Lawmakers revive Gooseberry Narrows bill after early setback

SALT LAKE CITY — A decades-long effort to unlock Sanpete County water rights tied to a reservoir site on Gooseberry Creek took a new turn this week after lawmakers revived a scaled-back version of a proposal that had stalled earlier in the session.

Sen. Derrin Owens, R-Fountain Green, returned Senate Bill 209 to the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee after the original bill failed to advance during a hearing where only three senators were present to vote.

The earlier committee action halted a proposal that sought to designate Gooseberry Narrows as a state park and begin formal steps toward a dam and reservoir on Gooseberry Creek, a proposal that dates back nearly a century.

Owens, who chairs the committee, said the limited attendance at the earlier meeting played a role in the bill’s failure. Using his authority as chair, he placed a substitute version of the bill on a subsequent committee agenda, significantly narrowing its scope and sharply reducing its fiscal impact.

The revised version converts the bill, SB 209, into a Gooseberry Narrows State Park study, dropping the estimated cost from roughly $65 million to approximately $10,000 and limiting the state’s role, at least at this point, to research and evaluation rather than construction or funding.

Owens said the change reflects both the political reality of the earlier vote and the state’s tight budget outlook.

“Had the bill cleared the Legislature this year in its original form, it would have likely died due to the fiscal impact and a tough budget year,” Owens said in a follow-up statement. “This keeps the door open without committing the state to a large expense.”

If the study authorization clears the Legislature, Owens said the Utah Division of State Parks would be directed to complete a feasibility study by Nov. 1.
He said a favorable outcome could allow the project to be considered, either partially or fully, in the governor’s proposed budget during the next budget cycle.

Plans to build a storage reservoir at Gooseberry Narrows date to the 1930s, alongside efforts to expand Scofield Reservoir in Carbon County. In 1943, the United States, Carbon County and the Price River Water Conservation District entered into the Tripartite Contract, which contemplated future construction of a dam at Gooseberry Narrows.

Scofield Reservoir was expanded in 1945 under that agreement, increasing its capacity from roughly 30,000 to 75,000 acre-feet. But World War II stymied full implementation of the Tripartite Contract.

That set the stage for decades of litigation, environmental reviews and revised agreements that acknowledged Sanpete County’s rights to water that originates on the east side of the Wasatch Plateau but inside county borders. But despite a huge effort, particularly between about 2010 and 2016, the county has not been able to get approval for a reservoir.

Owens presented SB 209 earlier this session as an attempt to address that long-standing dilemma. During the initial committee hearing, he argued that Sanpete County has held legal rights to Gooseberry Creek water for generations but has been unable to benefit from them due to the absence of storage infrastructure.

“This water has sat unused for generations,” Jay Olsen, chairman of the Sanpete County Water Conservancy District, told lawmakers during that hearing.
Owens echoed that frustration, comparing unused water rights to owning a vehicle that someone else is allowed to drive. He framed the bill as an effort to make use of existing rights rather than create new claims.

As in decades of litigation and deliberation on the issue, opposition during the hearing came largely from downstream interests and conservation advocates in Carbon County, who warned that upstream storage could reduce flows into the Price River system. Some critics also questioned whether a state park designation made sense for infrastructure that could be restricted to certain seasons or closed for long periods of the year.

Jeff Richens of the Price River Water Improvement District acknowledged the need for additional water storage but cautioned that irrigation projects should not come “at the expense of human consumption.”

Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council argued that the proposal would redirect existing water supplies from one county to another, rather than create new water.

Those concerns resurfaced during public comment on the revised bill. Owens said some testimony suggested the project would take water currently being used downstream, an assertion he disputed.

Owens described one final public comment from a Carbon County opponent as particularly misleading, saying it framed the proposal as a direct loss to existing users rather than a question of storage and timing tied to established rights.

After the initial committee failure, Rep. Troy Shelley, R-Ephraim, said public debate surrounding the proposal often exaggerated the scale of Gooseberry Creek and the reservoir being discussed. Shelley has pointed to photographs and site documentation showing that summer flows are modest and highly seasonal.

In one image shared during an interview with the Messenger, Shelley stands on both banks of Gooseberry Creek at the same time, a detail he said undercuts claims of an oversized diversion.

“This isn’t some raging river,” Shelley said, describing the creek as intermittent and narrow for much of the year. He said the proposal centers on capturing a Sanpete County water source in a small, high-elevation reservoir, which would provide a backup water supply, not on increasing diversions beyond existing rights.

Shelley has also emphasized wildfire mitigation as a secondary benefit of the project. He said a nearby reservoir could significantly reduce helicopter turnaround times when responding to fires in high-risk cabin and recreation areas near Fairview, including Fairview Lakes, Skyline Mountain Resort, Indianola Valley and Mt. Pleasant Hills.

A map shared during the Messenger interview shows those areas located roughly 4-8 miles from the proposed Gooseberry Narrows site, compared with 16 to 18 miles from Scofield Reservoir.

“If helicopters have to fly all the way to Scofield and back, those cabins can burn down before they return,” Shelley said.

Owens described the substitute bill as incremental progress rather than a final resolution after decades of failed attempts.

“After nine decades, the project has another glimmer of hope for Sanpete County,” he said.

The revised version of SB 209 now awaits further legislative action. Approval would authorize only a study and would not provide funding or approval for construction of a dam or reservoir.