. R315-308-2(2) have been met.

Utah Code Ann R315-308-2 requires a complete and comprehensive groundwater monitoring program, not merely monitoring wells. The Class I permit currently includes such a groundwater monitoring program based on the locations of the previouslyapproved groundwater monitoring well sites. There needs to be review and analysis of the current groundwater monitoring program to determine whether that program needs to be revised based on the fact that the monitoring wells require relocation. Such analysis should be performed before any relocation of monitoring wells is approved.

Additionally, even if the proposed well locations meet the minimum distance requirements of Utah Code Ann. R315-308-2(2), due to the subsurface geology of the area around the proposed landfill the proposed wells may not actually perform their intended function – to detect the release of contaminants. Recall that Utah Code Ann. R315-308-2(2) requires that the placement of groundwater monitoring wells be at "appropriate locations to yield samples from the uppermost aquifer and all hydraulically connect aquifers” and that the downgradient wells are installed at the "closest practicable distance hydraulically down gradient from the unit boundary not to exceed 150 meters (500 feet)”. There is a great amount of subjectivity in where the wells should be placed, and their locations should be selected only after careful review and consideration of the site in order to ensure compliance with Utah Code Ann. R315-3082(2). The fact that some of the originally –approved wells were constructed over further demonstrates the need to carefully consider the subjective location of these monitoring wells. Accordingly, 3 before issuing a final permit, the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control should require additional study and review of the proposed sites for the monitoring wells, to be undertaken and paid for by the Promontory Point Resources, LLC; to determine whether the proposed wells will function as intended.

The Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (GSLAC), in correspondence dated January 10, 2018, and previously submitted to the Division (Exhibit A, attached); Compass Minerals, in correspondence dated December 15, 2017 and previously submitted to the Division (Exhibit B, attached); and Dr. Bonnie Baxter, Director Great Salt Lake Institute, Westminster College in correspondence dated January 31, 2018 and previously submitted to the Division (Exhibit C, attached), emphasize the need for better hydro-geologic data pertaining to the landfill and in order to protect groundwater from contamination. All three letters are included with these comments.

Dr. Baxter’s letter, (See, Exhibit C) identifies hydrogeological concerns and the lack of data on page two, stating specifically:

● Lack of information on groundwater connection between landfill and lake: The landfill site is in close proximity to the waters of Great Salt Lake, and the groundwater connections from the site to the lake have not been well-researched to my knowledge. This is critical; there is potential of groundwater flow from upland areas on Promontory Point to documented, proximal lakebed spring systems into this unique and significant ecosystem. This would be a potential preferential pathway for leachate should it escape undetected into groundwater or fracture sets in bedrock beneath the proposed landfill. I also have concerns about the lack of groundwater quality data and the placement of monitoring wells. Will the monitoring wells monitor both alluvium bedrock groundwater? A deeper understanding is necessary in the area of the landfill in order to protect against potential landfill leachate.

● Microbialite density suggests groundwater connection between landfill and lake: Microbialites (e.g. stromatolites, “bioherms,” “biostromes”) are structures precipitated on the lake floor by microorganisms that photosynthesize and power the lake’s ecosystem by producing energy and turning over nutrients (e.g. Lindsay, M. R., et al. "Microbialite response to an anthropogenic salinity gradient in Great Salt Lake, Utah." Geobiology 15.1 (2017): 131-145). These are feeding stations for brine fly pupae, which are eaten by diving birds (e.g. ducks, phalaropes). For these reasons and others, microbialites are a key focal point of understanding the lake ecology.

Current models of microbialite formation, in sites around the world, suggest that they form where groundwater seeps occur as the groundwater would be necessary to bring calcium and form the calcium carbonate material. The microbialite structures in Great 4 Salt Lake are the densest on the shallow shelfs bounded by faults as the water depth changes. This suggests that the major faults under Great Salt Lake, to the west of the landfill site, may be seeping groundwater. As these faults are fairly close to the western shore of Promontory Point (~4,000 meters), it is possible that groundwater that recharges on the upland Promontory Point discharges, at least partially, via these faults.

The Great Salt Lake Alliance Council listed the following concerns in its correspondence, (See, Exhibit A):

• Sufficiency of existing studies to determine the scope and potential migration of leachate generated by stored waste at the facility; specifically for long term storage and degradation of liners over time and the potential environmental consequences of leaks to Great Salt Lake;

• The adequacy of plans and infrastructure designed to collect leachate from waste and ensure that it does not contaminate groundwater, endanger wildlife, or enter the lake; both now and into the future. • Given the density difference of leachate and GSL water, there are concerns that leachate would ‘float to the top’, thus creating a toxic surface lens;

• The potential for containment failure, particularly as it relates to earthquakes, subsidence, seiche waves, and liner degradation over time;

• Design standard adequacy in this environment to handle runoff equal to or greater than a 100-year rain event;

• Sufficiency of plan design to address fractured bedrock beneath the site and movement of groundwater through it, which creates natural pathways for leachate and associated toxins to contaminate groundwater and for that contamination to spread;

GSLAC then requested that the Division complete further studies (See, Exhibit C): “[T]o determine the full extent of the risks and the adequacy of the measures designed to address them. Those studies include a more extensive study of groundwater movement on Promontory and how this facility could affect ground and surface water resources, as well as the adequacy of the facility t 5 capture and process leachate; (ii) prevent the escape of fugitive waste and other debris; (iii) prevent fly ash or other toxic dust from entering the environment from the landfill or from transportation to the landfill; and (iv) withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes, seiche waves which have occurred, and will likely occur again in this area, as well as degradation of the liners over time.”

Compass Minerals correspondence posed three questions related to groundwater and the potential for contamination, specifically relating to a potential pathway for contaminants from the landfill to the lake via the lakebed springs:

• Have groundwater fate and transport studies that have been conducted or will need to be conducted as part of the Promontory Landfill’s request integrated the presence of these springs within the near-shore lakebed into the project scope?

• Has the source area for the springs on the GSL lakebed been assessed to determine whether the recharge area for the springs is beneath or near the proposed Promontory landfill?

• If so, is there is a nexus between the recharge area and the springs that creates a preferential pathway from landfill leachate sources to the GSL lakebed in near proximity to the termination of Compass Minerals Behrens Trench on the southwest tip of Promontory Point?

The correspondence from Dr. Baxter, Compass Minerals, and GSLAC are representative of the importance of understanding the hydrogeology of the area in order to protect water quality and Great Salt Lake itself from pollution and other potential contaminants that may be discharged or leak from Promontory Point Resources, LLC’s Class I landfill located on Promontory Point.

Additionally, in any decision of the well locations herein, we respectfully request that the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control consult with the Division of Water Quality regarding Promontory Point Resources recent and repeated flooding of the County road on the Southwest boundary of the landfill, on or near the proposed relocation of the monitoring wells. It is unclear whether this relates to Promontory Point Resources’ storm water permit and pollution plan, but whether or not it is related, there exists real questions as to whether the storm water pollution plan and retention pond, and whether those will have any effect on the proposed location of the groundwater 6 monitoring wells. Attached you will please find two photographs of the flooding taken in January of 2018 by Young Brothers Livestock; Exhibit D.

There is also concern that the Needs Assessment Addendum for Promontory Point Resources, LLC’s Class V permit application is included with the groundwater monitoring wells relocation proposal. As the Class V permitting process is proceeding and the Needs Assessment is a portion of that application, it should not be considered as part of any Class I Permit Modification, and we respectfully request that the Division not consider the Needs Assessment Addendum for the Class V landfill application or any material contained therein when considering this requested modification for a Class I landfill permit. The Division has not reviewed or approved the Needs Assessment Addendum in conjunction with the Class I Permit Modification, and should make that clear as part of its decision whether to permit the proposed well relocations.

Due to the great subjectivity of the well placement, the flooding issues, and the complex subsurface geology of Promontory Point, the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control should not approve this permit unless and until it can be determined the wells will in fact be located in the proper place to actually detect contaminants from the proposed landfill. Merely locating the wells within 500 feet of the waste boundary of the proposed landfill site is not enough to ensure that meaningful monitoring will actually occur. Due to the great subjectivity of the wells location within the 500 foot requirement, additional information is required.

Thank you kindly for your time and attention to this matter.

Very Truly Yours, 

Ariel C. Calmes, staff attorney Western Resource Advocates

Andrea Issod Senior Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law

Click here to download .pdf with Exhibits

by Leia Larsen 

Standard-Examiner

Approval for a large landfill on the Great Salt Lake’s Promontory Point sailed through the Utah Legislature two years ago. Now, the lawmaker who backed the measure says he wasn’t fully aware of the facts or demand for urgent action.

The owners, Promontory Point Resources LLC, or PPR, helped rush a joint resolution through the 2016 legislative session. It was proposed and passed in the 11th hour, just before the 45-day bill-passing bonanza ended. 

The resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Lee Perry, recently said the measure was presented to him as an urgent matter, tied to an immediate economic opportunity. Confusion about what type of waste would be accepted, where waste would come from and local support for the project were essentially unheeded.

Now, two years later, PPR is seeking clearance to accept out-of-state waste at the 2,000-acre property, located on the southern tip of their namesake peninsula. 

“I have to look back and say, ‘It’s been two years; we haven’t seen it come together,’” Perry said in a recent interview. “Was the demand necessary?”

Click here to continue. 

Attention: Allan Moore

Solid Waste Program Manager

Great Salt Lake Advisory Council https://deq.utah.gov/great-salt-lake-advisory-council/index.htm

January 10, 2018

Utah Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Re: Promontory Landfill Class V RDCC Project No. 59842

Introduction

At a meeting of the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (“Council”) held today, Council members voted unanimously to send this letter to identify initial questions, issues and concerns related to Great Salt Lake (“GSL” or the “lake”) that the Council believes need to be addressed in the permitting process associated with the proposed change to the Promontory Landfill, referenced above, from a Class I to a Class V landfill.

Great Salt Lake Advisory Council Duty to Advise and Assist the Division of Environmental Quality in its Responsibilities for Great Salt Lake

The Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (“Council”) was established by House Bill 343 in the 2010 session of the Utah State Legislature. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Utah Senate.

The duties of the Council include:

• Advise the Governor, the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), and the Department of Environmental (“DEQ”) on the “sustainable use, protection, and development” of GSL; and
• Assist DNR and DEQ and their boards in their responsibilities for GSL.
  The Council submits this letter pursuant to those statutory responsibilities and requests your Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (continued) January 10, 2018
• consideration of these questions, comments and concerns.

Economic & Ecological Values of the Resource

A 2012 economic study commissioned by the Council estimated economic output generated by GSL at $1.3 billion, including $1.1 billion from evaporative mining, $136 million from tourism and recreation, and $57 million from the harvest of brine shrimp. The study estimated that those industries resulted in $375 million in paychecks and supported 7,706 local jobs. These economic contributions are dependent upon a healthy GSL ecosystem.

The Great Salt Lake also has significant ecological value. It plays a critical role for birds, including some of the largest concentrations of certain species of waterbirds in the Western hemisphere and, in some cases, the world. Over five million birds from 257 different species rely on the lake to live, feed, rest, breed and nest. The lake plays a particularly critical role for migratory birds. Birds come to the lake by the millions to eat and rest during migration, and other species stay to breed, nest and raise their young. The lake contains abundant food for birds, including very important brine shrimp and other macroinvertebrates. These ecological values depend upon a healthy ecosystem.

Questions and Concerns Regarding Proposed Class V Status for Promontory Landfill

The letter is not intended to reflect a detailed analysis of the application, nor or an exhaustive list of potential issues to be addressed in the permitting process. Rather the letter attempts to identify questions and concerns broadly shared by Council members. Those questions and concerns include the following:

• Adequacy of measures designed to mitigate impacts associated with fugitive dust, debris, and materials not deemed hazardous, but that have sufficient risks posed to human health and the environment (i.e. coal combustion residuals or material which technically meets a listing or exhibits a characteristic which would normally meet the hazardous waste definition) that will be generated from the site itself;
• Adequacy of measures designed to mitigate impacts associated with dust, debris, and materials not deemed hazardous, but that have sufficient risks posed to human health and the environment (i.e. coal combustion residuals or material which technically meets a listing or exhibits a characteristic which would normally meet the hazardous waste definition) that will result from transportation of materials to the site;
• Sufficiency of existing studies to determine the scope and potential migration of leachate generated by stored waste at the facility; specifically for long term storage and degradation of liners over time and the potential environmental consequences of leaks to Great Salt Lake;
• The adequacy of plans and infrastructure designed to collect leachate from waste and ensure that it does not contaminate groundwater, endanger wildlife, or enter the lake; both now and into the future.
• Given the density difference of leachate and GSL water, there are concerns that leachate would ‘float to the top’, thus creating a toxic surface lens; Design standard adequacy in this environment to handle runoff equal to or greater than a 100-year rain event;
• The potential for containment failure, particularly as it relates to earthquakes, subsidence, seiche waves, and liner degradation over time;
• Sufficiency of studies and plans to secure the protection of avian resources and their critical food chain;
• Sufficiency of plan design to address fractured bedrock beneath the site and movement of groundwater through it, which creates natural pathways for leachate and associated toxins to contaminate groundwater and for that contamination to spread;
• How the permittee will address the Coal Combustion Residuals Federal Rule for recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website;
• Adequacy of project design to address the risk of large volumes of materials (toxins) in close proximity to Great Salt Lake. (With coal combustion residuals a significant portion of the waste stream in the United States, and this landfill seeking the license to accept such waste, the likelihood is high that significant volumes of coal combustion residuals would eventually make their way to the Promontory landfill. Such waste contains heavy metals like arsenic, lead, mercury, as well as other toxic substances that can migrate from a waste repository by windblown dust, groundwater or other means.) The location of this site poses a particular challenge given its close proximity to, and location immediately uphill from, GSL. That location means that, if these concerns are not adequately addressed along with ample safeguards and planning for the unexpected, the landfill could pose a catastrophic threat to GSL, a natural resource of hemispheric—if not global—importance.

Unique Nature of the Site and Associated Risks. The location of this site poses a particular challenge given its close proximity to, and location immediately uphill from, GSL. That location means that, if these concerns are not adequately addressed along with ample safeguards and planning for the unexpected, the landfill could pose a catastrophic threat to GSL, a natural resource of hemispheric—if not global—importance.

At a minimum, the Council believes further studies are needed to determine the full extent of the risks and the adequacy of the measures designed to address them. Those studies include a more extensive study of groundwatermovement on Promontory and how this facility could affect ground and surface water resources, as well as the adequacy of the facility to (i) capture and process leachate; (ii) prevent the escape of fugitive waste and other debris; (iii) prevent fly ash or other toxic dust from entering the environment from the landfill or from transportation to the landfill; and (iv) withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes, seiche waves which have occurred, and will likely occur again in this area, as well as degradation of the liners over time.

Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to pose these important questions and provide these initial comments.

If there is information that the Council could provide to assist the Department of Environmental Quality in evaluating this proposal, please let us know.

Sent by email to: allanmoore@utah.gov

Want to watch one of your favorite presentations again?

Missed a speaker you were really looking forward to?

Or could not attend the Forum at all?

Access speakers' slides below:

Secondary Water Metering: Future implications for the state and local regions from Amelia Nuding, Senior Water Resources Analyst with WRA 

By Lynn de Freitas and Lindsay Beebee for the Salt Lake Tribune 

What does it say about Utah when our neighboring states think of us as the place where they can dump their nastiest garbage? Makes you proud, doesn’t it?

In a remote corner of Box Elder County, on the shores of Great Salt Lake, Promontory Point Resources, LLC, has applied for a Class V waste permit — a permit specifically designed to accept waste from out of state. But this isn’t household garbage we’re talking about here; this is bad stuff. This is California hazardous waste, which that state defines as “waste with a chemical composition or other properties that make it capable of causing illness, death, or some other harm to humans and other life forms.” Interestingly, California hazardous waste magically becomes non-hazardous once it crosses the Utah border.

It’s also coal ash from throughout the West and Midwest. Coal ash — or, as Utah calls it, coal combustion residual, is the by-product of burning coal to generate electricity and, depending on where the coal is mined, can contain all sorts of dangerous toxicants. These include arsenic, lead, mercury, antimony, boron… You get the picture.

The landfill would also be able to accept special wastes and small quantity generator hazardous wastes, such as low-level infectious waste, heavy metals, solvents and a variety of organic compounds like PCBs.

Here’s a puzzle. Why on earth would Box Elder County and the state not only allow, but actually encourage, the construction of a Class V landfill on the shores of Great Salt Lake and risk destroying one of the state’s iconic resources? Why isn’t there a buffer zone around the lake that ensures the protection of the lake against clearly inappropriate development such as this? Given that there’s over 2,000 years worth of Class V storage already existing in the state — 2,000 years! – surely there’s no reason to permit this facility.

Click here to continue.

Winter 2018 -Executive Director’s Message-

“UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

            - The Lorax

The lay of the land-

Less than 20 miles from Gunnison Island, a protected sanctuary for the third largest breeding population of American White Pelicans in North America. In the same neighborhood as Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty that was designated Utah’s Official State Work of Land Art in March 2017. Slightly more than 10 miles from the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge - Utah’s first national wildlife refuge established in 1928. And as the gull flies, about 25 miles southeast from the Golden Spike National Historic Monument, a popular tourist attraction that celebrates the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. 

Where our story continues-

In the Spring 2003 newsletter, I wrote about an ill-conceived proposal that promised to generate economic livelihood for Box Elder County by constructing the nation’s 4^th largest landfill on the western flank of the southern tip of the Promontory Peninsula. The Promontory Peninsula is a misunderstood but impressive landscape that’s emblematic of the classic Basin and Range geomorphology. The extension of its magnificent reach of mountains and scrubby productive upland habitats creates a visually notable portion of the distinctive northern shoreline of Great Salt Lake. Its uplands possesses a prodigious array of raptors including American Bald Eagles, Burrowing Owls-a species that is included on the Utah Sensitive Species List, Long-billed Curlews, mule deer, waterfowl that take refuge on its eastern shoreline in Bear River Bay, and a passel of other critters that call this place home. 

15 years ago, a Class I permit was being pursued by the applicant Promontory, LLC. Several other proposals for landfill sites in Box Elder County were also being considered but only this one rose to the top. The rationale for the landfill was based on projected expanding waste disposal needs of the rapidly growing population in northern Utah.  A Class I permit means that contracts to accept waste can only be made with local governments and municipalities within Utah of wastes generated within those boundaries, along with approval by the Executive Secretary/Executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).  The waste stream that can be accepted consists of municipal, commercial, industrial, construction/demolition waste and special wastes and small quantity generator hazardous waste such as low level infectious waste, heavy metals, solvents, a variety of organic compounds like PCB’s that are conditional under certain regulatory codes within the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (the Division) in DEQ.

The Box Elder County Planning Commission held a series of public hearings on the Promontory, LLC landfill. Objections and concerns were expressed about the obvious externalities that come with this type of land use. Many people including adjacent property owners within 1000’ of the proposed site, local citizens, conservation interests including FRIENDS, the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, and a family owned Great Salt Lake mineral extraction operation in Gunnison Bay that produces mineral supplements for human consumption spoke to these issues.  Among those concerns were fugitive trash that inevitably finds its way across the landscape, the relationship between air, land, and water contamination from wastes that can impact wildlife and the ecology of Great Salt Lake, and the need for yet another facility given available waste markets. And in general why did Box Elder County choose to promote this type of land use as an economic generator? Following a public commenting period through the Division, a Class I permit was issued in March 2004. 

The writing on the wall-

In 2009, there was an ownership change. In 2011, the Class I permit was renewed. In 2014/15 another new ownership defaulted on its contract and so the permit reverted back to the prior owner. In 2016, Promontory Point Resources, LLC (the company) purchased the 2,000 acres and the Class I permit that came with it which is due to expire in 2021. Throughout this period of what could be construed as Utah’s very own version of a classic Marx Brothers movie, no ground on Promontory Peninsula was disturbed. The likely reason for this is because the market for in-state waste is already secured by 10 existing Utah landfill facilities that have a combined life storage capacity of 363 years. Included in this lot is the Box Elder County landfill that has its own Class I permit with existing capacity and room to expand if need be. 

Clearly, as a business venture and an economic generator for Box Elder County, this prospect seemed to be going nowhere until May 2017, when earthmovers began carving up the landscape. So what changed?

In March 2017, two things happened. On March 10^th during the 2017 General Session of the Utah State Legislature, (H.J.R.020) Joint Resolution Approving Class V Landfill for Promontory Point Resources, LLC sponsored by Rep. Lee B. Perry (Perry, UT) and Sen. Peter C. Knudson (Brigham City) became effective. And on March 17^th the company submitted its application to the Division for a Class V permit. A Class V permit would allow the company to receive the same types of wastes as a Class I but from out of state, and with the addition of “special wastes as enumerated in the operation plan as defined in Utah Administrative Code, R 315-315. Initial disposal rates would be approximately 200,000 tons per year and approximately 750 tons per day. Depending on the waste sources, the volumes would increase annually.

The resolution “gives approval for the construction and operation of a Class V commercial nonhazardous solid waste landfill” for the company because “[it] would have favorable economic impact on Box Elder County in the form of new permanent jobs and host fees”. Note the “nonhazardous” category that is certainly debatable. Although H.J.R. 020 grants provisional approval of a Class V permit by the legislature, it is still contingent upon approval of the operational plan by Box Elder County, the Director of the Division, and requires the governor’s signature.  What’s important to note here is that Utah already has 10 Class V permitted landfills with a collective waste storage capacity of more than 2,036-yrs. Once again this begs the question of whether taking more out of state waste is really the best way for Box Elder County to explore economic opportunities? And if so, then why does it need it to be adjacent to Great Salt Lake which is already recognized as an economic generator to the tune of $1.3B annually to Utah’s GDP? 

Taking advantage of regulatory loopholes-

The company is in the process of carving out an unsightly blot on the landscape under a Class I permit but it has no intention of operating as a Class I facility because it’s not commercially viable. It’s able to do this because the construction requirements for Class I and Class V facilities are identical. And it’s taking advantage of an unfortunate loophole in the existing regulatory requirements that allows the construction of landfill facilities to begin even before contracts with waste providers have been secured. And even before a robust market analysis has been conducted to determine whether additional capacity for nonhazardous solid waste is even needed. It just can’t begin storing any wastes. This loophole allowed the company to get a jump start on the construction under the assumption that it would get its Class V permit in short order. Given that its already spent close to $16 million of state grant money in construction, the company probably felt getting the permit was a safe bet. The real money is in accepting out-of-state waste that nobody else wants –  California Hazardous (Cal-Haz) waste, and coal ash (or in the regulatory jargon: coal combustion residual). This is especially true given the location’s ready access to a main east-west rail line.  Apparently, there’s big money to be made storing the really nasty stuff.

Adding insult to injury, the company has begun the work without securing bonding arrangements to ensure that the state has funds to reckon with the landscape if the owners decide to walk. If wastes have been received, the state would have to relocate them. If not, the state would treat the site much like an abandoned building without reclamation of the land. Either way, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. 

A “Needs Assessment Report” for the Class V permit was submitted by the company along with its application to the Division. A review for data validation and analysis by a third party to “fulfill the requirements of Section 19-6-108, subsections (10) and (11), of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act was completed on July 10, 2017. The findings are extremely troubling. “ Overall the analysis does not fully comply with the requirements of the Act as it is missing content to meet all statutory requirements, does not provide a robust market analysis and therefore does not establish the need for the facility, and has several important data and information gaps.”  Among those gaps, the report fails to provide potential environmental impacts. 

So where does all this take us? 

The application is on hold until the Division receives the completed Needs Assessment Report. Meanwhile, the Division has received comments from the Utah Geological Survey, Division of Wildlife Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, GSL industries, and the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council identifying specific concerns about the project. You can read them at www.fogsl.org. If the Division determines that a Class V permit has merit and meets specific evaluative criteria a draft will go out for public comment. There is no question that FRIENDS will be there to challenge a land use that has negative and long-term impacts on Great Salt Lake. We hope you’ll be there with us. 

In saline,

Lynn

Executive Director’s Message – Summer 2017 

“Great Salt Lake is an important resource and provides so many ecological, biological, economic and recreational opportunities that we cannot ignore it much longer. Climate change and our current hydrologic cycle may be our new normal. If so, we will all have to learn to get by with less water and the necessity to allocate some water to environmental preservation must finally be given equal dignity in the appropriation process as diversionary rights that deplete the water supply. We clearly have the ability to do this, and the legal tools to make it happen.”

-Steve E. Clyde, Clyde Snow & Sessions Water Rights for Great Salt Lake: Is it the Impossible Dream?

 I’ll begin my message with a big, briny thank you to Steve Clyde. Thank you, Steve for your initiative in opening a critical, timely and in some circles controversial door for engagement to talk about the legal tools that are available to provide water for Great Salt Lake. Clyde, an attorney with Clyde Snow & Sessions, is one of the state’s most respected water attorneys. At the Utah Water Law Conference last October, I had the great pleasure of hearing his presentation: Water Rights for Great Salt Lake: Is it the Impossible Dream?  (Read it at fogsl.org) To say the least, I thought Great Salt Lake’s ship had finally come in. And although his emphasis was on the Lake, the takeaway in his talk was about the importance of our natural systems and how they should be given “equal dignity in the [water] appropriation process.” Amen. 

 In fact, if I was stranded on a desert island – maybe in this case our very own Antelope Island – and only had 4 references with me to read, those references would be Clyde’s white paper, Professor Robert Adler’s Law Review article Toward Comprehensive Watershed Restoration and Protection for Great Salt Lake, 1999, Impacts of Water Development on Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Front, 2016, a white paper by USU Professor Wayne Wurtsbaugh et al, and the 2013 Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan compiled by the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The Division is in the Department of Natural Resources and has jurisdictional responsibility for managing the Lake in perpetuity as a public trust for the people of Utah. 

I know what you’re thinking right now – Geeze! That girl needs to get out more! But I do consider these 4 sources among the “Great Books” of Great Salt Lake.  

For nearly 4 years now, I’ve also had the pleasure of working with Steve on the Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team (Advisory Team). The purpose of the Advisory Team was to inform Governor Herbert’s 50-year State Water Plan that will be designed to address projected population growth by 2060 and Utah’s water needs. In fact, because of this valuable opportunity I’ve had the pleasure of working with a wide range of talent and perspectives on water in Utah. And I’ve learned a lot. 

Forty one of us, all volunteers, were tasked by the Governor to “(1) solicit and evaluate potential water management strategies; (2) frame various water management options and implications of those options for public feedback; and (3) based on broad input develop a set of recommended strategies and ideas to be considered a part of the 50-yr water plan.” 

You can read more about this process in my Executive Director’s Message (Winter 2017) and review the final Recommended State Water Strategy, July 2017.

The Recommended State Water Strategy is the result of respectful and robust debate among team members working in small groups to identify the issues and recommendations that support the eleven key policy questions in the strategy. We covered a lot of ground. The process was not without its fits and starts. And as you would expect there were the obvious sticking points particularly in the areas of conservation, climate change, and the need for new infrastructure like the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline and Bear River development projects. These issues required numerous draft revisions and negotiations among the team members that took us right up to the 11^th hour. 

Although Utah is the second most arid state in the nation we’re not running out of water. We just need to be smarter about inventorying/accounting, pricing, and integrating the way we understand the dynamics and the use of the resource. 

But Godzilla is back! This time in the form of climate change. Climate change will require supreme due diligence in our commitment to be responsible and timely in the way we implement strategies to mitigate its impacts. Climate change is included in the strategy. The bottom line here is that although there is no perfect horse, we worked extremely hard to create a product that exhibited a shared long-term vision. A vision that, among a variety of things, includes Great Salt Lake and our environment, and ways to “modernize” the framework for Utah water law and policy to pay due regard to these important values. 

 On July 19^th, the ink was finally dry on the document when we presented it to Governor Herbert at the State Capitol. He’ll use it to prioritize his agenda moving forward. Even though our assignment was accomplished at that point, the strategy really marks a beginning for further engagement in our important work for Utah’s water future and for the Lake. Ideally, it will be a working document that we’ll use to continue to seek ways to create accountability. We’re already talking about reconvening the Advisory Team annually for updates on how/or what we’re doing based on the recommendations we worked so hard to forge. The collective water wisdom that went into this exercise provides us with a useful framework that helps us focus our collective work on these many different fronts with an eye on our Lake. 

Speaking of collective work on the Great Salt Lake water front, at the July 12^th Great Salt Lake Advisory Council meeting, a draft report Water for Great Salt Lake, July 2017 was presented to council members. The report was commissioned by the GSL Advisory Council and compiled by SWCA Environmental Consultants. Its purpose is “to facilitate a discussion on how to reverse the long-term decline in Great Salt Lake water levels by considering potential strategies to maintain and/or increase the surface elevation (water levels) of Great Salt Lake. ” 

Currently, the draft consists of sixty-six strategies/tools submitted by groups and individuals in response to an invitation to more than 100 recipients that went out last May. The strategies are divided into categories that include: Coordination, Environmental, Legal, Operational, Policy and Structural. Many of the ideas in the draft are the same issues that were raised in the Recommended State Water Strategy. One more call will go out for any further contributions before the Advisory Council reviews the input and begins prioritizing the strategies at its September meeting. The game is afoot.

As you know, it’s important to go wide and take a regional perspective and recognize the significance of Great Salt Lake in the context of other saline systems around the West. We need to be able to assess how those systems are doing because they also provide critical habitats for millions of migratory birds for resting, staging, and nesting during their journey. That’s just what National Audubon Society’s report Water and Birds in the Arid West: Habitats in Decline, July 2017 does. This report is another important tool that helps inform our understanding about how water – or the lack of it due to upstream diversions and climate change -- affects ecosystem health. 

With the additional insights provided by the Great Salt Lake Level Matrix in the 2013 Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan that visually describes how different Lake elevations influence habitats and ecosystem services that contribute $1.3B to Utah’s economy.  And the recently available Integrated Water Resource Management Model developed by CH2M for the state to help inform resource management decisions for Great Salt Lake, the time is ripe to move forward on the water front. 

As Steve Clyde proposed in his presentation at the Utah Water Law Conference, “ We clearly have the ability to do this, and the legal tools to make it happen.” 

In the words of the late economist, Rudiger Dornbusch “Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” 

So let’s make it happen. We’re ready. How about you?

In saline and summer,

Lynn

by Emma Penrod, Salt Lake Tribune

Modern civilization has significantly reduced the size of the Great Salt Lake, but the authors of a new study remain optimistic that a cultural shift on the Wasatch Front could still save it.

Since the Mormon pioneers arrived in 1847, Utah’s top landmark has shrunk to half its historic size, according to the study published in October in the journal Nature Geoscience. Most of that decline can be attributed to human water use, the researchers at Utah State University say — but that means humans could reverse the trend, too.

It doesn’t mean that will be easy.

The lake’s size fluctuates naturally, with seasonal and long-term weather patterns, according to Wayne Wurtsbaugh, lead author on the study and a professor emeritus of watershed science at USU. When the Wasatch Front experiences drought, lake levels drop and they rise when there’s flooding, as they did during the early 1980s.

But the lake has been on a 160-year decline, data suggest — a trend that Wurtsbaugh and colleagues attribute almost wholly to humans taking water out of rivers and streams that once fed the Great Salt Lake for use in homes, farms and industries.

“There are big ups and downs,” the USU scientist said, “but the long-term trend is down.”

Yet Wurtsbaugh said the Great Salt Lake hasn’t shrunk beyond the point of no return, as have other saline lakes like Iran’s Lake Urmia and California’s Owens Lake.

“We’re not at a critical point … where they’ve lost kind of everything,” he said. “We’re in much better shape than some of these lakes.”

Click Here to read the entire Salt Lake Tribune Article  

Comments from Lynn de Freitas below, followed by additional commentary submitted by Wayne Wurtsbaugh. 

December 4, 2017

Re: 20-Year Compact Review Members of the Bear River Commission

On behalf of FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake (FRIENDS), thank you for this opportunity to comment on the need to amend the Bear River Compact. FRIENDS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization. Our mission is to increase public awareness and appreciation of the Lake and to preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem for future generations through education, research, advocacy, and the arts. Because Great Salt Lake is a terminal lake that is located at the bottom of a 22,000- square mile hydrologic drainage basin, the Lake depends on precipitation and water inflows from the watershed to sustain its important ecosystem services. These ecosystem services include critical habitats and food resources for millions of migratory birds that stage, rest and nest at the Lake, as well as important economic resources that include the brine shrimp industry, mineral extraction, recreation and tourism, and extraordinary archeological resources that are symbolic of this unique place in the Great Basin. On behalf of its members, FRIENDS participates in processes to protect and improve Great Salt Lake health and sustainability. We do this by helping to forge sustainable policy development and encourage management and regulatory measures that represent responsible stewardship practices.

For the purposes of these comments, I would like to encourage the Commission to reexamine the Compact in light of the devastating impact to the Great Salt Lake ecosystem that will result should development of the Bear River go forward as outlined in the Compact. Specifically, Article V of the Compact refers to further development of the remaining water in the Lower Division and specifies that: (1) Idaho shall have the first right to deplete 125,000 acre-feet of Bear River water; (2) Utah shall have the second right to deplete 275,000 acre-feet; and, (3) that both Idaho and Utah shall each have an additional right to deplete 75,000 acre-feet.

Should this additional 550,000 acre-feet of water be developed, the Utah Division of Water Resources estimates that the Lake could be lowered by as much as 12.3 feet. While such a drop in water level will essentially dry up both Bear River Bay and Farmington Bay, long before this occurs the increase in salinity in the dropping Lake will exceed a level that will destroy both the brine shrimp and brine fly populations that sustain over 7.5 million birds each year. Additionally, the likely impact on the $1.3 billion that the Lake contributes to Utah’s economy each year is incalculable.

Recognizing that the provisions of the Compact were agreed to in light of precipitation and water trends that have changed substantially in the last forty years, without regard to the “what if’s” of climate change and mega drought cycles, and at a time when we knew much less than we know now about the Lake, and its importance both ecologically and economically, I urge you to amend the Compact to account for these changed circumstances and to the known impacts these depletions will have to Great Salt Lake.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for the opportunity to submit them as a part of the 20-Year Compact Review.

In saline and sustainability,

Lynn de Freitas, Executive Director

FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake

Bear River Compact and the Great Salt Lake                                             Wayne Wurtsbaugh, Dec. 3, 2017

The Bear River Compact needs to be modified to incorporate the current understanding of the value and of the hydrology of Great Salt Lake. When the Compact was formed, the public assumed that any water that reached the lake was wasted. However, we now understand the critically important role of this water for industry, aquaculture, recreation, health, climate control and bird populations of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. The dollar value of the lake is currently assessed at $1.3 billion (Bioeconomics 2012), but that value does not include intrinsic cultural or ecological values, nor the value of the lake for protecting human health and providing an abundant snowpack in the Wasatch Mountains.    

To date, water use for agriculture, urban and other uses has lowered the lake 11 ft. from its natural level (Wurtsbaugh et al. 2017; Wurtsbaugh et al. 2016), and exposed 590,000 acres (54%) of the lakebed. The shallow and critically important Bear River Bay and Farmington Bay estuaries have 75%-85% of their areas dried during the summer, limiting habitat for water birds. The exposed lakebed allows dust storms to impact the Wasatch Front cities, creating respiratory problems (Griffin and Kellogg 2004) for the population.   Water development of the Bear River has already compromised the Great Salt Lake ecosystem.      

The current plan of the Bear River Compact allows for an additional 550,000 acre-feet of water to be depleted from the system, which will greatly decrease flows into Great Salt Lake.   The median estimate of the impact of this flow reduction would be to lower the lake an additional 4.5 ft. from current conditions, expose a total of 680,000 acres of lakebed, decrease the volume to 30% of natural, and increase salinities in the south arm of the lake (Gilbert Bay) to ~220 g/L.   Bear River and Farmington Bays would be dry during most of the year. Note, however, that the potential impact of the 550,000 acre-feet of water depletion is even more severe, and maximum estimates of this by the Utah Division of Water Resources suggest that the lake could be lowered an additional 10 ft., exposing approximately 785,000 acres of lakebed, decreasing the volume to 20% of the natural value and increasing salinity to near saturation. Given the range of predictions from the median to the maximum impacts, it is obvious that more work on the hydrology of the watershed is needed, but both scenarios indicate that flow reductions would have profound impacts on the environment and human health.

To put these impacts in perspective, managers need to consider the desiccation of Owens Lake in southern California.   When water was diverted from the lake it dried completely, exposing 70,000 acres of lakebed. Dust storms have impacted the health of the small community of Bishop and even more distant cities. To mitigate these impacts, the Los Angeles will spend $3.6 billion over 25 years to protect the health of residents (Ramboll Environ US Corporation 2016). Consider what the impacts could be on the 2.5 million residents of the Wasatch Front if 685,000-785,000 acres of the lakebed of Great Salt Lake are exposed!   Additionally, the ecology of the lake would be severely damaged. The dried estuary areas would greatly reduce bird use. Brine shrimp populations, which are important source of food for birds and the $60 million dollar aquaculture industry, would be decimated.   If salinities increased to 220 g/L, brine shrimp production would be reduced to less than 10% of that at natural lake levels (Barnes and Wurtsbaugh 2015), and if salinities increased to near saturation, brine shrimp and all invertebrate food production in the lake would disappear--we would have another "Dead Sea". It is fortunate that the Bear River Compact is under review, given that we now realize the major impacts that additional water development would have on the lake.

Major water depletions of fresh water from the Bear River and other tributaries of the lake are not warranted until we maximize conservation of this precious resource. The future growth of the Wasatch Front is sometimes cited as a need for water development in Utah. However, given that Utah currently has among the highest per capita water use in the country, and that people in cities such as Tucson use only 50% of what Salt Lake City residents use, it is clear that we have tremendous potential to conserve water.   Water conservation programs in the agricultural sector also need to be implemented and enforced. Modification of existing, and outdated water laws in the tristate region could also allow significant transfers of water from the agricultural sector to provide for the expanding urban population and to protect Great Salt Lake and other natural systems (Clyde 2016).

Thank you for considering my input, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Wayne Wurtsbaugh, Emeritus Professor, Utah State University (wayne.wurtsbaugh@usu.edu).

REFERENCES

Barnes, B.D., and Wurtsbaugh, W.A. 2015. The effects of salinity on plankton and benthic communities in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA: a microcosm experiment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72(6): 807-817.

Bioeconomics, I. 2012. Economic significance of the Great Salt Lake to the State of Utah. Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (Activities), Salt Lake City, Utah. https://deq.utah.gov/great-salt-lake-advisory-council/docs/2012/Jan/GSL_FINAL_REPORT-1-26-12.PDF

Clyde, S.E. 2016. Water rights for Great Salt Lake: is it the impossible dream? p. 1-29, Utah Water Law, CLE International, Salt Lake City, Utah.   http://www.clydesnow.com/images/Articles--Great-Salt-Lake-Paper-2016-01090010xB165B.pdf.

Griffin, D.W., and Kellogg, C.A. 2004. Dust storms and their impact on ocean and human health. EcoHealth 1: 284-295.

Ramboll Environ US Corporation. 2016. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District: 2016 Owens Valley Planning Area PM10 State implementation plan. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Bishop, California. 1494 p. http://www.gbuapcd.org/Air%20Quality%20Plans/OVPA_SIP_2016/2016_SIP_FINAL_20160413.pdf.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., Miller, C., Null, S.E., DeRose, R.J., Wilcock, P., Hahnenberger, M., Howe, F., and Moore, J. 2017. Decline of the world's saline lakes. Nature Geoscience 10(11): 816-821 (DOI: 810.1038/ngeo3052).

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., Miller, C., Null, S.E., Wilcock, P., Hahnenberger, M., and Howe, F. 2016. Impacts of Water Development on Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Front. White paper issued from the Quinney College of Natural Resources (Utah). http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&context=wats_facpub.