Comments sought on Gooseberry Narrows dam project

FAIRVIEW, Sanpete County — Envisioned 77 years ago as a way to supply water to northern Sanpete County residents, the proposed Gooseberry Narrows reservoir remains on the drawing board and a subject of bitter contention between two counties.

The latest draft environmental impact statement on the proposal has been released by the Bureau of Reclamation, with both sides of the water war galvanizing support for their position.

Proposed by the Sanpete Water Conservancy District, the 17,000-acre dam would be built approximately nine miles east of Fairview on Gooseberry Creek. Water would be diverted from there through an existing tunnel and proposed pipeline to Cottonwood Creek.

The bureau's report, which is out for public comment until June 1, said the proposed project addresses several needs, including:

 Boosting supplies of agricultural and municipal water, which are inadequate and have suffered shortages.

 Rehabilitating the Narrows Tunnel, which needs improvements to prevent its failure.

 Improving recreational and fishing opportunities in Sanpete County.

Carbon County, however, has been an opponent of the project for decades, asserting the diversion of the water threatens its own supplies — not only for residents, but also for energy industries that rely on the water.

The project would be located above Carbon's Scofield Reservoir, which they contend would be sapped of its ability to meet those needs.

In a position paper prepared two years ago by Carbon County Commissioner William Krompel, he noted that drought dropped the water level so low in Scofield Reservoir in 1991 that county employees had to dredge it to provide water for the most essential of needs.

"Had the Gooseberry Narrows Reservoir been in place during this time," he added, "Scofield Reservoir would have been completely out of usable water at least one or two years before the drought finally ended, and 20,000 citizens' lives and property would have been put in jeopardy."

At a total cost of $32 million, the project would require the relocation of a segment of state Route 264 and a variety of mitigation work to offset impacts to wildlife — especially fish — with a total of 11 fishery improvement measures that would be undertaken by the district. The district is seeking a reclamation loan to fund the project, as well as other government monies.