Price City council names reservoir plan as preferred alternative in Upper Price River EIS

The Price City Council on Aug. 13 approved ‘‘Alternative A’’ as the city'preferred choice in the Upper Price River Watershed environmental impact statement, moving the project closer to design and eventual construction.

The chair explained the selection process, saying the city considered 26 potential sites and narrowed the list to four before choosing Alternative A. The alternative is described in the meeting as a 7,500 acre‑foot reservoir paired with a pressurized irrigation system intended to reduce evaporation and increase usable agricultural water. The chair said Price City currently owns 5,000 acre‑feet of water and staff are negotiating memoranda of understanding with irrigation partners to place additional water behind the proposed dam.

Why it matters: Council members and a county commissioner on the record framed the project as a long‑term water security measure for the region, noting that local water availability is a critical factor for existing residents and future industry. A commissioner told the council that, "water is quite literally the lifeblood of not just Price, but [the] county," and urged proactive conservation measures.

Council discussion addressed costs and funding: the transcript records that the council previously authorized $215,000 to finish the EIS after a consultant reduced an earlier estimate from $900,000; the chair said the next step—design—was estimated in the meeting at roughly $23,000,000. The chair described an anticipated funding split in which about 75% of the project would qualify under agricultural programs and the remaining 25% would be covered by local governments, irrigation companies, or other partners.

Public comment at the meeting raised questions about water rights and control. A commenter asked whether building the reservoir would change who controls water shares; the chair responded that the city would store its owned shares (5,000 acre‑feet) and that other irrigation entities would contribute water under partnership arrangements. The chair also told the public that the pressurized piping in the project is intended to reduce evaporation losses compared with open‑canal storage.

The council approved a motion to adopt Alternative A as the city'preferred alternative; the motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: With the council's preference recorded, the city's consultants will complete the EIS and the project would move to design and funding phases if subsequent approvals and financing are secured. The council discussed but did not finalize design funding or a construction schedule during the meeting.