- A Utah Senate committee rejected a bill for a new state park in northern Sanpete County on Wednesday.
- The bill by Sen. Derrin Owens, R-Fountain Green, faced opposition over water diversion concerns.
- Sanpete and Carbon counties have long disputed the proposed reservoir project.
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah Senate committee voted down a bill that could lead to the creation of a new state park — and bring a long-awaited dam and reservoir to northern Sanpete County.
SB209, sponsored by Sen. Derrin Owens, R-Fountain Green, failed to advance out of the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee on Wednesday. Only Owens voted for his bill, while one Democrat and one Republican voted against it. Four other committee members were absent and did not vote.
Owens' bill would have created the Gooseberry Narrows State Park in Sanpete County, if certain conditions were met. But the core issue of the bill came down to water. That's because it would have also kickstarted the process of building a new dam and reservoir in the area – something that Sanpete and Carbon counties have fought over for decades.
"It seems the appetite of the Legislature to have a high-elevation reservoir – water storage – is maybe more ripe now than before, and all you have to do is look outside and realize why that is," Owens said, referring to Utah's dismal snowpack this season. "We see the condition of the Great Salt Lake, and that's statewide. This reservoir has never gotten to the point that it could back up water and create storage. For many reasons, this could and should be built."
The effort to build the Gooseberry Narrows dam dates back to the 1930s and has at times appeared ready to proceed. However, it has also been an ongoing source of contention. The water in Gooseberry Creek begins flowing in Sanpete County, but it runs downhill to Carbon County.
Opponents argue diverting water will hurt the environment and people living in Carbon County.
Jeff Richens, general manager of the Price River Water Improvement District, told senators on Wednesday that a new state park wouldn't be open for much of the year, while the rest of the time water would be diverted to support "the growth of alfalfa."
"I agree, we need to have that. We need to be able to feed our livestock," Richens said. "But not at the expense of human consumption."
"The dam literally proposes to divert existing water supply of a county (Carbon) to another county (Sanpete) in another basin," added Zach Frankel, of the Utah Rivers Council. "There will be no return flows to the existing county that receives this water today."
Jeff Salt, with the Utah Anglers Coalition, also argued against the bill, saying a new state park would be funded by all taxpayers but primarily benefit only Sanpete County. He said it should not be a front for a water storage project.
"I think that goes against public policy to have that kind of an arrangement," Salt said.
Representatives from the Sanpete County Water Conservancy District spoke in support of Owens' bill. Jay Olsen, who serves as chairman of the conservancy district, said his county has been "deprived of utilizing our water right for 80, 90 years."
"We would like the committee to support this, to pass this, and let us do the studies and let us move forward and see what we can do and how we can come up with the opportunity to build this reservoir that is so needed, both for a high mountain reservoir and for the people of Sanpete County," he said.
Nate Broadhurst, the water conservancy district's attorney, added that the dam and reservoir have been "a long time coming" and were "long promised to Sanpete County."
"As with any other state park, there are a myriad of benefits that would be experienced by any member of the public, not just one locality," Broadhurst said. "It would provide important recreational components including … with regard to the interests of the anglers and other groups. It would provide a new opportunity for sport fishermen and a new place where that could be undertaken here in a high-mountain reservoir."
Owens also told the committee a new reservoir could help in fighting future wildfires in that area. As he concluded his presentation, he advocated once more for his county's position in this long-running feud.
"There is no debate on whose water that is. The water belongs to Sanpete County, but nobody wants to mention that," Owens said. "If you buy a car but your neighbor gets to drive it and use it, and you never get to do anything with it, it's really not yours."
Ultimately, his arguments did not win over his fellow senators. Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, and Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Millcreek, both voted against the bill, preventing it from moving further for now. Neither senator explained their decision to oppose the bill before the vote.
