The lake is dying, and so are we: Utah's inaction is poisoning our future
On Feb. 24, 2025, my friends and I were kicked out of the Utah House of Representatives gallery. Why? Because after House Speaker Mike Schultz ignored multiple phone calls and emails, we tried to deliver a petition to him directly. When our petition was refused once again, we donned gas masks and bright T-shirts inscribed with our demands and walked silently into the House gallery. Within minutes, we were removed by security.
We wrote our petition in response to Schultz's call for a 'pause' on Great Salt Lake-related water legislation for the 2025 session, and the announcement that Utah would be hosting the 2034 Olympics. We demanded the following actions to protect and restore the Great Salt Lake by 2034:
No new water diversions or developments that would further deplete the Great Salt Lake.
Increase water flow to the Great Salt Lake by 1 million acre-feet per year, restoring the lake to a minimum elevation of 4,198 feet.
Commit to continuous assessment of water policy, ensuring that solutions are adaptive and responsive to the evolving crisis.
Nearly 250 Utahns signed this petition, but it still hasn't reached the legislator's desk.
I have lived my entire life less than an hour from the Great Salt Lake. Yet, like it was for many residents of Utah, the lake was simply an afterthought. It was only when I heard about the serious risks tied to its drying up that I started to pay attention. The Great Salt Lake is a breathtaking, unique ecosystem that is a vital stopover for millions of birds during migration. It is also a thin blanket that protects millions of people from decades of buildup of toxic metals in the lakebed. Currently, over 900 square miles of lakebed are exposed, and 2.8 million Utahns breathe the pollution downwind — including me.
The lake is essential to my survival and future as a young person. I am 19 years old and I want to spend the rest of my life here in this beautiful state, but if our legislators continue to ignore this ongoing crisis, I will have to leave my home behind. I am inheriting a world that has been discarded by legislators who make decisions about my future while shutting out my voice. They are silencing youth and refusing to take action on the issues that matter to us, while putting their energy towards legislation that actively harms us.
Despite the massive impacts of the lake drying up, Mike Schultz placed a moratorium on major water bills, citing the need for 'a break.' But the legislature seemed to have plenty of energy for legislation that harms youth rather than helping us. This legislative session, Utah became the first state to ban pride flags in all school and government buildings, making it harder for queer youth to find safe spaces in their schools. Lawmakers also passed legislation barring transgender students from living in dorms that align with their gender identity, and approved another bill that restricts comprehensive health education in schools. They're also trying to end collective bargaining rights for the upcoming generation of public sector workers.
These issues on education, workers' rights, public health, LGBTQ+ rights, and lack of adequate environmental policy all stem from the same crisis: a government that ignores science, dismisses the voices of young people and other marginalized communities, and targets the most vulnerable instead of protecting us. By spending so much time and resources actively infringing on our human rights, they are passively infringing on our right to a healthy environment. Air pollution shortens our lives by two years — queer people, educators, and unions do not. But instead of addressing existential issues head-on, legislators are 'rearranging deck chairs' on a sinking ship. They need to get their priorities straight.
Utah claims to be the country's most 'family-friendly' state, yet its policies are anything but. The Utah legislature is ignoring the issues that matter most to young people while spending all their time pushing bills that disproportionately harm us. Despite the legislature's best efforts, youth are still fighting. Even though our emails, calls, text messages, and in-person requests to deliver the petition were ignored, we are not giving up. We are continuing to demand that the state take the necessary steps to protect the Great Salt Lake and our future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.


CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.


Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg's Chances of Beating JD Vance in 2028: Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new poll shows potential 2028 presidential election matchups between Vice President JD Vance and prominent Democratic leaders as next year's midterm campaigns are on the horizon. Why It Matters Early polls, especially in crucial swing states, have gained significance as potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election begin to emerge. Even with the election still a few years away, polling could offer insight into candidate viability, voter sentiment and evolving party dynamics, particularly after the pivotal 2024 election cycle. What To Know In the poll released Tuesday by SoCal Strategies and sponsored by On Point Politics and Red Eagle Politics, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom secured 39 percent in a potential matchup with Vance, who landed 37 percent. The survey shows 23 percent were undecided in the matchup. In a race against former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Vance trailed with 37 percent of the vote compared to Buttigieg's 41 percent. The survey shows 21 percent were undecided. The poll surveyed 700 U.S. adults on August 18. "The survey was weighted by age, gender, race, education, and 2024 vote to match the Bonfire National Voter File," the pollster noted. ESPN host Stephen A. Smith also came close to Vance in the survey, receiving 35 percent of the vote compared to Vance's 37 percent. Previous polling has shown Vance as the clear GOP primary front-runner. The field is more crowded for Democrats, as former Vice President Kamala Harris, Newsom and Buttigieg all are early top contenders. Tuesday's poll also shows President Donald Trump's overall approval rating at 45 percent versus a disapproval rating of 48 percent. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on the state's redistricting plans at a news conference on August 14 in Los Angeles. (Photo by) California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on the state's redistricting plans at a news conference on August 14 in Los Angeles. (Photo by) What People Are Saying Columbia University professor Robert Y. Shapiro, to Newsweek via email on Tuesday: "It is of course much too early to tell anything significant from this other than the 2028 election is likely to be close just like the last presidential elections. See the high percent undecided as well. "The data may suggest that Vance is not as strong a candidate as Donald Trump, but we would need to compare the hypothetical of Trump running for an imaginary third term against Newsom or Buttigieg. Regardless of what might happen in the midterm election, it looks like 2028 will be another nail biter..." Trump, while answering questions during a news conference on the 2028 Olympics, when directly asked if Vance is the successor to MAGA: "Well, I think most likely in all fairness, he's the vice president. I think Marco [Rubio] is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here, so it's too early obviously to talk about it but certainly he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point." What Happens Next Pollsters and analysts were expected to release additional national and state-level surveys in the coming months as midterm campaigning ramps up.