City Watch

The U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture recently announced it would try to roll back the “roadless rule,” a decades-old policy that prevents road construction and logging on nearly 4 million acres of national forest in Utah. 

Brooke Rollins, the department’s secretary, called the rule “overly restrictive” and an “absurd obstacle” to forest management when she made the announcement during a Western Governors’ Association meeting in New Mexico. The rule, she said, prohibits agencies from properly managing forests and preventing wildfire, while stifling the timber industry. 

Utah leaders celebrated the decision, with House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, calling it a “big win” for the state. 

But in Utah, proponents of the rule say it’s a vital tool for protecting the state’s forests, which in turn keep water clean, provide habitat for wildlife and allow recreation opportunities. 

“This rule protects almost half of the forest service land in Utah,” said Kate Groetzinger, communications director for the Center for Western Priorities. “This opens about half of Utah’s forest land to logging that has been previously protected. That can drastically change the feel of some of our most popular forests.” 

The scope of the roadless rule in Utah

The roadless rule was established during the Clinton administration in 2001 and restricts road construction and reconstruction, and timber harvests, on roughly 58.5 million acres of the country’s national forests and grasslands. The goal, according to the forest service, “is to provide lasting protection” on some of the country’s most remote areas.  

Called inventoried roadless areas, the forest service created boundaries around roads and existing infrastructure to identify stretches of forest eligible for more stringent protection. Inventoried roadless areas are typically sorted into two categories — places where road construction or reconstruction is allowed, and places where it isn’t allowed. 

There are roadless areas along the Wasatch Front, in places like Big, Little, Millcreek and American Fork canyons; in vast sections of the Uinta Mountains; in southern Utah, near Moab and Monticello. They can be recreation hotspots, with some of the state’s most popular hiking trails on or near roadless areas.  

Utah has roughly 8.1 million acres of national forest, according to the federal government, spread out across eight regions — Ashley, Caribou, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Sawtooth, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache national forests. 

According to forest service data, about 4 million acres is inventoried roadless area — road construction and reconstruction is allowed on about 3.5 million acres, and prohibited on the remaining 446,000 acres. 

But according to Tim Peterson, the cultural landscapes director for Grand Canyon Trust, the distinction can be misleading. 

“We haven’t built a lot of new roads in our national forests over the last two to three decades,” said Peterson, who’s been involved in Utah’s roadless areas since the 1990s and helped conduct inventories for environmental groups. “Road building is so expensive and the forest service already has a maintenance backlog … we can’t even maintain the roads that we have, let alone build new roads.” 

Regardless of whether new road construction is or isn’t allowed, the rule generally prohibits timber harvesting in covered areas. There are exceptions, Peterson said, including mechanical thinning, removing trees killed by insects, or for fighting fire. 

In an email, Redge Johnson, the director of the Utah Public Land Policy Coordinating Office, acknowledged the exceptions, but said the state is still confined in its ability to manage forests to improve habitat and reduce fire danger.

“While the roadless rule allows for limited timber harvest it has so many restrictions it makes it nearly impossible for timber projects to be completed,” Johnson said. “Our forests are overgrown and unhealthy, it is past time that we start to actively manage our national forests.” 

Johnson shared a picture with Utah News Dispatch that he took while on a recent horsepacking trip through the Manti-La Sal National Forest, that shows an entire ridge with mostly dead coniferous trees. 

“Even though there are old logging roads on the ridge shown, we can not use them to remove the dead timber due to the restrictions from the roadless rule. Removing this dead timber would reduce wildfire risk, increase wildlife habitat and protect our watersheds,” Johnson said. 

What to expect if the roadless rule is rescinded

Assuming the administration is able to scale back the rule, there would be 4 million extra acres of forest service land in Utah that would be open for timber harvesting — the state says that would allow for increased wildfire mitigation and forest management. 

“We are excited with this new direction by the United States Department of Agriculture,  allowing the federal government, state partners and industry to address a variety of forest health and ecosystem services issues, like water quality/quantity, wildlife, forage and air quality,” said Johnson. “We are looking forward to engaging with the Trump Administration, USDA, and the Forest Service to promote healthy, diverse and productive forests here in Utah and across the country.” 

Rollins, in a recent op-ed for the Deseret News, said to date about 8 million acres of roadless forest around the country have burned in wildfire, and rescinding the rule would free up forest managers who she argues are constrained by the rule. 

The USDA also said rescinding the rule will help boost the state’s economy. 

“Utah alone estimates the roadless rule alone creates a 25% decrease in economic development in the forestry sector,” reads a press release from the department. 

Advocates for the rule, however, are skeptical. According to an analysis from the forest service, the roadless rule has led to an estimated reduction of just 59 jobs related to timber harvesting in Utah and Peterson said the logging industry in the state was never that robust to begin with.  

“There has never really been a huge timber industry in Utah,” he said, “and getting rid of the roadless area rule would not make for a big timber industry in Utah, because roads are so expensive to build.” 

If the forest service is serious about expanding timber harvesting, he said, it’s going to need a bigger budget. The agency’s deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges was estimated at $4.4 billion in 2022 and the president’s budget proposal would slash millions from forest service operations. 

“If we’re going to be building roads and doing timber sales, it’s not reflected in the budget that the administration has put forward to Congress,” Peterson said.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kyle Dunphey covers politics, public safety and the environment for Utah News Dispatch. He was named Best Newspaper Reporter by the Utah Society of Professional Journalists in 2023 for his work on crime and immigration at the Deseret News.

Public outcry was swift and forceful after a U.S. House committee last month hastily approved an amendment directing the federal government to sell off more than half a million acres of public land.

A few days later, lawmakers advanced the larger bill — a sweeping list of President Donald Trump’s priorities — but stripped the federal lands provision.

Yet leaders on both sides of the issue say the battle over selling off federal lands is likely just heating up.

Some conservatives in Western states have complained for decades that the feds control too much of the land within their borders. They see a long-awaited opportunity in a Trump administration that’s sympathetic to their cause. Public lands advocates are bracing for more attempts to turn land over to states, industry groups and developers.

“The threat level is red alert,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental nonprofit. “Some of these states have been champing at the bit for decades to privatize. They’re certainly not going to let this opportunity pass without an aggressive effort.”

The ‘balance sheet’

In Western states, where most federally owned lands are located, some leaders view these lands as a treasured inheritance — places reserved for all Americans and critical for wildlife, tourism and outdoor recreation. Others feel that too much of the land in their states is controlled by officials in Washington, D.C., leaving it off-limits for development and curtailing its economic value.

Some of these states have been champing at the bit for decades to privatize. They’re certainly not going to let this opportunity pass without an aggressive effort.

Trump officials and allies have embraced the latter view. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has repeatedly called federal lands America’s “balance sheet,” describing them as untapped assets worth trillions of dollars. He has launched an effort to identify federal lands suitable for housing development.

Other proposals have centered around using land sales to pay for tax breaks or to finance Trump’s proposed government-run fund that could invest in stocks or real estate.

For some state leaders, the newfound interest at the federal level to turn public lands into cash — along with Trump’s cuts to land management agency staff — aligns with a long-standing movement to reduce federal ownership.

“I look at it as an opportunity to say, ‘Hey, turn it over to the state,’” said Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz, a Republican.

Utah leaders have made the most forceful push to challenge federal land ownership. The state filed a legal challenge last year seeking to take control of more than 18 million acres of “unappropriated” lands — parcels held by the federal government without a specific designation such as a national park or monument. That effort hit a roadblock earlier this year when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

But with Trump in the White House, state leaders may pivot from challenging the feds in court to seeking their cooperation.

“We would love if the federal government just turned it over to us and said, ‘Here, manage these lands,’” Schultz said. “That’s an option as well. Those are discussions that are happening. Everything is on the table.”

Schultz declined to say which federal officials have been involved in discussions about transferring lands to the state.

Some lawmakers in Wyoming backed a state resolution this year — which ultimately failed — calling on Congress to hand over all federal lands except for Yellowstone National Park. Idaho lawmakers passed a measure calling on the feds to turn over a wildlife refuge to the state. And Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, has called for a “systematic release” of federal land in the state.

But public lands also have many supporters in Western states, including some prominent Republican members of Congress, such as Reps. Mike Simpson of Idaho and Ryan Zinke of Montana. Zinke was Interior secretary for two years during the first Trump administration.

John Leshy, who served as solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior during the Clinton administration, said proposals to dispose of federal lands tend to be stymied by fierce public backlash.

“Federal lands are really popular,” he said. “It’s political poison [to sell off public land]. It’s a different West now. Public attitudes have changed.”

Leshy also noted that livestock ranchers especially benefit from discounted lease rates offered by the federal government.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our City Watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

About the Authors

Upper and lower states in the Colorado River Basin have until next summer to decide how they will share the responsibility of managing a resource growing ever more scarce in the West: water. 

This impacts all of us. Of all water used in Utah, 27% of it comes from the Colorado River. The Colorado River supplies 40 million people with drinking water, generates hydroelectricity to power 2.3 million homes, and irrigates nearly 5.5 million acres of land. 

The Colorado River is the lifeblood of agriculture across the Western and Southwestern United States. Agriculture accounts for 70% of the river’s water usage, but the river’s flow continues to ebb, and money set aside to help conserve water from the Colorado might not make it to the farmers it’s supposed to help. The Biden administration set aside more than $4 billion as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in part to pay farmers to draw less water from the river, so there will be enough water to continue the flow downstream, but the new presidential administration halted those payments. 

At the time of this publication, some of the IRA funds have been released, which National Farmers Union President Rob Larew called “a welcome first step in ensuring USDA honors its commitments to farmers and rural communities.” He went on to say, “America’s family farmers and ranchers are facing a year of economic uncertainty, exacerbated by the uncertainty of the administration’s pause on federal funding and staff dismissals.” American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall testified before the U.S. Senate that tariffs could also exacerbate the economic plights of farmers. 

Between the chaos in Washington, D.C., the inability for lower and upper basin states to come to an agreement, and the ever-present threat of drought and a climate in crisis, the future of the Colorado River has never felt more uncertain.

With the current guidelines set to expire, Upper Basin states (Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico) and the Lower Basin states (California, Arizona, Nevada) must agree on how to manage the two biggest reservoirs in the U.S., Lake Powell and Lake Mead, as well as how to (and who should) shoulder the burden of reducing water usage. If they don’t reach an agreement, the federal government (or the Supreme Court) could make the decision for them. 

States and cities are taking some independent actions to conserve water in the meantime. “Water is scarce and it’s so very, very limited and continues to become more and more limited,” says Hannah Freeze, UDAF’s Water Optimization Program Manager. “And it’s not just Utah. It’s everywhere in the West.  And so to be able to be better with the very precious resource that we have, it is worthwhile to incentivize our producers.”

Utah’s Agriculture Water Optimization Program started off the 2019 legislative session with an allocation from legislators of $3 million to help agricultural producers optimize their water use. And so it was kind of a small program. The program has now received upwards of $276 million in funding from the legislature. In short, it’s a grant program that incentivizes farmers to upgrade their irrigation systems to more efficient water-wise systems. Freeze explains, “So we’ll pay for 50% of the irrigation system improvement to incentivize the producers to take advantage of new technology and new systems and have an opportunity to upgrade their irrigation.”

So far, the program is set to fund 542 projects across the state, to the tune of about $114 million, but already completed projects total just about $41 million to those producers, “So we have a lot of projects in the queue,” says Freeze, and she says they receive more requests every time the program opens to new applications. Thus far, “We’re able to award about roughly 50% of all the applications we receive,” she says. 

At the time of this writing, a bill in the Utah State Legislature would only require that grant recipients pony up 25% of costs, rather than 50%. The bill would also allow funds from the Agricultural Water Optimization Account to be directed toward research as well as projects. Some have noted, however, that optimization projects might not always result in more water for bodies like the Colorado River. Some water saved through optimization projects could be used to expand farming operations or grow more thirsty crops. 

Saving water to save water is not the whole story. “As Utah continues to grow as projected, we have to have a vibrant agricultural community to feed those people,” says Freeze. “And so investing in agriculture is an investment in the future of Utah to be able to have the capacity to meet the demands of an increasing population.”  

---

See more stories like this and all of our City Watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

Theresa May, Condoleezza Rice, Mike Pompeo, Antony J. Blinken, Jacinda Ardern and Kevin Rudd praise Utah and talk turkey with leaders about navigating economic uncertainty

A handful of global leaders met in Salt Lake City on Wednesday and Thursday to speak at an invitation-only event before Utah’s top political, community and business leaders.

Former Prime Ministers Theresa May (United Kingdom),  Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand) and Kevin Rudd (Australia/current ambassador to the U.S.) as well as former U.S. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice, Mike Pompeo and Antony J. Blinken were among those sharing insights and opinions regarding recent economic uncertainty and global market upheaval in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. The 2nd annual Crossroads of the World International Trade Summit, sponsored by Zions Bank and World Trade Center Utah, was held at the Grand America Hotel.

“These across-the-board tariffs, I think, are a recipe for a downward spiral,” Antony Blinken said in a forum-style conversation with Jeff Flake, the former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, now serving as chairman of the board at World Trade Center Utah. Blinken called for the U.S. to remain the “last, best hope” of the world by continuing to assert global leadership.

“If we isolate and pull back, the world will move on without us,” Blinken warned. “The most important currency we have around the world is trust, our greatest asset is the voluntary relationships we’ve created that are the envy of other countries…my fear is that will erode.”

The World Trade Center Utah serves as the statewide voice for international business and aims to elevate Utah’s global status and international engagement. Natalie Gochnour, Director of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah, shared data showing why Utah is one of the best-performing states in the country: the top performing state in gross domestic product, with a growth rate of 4.5% (compared to the nation’s 2.8%), and its workforce is the third most “well-trained, well-educated in the country,” Gochnour said.

That’s good news for Utah companies, which are rapidly growing overseas and attracting global investors. In 2024, Utah exported $18.2 billion in goods to the world and imported $21.9 billion from 154 countries, according to the Gardner report. International trade contributed nearly $8 billion to the state’s gross domestic product and supports more than 70,000 jobs in the state.

Global leaders at the summit repeatedly assured attendees that the world is taking notice. They applauded Utah’s rapid acceleration and spirit of ingenuity despite a period of economic turmoil, and encouraged leaders not to react instantly to every news reel but rather to be prepared with scenario planning, compromise and restraint. Leaders were also warned against trade war legislation and dehumanization and encouraged to seek strategies for getting ahead of the curve when it comes to legislation on technological advancements that have the potential to harm. 

“We have non-zero-sum thinking,” said Governor Spencer Cox, also a speaker at the two-day summit. Utah was recently named the best state in the nation for the third year in a row by U.S. News and World Report. “Utah is no longer this spunky upstart state trying to make our way on the stage. We are known for our people. The greatest resource we have is our people.” 

---

See more stories like this and all of our City Watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah? 

Utah is set to become the first state in the nation to ban fluoride in drinking water, with a new law taking effect later this week, on Wednesday.

That day, the fluoride taps will turn off, if they haven’t already. While Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, are the only governments that still add fluoride to drinking water, roughly half of the state’s population lives there.  

Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, HB81 prevents counties and municipalities from adding fluoride to drinking water, while adding it to the list of drugs pharmacists can prescribe. 

The reasoning, Gricius said, is that the decision should be left to the individual. 

“I would just say it doesn’t get more local control than my own body,” she said during the legislative session earlier this year.

Gricius’ bill was one of several that aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, agenda promoted by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who praised the law earlier this year. 

Now, for health officials like Stacey Bank, executive medical director for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the focus is on educating the public and reminding them that fluoride is now readily available at most pharmacies. 

“I’m grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation. We haven’t talked about oral health and fluoride this much in my career as long as I can remember. This is an opportunity to get the message out to the entire state,” she said on Friday. “I know it’s not always easy to get into a doctor or dentist, there are barriers there. Going to your local pharmacist, talking to the person behind the counter, is enough to take care of your teeth.”

There are currently 25 water systems serving about 1.6 million people spread out across Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, that add fluoride to the water. Brigham City has been adding fluoride to the water since the 1960s; Davis County started in 1999; and Salt Lake County in 2003. 

Some treatment plants have already stopped adding fluoride to the water, including a handful in Davis County, and Salt Lake County’s City Creek Water Treatment Plant. 

If Utahns don’t act, expect tooth decay, officials say

“If I was looking into a crystal ball, we’re going to see a decline in oral health if our community doesn’t take action, and now go to their dentist and talk about what’s best for them and receive their supplements. If that happens, I don’t think we’ll see much of a change,” said Brian Hatch, director of the Davis County Health Department. 

In Salt Lake County, where the water has been fluoridated for almost two decades, health officials say they’re losing an effective public health tool.  

“From a public health standpoint, we know that community water fluoridation is the best way to benefit individuals and the overall community’s oral health,” added Ron Lund, environmental health director for the Salt Lake County Health Department. “It’s the most efficient and effective way to do that for people who cannot afford or may not be able to go to routine dental visits.” 

But while health officials say it’s possible they’ll see an uptick in cavities in regions currently fluoridating their water, others see the bill as an opportunity. Most of rural Utah has already stopped adding the mineral to the public water supply. 

Fluoride is a hot topic now, and with the May 7 deadline approaching, it gives public health experts a chance to educate communities, they say.

“It’s an opportunity for our more rural communities. Other than Brigham City, none of our rural communities have been adding fluoride to the water. So this is bringing more attention to how important fluoride is and giving them access to get it, that they may not have known they needed,” said State Dental Director Stacey Swilling.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he’s proud of Utah’s push to eliminate fluoride from drinking water, telling reporters he hopes other states follow suit. 

Kennedy spoke to a crowded room of journalists, lawmakers and health officials on Monday, part of a tour of Western states to promote his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, known as MAHA. 

“If we want to be a moral nation, if we want to maintain our moral authority around the world, our chief obligation is to our children. And we’re letting them down. And I’m very, very happy that Utah is taking the lead in so many ways,” Kennedy said on Monday. “It makes no sense to have fluoride in our water. The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming … we know that it causes I.Q. loss.” 

Fluoride is a mineral that has been shown to strengthen teeth by replacing minerals that are lost from acid breakdown, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A recent report from the National Toxicology Program found that high levels of fluoride in drinking water can be associated with a lower I.Q. in children — but according to the report, those levels are twice as high as the current recommended amount of fluoride. 

Kennedy spoke to several bills that align with the MAHA agenda, mostly focusing on HB81, the fluoride bill. Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, the bill prohibits municipalities from adding fluoride to drinking water, while adding it to the list of drugs that pharmacists can prescribe. 

Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said that’s a “win-win” situation. 

“We want to make sure those options are there” for Utahns who want more fluoride than what’s available in toothpaste or mouthwash, said Schultz, R-Hooper, who spoke during Monday’s press conference. 

The bill received pushback from dentists and other health professionals, who say adding fluoride to drinking water has resulted in less cavities among children. That includes Dr. Sarah Woolsey, a family physician who told lawmakers during a legislative committee meeting that she saw a decrease in referrals for cavity extractions under anesthesia after Salt Lake County started to add fluoride to its water.

“Despite my efforts in education, in prescribing fluoride and working with parents, the voluntary application does not always work for those that may be most vulnerable,” said Woolsey. “And I would like to say that since fluoride has been in the water, the number of kids I send (to have teeth extracted) is significantly less.” 

The bill passed mostly along party lines, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. It was signed by the governor on March 27, and takes effect on May 7. 

After the press conference on Monday, Kennedy told the Associated Press he will instruct the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending state and local governments add fluoride to drinking water. He also told the Associated Press he will set up a task force to look into the issue. 

Lee Zeldin, a former GOP congressman and the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the agency is going to review all the fluoride-related studies that came out since the National Toxicology Program report in 2024.     

“We’re prepared to act based on this science,” said Zeldin, who also spoke during the event on Monday. “Both the National Toxicology Program study, as well as other peer-reviewed studies. If this is as important as it is to Secretary Kennedy, if it’s important as it is, clearly to so many people who are here in this room and at this press conference today, then it is top of the list for the Environmental Protection Agency.” 

Kennedy suggested Gricius’ bill could be a model for other states. 

“I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban (fluoride). I hope many more will come,” he said on Monday, echoing the argument from Utah lawmakers this session — that it’s an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

Plastic is everywhere, and recycling it is not as clear-cut as we have been led to believe. But, recycling, diverting food waste and buying less plastic are still the first steps toward a more sustainable lifestyle.

This past year, two lawsuits took ExxonMobil to task over the corporation’s long-held claims about recycling plastics. The lawsuits claim that ExxonMobil purposefully misled the public for decades by falsely promoting that all plastic is recyclable by typical means, thus exacerbating a global pollution crisis. ExxonMobil makes more single-use plastic than anyone. Plastic is everywhere: our landfills, water, soil, tumble dryers and even our bodies.

“Plastics come from oil,” says Chelsea Hafer, the Community Outreach Manager at Recycle Utah. “So, the creation of virgin plastics is terrible for the environment.” Plastics don’t break down or biodegrade, but they do photo-degrade, meaning when light hits them, they break down into smaller and smaller plastics…the kind of microplastics that permeate everything, causing unknowable health and environmental impacts.

“The issue with using plastic is, number one, that most of it isn’t actually being recycled in the conventional way, which would be turning it into a new product,” says Hafer.

Recycle Utah is a Summit County non-profit that works to educate organizations, children, adults and communities about sustainability. At their recycling center, they recycle 45 different kinds of items, resulting in 4 million pounds of material diverted from the landfill every year.

While recycling plastics is not always as straightforward as tossing them in the blue curbside bin, recycling centers like Recycle Utah’s center do what they can to divert plastics from landfills. But, it all comes down to the type of plastic, designated by numbers 1–7: PET (1) and HDPE (2) are high enough quality to be recycled into something else. “Sometimes that’s another bottle, and sometimes that’s a Patagonia fleece or a kid’s toy, something like that,” explains Hafer. Meanwhile, plastic bags and styrofoam can only be diverted when dropped off at centers like Recycle Utah, but processing them is just not economical.

After reducing plastic use, such as avoiding plastic shopping bags, water bottles or packaging, the next step to a more sustainable lifestyle is diverting more of our food waste. “We push a lot for diverting food waste because, in our landfill in Summit County, it’s a big, big problem. Like 30 to 50% of our landfill is food waste,” explains Hafer. “And that releases a lot of methane.” Compared to carbon dioxide, methane is 82 times more potent in contributing to climate change over 20 years. Food waste can be diverted through composting or anaerobic digestion. An anaerobic digester, like the one Park City Community Foundation enlists as part of its zero food waste initiative, breaks down food waste with bacteria but captures the resulting methane and converts it into natural gas. 

As far as what else can go in the blue curbside bin, there are a few ways to ensure it doesn’t end up in landfill. “I think one of the big issues with curbside recycling is people will put it in a trash bag,” says Hafer. “You cannot put your recycling in a plastic bag…If anything is in a plastic bag, they’re going to assume it’s trash.” Contaminates are the other concern—contaminates such as food. “What I do is I just put all of my peanut butter jars, yogurt containers or whatever, in the dishwasher,” says Hafer. “That actually saves water and it’s way less effort. And then you can just recycle it after that.” The same often applies if, lacking curbside pickup—especially for things like glass—you’re personally dropping off materials at a recycling center, but check the specific guidelines for your municipality. 

“The three R’s—reduce, reuse, recycle— are in that order for a reason,” says Hafer. “Recycling is great, but hard plastics and paper and cardboard, they can only be recycled so many times, before they lose their quality. Glass and metal can be recycled forever because they’re just really strong, high-quality materials.” In short, “Recycling is the last step. People really need to think about reducing their waste first.”

Plastic Recycling Tips

Recycle in the blue curb side bin
PET (1): drink bottles that can be recycled into fiber fill, carpet fibers or rope.
HDPE (2): milk and juice jugs that can be recycled into other containers. 
Drop-off at certain recycling centers 
LDPE (4): plastic bags that can be ‘recycled’ into energy. Shopping bags may also be returned to some grocery stores for reuse.
PVC (3)
PP (5): food packaging
PS (6): styrofoam—expanded styrofoam (EPS) can be densifed and recycled. 
Other plastics (7)
Call ahead to see which materials your local recycling center accepts.

---

Leaders in the Utah State Legislature tried to take away the right of voters to shape their government. Utah Justices checked the effort, but the 2025 Legislative Session will bring more attempts to seize power from the people. 

This last November, Amendment D appeared on the ballot but votes “for” or “against” it were never counted. The Utah Courts ruled the language on the ballot was deceptive and voided the amendment. How that misleading text ended up on the November ballot and how it could have undermined the will of the people goes back to another ballot in 2018.

Enshrined in the Utah Constitution is the right for Utahns to reform their government through ballot initiatives. “In 2018, they exercised that right to try and get rid of gerrymandering, which plagues our state and makes it so that many voters have no tangible say in their representation,” says Katie Wright of Better Boundaries, an organization that supported 2018’s Proposition 4, which Utah voters passed. Rather than respecting the vote, the Republican majority in the Utah State Legislature repealed the measure, weakened the Independent Redistricting Commission created by the proposition and, instead, drew their own voting district maps. 

The League of Women Voters of Utah and partners then sued the legislature, asserting that the legislature’s Congressional maps were illegal. “We believe that every voter should have a voice,” says Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “What the Legislature did diluted other voices. If you divide Salt Lake County into four different Congressional Districts that go down to Southern Utah, you’re not only diluting the voices of urban Utah, but you are diluting the voices of rural Utah.” 

While the District Court still has not yet ruled on the redistricting process itself, in August 2024, the Utah Supreme Court did rule that the Legislature violated the state constitution by repealing and replacing a citizen initiative. The unanimous Justice opinion read, “We hold that the people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people.”

Legislative leadership responded immediately to the ruling. “We were surprised at their reaction, which I will call hysterical,” says Biele. The Legislature called itself into emergency Special Session (a relatively new power that once was held only by the Governor), and lawmakers passed S.B. 4003, the bill that put Amendment D on the ballot. 

Senate President J. Stuart Adams (R-Layton) and House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-Hooper) claimed the amendment “prohibits foreign entities from contributing to ballot propositions,” and that “The initiative process will remain unchanged.” In actuality, Amendment D would amend the constitution to allow the Legislature to repeal and replace voter-backed initiatives, in effect weakening the ability of citizens to shape their own government. “It’s too bad because they [the legislature] need to just calm down and remember who they represent,” says Biele. “They represent the people of Utah.” 

The Utah Courts voided the amendment because the language on the ballot neglected to inform voters of what was at stake. (Adams and Schultz drafted the Amendment D ballot language under a 2024 law that took that responsibility once held by the legislative general counsel.) With their power once again checked by the judicial branch, the same lawmakers could try to retaliate during the upcoming 2025 Utah Legislative Session. 

“We know that our judiciary is going to be under attack because legislative leadership has been saying that out loud,” says Wright. “Their response has been to degrade our judiciary system. And we think that that’s really dangerous.” 

Biele fears legislative leadership will continue to erode the current merit-based system for judiciary appointments. “We actually have a very good system right now,” she says. “Nothing is perfect, but it’s a good system. And then we have a retention election every three to five years for all of the judges.”

Legislative leadership could also try for another amendment like Amendment D. “We expect that we will see bills this legislative session that try to undermine that constitutional right to ballot initiative,” says Wright.  “And we’re going to fight really hard against that.”

The League of Women Voters will be physically at the Capitol every day of the session. Citizens can track online the bills introduced on the Hill using the legislative session website and call their representatives and tell them how they want them to vote. Biele implores the public, “Please be educated on what is happening up there.”  

Redistricting challenge

The anti-gerrymandering case of the League of Women Voters against the Utah State Legislature is currently in the Third District Court. “The district court will figure out how to redistrict,” says Katharine Biele. The district court could take several different paths, including accepting one of the Congressional District three maps proposed by the Independent Redistricting Commission. Regardless of what the District Court decides, it could be some time before they have a decision. Biele says, “We won’t have new districts one way or the other before 2026.” 

---