Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reservoir Eis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price City Council selects preferred alternative for Upper Price River Watershed EIS
Summary
Price City Council voted to adopt Alternative A (Consumer Wash/Reservoir with pressurized irrigation and in‑stream flows) as the city's preferred alternative for the Upper Price River Watershed environmental impact statement; council and county officials discussed funding, next design steps and water-storage details.
Price City Council voted Aug. 13 to designate the Consumer Wash/reservoir option (Alternative A) with a pressurized irrigation system and in‑stream flow measures as the city's preferred alternative for the Upper Price River Watershed environmental impact statement (EIS).
The vote followed several years of study and public discussion. Mayor Kurianis summarized the selection process: "We went from 26 different sites ... we narrowed it down to 4 sites. And then from those 4 sites, we picked, A." He told the council the decision reflects community input and years of work to find a feasible location.
Councilors and county representatives discussed funding and next steps. The council previously approved up to $215,000 to complete the EIS after an earlier estimate of $900,000 was reduced during negotiations with the engineering contractor. Officials said the next design phase is expected to cost about $23,000,000 and that construction costs will follow that design step.
Speakers emphasized the project's regional importance for water conservation and future economic development. One county official described water as "the lifeblood" of the region and warned that downstream compact and allocation pressures make local water-storage planning urgent. Council members noted that the selected site offers more potential for recreation that could bring visitors and spending to the area.
Technical and funding details discussed in the meeting included: - The planned reservoir capacity of about 7,500 acre‑feet and Price City's existing storage entitlement of roughly 5,000 acre‑feet. - A plan to pipe water and create a pressurized irrigation system to reduce evaporation and distribution loss compared with open-ditch deliveries. - An expected funding structure described in the meeting as roughly 75% under an "agricultural umbrella" (grant/loan programs and agricultural partners) and 25% from cities, counties and irrigation companies; federal and NRCS funding involvement was discussed but not committed.
A public commenter asked whether stored water would be agricultural rather than culinary and whether the reservoir would allow the city to retain and reassign water rights. City officials replied that the reservoir would store agricultural water and that piping and storage could free culinary water for municipal and development use.
Council Member Willis moved to adopt Alternative A as the preferred alternative; Council Member Jesperson seconded. The council took a voice vote with no recorded roll-call tally; the chair declared the motion carried.
Council members said the EIS completion will lead to project design and later funding and permitting phases. Officials repeatedly cautioned that design and construction will require substantial additional funding and intergovernmental cooperation.
