S.B. 209 Gooseberry Narrows State Park Study: transcript

we go. Thank you. Yes. Uh, the, the substitute is, it removes the authorization to enter into by this state parks any agreements, um, with the United States Forest Service or, uh, anyone else, uh, water conservation districts, et cetera. It, uh, it changes the name of the bill to, uh, study instead of a designation state park study and remove the, the changes the fiscal note to, uh, we don't have it official yet. I did talk to the originators of the fiscal note from 60 plus million to approximately $10,000. So, and, uh, that's, that's what the substitute does, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and, uh, staff. Thanks, Julie. I do have a few slides and those are up already. I can see. So I'm gonna try to move through this quickly. We heard this bill last week, um, being the chair of the committee, Grant's prerogative to bring back a bill, uh, even if it's had a negative. We had only three members of committee attend last week, uh, on a committee of seven. So, with this bill of impact, um, just want the committee to know that I'd consider the same courtesy to the members of the committee. Uh, with that, I'll speak to, uh, this bill. Uh, we're talking about a small stream on the Gooseberry Narrows, um, up in the headwaters that run, uh, one of many tributaries that feed Scofield Reservoir. So this, uh, picture on the left in, in the snow, that picture was taken yesterday. And here's a summertime picture on the right. I just brought this up to show that we're not talking about Provo River or Bear River. Um, this, this is the size and, and that is, is split in shares, um, between carbon water that goes to Scofield and, um, water shares that have never made its way to Sanpete County yet. So last week, um, we had some people testify that that would be catastrophic for this water to be, um, stored, put a dam in place or, uh, diverted. What this bill does though, is it just gives the state park authority to go study and see if this is, would be, uh, an opportunity to place a state park here. So, I wanna be transparent. It would, I like to see a dam absolutely. That that would be great. It's been, um, part of the plan for over 90 years and agreed to many times. But here we sit today. So, because that I have with me, uh, Blake Bingham, deputy State Water Engineer. He's a deputy to Theresa Wilhelmson who couldn't be here today because she's handling issues down at Tropic Reservoir today. Uh, one that arose during the summer. So obviously gonna, uh, a ask Mr. Bingham to answer two questions because when there was saying this was catastrophic to divert their drinking water or anything, that is their water. Whose water is it? We're really talking about private property rights. Whose water is, does, is this belong to? And what does the state agency legal purpose behind the water shares?

Certainly. Uh, Mr. Chair members, the committee. Blake Bingham, deputy State Engineer, deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights, uh, two Senator Owens questions. This, uh, the water rights associated with the Gooseberry Narrows project. The project we're kind of discussing has kind of a long and in nuanced history. Um, they were filed for appropriation back in 1941. Uh, there were a series of agreements between then and 19 85 5 when they were approved after those agreements, uh, went into place. Um, as the water rights currently stand, uh, they allow for the diversion and storage of just under 15,000 acre feet, uh, 14,500 acre feet, uh, per year, of which 5,000 to 400 acre feet can be delivered transmission into the tra into the Sand Pitch river system. Um, part of those agreements I alluded to included a subordination clause between, um, the Gooseberry Narrows project and, uh, Scofield Reservoir Reservoir where, uh, uh, the gooseberry water rights would have priority over Scofield. Um, they are currently authorized for irrigation within the, the Sanpete River System for Sanpete County Water Conservancy District. Um, and, uh, there's an existing pending change, which I won't speak to, uh, seeking to maybe change some nature abuse associated with those underlying water rights. Did I answer your question? Do the, is there storage? Yes. Uh, these, these water rights do, uh, as presently, um, permitted, authorize, uh, 14,500 acre feet of storage.

I'm gonna be quick as I can, Senator. So, um, and I'm gonna switch you out with the, uh, perks chair. So, sunshine, we say this often, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Good data drives good decisions. Our people deserve nothing less. That's this approach. I want. The intent of the bill is, and I hope for water storage, as with just the legal purpose and ability for water owners to own their property and use their property. Right now, there's no storage at all in the north region of Sanpete County, as has been anticipated, again, for over 90 years, whether it's drinking water, fishing, um, crops, it, it really doesn't matter. This is private property and it belongs to the people of Sanpete who should be able to use it originally planned. Next slide, please. Originally slant planned. This is what the Gooseberry Narrows was, um, allocated. And you can see where the dam site is down that, uh, little Canyon is where it goes on down to Scofield Reservoir. This is 17,000 acre feet of storage. That's what originally approved, had all the water share rights shares to do it. I, uh, I didn't do a scientific or mathematical equation, but in 1984, after decades long, um, back and forth between the counties and agreements, disagreements not getting this built, Sanpete County agreed because it had a cofield had expanded by, I think 35,000 acre feet and without the proper water application in place. So, in an agreement in 84 by D Hansen, um, encouraged heavily by then Governor Matheson. They worked tirelessly thousands of hours into this to get all the United States, um, government, carbon, water conservancy, and Sanpete to, to come to an agreement. The red line I just artificially put in there would be 5,400 acre feet. And, and that's what they agreed, would they, they gave up the rest of that water and to go to downstream stream and with an agreement that they could go forward un curtailed. But again, lawsuits came about. So just wanted to show that, um, one thing that if that became the line part of the 10, nine or $10 million of the previous fiscal note on sub one anticipated moving that road, the, the SR two, um, 31, and, uh, going over the dam as it was originally planned and then around and connecting on the east side of the reservoir. That wouldn't have to happen. Now, I don't think if, uh, you, if you made that, uh, red line the southern barrier. So, uh, so the Mr. Chair, then, lemme go to the next slide. This is what we're talking about. Look at the size of these reservoirs. The narrows is 17,000 acre feet. You gotta cut that down to a teardrop to 5 50, 400 square, uh, acre feet. We're talking about a teardrop. That water belongs to the people of Sanpete County. They should be able to divert it there. And, uh, that's what I hope we encourage to do. But in recent times, we've discovered that a, a reservoir and a state park could be a wonderful marriage using this beautiful part of our state up on Skyline Drive, which is heavily used by Recreationalists. So I asked Mr. Scott Strong to, to just come and, um, speak to whether, uh, with a dam or not, is this, uh, possibility to be a state park. So I'll ask him to fi uh, be, this will finish my presentation. So I'll go ahead Mr. Strong, if you introduce yourself, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to be here. My name is Scott Strong. I'm the director of Utah's 46 beautiful state parks, and I'm happy to be here. As many of you know, uh, Utah State Parks have experienced significant increases in visitation over the last 10 years. And in fact, our visitation has grown by more than double, um, which shows a strong, um, increase in demand for outdoor recreation. In our, our state parks are unique places. They offer our visitors the chance to make lasting memories with their family and friends. And essentially what Senator Owens bill is asking us to do is study the possibility of creating new, a new state park in this area. And as part of that study, we would involve local officials and gather information from various groups to do that. So it, from my standpoint, this is really a very simple bill and something that we do in many areas throughout the state that could be a, a great benefit to outdoor recreation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That, uh, that concludes well, I have one more last slide in. I just wanted to show. In 2009, the legislature passed, uh, a resolution after all of these decades long, um, this show here that, uh, was sponsored by Brad Wynn and passed the legislature. So our predecessors have gone down this road before to approve that. Not a state park, but the reservoir. So I think kind of pulling the two together would be amazing for our state. That's the opportunity before us. That concludes my presentation.

Chair. My name is Justin Jackson and, and I am here on behalf of the Sanpete water com, uh, Conservancy District. I am also the water and sewer superintendent for Fairview City. I, I, I thank you Mr. Chair. And, uh, the other committee members for the opportunity to support SB 2 0 9. SBO 2 0 9 is not an either or. Decision between conservation and water use. It thoughtfully integrates both priorities. While reco requiring careful study and local input, Sanpete could pursue the use of our water rights in a selfish and privately controlled manner. Yet we chose to pursue the path that provides the most benefit to all. Sanpete has already given up two thirds of our water rights legalizing the current size of Schofield Reservoir. In an attempt to show that we are willing to share, we have nothing to show for it except lu legal rulings and fees. I suppose maybe we were naive to give the lion's share away based upon nothing more than agreement held up by law. The Sanpete Water Conservancy District has already committed to provide A1C FS flow to downstream fisheries. The reservoir doesn't destabilize downstream flows. It creates greater stability in times of desperate need. The reservoir is not just for alfalfa, it's for stewardship and water management. The 1984 agreement adds 4,500 acre feet of extra storage allotment. Second, sorry, just for downstream flows. In closing, I urge you to support SB 2 0 9 so that we can responsibly explore how Gooseberry Narrows can benefit Utahans now and for generations to come. I challenge you to find a better solution to a 100 year conflict that honestly has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars and not likely to end without bold actions.

Mr. Acting Chair, the sponsor, members of the committee. Thank you. Um, it's good to see some of you again. I was here last week testifying against this bill as a private citizen. My name is Herbert Le, last name LEY. One of the reasons I'm testifying against this is I've probably spent more time on lower go on Gooseberry Creek below the proposed project and Upper Fish Creek than perhaps anyone else in this room. Because I have backpacked into this drainage on the second Friday of July to camp so that I can fish it when it opens at 6:00 AM the following day. I can say with some authority that this is one of the finest fisheries in the state of Utah for Colorado Cutthroat Trout. I have been there with many friends, and I testified last week about taking a recently returned veteran, a friend of mine, uh, to the creek. And I think his words are clear from last week's testimony, but he found it to be a tremendous experience. I note that I'm focused on the stream well below where the project is. I am concerned about water levels. I have seen the flow of the creek change dramatically in the fishery along throughout the years. I will note however, I was chair of the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council, one of its co, um, cold water representatives and Strawberry Reservoir is a blue ribbon fishery. It has suffered from toxic algae blooms in recent years. And, uh, lower fish creek below the reservoir is also a blue ribbon fishery. I think any significant reduction in flows to these, to these water bodies will harm them. And I hope that the committee will keep this in mind as they vote today.

Wade Garrett, Utah Farm Bureau. Um, we support the Senator Vickers efforts to check on, to do the feasibility study on this reservoir. Anything that can stabilize ag in the state and bring water to a dry state and use storage Utah Farm Bureau supports. And we appreciate the good Senator for working on this.

Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead. Wade Eliason, Sanpete County Water Conservation District Board member, sixth generation Sanpete County citizen. I just want to encourage each one of you good Senator Vickers to vote in favor of this bill as this bill is basically to ask to look into the possibility and how it affects everyone and interact with everyone. And thank you for your time and thanks for bringing this forward.

Uh, good, good afternoon. Members of the committee. Uh, my name is Nate Broadhurst. I'm, uh, attorney for Sanpete County Water Conservancy District. I speak in further support of this bill. I'd like to again, thank Senator Owens and his staff, uh, for the hard work that's been put into this. Um, it bears worth repeating that the water rights that support this project remain in good standing. As Senator Owens noted, the legislature in 2009 passed a resolution supporting this project. It's also worth noting that the legislature is previously enacted as policy of the state that, uh, it will, that the state should both conserve and responsibly develop its water under its Colorado River allotment. This reservoir, this project helps meet both of those goals. It's a responsible and beneficial project to the folks of Sanpete County and the state as a whole. And it allows the state to responsibly develop a portion of its Colorado River allotment. And this bill supports, uh, recreational values for the state and, uh, should be considered, uh, a benefit to all the members of the state for the state Parks division to be able to study this Bill. Thank you.

I'm, I'm the chairman of the sa, excuse me, Sanpete Conservation District. And this reservoir and, well, it's park system they're talking about will all benefit. Our long-term goal is to the reap natural resources of Sanpete County. This has been something that's been going on for generations. It's time that something happens with it. It's, it's a Sanpete water, right? Uh, it needs to be, something has to be done with it. We we're willing to work with others to do it. And I think this bill puts that forward and I would encourage all of you to support it. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name's William Butcher. I represent the Price River Water Users Association. We are the entity that holds the storage right in Scofield Reservoir. I would just like to remind the committee that there are folks on the price side of the mountain who are using this water, who have been using this water for, you know, generations. Now. You, you've heard other people talk about how long this has been going on. It, it has been going on a long time. There is a water, right? There are old agreements, but I would just like to remind the committee that there are folks in, in the Price River drainage that are using this water. And if, if there's any water that's taken out of the drainage, that's water that's taken away from the Price River side. Um, they mentioned the 1984 agreement. I would like to just, just think about what 1984 was. 1984 was a year when people were worried about Lake Powell. They were worried about the Great Salt Lake. They were worried that Lake Powell was gonna overflow and, and they were sketching out places to put the pumps on the Great Salt Lake. And I, I, I can't believe how the times have changed. Now we're worried about the Great Salt Lake going dry, and were worried about Lake Powell going dry. Uh, if this water is taken outta Colorado River Basin, it's gone. It's, it, there is no return flows. There's, it's

I would like to move that we, uh, favorably recommend Senate bill to, uh, section substitute Senate Bill 2 0 9 to the full body of the Senate.

I do have summation. And I, uh, I want to thank everybody on both sides of the mountain for coming to speak to this. I think this is a great compromise idea and an opportunity to expand a heavily used recreation area to become a state park. Uh, let's take eight months and let the state park director look at this opportunity. Discover the, um, the legal approved best path forward. So professional leaders can help advise us as a legislature. Um, the gentleman who just spoke said that it would take water away from the people who are using it in, in Carbon County. What about the people who own it, who've never used it for 90 years? That should be taken into effect. Not to mention the $6 million in legal fees, trying to ascertain what rightfully belongs to them, and giving away over two thirds of it in agreement that won't be honored. And the gentleman who spoke about taking his military friend in there, I love that. Thank you for doing that. I have two sons who serve in the military and, um, honor that. So, um, that's my summation, Mr. Chair. It's time. Um, I hope that we can support this opportunity.

That's correct. I'm an aye. Okay. Love It. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, uh, appreciate being here. I used to serve on this committee, so coming back home. Thank you. It's good to be here with you today. I, I know you have a short agenda. I have a simple bill, and I'll try to keep it brief, but although it's a simple bill, it has a complicated history. Uh, this bill, um, it deals with the Gooseberry Narrows. Uh, the, the title is the state park study. That's, uh, that's what the bill is. Uh, I I would rather it be, or much more than that. Um, and had actually started off with this to, to try to help designate the state park is also a, uh, to build a dam to, to have a reservoir there. But with the funding gear, everything we're doing that, uh, not a possibility this year. So this, uh, however, it's, it is pertinent to go forward. And if you've been at the top of Skyline Drive, this is 57 minutes from Spanish Fork, 30 something minutes from the Utah County line. We have amazing state park system, and this is a possible, uh, addition to that system. And I, I will have, um, director Scott, um, strong come up in a minute and speak to that. Uh, but I wanted to give you a little layout of what we're talking about this. There's been a 90 year dispute between counties, carbon County, and Sanpete County over some water that's way up in the top of the mountains called the Go at the Gooseberry Narrows Berry Creek. And, uh, it's been back and forth and quite a history. I don't need to go back through all of that, but, um, basically there were agreements to build the Scofield Reservoir and Dam, and then actually before that was gonna be the Gooseberry one, but agreements were made and SCO was built. Go Scofield was built first. And, uh, I think we have finally, an, an appetite in Utah that we know we need to, we're, we're not gonna have much federal help, and we're, we need to start setting funds aside and looking forward to some high elevation water storage. Could that be part of this bill maybe in the future? It's not what the bill is now. Uh, but it could be a, a part. And so I don't wanna be misleading and not say that that's not something I would like to see. Um, but I think I did ask, uh, Charlie, do you have those slides? I I just want to show you a few slides so you know what we're talking about. This is not the Provo River or the Bear River or, um, something majestic in water. This is a small little tributary, one of, uh, probably a dozen or more that feeds Scofield Reservoir. And, uh, if Charlie, if you could bring up that slide. You're working on it. Thank you. Okay. So I'll just, uh, give the, give the committee an idea of what we're, what we're discussing here and this area. So next slide, Charlie? Yeah, just scroll that up if you would. So we, all right. So you can see, um, the one with the snow that was taking a taken a few weeks ago. Um, unfortunately this should be under about 10 feet of snow right now. And it sadly shows the ground through there. But that's the stream. And on the right of the summertime picture of this same area, um, Sanpete County owns the water rights to this. So if we're talking about property rights, I wanted to make clear to the committee that we're not talking about taking anybody's water that doesn't belong to them. Okay. So I've asked, uh, the, our water engineer and deputy to come to, uh, Blake Bingham and to, to speak to who has the water rights on this stream.

Good afternoon. Uh, Blake Bingham, deputy State Engineer and Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights. Uh, Senator Owens has already alluded to, uh, the, the water rights situation in this area is, has a long, complex history. So I'll just hit the highlights. Um, so back in the 1941, there were three applications filed for the, the Gooseberry Project, um, requesting a 17,000 acre foot reservoir. Um, over the years, various agreements have been entered into by various parties. Um, eventually in 1984, the state engineer convened a meeting amongst all the, the disputing parties and got 'em to come to the table and, and make an agreement. Um, and ultimately approved the applications, um, for 14,500 acre feet of storage, of which 5,400 acre feet could be diverted and sent to the Sanpete side of the mountain. Um, so again, the, the reservoir was paired down from 17,000 to 14,500 and allowed for 4,000 or 5,400 acre feet of that water on an annual basis to, um, be diverted and delivered to, uh, sand Pitch Riverside. As part of that agreement, the, um, rights in Schofield were subordinated to Gooseberry, uh, meaning they Gooseberry project would have priority over the Schofield project. And as another element of that agreement was that, uh, gooseberry would release Instream flows downstream of that. And I think that's, uh, kind of the top contour of the water rights situation. Unless there's anything else you'd like me to speak to Senator Owens?

No, thank you. Um, that just wanted to make it clear, that i's definitely not talking about on, on the water side, that using this water for a state park or for some backup storage to have a, a reservoir there, whatever size that would be by the state park, it's, it would be the San Pete's water that they would be using. Not, not anybody else's. So, thank you. I'm gonna ask our, um, director of state parks to come up and, and, uh, move on here with a little bit of presentation. So, uh, I wanna show the next picture if I could, and this, this is the further indication of what we're talking about in water size, if you see the, the narrows. And, um, Mr. Bingham just mentioned that it's been paired down from 17,000 acre feet, so you're gonna have to go down to a lot smaller than that drop now, um, to, to actually see the size that the narrows would be if it comes to fruition. So, uh, in comparison to other reservoirs, it, it is just a drop of water, but to some people who own the water and have never had a drop of it put in their valley, um, just put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They, they haven't been able to use this water and there's been multiple lawsuits over the years, and it's such a tangled history, you don't even need to get into it. But, um, I just wanted to establish that so I'm not, not talking about putting a park on somebody else's property or, or backing up somebody else's, um, property, uh, or, or water. Alright. Um, so go to the next slide, if you would. In, in 2009, our predecessors ran this resolution. Um, this is very successful. So as I said, this is, has a, a long history. They were, um, this passed out and, uh, so many have looked at this before and, and put a lot of support behind the possibility. What's never been considered is till today is putting a state park there and seeing the, that possibility. So, um, I, I was gonna, uh, ask director strong to, to, he, he knows the area, uh, he knows his system, which is, uh, something that we're all proud of as a state. And its location on top of Fairview Canyon, which is a heavily visited, um, recreation all over the place. And just ask, ask Director to speak to the possibility of this bill. Come to come to pass.

Go ahead, director. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm excited to be here. My name is Scott Strong, I'm the director of Utah's beautiful state parks, and I want to thank the sponsor of the bill for inviting me here today. As many of you know, um, and are well aware of state parks, we've seen incredible increases in visitation over the last 10 years. And in fact, visitation at our 10 at our state parks has increased by double, which is pretty amazing. And that shows a huge demand for outdoor recreation in the state of Utah. Um, and, and as many of you know, I think I have relationships with each one of you in this room and know that you visit state parks and know the incredible experiences that you and your family and friends have. That's what State Parks is about, is about creating memories and, and having these wonderful experiences. The bill that, um, Senator Owens is presenting is asking state parks to look at this area for a potential state park. This is something that we do in several areas, and we're in the process of doing that throughout the state. Um, and this is an exciting thing to do, I want to say, as part of this process, that we engage with a local community, um, um, very well, and we listen to their input. Um, we share their values and we wanna make sure that the experience meets and exceeds their expectations. So thank you.

Thank you, director. And I'll, I'll just wrap up with, with this, um, for the committee. Um, this last slide shows the original site that this was how big the reservoir, uh, was originally approved and meant to store 17,000 acre feet. Um, and I, I know that it, if that ever had come to pass, it's not a, a possibility now, but it would be another blue ribbon fishery at the top of the mountain there. Um, but in that valley, this, this is where, uh, there is a, I'm not sure exactly where it is on from here, director, but I know the, the National Forest has a, uh, some camping grounds there. If you take the, I took a red line and just made a a mark on here, and that was just estimating that if we did back up 5,400 square feet, that red line shows just a guess of what the reservoir would be if, if that ever did come to fruition. But I have to make sure the committee knows that's not what this bill is. This bill is to study and see if the state parks is a possibility and for director strong to see if, uh, in the future a potential dam might be feasible there, anything that was removed. Um, I did a lot of work on this before and removed any agreements with the forest service or private property owners. And so none of that is in here. It just back to a study. Um, but that you can see where the proposed dam site is right there in that little canyon. And, um, if there was a, a place in the state that we were gonna start to build high elevation, reserv, um, reservoir storage, here's the one, uh, the prime location. Uh, it, I guess it, do we have the, the appetite for that? And, uh, I hope that one day we will because we need that. Furthermore, uh, in the top of this, this, this all flows to the east, to the Colorado River. So to the Colorado River, we could have some storage and release that water as needed instead of as Mother Nature just washes it down. And so lot, a lot to it and a lot to consider. Um, but the opportunity for a state park, whether there was a dam or not, is what this bill is about. And, uh, with that, I would, uh, conclude your presentation. I'd be open to questions.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator, for your presentation. I have a couple of, uh, brief questions. Uh, you said the reservoir has the capacity for 17,000 acre feet,

That that's what was originally, um, set up to be, but through agreements and over time, that as the Blake Bingham said, that's been paired down to the maximum storage would be, I think 14 five. But the Sanpete side now is, is only 5,400 square, uh, acre feet.

Okay. So 5,400 acre feet is belongs to the Sanpete side. Right. Uh, is there a possibility to get that to the Sanpete side With the dam? A

hundred percent, uh, possible. And, and to start out with, Sanpete owned all of that water storage that 17,000 acre feet belonged to them. But to help shore up the Schofield, when Schofield expanded, they relinquished that and made an agreement in 1984, um, that if, if Sanpete could build this dam, they would give up those water rights, almost two thirds of their water. Um, and yet we still, you're gonna hear testimony today of people saying, we should not do this. And, uh, it's just really been a strange history. But for a state park, I think it's very possible.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, you said, I guess some of the water would go to the Colorado River Flow East.

Yes. The majority of it, which

Deal, but the other would go down the sand pitch and flow into the severe, correct?

Well, they would probably like to have some storage and yes, there's no storage in North Sanpete County, uh, one of our only counties that don't have storage. So yes, that's where it would go, is down into Fairview.

Okay. And do you have an idea, either you or Parks director on how many acres State Park or just a swag at this point

There? Yeah, well, you have an idea, Scott.

We're so early into this process that we haven't looked at that, but we know that we could partner with the US Forest Service in looking at expanding that footprint where whatever makes sense, um, for that to be,

Oh, it's a beautiful area. I've been there hunting and it's awesome. A lot of possibilities. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two or three questions. I probably, uh, first time I ever heard about, uh, gooseberry Pro Projects, probably some 40 years ago. A good friend of, uh, uh, an acquaintance between me and the center, both, uh, we'll just call him Edwin, talked about it quite a bit. And, uh, I've always been, uh, kind of lost on where the, the conversation's been. 'cause the only place I know of where there was a gooseberry is if you travel east on Interstate 70 between Salina and, and, uh, Fremont Junction. There's a, a, a gooseberry that you go up and can eventually, you can get to, uh, fish, fish lake. And I thought, what in the heck are, uh, carbon and Sanpete fighting over water that does even in their area? So, uh, I kind of think the way you described it now, it must be somewhere up above Fairview, between Fairview and Schofield in that area. So I appreciate this, uh, you know, a little bit of a, uh, cleanup. I wondered, Charlie, can you put that last, uh, slide on that had the red line and the, and the lake? I would appreciate which way, uh, I can tell by the way, the shape of it is, I think, where the, the way the dam would be. So, uh, does that, are we looking at North on the top of that, uh, uh, diagram? And then does that Good

Question there. So Senator, right where it's, or represented, right where it says the line 31 for the highway number, that's, that's the top of Fairview Canyon coming up right below the 31 is Fairview Canyon. So, um, as it drops down and makes the s turn, that's headed east down and below, off the map, above the map is Scofield down below.

Okay. I, I, I know where that area is now. I appreciate it. I never had realized before that was it. So what my next question is, and I think the director di alluded to it, is this, uh, the land that it would be on is Forest service, is that, uh, or is it mostly forest service, or what type of land, uh, would this, uh, would, would it entail, uh, for a, uh, you know, to do that, the, is it a combination? Is there, is there private or, or what do we have up there?

Uh, do you, are you familiar? Uh, most of this is, uh, I think there is state ground. Uh, some of it's forest service. It's a mixture back where the reservoir, uh, was proposed in the very beginning, Fairview Lakes, there's cabins up there, so there's a lot of private to the, on the right side of the map, um, down below, I think it's mostly Forest Service.

Do you know whether, uh, if I might continue, Mr. Chairman, do you know whether there's been, uh, soil samples and some of the things done? Is that just part of what would be the, uh, we need to know as far as how the, uh, what the holding capacity, you know, I mean, uh, how good the holding capacity would be on that, or if it would, you know, I, I know, uh, in my, on my range of some of the old timers, here's a heck of a good wash. We can build a, a stock watering pump, build a beautiful berm, and then, uh, catch some water and a week it's all, you know, soaked back into the ground and never been lost entirely the way water is. But the stalk didn't get a chance to drink out of it. I just wonder is has there been any tests that, you know, I've done that, that has, uh, uh, said there is that part of what we need to have, have done too?

There has, and yes, I do. Um, I have another phone, a friend that could help with that question. I'll have him introduce himself. But yes, there have been, actually over 90 years there's been three EIS studies, so it's been in depth. But, um, just to make sure we remember that the bill is con contemplating a state park with the concept of possibly a dam in the future, but that wouldn't be the immediate future.

Okay. Hello, my name's Brian Andrew. I am, uh, with the, uh, Hansen, Allen Loose Engineering, and I, uh, represent the Sanpete Water Conservancy District asked me to attend today. I can answer some of those particular questions. First of all, you asked, um, I wanna address a previous question you asked. Can they get the water from the dam side over there is already an existing tunnel that has been created to move the water from the, uh, into the Sanpete side of the drainage. So there's a tunnel through the, through the mountain right there already. And that's how the, the dam would work in conjunction with That's what, uh, to answer your question, there's been extensive studies on the dam site and as far as the capabilities for constructing a dam, and, and it's, it's been fairly robust. Um, the final design has never been completed, but there's been a lot of drilling and testing on in that location.

I appreciate that. I got o one one final question. Okay, go ahead. So, uh, uh, to the, I just wonder, Senator, you know, last summer we went on our, uh, the snow college, uh, a TV drive. We went up in, in the area and looked at some stuff, and if I remember correctly, you, you told us a, a story about how a, you as a young person had this slave away up there on digging the ditch and stuff. And, and, uh, but, but that where we were at is probably a little farther south than where you're talking about now,

About 15 miles south, yes. Representative. Okay. Yep. Okay.

That's all. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Uh, chair. A couple of questions, please. I, I know this has been going on forever, and it was started before either one of us was born or anything like that. And, and just so everyone knows, we're we are not arguing over the water, we know the court settled that, so that is absolutely not an issue. Um, I just wanted to throw in two things. One, one is sort of historical and the other one's actually a question that I know I shouldn't ask if I don't know the answer, but I don't know the answer. So, um, do you know how old Schofield is?

Ibel? I know it was pre nine before the Second World War, so 1920s or thirties? Yeah.

Yeah. Actually, when I looked it up, it wasn't even quite that old, but I'm, I'm, I'm wondering why I'm, 'cause I'm curious, do you know why we Scofield was built before?

Yeah, I think I, um, you, you, I can speak to that. Um, Schofield, uh, originally up there is, uh, was Mammoth Dam and it failed. And then that project evolved into the, the two reservoirs. One, the Goose Perry Narrows in the Schofield. Um, Schofield was built much smaller Schofield, so I don't know which iteration Schofield you're referring to. Um, as part of the war effort, Schofield Dam was having some troubles, um, and the railroad tracks went across the dam, and they had some issues with that. And obviously that was of national concern to get the coal to the steel mills over in Utah County. So, uh, Schofield was redone at that time and expanded, um, later. And so that is why Scofield was built in the forties. Okay.

Back, if I understand on just a little more on that, uh, uh, because I think Gooseberry was contemplated first, but the people in Sanpete agreed to, you know, what we can't have, uh, uh, now with the war coming Yeah. War on, we cannot have that dam pale, so let's fix that and agreed to put off their dam until later and later still 2026. Yes.

That, that's, that's correct. Um, the people of Sanpete in, in those old agreements agreed to defer their, their construction in order to support the war effort.

Okay. And then I have another question, and I know this happened, but I don't know why, and I'm sure one of you will know. I know the Army Corps of Engineers said, you cannot build this. And this was, this was fairly recent, like 2016 or 17. I don't know why they said that.

Uh, what happened was there, the, uh, federal agency responsible for this was the Bureau of Reclamation. This was always a reclamation, uh, project in tandem. And they had done several environmental impact statements. The most recent one was 2012, I think was the final. And then the record of decision was in 2013. As part of that, the Army Corps of Engineer was a, uh, collaborating party, but when the record of decision came out, uh, they, the district, the Water Conservancy District Uintah, get their for clean water permit. And the Army Corps said they disagreed with the analysis and it didn't meet some of the mitigation requirements, and they needed to satisfy those to issue the permit. They didn't say you can't build it, but there were issues with, with granting the 4 0 4 permit.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of quick questions. Um, do you mind speaking just to, I see this house amendment in here. Just speak to the specifics of that, or has that already been passed? I missed that part. Okay.

So excited. Also, the, the fiscal note too. Excited. Representative Arthur, I Can't help myself. I just enjoy this too much. Okay, go ahead.

Um, with the fiscal note, the $5,000 is just to, for the, uh, state park to the folks in the division to complete the feasibility study.

Right. I'm just curious how much of this is already known, because it sounds like this has been studied for a long time.

Right. I, I think that's why the fiscal note is $5,000 because we know this area very well, and, uh, it won't take that much to, to figure out if this is gonna be feasible for our state park or not. Wonderful.

Yourself. Uh, Willis Lafe, you and I, I live in based county. Um, I'd start by, uh, saying I know how important state parks is to not only the state, but but my community with, uh, red Fleet and Steiner extremely important to our community and our economics. Um, I, you know, uh, following CIBA little bit, I know how, um, how destitute, uh, Sanpete County is, um, with, with some of their cities needing complete water lines. And I know the little town of Dale hasn't had m and i water for, for some time. No, no wills that can be, uh, can be drilled. I'm curious if some of this water can be m and i, uh, or if it's all agriculture. Either way. Uh, this, this county needs this really bad. I support the state park system, uh, this effort. Thank you for those who are trying to do this. Uh, if you want an another idea for high mountain storage, uh, I invite you to, to come to u in county and do that as well. Thank you.

Ahead. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Salt, Utah Anglers Coalition. Uh, as I mentioned previously in the other hearing, uh, we represent varied interests of anglers statewide. And, uh, the population of licensed anglers in the state is over 450,000, which we don't represent all of them. Um, I wish we could, but there is broad opposition to this proposal from the angling community, and it has been a continued opposition for many years. Um, we have five points that we've, uh, given you in a handout that, uh, describe our opposition points and attached to our handout is the decision from the Army Corps of Engineers from 2016, which was probably the most scathing, uh, rebuke that I have ever witnessed in a Army Corps decision. And I've studied quite a few of them over the last 26 years, uh, doing this kind of work. Um, and there are some very detailed, um, comments by the Army Corps of Engineers that are concerning. Uh, our first objection, I'll just try to summarize what our comments are in written form. We don't really believe that, uh, using state parks as a front to get this project to move forward is the right approach. Uh, this is really squarely a water district project. Um, they should take responsibility for this project. They should do their own feasibility study, and if they're going to include recreation, include that in their plan, and they need to also fund this project in the future themselves and charge their rate, uh, their users not charge the people of the state of Utah. And the first physical note for this bill in its first iteration was $65 million. And we think that the water district really should just, uh, get a loan from the Division of Water Resources and from the loan, uh, account that they have available, and then have the users pay that back. Um, our second concern is that the feasibility study really has already been done. And that feasibility study was embedded in the previous EIS final EIS and the rod that the Bureau of Reclamation approved and gave a green light to this project in 2012 and 13, and, uh, issued their rod. But the Army Corps of Engineers, when they got the final products, they looked at it and they, as you'll see in their letter, they tore that FEIS in the rod apart. And they said, this is completely inadequate for our regulatory requirements. And they were specific about the direct and indirect impacts to the stream, the wetlands, the fish habitat and wildlife habitat, and, uh, mitigation. This is really a big problem for this project that really can't be overcome unless we have a whole new thinking. And the Army Corps even recommended that they get a new consultant from their preferred list of consultants that work on difficult projects because their, the water district's consultants were not, uh, considered to be, uh, experienced, unbiased or objective. Um, our third objection, uh, is really, uh, well, let me go back to the feasibility study because we need to also keep in mind that this is a fishery drainage, and we have certain sport fish, uh, of concern in this drainage in Gooseberry Creek and Fish Creek, and again, in strawberry, uh, Schofield Reservoir. And, uh, those, uh, would include, uh, the, um, the blue head sucker, the round tail chub, and the funnel mouth sucker. And, uh, some of these fish are actually in the Price River, but they rely on the water coming down from Gooseberry and Fish Creek and Scofield in order to, uh, uh, preserve those fish. And these are fish. These three species are fish of concern to the Division of Wildlife Resources. And there is a program to try to rehabilitate and to bolster these populations. This project would definitely impact that. Um, and to kinda wrap up, um, we as the public view, this, uh, notion of using State park concept to mask a water storage project, uh, is maybe not good faith because there are other higher priority areas and, uh, locations where a state park would actually make more sense because there's higher demand and there's infrastructure already in place. And those, uh, locations would include Pine View Reservoir, which many of you would know is a train wreck as far as angling and recreational boating and fishing. That's a higher priority than Gooseberry Narrows. Flaming Gorge Reservoir is another, uh, federal asset that needs to have state management. And, uh, we're just missing out on opportunities in Flaming Gorge and Pine View. The, uh, house res house current resolution number five, uh, which is stalled out in the rules, called out some

Yeah. So as, as far as prioritizing where we would wanna start a new state park, uh, we think that this is not the high priority location, and that our resources and state parks resources would be better spent on some of these other low hanging fruit locations that have higher use and higher demand. And then fourth, we're concerned about any diversions that would affect the Colorado River Compact and the negotiations that are still going on. It's a small amount of water, obviously, um, but we're still concerned about trans basin diversions. So we would ask that this proposal to do a study, be tabled, looked at more closely during interim, and maybe come back with another solution, uh, that would be better for the public and for anglers. Thank you.

No, but my family history is from Mt. Pleasant and, uh, the severe river basin. Yeah. And so I know quite a bit about rural Utah.

Is that on? Is it on? Thank you. Yeah, we, um, looked at several different reservoirs and, and put together a policy that what would we look at for water storage and put some pretty high bars on what needed to be done. Um, state use water rights property, um, a partnership with the water district, and this Gooseberry reservoir scored among the highest. So it's actually, um, one of the great values that it has to not just for recreation, but for storage water management, so we can move water in different places that needs be. So out of all the 108 hundred three sites that we looked at, um, gooseberry was in the top four.

Chair members of the committee. My name's Herbert Lay. I live in Millcreek. I've been a Utah resident 33 years. I'm glad to hear that some of you have visited this area. I think I probably have spent the most time on Gooseberry Creek of anybody in this room, because 18 out of the last 22 years or so, I've backpacked in the three miles to the confluence between Gooseberry and Fish Creek, and enjoyed opening day on, uh, these creeks below the reservoir. Um, I'd like to point out, I believe Gooseberry and Fish Creek combined is the largest tributary to Scofield Reservoir. Is that I, I'm providing you with two, uh, sets of handouts, two double-sided handouts. It paints me to hotspot a place where I love to fish, but I want you to see the quality of the fishery well below the reservoir at the Confluence. Uh, these photos demonstrate that this fishery has been extremely healthy since at least 2003, which is the first time I remember going there. The second handout is with regards to what's happened recently at Fairview Lakes nearby. So, as I said, uh, I've been going there for quite a long time, and in fact, um, these visits to this water, uh, have impressed me so much that I decided to join the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council. And I served for six years as a cold water representative on that council, and I was chair of the council for the last two years. Uh, while these creeks, gooseberry Creek and Fish Creek are not formally evaluated for Blue Ribbon Listing due to their small size and challenging access, the creeks would undoubtedly qualify. I'm not sure about a reservoir of insignificant depth on the surface on the top of the plateau, but I note that Scofield Reservoir just downstream in Lower Fish Creek, are indeed Blue Ribbon Fisheries. Um, and I recall when I was chair the difficulties in wildlife resources in restoring the fishery in Scofield Reservoir. It has gone through many changes, obviously, with water levels and so on. So I'm asking you to vote against this bill because I'm deeply concerned that these fisheries would inevitably be harmed if water is diverted from the drainage. I recognize there's a water, right that's existed, but I also wanted you to be aware of what could be lost with reduced flows. I also note, uh, at, uh, one of the Senate Committee Committee hearings on the bill, the sponsor, um, address my concerns about potential harm to these fisheries by countering that new fishing op opportunities would be created through the construction of the dam. That's possible, but I'm not persuaded. First, I, I think, um, these new fishing opportunities potentially would be at, at the expense of a remarkable cutthroat fishery where I have fished for the last 20 some years. Um, and second, the other handout points out that there have been emergency, uh, catch and keep regulations issued for Fairview Reservoir, because over the last several years, and I, I like to camp in Huntington Canyon in late September, early October, when you come up to Fairview Pass and look down at the Fairview Lakes, they're pretty much mud flats. So Division of Wildlife Resources has requested catch and keep because they know the fish are gonna die in those reservoirs. So I'm not certain there will be fishing opportunities in this new Gooseberry Narrows reservoir. And then in closing, I wanna draw your picture, draw your attention to the photograph, the bottom left of the page with four pictures on it. That's Devin Millard. He is a friend of mine, native Utah and US Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. During those deployments, I used to send him pictures of my adventures fishing in, in backpacking in Utah. Upon his return from one of his deployments, he joined me on Gooseberry Creek. When I asked for his permission to share this photo, he told me to tell you this, let the committee know that you are trying to teach a young veteran how to fly fish to help him with returning home after a deployment. That was some of the best fly fishing I've ever experienced. I recall truly feeling peace for the first time in a long time while fishing with you that morning. In a way, that trip was one step closer towards you. Could

Sure. I fear that if you vote in favor of this study, you're putting wheels in motion that will potentially destroy the resource that provided the young veteran solace and peace or a resource that should be protected for all future Generations. Thank

Uh, yeah, my name's Michael Larson. I'm, I'm gonna address this real short, but three different aspects. First is the Utah Association of Conservation Districts. Uh, we look at water as one of our most precious resources, and one that Utah has a very limited amount of. So we support any type of storage or possibility to use this water, however, it's gonna be used, but it's a possibility to be used now and in the future. And then I'm gonna address it as a Sand p conservation chairman, district chairman. And this, this fits into our district plan of trying to manage our water and, and soil resources within Sanpete County. And like they said, I would argue Sanpete may be the driest county in the state. I mean, as far as irrigation, we just, we have no storage. We're completely at, uh, mercy for the snow that falls in the mountain. When that, when that snow's gone, the water's gone. And it's not just the farmers, it's the cities, the secondary culinary water, everything. This year, we're gonna be hurting across the old county. Gunnison reservoirs dry, there's nothing in it. And so to not be able to use this right over all those years really gets on my wrong side. But I'm just addressing the, the reservoir in the park right now. And I think that's a way that the whole state can enjoy the water and possibly in the future, we can do other things with it. But it is storage. It's gonna hold the water for the whole state, especially in that area. And I think that's something the state needs to look at. We need, we, we've gotta seriously look at more storage, and then I'll just address it personally and say, I think this is a, a great, uh, method. And I think there's a lot of recreation that goes up in Fairview Canyon right now. That's the only, uh, road going up. The Manti LaSalle right now that's paved from the city clear to the top, and they have opened up the old ski resort a little bit in the winter now. Anyway, there's a lot of recreation going up there, and I think it would be a great site for a state park. And I implore you to please pass this out with a favor rec recommendation. Thank you.

Yeah, my name is John Cox. I'm just here, uh, testifying as a private citizen. Uh, wasn't intending to testify today, but just after some of the previous comments, um, I've spent much of my childhood, much of my adulthood on top of that mountain, uh, right in that same area. I think I know it, uh, as well as anyone. And, uh, it is a special place. Um, a a previous comment had made, had been made that this was not a high priority location. Um, means a lot to me. It means a lot to the people there. I would also say, uh, it's changed a lot in, in my 40 years, uh, of visiting that place. It feels like half of the Wasatch front is up there recreating on, on any given weekend. And that's true in the winter. That's true in the summer. Uh, it is definitely a destination. Um, thi this bill is focused on recreation. This bill is focused on a study of a potential state park. Um, I think there's tremendous opportunity, uh, tremendous need for that type of study. Um, I know there's dispute as it relates to, to, to water. I know these are contentious issues, uh, but this is certainly important for the, the folks that live there. And I think it's important for us who live here. Uh, we talk about the Wasatch Front being the best place to live. I think it's true because you can drive an hour and you're not on the Wasatch front anymore. And we certainly see that again every weekend up on that mountain. And, uh, the more organized we could be about that as a state, I think the better. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sure. My name is Jeff Richens. I'm the district manager for Price River Water Improvement District. And I was wondering if I could first ask, um, if we could have that one slide put up that shows the location of the pro proposed reservoir. Um, it was mentioned, um, by the one representative, uh, that he was trying to, you know, determine exactly where this was. And, um, I think what everyone is not, um, discussing is this bill actually as a state parks could be a very good bill, but as a state parks with a dam, uh, I think it's, um, at best to say disingenuous that we're going to use a, the state parks agency to look at billing and dam. And I'll give you some history on that. So if you look at the, the graphic here, uh, where 31, where that 31 is in 2 64, that's where the road from Schofield Reservoir comes over the mountain and connects to either go down Huntington Canyon or down Fairview Canyon, or you can go north on a dirt road and head back towards North Skyline Drive. That's what it's called on North Skyline Drive. From this point, if you went north about 20 minutes, you'll find a reservoir. If you go down Huntington Canyon, about 10 minutes, you'll find a reservoir. If you go five more minutes, you'll find another reservoir. If you go east of this location, you'll find a place called Benches Fishing Pond. You go a little further, you'll find Bulger Reservoir. You go a little farther, you'll find Electric Lake. You've got a lot of lakes here in the High Mountain areas. Now, none of those will feed the Sanpete Valley, I understand that. But recreation is already there within just a few minutes, over and over and over again. Now, I've been up there as well. I do like to hunt. One of my concerns with having another state park up there is its location. Um, and I will use Scofield as an example. So when a, a normal snow year comes Scofield State Park, because the Star Park Department has running water there, they drain the water system, they lock the bathrooms, they close the gates because they don't want to come in and, and have to plow snow and, and not be responsible for people getting stuck. Those kinds of things. This location, on a normal year, you will have snow, maybe not for the bow hunt in August and into September, maybe not for the muzzle loader. For the elk hunt, which is the first weekend in October, you may find yourself in a few feet of snow, definitely for the deer hunt. So I would dare say that the Parks Department is going to say for sure the month of October is gonna be out, maybe partway into September. When are they gonna open it again? Probably Memorial Day. Why? Because in a normal year, as the sponsor noted, there should be 12 feet of snow there and it won't leave until about June. And so you're early talking about having a state park that's only available for people to use the month of June, July, August, and maybe part of September. Now, because it wasn't mentioned before, um, there were actually two reservoirs done and they were both being operated in the, in the late, in the 19 teens, late 19 teens. And up till 1925, both of those res, both of those dams failed they were not built with auto, obviously, modern techniques. And, uh, the early thirties, both Sanpete and Carbon Uintah, the Bureau reclamation for assistance in building a dam. In the evaluation, the Bureau of Reclamation decided that because of World War II and the need for coal and railroad, uh, shipping that coal to Geneva Steel for armaments, they moved forward with Scofield Reservoir. In 1947, the Bureau of Reclamation determined that Gooseberry was economically unfeasible to be built, but it was saved under what was called then the Small Dams projects for irrigation purposes. In 1962, the Forest Service granted permission to the Sanpete Water Conservancy District to build 3,100 foot tunnel, uh, under the mountain to convey water that they could divert over to their side of the mountain. You heard about the Compromise Agreement, so I won't go there. In 2013, the Bureau Bureau Reclamation Reclamation withdrew their support for Gooseberry Narrows again, and then to put an exclamation on it, they said, we are deeding you, the federal, right? We are out In 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers said, we are out. This is not a good plan for a reservoir. But all that aside, this bill should not be about a reservoir. This bill should be about a state park and only about a state park. I'm sorry. The State Park Service probably should not look at a reservoir unless they bring in all the previous studies that have been done. Now, from my customer's point of view, what we do is we take water from the reservoir through the Price River, and we turn, turn it into drinking water times change. Back in the early eighties, you couldn't get over the mountain because there was so, so much snow. In fact, you couldn't get from Price Canyon up to Utah County because the mountain slid and created a reservoir, well, not a reservoir, a temporary lake called Thesal Lake. Um, and if you wanted to go to the Wasatch front from price, you had to go Duchesne and Hebert, and then down Emigration Canyon. Um,

Yes, that's where I was going with just that history. Um, sorry. Now I've lost my train of thought. Um, oh, things change 45 years ago. We never heard the terms harmful algal blooms. We never heard of green, blue, blue-green algae. We never heard of those things that cause cancer, which are now in people's drinking water. And yet, Scofield is an impacted water. It has A-T-M-D-L for phosphorus. It has a, um, a caution almost annually for blue-green algae in 2025, I think was the latest one. Don't let your pets play on the shore. Don't let 'em drink the water. I remember a few years ago, if you're a fisherman, don't,

So none of this is German. Well, it should study the, yeah, yeah. Yes, sir. Okay.

The bill? I'll finish this with this. Um, I think the bill either should be modified to remove all language about a dam or not passed, not move forward

Thank you. My name is Craig Smith. I'm an attorney. I'm here on behalf of the Price River Water Improvement District. I practice law at the firm of Smith Haron and focus my practice on water law. This bill, this is not about water rights. The water rights paper water rights exists for this reservoir, and the paper water rights, which were owned by the federal government, were given to Gooseberry Narrows when the federal government gave up on this project. That was 10 years ago. Sanpete Water Conservancy District is free to build this reservoir whenever they choose. The issue is about how we spend our state money and, and how it benefits that Money benefits everybody in the state. And if you're gonna study a reservoir, y'all need to study all the impacts. This will decrease flows to Scofield by 20% to 50%. If you'll turn over the handout, this is my handout right here. This one to the back page, you'll see a picture of Scofield Reservoir with an algae bloom. This was algae bloom was last year. Those little things that looked like little sticks on the ground, those are dead fish. Schofield is a state park. 43,000 people visited state, Schofield State Park last year. However, when you have algae blooms, you can't drink the water. You can't recreate in the water. And the 43,000 Schofield is actually the second most popular fishery in the state of Utah. Am I gonna take my grandkids fishing there? If it, if it's worse than it's, it's, and the al Blooms are caused by less water, which may means you have higher water temperatures and you have more nutrients that supply the allergy blooms. You can take that right off the DNR or DEQ websites. So if we're gonna study the reservoir, let's study all of its impacts. If we're gonna spend potentially $70 million, let's understand what it's going to impact, not just that reservoir. You can't look at this in isolation. It has been studied to death and it's never been built, but no one has ever stopped this being built. The question now is, does that shift to the state of Utah and all taxpayers when this would be harmful to some of the taxpayers? Thank you for your, uh, listening to my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to, uh, move out Amendment number one in my name. Okay, that motion is in order. Do you wanna speak to it? Um, this amendment, as was questioned earlier, is about expanding the, uh, the, um, study for this state park, uh, with the possibility of the dam as it states in, in the bill as it is. So it'd be the storage, uh, uh, of the impact of a dam and a reservoir. I'm gonna just read through it real quick. Water storage, water quality in the Scofield Reservoir, if this happens. Efforts by the state and the state's political subdivisions to manage water demand in the Colorado system, um, as defined as it's there in the, in the, um, in this, um, amendment and the expected economic impact on both Sanpete County and Carbon County from the development and construction of a dam and reservoir, uh, in the Gooseberry Narrows and the one time and ongoing costs, including direct and indirect costs. So, um, that we know the state parks will be doing this study, and we just want to expand it so that, uh, we really have, if, if we pass this bill, if we have a really good picture of what, what the impacts would be.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. Um, I don't this, um, I'm sure that this was written by one of the attorneys that just spoke, um, that they couldn't have been better testifying for me to stay germane to the bill, but this is as, this as genuine as it gets. 17 days ago, this bill passed out of committee, and this amendment dropped without anyone talking to me. Um, I can't believe it representative. I've never done this to somebody. It's disingenuous. And you know, what's trying to do is kill the bill, um, and take away the opportunity for a win-win. What's wrong with the state park and a and a reservoir at the same time? Can the, let's let a director strong looked at that. So I'm really disappointed, representative that you would do this. I've never done that to you in my 11 years here, and hope that none of you will, um, vote in favor of this. Thank you.

Oh, there You go. There we go. Thank you. Chair. You know, not so much just a sort of a discussion piece, um, or a comment, but just a, a curiosity, and I don't know if I would give it to the sponsor of the amendment or the sponsor of the bill, but just curious what this amendment would do to the fiscal note.

Um, I, I think all the information is there has been stated by an, um, on people on both sides. The information there is just to put it together and, and in one,

Well, if you were doing the full scale dam, it'd be up to around 60 million. So the Fiscal note Mm-hmm. Yeah. If you were including the whole dam and you said, and now you're talking about also economic impact on both counties, I would hope you would include that. What it can bring as win-win to the communities. Nobody's thinking on that side. Um, so, um, and, and maybe having more opportunity for all of our visitors to rural Utah, um, having more boating and fishing opportunities. I know, I, I all, I helped get 55 million a few years ago for a fish hatchery, and they're expensive to build. I don't know what size this dam would have to be, but I believe that up to the, up to the, uh, state parks to see if it is even necessary. It's not, actually, this amendment's not even germane to the bill.

Yeah. Just to clarify, I just meant what adding this amendment I see. And the information the study would do to the fiscal note for the bill, not, not for the project itself. Yeah. That's, that's what I, if this is already known, or if it would Require more, yeah.

I don't think it's going to change a whole lot if they felt like they could do it for that price. They mm-hmm. I just, it was just, you're going to throw in the economic impact for Sanpete County and Carbon County. So I, I, I actually considered this a very friendly amendment. Obviously you did not take it that way.

Oh my gosh. Did you talk to me? Okay. Did anybody talk to me about this, Mr. Chair? Uh, anybody gimme a warning? Uh, a few hours ago, and it came out 17 days ago, this bill that passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, reading through the amendment, I do see, um, something that could be quite problematic is on line 31, it says, this talks about the expected one time and ongoing cost, including direct and indirect costs, which could basically tie this up forever. And, um, my feeling is just what we've heard today, that might be intentional.

Yeah. I'll make a motion that we, uh, I'd like to discuss it and reserve the right to make a motion. Mr. Chair,

So, Senate Bill 2 0 9, third sub, uh, I think everybody's really off the charts on this thing. I, it's, it's a simple bill. Everybody's worried about Trout Unlimited or this or that or the other. It's a very simple bill. All it's asking is $5,000 to do a study considering a state park and a reservoir. The study may say yes, the study may say no. The study might say, well, maybe if we do this, it's a possibility. You know, and everybody's saying, well, it's, it's disingenuous to have the state parks build the reservoir. I don't think in the end, the state parks will build the reservoir. They might, but they might not. It might come from the state's infrastructure fund, the water fund. I think everybody's all stirred up over nothing. This is just a $5,000 study by state parks, and that's all it is. Or, I mean, you know, Representative Brooks made a, a very good comment, and he made, they, his bill studied sites all over the state. How many sites? 800 sites. And this come up number four. Now, I, I don't know who did the study or any of that, but that says something to me and that means something to me. So I think, I think we all ought to just take a glass of Kool-Aid and calm down. I think we're blowing this out of proportion. And, and so that's my comment. My motion is that we pass out favorably Senate Bill 2 0 9 third sub.

You. Thank you for the motion. Um, couldn't agree more. Representative, um, the, the opportunities here for win, win win, that's what Sanpete County's done over all the years. And this could be a, a little win for them at the top of Fairview Canyon, whether a reservoir or not. Um, that's, so back to the, what the bill does. Let's, let's give him $5,000 and we'll find out by November. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Chair Albright's comments. It doesn't seem like we're committing, uh, all these resources and decision making, uh, points at this point in time. So I agree with the chair and we'll be voting Yes.

And just to make a couple of comments myself, uh, prerogative of the chair before I place the motion is, uh, yeah, it is a study. Now. Maybe if we come back and decide to run something, to build something, then that's a whole different, uh, ball game. And so I, I think it makes sense to move this forward. And so I'll be a yes.

This is Representative Monson. I'm a yes.

Thank you for your time committee. I appreciate it.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, committee. Thank you for hearing this. I do have a substitute and an amendment. I would like to wait and I'll speak to the substitute there. You are public online, uh, but to follow the rules of the committee on these, uh, with the sub and an amendment, we would move them in the back when we get to the action phase, if that's okay. Okay. Okay. Senate bill 2 2 0 1. This, uh, 2 0 9. 2 0 9. Thank you. Um, I, alright. This bill addresses the creation, uh, possible creation of the Gooseberry narrow State Park. And, um, what it will do is provides that the gooseberry, a state park become of the, become part of the state park system, but it's contingent upon a variety of factors. And, and, but within the state park, they would be managing, purchasing, operating. Uh, in order to do that, there will have to be some agreements with, uh, United States Forest Service, possibly the Bureau of Reclamation and, uh, and their ownership of some of the property as long with also, um, outlying private property. This, the creation of the Bury Narrows project, or the dam has been, um, worked upon and agreed upon over 90 years ago, and history's taken its place. We've had war, uh, world War II came up. It was actually supposed to be built before the Scofield Dam, but through some agreements, uh, between the counties, Scofield was built. But, um, here we are 90 plus years later, and the Gooseberry Dam has not been built currently. The, um, federal dollars, we all know, and we see this in our state budget. Uh, we're not, we're not receiving, uh, a lot of money for projects like this anymore. It really would be under Bureau of Reclamation in the past. That's who built the Glen Canyon Dam and other large projects. But it seems the appetite of the legislature to have a high elevation reservoir water storage is, uh, more, maybe more ripe now than before. And all you have to do is look outside and realize why that is. Look outside your window, Senator. And we see the condition of the Great Salt Lake, and that's statewide. And this, this reservoir has never, um, gotten to the point that it could back up water and, uh, create storage. For many reasons, this could and should be built. And one, maybe, uh, among those are, uh, in the event that there will be wildfire. And in order to help suppress that and fight the wildfires, we need a high elevation water storage. Um, so what the bill does is just authorize the state parks to go and study and look at this. Um, there have been three EIN studies done, and, uh, there's a mountain full of information about the, the possibility of this site. This is a, I think that really does what the, tells you what the bill is meant to do, just to instruct the state parks to look at all options. Of course, uh, doesn't come with funding because, uh, if that did, we would have, who knows, maybe a $70 million fiscal note. This just is, uh, there is a small fiscal note to go out and do the research and see what it would take to get agreements in place for the, the current landholders. Um, I think that it pretty well tells you what with attempting to accomplish with this Mr. Chair. I would be open to questions.

Thank you. Senator Hinkins. Pull that up a little bit. Thank you. Senator Hinkins and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Salt. I'm Secretary of Utah Anglers Coalition. We are a statewide, uh, organization that supports the sport fishing industry throughout the state for all aspects of fishing. And, um, our membership consists of guides, outfitters, retailers, manufacturers, angling organizations, and individual anglers. Uh, in Utah, we have over 450,000 licensed resident anglers, and our contribution to the state economy is over $2 billion. So we're a pretty formidable constituency, and we hope that our concerns will be taken with due consideration. We're here today to, uh, express our opposition, our strong opposition to this bill, and we have several reasons for opposing this. Um, first of all, we don't believe that having state parks be the front for this project when it's actually a storage project for a water district. I think that goes against public policy to, uh, have that kind of arrangement. It should be more straightforward that this bill is really for Sanpete Water Conservancy and there's been a conflict and it's been, you know, 90 plus years of war between Carbon Water Conservancy and the, uh, Sanpete Water Conservancy over this. So we don't like the fact that state parks is being put up as a front, uh, for this project. Second of all, we are appalled at the fiscal note for $64 million for this project, and that the taxpayers from all over the state would be asked to pay for this project, which only benefits the, uh, agricultural and municipal use of in Sanpete County. Uh, our third concern, um, is that there has been previous attempts to get this project approved, and it was shut down in 2016 by the Army Corps of Engineers. They denied a 4 0 4 wetland dredge and fill permit, and they also criticized the EIS that the Bureau of Reclamation approved in 2013. So this project has been dead, and now we're seeing it revived. And, uh, we think that this goes against what decisions have already been made. And there's been a thorough analysis of the impacts to fisheries, especially the fisheries in, uh, gooseberry Creek, fish Creek, and Scofield Reservoir. We're also concerned about the instream flow and habitat impacts to the lower price river and to projects to bolster, uh, the, the round tail Chubb, for example. So we would urge this committee to vote this bill down and let the water districts continue their battle to figure out how to get this project built if it is to be built. Yes. Thank you for your time and we'll pass out our comments, uh, for the committee to have. Senator, here's a copy for you. Thank

Senator Hankins, members of the committee sponsor. Thanks for the opportunity to speak against this bill. My name is Herbert Lay. I've been a Utah in over 33 years. I came to Utah to pursue a doctoral degree at the u.

I did Herbert Lay and With, With who? I am a member of the public. Okay. And I That's fine. Am someone with deep experience over 20 years, backpacking in and fishing Gooseberry Creek. On opening day the second Saturday of July, I have, uh, provided a set of photos that document not only the resources present in Gooseberry Creek, but my experiences over those 20 years. I also served as chair and a cold water representative on the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council from 2015 to 2021. Uh, although Gooseberry and Fish Creek, upper Fish Creek that is are not Blue Ribbon fisheries, they certainly would qualify, but for the fact that there is limited accessibility and they're of small size. However, just downstream we have Scofield Reservoir and Lower Fish Creek, which are Blue Ribbon Fisheries. It is my deep worry that diversion of water out of this drainage, the gooseberry drainage, will negatively impact Gooseberry Creek Upper Fish Creek, Scofield Reservoir and the Price River. I, uh, included a photo of a young man, Devin Millard, bottom left of the page with four pictures on it. Devin's a Utah native. He was a Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And during his deployments, I would send him pictures of fishing adventures in Utah to sort of keep him connected to home. When he returned, I took him to Gooseberry Creek and we had a marvelous time. His dad joined us. I contacted Devin yesterday to ask permission to share the photo, and he asked me to tell the committee this, let them know that you were trying to teach a young veteran how to fly fish to help him with returning home after a deployment. That was some of the best fly fishing I've ever experienced. I recall truly feeling peace for the first time in a long time while fishing that morning. In a way, that trip was one step closer towards me feeling whole again. That is what these resources mean to those of us that go there and have continued to go there over the years. I worry that if you vote to pass this bill out with a favorable recommendation today, you risk setting this project on a course that would destroy the very resources that provided this veteran solace in peace. This veteran and me solace in peace. These irreplaceable natural resources can offer the same to future generations of Utahns. And in the interest of those future generations, I ask that you vote accordingly.

Excuse me. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'm Jay Olson. I'm the chair of the Sanpete Water Conservancy District. We are very appreciative to Senator Owens and the work that has gone forth to present this at this time. Yes, there's been opposition and we can go back and I've got a folder of opposition, but I've also got a county with a need for water. And we've been deprived of utilizing our water right for 80, 90 years. And it's been used for other sources. And 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. Thank you. Thank

Hello, members of the committee and to the public. Uh, my name is Nate Broadhurst. I'm an attorney for Sanpete County Water Conservancy District and I speak today in favor of this bill. I'd like to take thank the sponsor and his staff for the hard work that's put put into this. This bill expresses important support for a project that, as Mr. Olson just noted, has been a long time coming. It's been long promise to Sanpete County. It's been litigated over eight times the viability of this project. And unlike what some of the opposition would say, it is not dead. It's still very much alive and it's still very much needed by Sanpete County. Most recently, the parties wrapped up litigation over a 1984 settlement agreement, which was at the time supposed to permanently resolve all disputes concerning the project, particularly between the Sanpete Water Conservancy District and the folks on the price side, specifically price River Water users and Carbon Water Conservancy District. That litigation now having been resolved. The 1984 settlement agreement has been upheld as valid resolving the water rights disputes concerning this project. The water rights remain in good standing and should not be an impediment to moving ahead. This bill, however, does not even concern those water rights. It allows state parks to explore the possibility of building the Gooseberry Narrows State Park here, which will provide an important recreational benefit to the citizens of the state of Utah. We, uh, reject the position that this is, this would not be felt by benefits of all me members of the state. 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. It would provide important recreational components, uh, including for, uh, you know, with regard to the interests of the anglers in other groups. It would provide a new opportunity for sport fishermen and, uh, a new place where that could be undertaken here on a high mountain reservoir. We also echo, uh, the benefits that the sponsor noted concerning the ability, uh, to store water in a high elevation reservoir, which is Direly needed. Um, it also allows and is beneficial for the state to put part of its Colorado River allotment to use, um, for the, for the importance of the citizens of the state of Utah. And it also provides an important source of water for fire prevention and other benefits as well. Uh, we therefore, strongly, strongly encourage passage of this bill, um, subjects to the substitute and amendments that the sponsor mentioned earlier. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Troy Shelley, I represent Sanpete County. Um, I think there's been a little misunderstanding that was presented earlier, and I just want to clarify this, this stream that would feed, uh, the dam is about as wide as you can jump across. It's not some big river. If you can fly fish in this stream, you're pretty good. Now, the Gooseberry stream that's down below gooseberry, the, the Gooseberry Lake, that is a pretty healthy stream. We're, we're talking a stream. There is no bridge. There's a road that goes across this stream. There is no bridge across the stream. It's a culvert. It's not a big stream. So that's all we're talking about is being able to dam that stream off and to and does it protect the fish? Yes, there has to be flow that flows down there that protects any fish that are there. So we're not stopping the flow. All it's doing is providing the ability to get the water. 'cause a apparently in this, in this latest case, um, you know, carbon County said, well, we want to still use the water until there's a dam built, um, because we want our water backed up. Now we're getting opposition to build the dam again. Um, but this, this stream is, is just a small stream. It's not a great big fishery. Um, and it will supply that water. The other thing that's important to understand is, is Sanpete County, at least the North Sanpete area, that this lake would, would provide it. This would be the only water storage that the county has in, on the north end. There is no other lakes that, that feed that county. So, you know, it's, it's when it goes dry, when the snow's melted, they're done. 'cause there is no additional supply. So I, I just really encourage the committee to look at this. It's, uh, it's well needed. We just barely opened a, uh, a small ski resort within a mile of here. So it's a, it's a perfect compliment to what, to what's moving on. I I really encourage the, the committee to support this. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Zach Frankel. I'm the Executive Director of the Utah Rivers Council. I appreciate the chance to speak to you today. Uh, I ask that this bill be voted no or held. If there is ever an example of a bill that needs robust debated is this one, this bill, literally, the, the dam literally proposes to divert the existing water supply of a county to another county in another basin. There will be no return flows to the existing county that receives this water today. This trans basin diversion is a trans basin diversion out of the Colorado River. Coming at a time where there is of course, immense contention about that. We really, really, really need debate on this bill. I would love to hear from the many voices inside Carbon County, who for many decades have been opposed to the diversion of their water supply. This is choosing winners and losers between two counties, which is obviously a absolutely unenviable position for any legislative committee to be in. So we need some time to hear from Carbon County about how they feel. In the past, there have been letters of opposition to this project from the Health Department in Carbon County, which is worried about what will happen downstream in Scofield Reservoir. There have been letters of opposition for the fire department in Price City, which is worried about this trans basin diversion. I'm not sure I've read before in these documents. Our opposition to this project as part of a robust coalition, goes back decades. And I've read reams and reams and reams of material and this contention that there was some promise made, I, I have hard time understanding who promised who and how it is that taxpayers today or water users in, uh, carbon County, where there is a declining water supply that we're experiencing somehow owe another county. I, I obviously whiskeys for drinking and waters for fighting over. But we need some time to debate this. We need to hear how this is gonna impact the existing county that's using this water. It's just not enough to say we were promised something and therefore we should advance this. So we ask that this bill be either voted no on or held until, uh, interim when there is a chance to have some robust debate. This all just came about very quickly and caught a number of people that we know inside Carbon County by surprise. And with that, I thank you for the chance to speak today.

Thank you. Senator Hinkins. Thank you, Senator Owens. Um, my name is Jeff Richens. I am the general manager of Price River Water Improvement District. We're not the users association. We take water from Scofield through the Price River and we convert it to drinking water. And this project gives us great concerns and some of those concerns have been mentioned, but I'd like to reiterate those one. And we've seen this in recent years, several times to the point where, um, Scofield Reservoir was so severely impacted by harmful algal bloom, that divisional water quality put signs up and told people, do not go in the water. Do not let your animals play in the water. Do not eat the fish in the water. Um, and if we divert more water out of the drainage, those events will happen more and more often. Uh, it's already happened at least twice, um, with some warnings in other years. So, uh, really we're against this. Um, and we would hope the committee would, uh, just not table it to interim, but just, uh, stop the bill at this point. Um, this is the headwaters of the Colorado River drainage. We are already seeing where governments are paying for water, people who have the water not to use their water so it can go down the stream to through the Colorado. Utah is one of those upper basin states that is being asked to let its water go by. This then will take that out of the mix. Um, over year, over year, we see greater and greater impacts to the snow pack. Um, this year, there's no snow. You could drive over that mountain and you see the grasses, the, the brush all the way across the top. There have been good years in the eighties. There have been a few good years since then, but in the last 20 years, we haven't had nearly the, the customary snow pack that some of these agreements were made based on, uh, as been, as was mentioned, Schofield Reservoir is a blue ribbon fishery, but near Schofield, uh, to talk about opportunities for people who wanna fish or, or, um, boat or whatever they want to do. You've got Scofield, you've got, uh, Huntington Reservoir, which some people call Mammoth Reservoir. You've got Cleveland Reservoir, you've got, I don't know a lot of 'em that you could name if you thought about those all within just a few miles. You know, Bulger, um, electric Lake? Electric Lake, yeah. All of these. And they have boat ramps. Um, and they're available for the public for this to have a state park there. This state park really would only be open for about 60 days, maybe 75 days a year, because once you get those high mountain snows, they're not going to re uh, recede and you're not gonna be able to turn on water supplies for restrooms and, and for drinking. And so you're gonna have just a very short window that people can use this. And so you're gonna have a huge impact for that period of time. And the rest of the time, it's just going to be a reservoir, as was pointed out to divert water for the growth of alfalfa, which I agree. We need to have that, we need to be able to feed our, our livestock, but not at the expense of human consumption. Um, so I I, I just don't see that this is a good spot for a state park. I don't see that it meets the criteria as, uh, outlined in code. And so I'm, uh, asking the committee to, um, just turn this down and thank you for your time.

Yes. Okay. I'd like to move first. Substitute. Okay. So, uh, delete title and body first, uh, SB 2 0 9 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 2 0 9.

Um, yeah. The, so the, the substitute actually will, um, it, it just gives authority. It doesn't, uh, anticipate any building of a dam at this time. It just gives authority for the park to look at it, do a feasibility study and see if this, um, it potentially a place to build a park.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move that we adopt amendment one to the first substitute in my name.

This is, uh, just a few lines of, uh, attitude, the bill that brought to us by the state parks and the water division, um, that stating that they have authority to collaborate together. Let me see. Okay, that's on line 86. And, uh, so under the narrow state park, item B, the division may coordinate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, are you ready for a motion? Ready For motion? I move that we favorably recommend, uh, first substitute Senate bill 2 0 9 as amended to the full body of the Senate.

As the sponsor and as the As. Yeah. Sponsor. And the motion. Motion. Okay. Um, yeah, I'd, I'd like to sum on this and, uh, thank everyone who has come to, uh, speak and on behalf and, uh, against this, this is a sacred form of government. I honor it that we are able to have this kind of debate with, uh, with all sides of issues in Utah. I'd like to address a few things though. Um, on one of the, um, one of the witnesses just spoke and has no idea what they're talking about on and saying, you know, this isn't the right time. When is the right time? When are we going to do something? Uh, and are, is Utah ever going to build a project? This, this strictly gives the state park an opportunity to go look and see if this is the right place for a new state park. I would see it as a win-win for both counties. And I'm sorry, but that mountain's opened far more than 60 days out of the year. Why would people have cabins up there and, and recreate? Um, that, that was, it might have been talking water skiing. Maybe it's pretty cold up there. So, uh, I have to, I have to correct that one. In 2008, the legislature passed the resolution to have this project built. And then again, litigation. Litigation time, time. Now is the time. Let's debate it just like we're doing today. And, uh, let me remind this committee. We are a growing state. We have you, we feel it, especially if you're a rural legislator. People come to visit and over three and a half pushing to 4 million people now, uh, I think it's the, probably the best place in the state for a state park. It's 57 minutes from Spanish Fork. So, uh, our state parks are being hit hard. They're run superbly. And this is, again, just an opportunity. There's no $64 million fiscal note. I think it's maybe 64,000 if that study. Um, as far as the fishing, uh, yes, great. That's what lakes are for too. And nothing removes the stream. Water can continue to flow. Nobody mentioned who owns the water, by the way. There is no debate on whose water that is. The water belongs to Sanpete County, but nobody wants to mention that. So 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. This would be an opportunity if all of this bill goes forward and we have the opportunity to, to look at it and they say, this would be a great place for a state park and build the dam, then we'll look at funding it and go forward from there. This just gives us that opportunity. I, uh, would hope that the, this committee would do as the, this whole legislature did in 2008 and move this forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This, uh, this bill has, uh, actually changed a little since it first started. I was a little maybe over anxious and began the session with this being a state parks designation. Uh, but at the top of Fairview Canyon in my district is a beautiful place, um, called the Gooseberry Narrows. And the state parks are interested in, uh, looking at this to, to consider this becoming part of the state park, um, uh, entire portfolio, um, at the, it's just 57 minutes from Spanish work in Utah County, but up, uh, to 9,000 feet. And I think it's a great opportunity for the state to consider adding this to the state parks. Uh, along with it though has been a 90 year dispute, uh, over water and the possibility of building the Gooseberry Narrows Dam to create a reservoir there. So in, uh, long term we would like to see that finally built after 90 years of back and forth. Um, but this is a step along that process, so, uh, that's what the bill does. I'd be open to any questions. President.

Thank you, president. Yeah, but move that we adopt third delete title and bodies. Uh, first second substitute Senate Bill 2 0 9 and replace it with third substitute. Okay.

Yeah, it's, uh, so now it removes any agreements that, uh, there would be no not entering any agreements between the state parks, uh, and the current, uh, national Forest or any, um, property holders. This would strictly mean a study That's, that's the substitute.

No. That, that, uh, pretty simple President.

Senator Vickers Baldy? Yes. Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Escamilla Fillmore Grover I Harper Aye. Hankins Gipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay. Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Aye. Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers. Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton, president Adams Aye. Third substitute Senate Bill 2 0 9.

Senator Owens. Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. This uh, this bill is a, a study to allow the state park, um, to go forward and look at the Gooseberry Narrows area as a potential state park. Wanna be totally transparent, it is a step along the way that one day, possibly after 90 years of back and forth, not having this high elevation reservoir built that it could get to that, that's the final hope. But with, with or without a dam, this is a great area for the state to add to the state park system. That's the bill I'd be open to. Questions.

Thank you. I'll call a question.

Senator Millner. Senator Millner, Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So what this is, is a, uh, is a study for the Gooseberry narrow State Park. Um, it, it does not designate a new dam. It does not designate a new park. It just allows the state park to explore whether or not this is a good location for a state park. Now, make no mistake, the idea of having a dam here and having the water available is, is part of this. We, we need the state park and we need the water. Um, this is, this, uh, study will also explore whether or not trading a small piece of federal acreage for another piece of, of state acreage in a different location will be entertained as well. Um, and, and what it would take to construct the, uh, gooseberry Narrows Dam. And with that, I am open to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We'll, uh, sponsor yield to, uh, a series of questions. Yes, Representative Shelley, will you yield to a series of questions?

You bet. Yes. Representative Chew.

So, uh, Mr. Speaker, we found out, uh, when we, uh, talked about this in, in committee that this, uh, proposal was within the National Forest Service. And I got to wondering, do you know whether the, the, uh, land where this would be is, uh, has, uh, uh, active grazing, uh, permits going on there? Yes, I do. There are active grazing permits, however, almost all of the land is privately owned. And years ago, the Sanpete Water Conservancy District purchased the rights to back up a reservoir on that private land. So the small amount of federal land would be impacted. But it's a very small amount. Almost all of it is private and the agreements are in place to put a reservoir there. So, uh, if it continues on this and goes, uh, into a, a, uh, investigation about how, uh, how it would be done, I anticipate, and I would wonder, do you know if, uh, uh, there would be very much fencing that would need to be done if it, uh, turns into a, a, a state park that, uh, activities within the park might, you know, uh, conflict with the grazing? I am unaware of that, but I would expect that it would probably be, uh, um, exposed or or identified as they do this study on the state park. Okay. I I would, I would imagine so. I think that would be, so anyway, thanks for the information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, earlier we passed a bill that has helped us create a process that removes any of the politics when looking for a location for a new reservoir. And that bill passed unanimously minus one out of this house. Um, what it does is try to make sure we're doing something that's the best use for the state. We have willing partners, the people who own the water rights, all the things that are necessary in order for a project to move forward out of 800 locations or potential sites in the state where a reservoir can be built, we've narrowed that down to a hundred, then down to 50, down to 25. And there's only four sites that actually meet all these qualifications. And Gooseberry is one of them. It meets all the necessary points to build, uh, the best use of water storage in the state for the use of not only the water, but the recreational use and the benefit for the local municipalities and area as well. This next proper step is just what this bill does is create a study and making sure all those next pieces that are in line meet the goals of the state. So I highly support each one of you to vote for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Um, may, may, will the sponsor yield to, uh, a question Representative Shelley, will you yield to a question?

Yes, I will. And

how much money were you allocating asking for that you received for this study?

Uh, it's, this study is $5,000. The physical note is zero. The state parks, uh, determined that they could absorb that expense.

Hey, uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, um, give my colleagues some, uh, information that I have. And I, uh, I have a letter here from the Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers out of Sacramento, dated May 27th, uh, 2016. And there's a lot of stuff in here, but I'd like to read just this one part that says, after review of the comments and concerns related to your application, and in response to the public notice for your proposed project, we have determined that development of the proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse effects to the quality of the human environment. And your proposed project would result in direct impacts to approximately five miles of perennial headwater stream channels of gooseberry and fish creeks. And 72 acres of adjacent wetlands, wetlands, and unquantified indirect, uh, impacts to streams and wetlands in addition to their associated fish and wildlife habitats. And in this letter, it also said to the Water Conservancy District in Sanpete County, that if they really wanted to go ahead with this, they would have to have, uh, the following people be able to, to do this study. And they were people like structural and gen, geo geotechnical engineers, people that studied economics, hydrology, fisheries, biology, geof fluvial morphology, water quality wetlands, and riparian biology and water rights. Um, my question is how can we do all, how can you do all of that for $5,000?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm, Thank you for the question. Um, almost all of that has been Representative Shelley.

Ah, it's nice to see you up there. Mr. Speaker proto, uh, board, What's Uh, Mr. Speaker Pro Tam, we heard this in natural resources. Uh, let's, let's not get off the straight line here. This is just a study. Let's going to consider a state park $5,000 that the, uh, parks department is basically doing it for nothing. No fiscal note. We're not talking about water rights or reservoirs or fishing or anything else at this point. This is just a basic study. Uh, that's all it is. Uh, we don't want to get into water feuds between carbon and Sanpete. This is just a study for a state park. Thank you, Mr. Speaker proto.

Thank you. Um, so just, just to, uh, bring this right home. So Sanpete County has Utah's 17th Ski Resort that we, uh, that we announced this year. And it's open, it's up Fairview Canyon, and it's not like the ski resort that you might be used to because it doesn't have a tram and it doesn't have a chair lift, but it does have a rope pole. So if you want to come and, and enjoy the ski resort, it's right there within about a mile and a half of where this state park will be. And, uh, it's, it's about one hour's drive from Spanish Fork. So if you'll vote for this bill, I want to be the first to invite you to the Gooseberry Narrows State Park.