The Salt Lake and Church News - August 26th, 2026

[Pyreaux]

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/08/26/church-statement-on-great-salt-lake-and-regional-drought/

This is an update in an official statement issued directly by the Church on August 26, 2026, titled "Statement on Regional Drought and the Great Salt Lake." The Church renewed a public call for water conservation to assist the critically low levels of the Great Salt Lake. Officials highlighted ongoing conservation projects, including donating and leasing nearly 30,000 acre-feet of water to the lake and installing smart irrigation controllers across thousands of Church properties in the Intermountain West.

What is the problem, again?

The Great Salt Lake is facing prolonged, severe decline caused by decades of diversion for agriculture, industry, and municipal expansion that became compounded by an ongoing regional drought. The consequences of a shrinking lake are severe.

The lake is a vital stopping point for millions of migratory birds. Reduced water levels increase salinity to levels that threaten brine shrimp and fly populations, which form the base of the food chain. The exposed lakebed contains high concentrations of both naturally occurring and industrial heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead. As the water recedes, winds kick up toxic dust that poses serious public health risks to residents along the Wasatch Front. The lake supports multi-billion-dollar industries, including mineral extraction, brine shrimp harvesting, and ski tourism (which relies heavily on lake-effect snow).

What is the Church doing?

Because the Church owns substantial land holdings, agricultural acreage, and thousands of facilities across Utah, its water rights and usage practices carry significant weight. The Church updated its conservation record and renewed a public call for stewardship. The Church has permanently donated or leased nearly 30,000 acre-feet of water to the Great Salt Lake making it one of the largest single water donors to the lake to date. This includes donating thousands of shares in the North Point Consolidated Irrigation Company to ensure water flows perpetually into the lake and surrounding wetlands.

Across the Intermountain West, the Church has installed over 3,100 smart irrigation controllers (about 1,700 within the Great Salt Lake Basin itself) to prevent overwatering at meetinghouses, temples, and welfare farms.  The Church is actively converting turf grass to drought-tolerant, water-wise landscaping at hundreds of meetinghouses and historic sites. Landscape overhaul projects at Temple Square alone are expected to save up to 20 million gallons of water annually once completed. Church leadership released formal statements urging members to reduce personal residential landscape watering, adopt water-wise habits, and support community conservation initiatives.

Who else is helping?

The Utah State Government legislature established the Great Salt Lake Commissioner’s office and allocated hundreds of millions of dollars toward water banking, split-season leasing, and agricultural optimization. State programs also offer turf-buyback rebates for homeowners replacing grass lawns.

Organizations like the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust (co-managed by the National Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy) work directly with water rights holders to acquire and direct water into the lake's tributaries.

Local farmers and irrigation companies are adopting precision drip systems and automated piping to reduce runoff and voluntarily lease unused water. Researchers from the University of Utah, Utah State University, and BYU provide hydrological modeling to track air quality and water inflows.

Will it fix the problem?

Current measures are slowing the decline and building critical infrastructure, but conservation alone will not fully "fix" the lake. The influx of dedicated water rights guarantees a baseline volume of water reaches the lake every year rather than being diverted to fields or subdivisions.

Hydrologists and state officials emphasize that human conservation and policy changes can only bridge the gap. Long-term stabilization requires sustained, above-average winter snowpack in the Wasatch Mountains. Any succession of dry winters can quickly offset years of conserved water. Church leaders acknowledged this reality in their statement, noting that while conservation efforts are vital moral and civic duties, an ultimate recovery ultimately relies on weather patterns and increased precipitation.

[The Nehor]

The whole Southwest is in trouble. Lake Powell is approaching critical levels and it is likely to come down to either keeping Lake Mead or Lake Powell viable and it will almost certainly be Lake Mead that survives for a while.

We need to cut water use in all of the southwestern states but everyone largely accepts the need to do that as long as it has no impact on them specifically. It is political suicide to try to make the harsh cuts needed to arrest the problem so the can keeps getting kicked down the road.

[The Nehor]

I put up a short post but thought I could share a little more about Utah in particular.

While that is a lot of water to donate it a minor hedge. The biggest loss of water is just the lake evaporating and there is not that much that can be done about it. I heard there were ideas to try to shade portions of the lake with solar panels or something similar but it is just not viable. Putting metal things and human construction in general near really briny water destroys the thing pretty quickly. Short of arresting climate change not much can be done. The other big drain is agriculture and the biggest water consumer is alfalfa. We should probably grow a LOT less of that. It needs a lot of water and is primarily used for livestock and not human consumption. Alfalfa growth to human calories consumed it is very inefficient.

All the consumer level water conservation of replacing lawns and the like won’t move the needle. The biggest move that can be made is cutting back on the alfalfa growing which would of course mean a bunch of alfalfa millionaires (probably including the Church) would fight tooth and nail against it.

Also the statement saying the only thing we can do is hope for more rain is defeatist and silly. As the Great Lake dries up there will be less rain. Hoping for a miracle or a short term rainfall of extra rain isn’t sustainable.

I also really don’t know how you write a piece like that without mentioning climate change unless you deliberately are trying not to mention it.

Edited September 14 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

On 9/12/2026 at 12:42 AM, The Nehor said:

I also really don’t know how you write a piece like that without mentioning climate change unless you deliberately are trying not to mention it.

And so virtue gets signaled.

I really don't know how you wrote this particular gem as if whining about things totally out of Utah's control is going to contribute to somehow fixing the problem. If we talk about it more than it's been talked about in the past decade this will help, right? I have news for you: Utah can't fix climate change. The most Utah can do is deal with it.

Shouting "Climate change!" is a lot like the disingenuous "stolen land acknowledgement" that certain people like to signal their virtue about. As if this somehow fixes something -- which it doesn't because it's a "Hey! Look at me!" applause stimulator that does nothing more than emotionally reward the virtue signaler. As if the 75 viewers of this topic so far would have been better enlightened if @Pyreaux had written "because of climate change" somewhere in the OP. Would it have made the slightest difference? Do you know what I thought of, first thing, while reading it? Climate change! He didn't need to write it, because we've all been propagandized to death about the subject. It's become Pavlovian conditioning at this stage, and both advocates and deniers instantly know what's up. And then grumble to themselves according to their particular persuasion.

May the Green New Deal be with you.

[marineland]

Several AI data centers are planned for Utah:

Stratos Project (Box Elder County): Backed by celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary.
Delta Gigasite / Project Oasis (Millard County): Proposed by Creekstone Energy
Nine Mile Data Center (Duchesne County): Planned near Myton by Energence Utah

The last link provides others:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2026/0901/utah-data-centers-stratos-project
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/09/09/delta-gigasite-worlds-largest-data/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tracking-where-ai-data-centers-224122248.html
 

[Tacenda]

On 9/14/2026 at 2:32 PM, Stargazer said:

And so virtue gets signaled.

I really don't know how you wrote this particular gem as if whining about things totally out of Utah's control is going to contribute to somehow fixing the problem. If we talk about it more than it's been talked about in the past decade this will help, right? I have news for you: Utah can't fix climate change. The most Utah can do is deal with it.

Shouting "Climate change!" is a lot like the disingenuous "stolen land acknowledgement" that certain people like to signal their virtue about. As if this somehow fixes something -- which it doesn't because it's a "Hey! Look at me!" applause stimulator that does nothing more than emotionally reward the virtue signaler. As if the 75 viewers of this topic so far would have been better enlightened if @Pyreaux had written "because of climate change" somewhere in the OP. Would it have made the slightest difference? Do you know what I thought of, first thing, while reading it? Climate change! He didn't need to write it, because we've all been propagandized to death about the subject. It's become Pavlovian conditioning at this stage, and both advocates and deniers instantly know what's up. And then grumble to themselves according to their particular persuasion.

May the Green New Deal be with you.

Climate change is real, deal with it. Fossil fuels, not a good idea. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:36 PM by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

On 9/15/2026 at 8:52 AM, marineland said:

Several AI data centers are planned for Utah:

Stratos Project (Box Elder County): Backed by celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary.
Delta Gigasite / Project Oasis (Millard County): Proposed by Creekstone Energy
Nine Mile Data Center (Duchesne County): Planned near Myton by Energence Utah

The last link provides others:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2026/0901/utah-data-centers-stratos-project
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/09/09/delta-gigasite-worlds-largest-data/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tracking-where-ai-data-centers-224122248.html
 

Shoot, I was hoping Box Elder was off the list. And I don't like these others either. Data centers to perform for the help to cure diseases or help humanity, great. But the data centers to create our demise, with Robots or ? coming at us, or hacking our system in order to wipe out our money at our banks etc, will cause us to become helpless and maybe even fight each other for survival. That will be the day I want a little pill and just hopefully meet my maker.

Edited Wednesday at 04:33 PM by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

On 9/16/2026 at 5:29 PM, Tacenda said:

Climate change is real, deal with it. Fossil fuels, not a good idea. 

Dear sister, whether fossil fuels are a good idea or not, whether climate change is real or not, I was responding to the silly reprimand of Pyreaux's "failure to mention climate change" in his post. As if this would somehow help anything if he did. I have come to hate virtue signaling. Which is what The Nehor's post was, nothing more.

Do you really want to blow the thread completely off-topic onto climate change? It might be fun, but the signal-to-noise ratio would get very low.

[marineland]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

whether climate change is real or not,

Nature works on the same principle as computers - GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

[blackstrap]

I hear that manufacturers are increasing the distance between the rungs of ladders due to people getting taller. This is being announced as " climb-it-change " 🙃

[Calm]

Would it be virtue signaling in an article about the decrease of animal life in the bay to mention an oil spill and garbage left on beaches or polluted rivers flowing into that bay that had contributed to the decrease or just sensible to describe known causes, especially if the intent was to motivate people to change behaviour?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Dear sister, whether fossil fuels are a good idea or not, whether climate change is real or not, I was responding to the silly reprimand of Pyreaux's "failure to mention climate change" in his post. As if this would somehow help anything if he did. I have come to hate virtue signaling. Which is what The Nehor's post was, nothing more.

Do you really want to blow the thread completely off-topic onto climate change? It might be fun, but the signal-to-noise ratio would get very low.

Sorry, as I watch the world crumbling. It's been on the mind. I know we're different by a mile and a half, I did a no no on here.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 I did a no no on here.

Not really.  Climate change is an important part of the discussion for those interested in the science and causes of why we need water conservation.

Edited Friday at 06:16 AM by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 9/17/2026 at 9:09 PM, marineland said:

Nature works on the same principle as computers - GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

Do you want to argue about climate change? I do not. Again, I am simply saying that virtue signaling about climate change is a null program. It does nothing. 

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really.  Climate change is an important part of the discussion for those interested in the science and causes of why we need water conservation.

Yes, but it's likely to get the thread shut down, given the political elements that come with it, pre-mixed.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Would it be virtue signaling in an article about the decrease of animal life in the bay to mention an oil spill and garbage left on beaches or polluted rivers flowing into that bay that had contributed to the decrease or just sensible to describe known causes, especially if the intent was to motivate people to change behaviour?

No, it wouldn't. But it is virtue signaling to reprimand someone for failing to mention climate change. Which is what he did. He could simply have added a comment stating that the problem described in the OP is due to climate change. That adds to the discussion. But reprimanding Pyreaux for failing to say the proper incantation? Virtue signaling: "See how virtuous I am making sure everyone is thinking about climate change?" 

But it was likely the very first thing everyone thought of, anyway, simply because it's been done to death. 

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry, as I watch the world crumbling. It's been on the mind. I know we're different by a mile and a half, I did a no no on here.

No, not really. As @Calm said, CC is an important thing to consider in the situation brought up in the OP. All I was saying at the end there was that getting down and dirty with climate change has the potential of blowing the thread way off course. And maybe that would be fun.  

You and I are not as different as you may think. Some have called me a "climate change denier," but I'm not. The climate's been changing for billions of years. Humans do have an impact. How can we not? But none of the radical solutions that have been proposed stand a chance of changing things, but do, if attempted, stand a chance of doing a great deal of harm. In my humble opinion. And I'm speaking globally.

Back to the OP, what can be done to fix the observed local problem? I don't know. I also don't know if it can be fixed, or if it can be fixed economically. I do believe that some folks out there will have ideas that won't fix the problem, but will cost an arm and a leg in the process of failing. Some of the solutions that maybe can work may be economically infeasible. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But it is virtue signaling to reprimand someone for failing to mention climate change

Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on how relevant it is, imo.  It is hardly virtue signaling if someone is writing an argument or explanation for something and you point out a major lack or gap in an argument or the information.

One could look at your protesting of his pointing out of the lack of mention of climate change as virtue signaling too, just from a different perspective.  I am not sure if my protest of your protest is virtue signaling.  I do know I really dislike when people label others’ comments as virtue signaling because the primary purpose seems to be an easy way to not engage and just dismiss them.

Quote

Hydrologists and state officials emphasize that human conservation and policy changes can only bridge the gap. Long-term stabilization requires sustained, above-average winter snowpack in the Wasatch Mountains. Any succession of dry winters can quickly offset years of conserved water. Church leaders acknowledged this reality in their statement, noting that while conservation efforts are vital moral and civic duties, an ultimate recovery ultimately relies on weather patterns and increased precipitation.

Talking about sustained above average snowpack as a solution seems to treat it as a serious possibility.  If he believes that, it needs to be supported or why mention it?  Pyreaux writes in a technical way, I think it’s respecting his effort to expect it to be substantive.

Thinking about what could be done, if anything, I came across a paper promoting more cloud seeding (not treated as a total solution, but as a tool we should use more).  Anyone have feedback on that idea?

Edited yesterday at 12:48 AM by Calm

[Stargazer]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on how relevant it is, imo.  It is hardly virtue signaling if someone is writing an argument or explanation for something and you point out a major lack or gap in an argument or the information.

Well, that's why it annoyed me so much. It was irrelevant, and it wasn't just that he was pointing out a lack or gap (as if including it would have added anything). He was trying to rub Pyreaux's nose in his failure to mention it. 

Yes, we all know that climate change is (or might be) to blame, but mentioning would have added little or nothing.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

One could look at your protesting of his pointing out of the lack of mention of climate change as virtue signaling too, just from a different perspective.  I am not sure if my protest of your protest is virtue signaling.  

I could have ignored it. You could have ignored me. And we both might have been much happier for it. But how can your protest of my protest be virtue signaling if it's relevant to the discussion? Which it is, since the discussion has become one about virtue signaling.

In 2016 Dan McClellan once accused me of being a racist because I failed to call Donald Trump a racist in a comment on Facebook, in a thread he started in order to argue against Trump's candidacy for President because he claimed Trump is a racist. My crime was that I replied to a commenter to correct a misstatement of fact (not even about Trump), but I omitted writing "Trump is a racist!" in my comment. In other words, I got called out because I failed to signal my virtue. When I then failed to profusely apologize for my horrifying lack of virtue, he appeared on my own Facebook feed and accused me of racism to all my actual "in real life" friends. When they fought back against him, he fled, and subsequently unfriended me. 

This unpleasant experience led me to hate virtue signaling with a passion. However, as far as I can recall, this is the absolute first time I have ever called anyone out for virtue signaling. 

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do know I really dislike when people label others’ comments as virtue signaling because the primary purpose seems to be an easy way to not engage and just dismiss them.

He wasn't engaging. He was upset because "climate change" was not mentioned. He didn't disagree with the statement of the problem, he just didn't like the omission. An omission that didn't affect the facts.

OK, maybe virtue signaling has levels.

• Level 1 - the signal has at least something to do with the topic, but doesn't really add anything other than that the signaler wants us to know that he or she cares. And maybe he or she does care, but instead of just adding it to the conversation, which might add some value to the conversation, he or she castigates the other person for failing to bring it up.
• Level 2 - the signal has no relevance to the topic or the purpose at hand, and the signaler just wants us to know that he or she cares about the thing being virtue signaled. Examples include the phrase "Nobody is illegal on stolen land" being tossed out at a music awards celebration after receiving a Grammy Award. 

In this situation, the reply under discussion was of Level 1. 

[marineland]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do you want to argue about climate change? I do not. Again, I am simply saying that virtue signaling about climate change is a null program. It does nothing. 

Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or supporting social 
causes primarily to show off your good character or moral correctness, rather 
than out of genuine conviction. Neither myself or @Pyreaux are doing this.

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, marineland said:

Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or supporting social 
causes primarily to show off your good character or moral correctness, rather 
than out of genuine conviction. Neither myself or @Pyreaux are doing this.

I wasn't saying it was you or Pyreaux. I think you misread the exchange.

[Pyreaux]

37 minutes ago, marineland said:

Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or supporting social 
causes primarily to show off your good character or moral correctness, rather 
than out of genuine conviction. Neither myself or @Pyreaux are doing this.

I appreciate the support though. While human water diversion is responsible for the vast majority, roughly 60% to 80%, of the lake's historical decline.