Jim Anderson, a Salt Lake City resident and representative of Waterwise Solar Solutions, told the Utah Lake Authority on Nov. 12 that a floating solar array could conserve water and produce renewable energy, estimating “you'll save about 4 to 5 acre feet for every acre that you cover.” Anderson asked the board to add the concept to a future agenda for further study and possible prototyping.

Joining remotely, Neil Spagman (Highland), who said most of his work is outside the U.S., described a companion approach using floating wetlands to absorb nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural runoff. “We can absorb that nitrogen and phosphorus in the ag runoff through a system of floating wetlands,” Spagman said, adding that biomass from the wetlands could be harvested as flowers, herbs or other products and that prototypes have been used elsewhere.

Why it matters: Utah Lake’s water quality is affected by nutrient pollution that contributes to harmful algal blooms and threatens native species such as the endangered June sucker. Proponents argued that combining renewable energy infrastructure with nature-based nutrient removal could address several management goals—water savings, renewable generation and habitat restoration—if tested at scale.

What was said and next steps: Anderson and Spagman said they had briefed the board on the idea previously and requested formal placement on a future agenda to present more technical data and a prototype plan. The board acknowledged the request but did not commit to a timeline; staff and the board did not take formal action at the meeting.

Context and limitations: Both speakers cited examples from other countries and private projects but did not provide detailed engineering analyses at the meeting. The board did not debate or vote on the proposal. Any pilot on Utah Lake would require permitting, coordination with state agencies and review of impacts to navigation, wildlife and fisheries. The presenters highlighted potential benefits for native-vegetation restoration and June sucker habitat but did not specify funding sources or permitting pathways.

Where it stands: The board agreed to consider placing the proposal on a future agenda; no decision or funding authorization was made during the Nov. 12 meeting.