Central Utah water agency lays out plan to bring Strawberry Reservoir water to Juab County; residents raise cost and routing concerns

A representative of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District outlined plans to bring water from the Strawberry Reservoir system to Juab County and to enclose the High Line Canal to conserve water and improve quality, saying the district has reserved 10,000 acre-feet for Juab County and is pursuing a phased delivery plan.

The presentation, given by Speaker 1, a Central Utah Water Conservancy District representative, explained the NEBO water project as a combined effort to pipe the High Line Canal, conserve roughly 7,000–8,000 acre-feet of water, and deliver Strawberry Project water in a new 60-inch pipeline that could carry up to about 84,000 acre-feet toward a treatment plant site the district has identified near Salem. "We passed a resolution several years ago to reserve 10,000 acre-feet of water in Utah Lake that we had, for Juab County," Speaker 1 said, describing the district’s obligation to the county and the project’s goal of honoring that commitment.

Why it matters: the district said piping the canal preserves water quality (keeping water in pressurized pipeline rather than mixing with the flashy Spanish Fork River), reduces distribution losses, and creates a municipal supply that could be delivered either as raw water or as finished drinking water. The agency framed the plan as regional infrastructure to meet projected population growth while aiming not to price out agriculture.

Key facts and timeline: Speaker 1 described the project as part of the wider Central Utah Project (Bonneville Unit) overlaying the older Strawberry Valley Project and said district contracts account for roughly 162,000 acre-feet out of Strawberry Reservoir. The High Line Canal piping would capture water now lost in the main canal and laterals and make return flows and conserved volumes available to Juab County. On federal review, the district said it expects a draft environmental assessment for public comment in May and is targeting a final EA and a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) in August–September 2026; design and construction sequencing would follow, with a tentative full-delivery target of about 2032 if agreements and funding proceed on schedule. "We're hoping to have a draft environmental assessment out for public comment in May," Speaker 1 said.

Cost, financing and what residents would pay: the district presented concept-level cost ranges and financing approaches rather than final prices. Speaker 1 gave a planning estimate of about $20,000–$40,000 per acre-foot for the conserved supply and noted operation-and-maintenance averages around $80 per acre-foot across the Central Utah Project. He described anticipated financing as bond-based with 30–50 year repayments and said purchases would be structured so municipalities or East Juab Water Conservancy District could acquire blocks of water over time rather than in a single lump sum.

Local concerns raised: multiple residents asked whether municipalities and the county would be required to buy water, who decides how water is used, and how construction would affect local roads and costs. Speaker 6 warned that industrial customers such as data centers could be attracted by a new water supply: "next thing you know, we have 50 to a 100 data centers around us," the resident said. Speaker 1 responded that the district would contract with East Juab Water Conservancy District (or other local entities) and that allocation and use decisions would be local, not set by the district.

Routing and infrastructure impacts: residents urged routing the pipeline away from Main Street to avoid repeated road disruption; Speaker 1 said alignment and design would consider those concerns and that the district prefers routing through fields where possible. Municipal leaders also flagged the scale of local capital needs — one resident said an engineered estimate to rebuild a pond and transmission lines could be about $21 million for Mona — and questioned the long-term affordability of added debt for small cities.

Environmental and legal context: Speaker 1 emphasized that these are federal actions subject to NEPA review and listed environmental topics the EA will analyze, including water-supply impacts, wetlands, endangered species (he cited the June sucker’s improved status), and effects of expanding year-round municipal delivery for supplies currently limited to irrigation season.

Next steps: the district asked residents to review and comment on the draft environmental assessment when it is released and said it will continue negotiations with Strawberry High Line Canal Company, Strawberry Water Users Association, East Juab Water Conservancy District and local municipalities to refine alignments, service areas and financing. The district reiterated that it wants local partnerships and that municipalities will decide whether and how much water to contract.

What was not decided: no formal contract or binding municipal commitments were recorded at the meeting; the schedule and price estimates remain conceptual and are contingent on federal approvals, agreement terms with local water entities, final design and financing.

The district invited communities to further work sessions and public comment periods as the NEPA process continues.