A History of Summit County

Water development

C H A P T E R 1 1 WATER DEVELOPMENT AI d}out fifty miles due east of Salt Lake City, in a small sliver of Summit County in the shadow of Bald Mountain and Reid's Peak, four of Utah's most important rivers spring to life. Three of them- the Bear, the Provo, and the Weber-eventually find their way to the Great Salt Lake. The fourth, the Duchesne River, heads east to even­tually join the Colorado River. Summit County's early settlers quickly learned that some of the best land for growing crops lay in narrow fertile valleys along these rivers and the streams that flow into them. The Weber River, in par­ticular, attracted farms and settlements to its banks. Henefer, Echo, Coalville, Hoytsville, Wanship, Rockport, Peoa, and Oakley all grew up within a stone's throw of the river that took its name from lohn H. Weber, a Danish-born fur trapper who was in the northern Utah area from 1822 to 1827. Irrigation Despite the fact that large quantities of snow fall on Summit County's mountains during a normal winter, water for agriculture 240 WATER DEVELOPMENT 241 George Beard fishing on Chalk Creek in the 1920s. (Brigham Young University, George Beard collection) 242 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY has always been scarce, especially in late summer, when rainstorms are relatively rare and crops are reaching maturity. Therefore, early settlers began digging irrigation ditches from the banks of the nearby rivers almost before they did anything else. It was i m p o r t a n t busi­ness- so important that the local Mormon bishop and high council often had the responsibility of overseeing irrigation matters.1 Local bishops formed committees to construct the ditches, manage the use of water, and determine h ow much land (taking the topography into consideration) a canal could b r i n g under cultivation. Water users shared the expense of maintaining the canals, each paying an amount proportional to the acreage watered. Between 1860 and 1870, county settlers built a number of canals to draw irrigation water from the Weber River and its tributaries. At Henefer, it was w r i t t e n that settlers "used horses and scrapers and men with shovels. It took many men, and many hours, but soon the river was converted into the canal. Farmers dug ditches on their farm lands and the little valley began to blossom."2 At Coalville, farmers looked mainly to Chalk Creek, a tributary of t h e Weber River, for irrigation water. Among the early canals were the Upper Robinson, the Lower Robinson, the South Chalk Creek, the Coalville City, t h e N o r t h Narrows, t h e City Cemetery & Chalk Creek, and the Middle Chalk Creek ditches.3 In the Hoytsville area, t h e first irrigation project was the Coalville and Hoytsville Ditch, built about 1861. Soon afterwards came the Hoytsville Ditch No. 1 a n d the West Hoytsville Ditch. Other area farmers tapped Elkhorn Creek, a t r i b u t a ry of the Weber River.4 At Wanship, an early source of irrigation, beginning about 1860, was West Wanship Ditch No. 2, which drew water from Silver Creek, a Weber River t r i b u t a r y t h a t flowed out of the Park City area. However, Silver Creek soon became contaminated by the Park City mills; after 1893, water for this ditch was taken directly out of the Weber River. The East Wanship Ditch No. 1 used water from the Weber River to serve farms on the east side of the river.5 In the Peoa area, at the n o r t h end of the Rhodes Valley, farmers built two canals in about 1861 to irrigate the area known as Sage Bottoms; in 1868, t h e y extended the system by b u i l d i n g the New Field Canal from the m o u t h of Weber Canyon. About 1881, the New WATER DEVELOPMENT 243 Field was combined with the North Bench Canal to provide water to about 1,400 acres on the north side of the Weber River. Another 800 acres on the north side of the river was watered by the South Bench Ditch. The land on the south side of the river, known as Kamas Flats, was irrigated by four ditches-the Marion, Gibbons, Boulderville, and Richards.6 In the Kamas Valley, early settlers drew water not only from the Weber River and its tributaries but also from the Provo River, which flows across the south end of the valley. Among the first irrigation projects to draw water from the Provo River were the South Kamas Canal, the Washington Canal, and the Sunrise Canal.7 By 1900, waters from the Provo and the Weber rivers and their tributaries were irri­gating about 17,000 acres in Summit County. Not only individuals but institutions could join the water asso­ciations; in May 1893 Coalville City received from the Upper Chalk Creek Water Ditch equal rights with other share owners for water to be used in the city cemetery.8 By 1900, many irrigation ditches were controlled by cooperative stock companies, in which the chief stock­holders were usually the owners of the land to be irrigated by the ditch. The stockholders elected boards of directors to transact the business of the company. Typically, the stockholders worked on the management and maintenance of the ditch as a way of repaying their annual assessments.9 When conditions were right, crops could be plentiful. In lanuary 1868, one agricultural enthusiast sent this assessment of the area's produce to the Deseret News: "50,000 bushels of grain-oats, barley, and wheat-were raised in 1865 and 80,000 bushels were expected to be harvested in 1867. Ten thousand fruit trees were set out during 1867."10 According to another observer, famers in the Peoa area alone produced 24,000 bushels of grain, 4,000 bushels of potatoes, and 1,000 tons of hay in 1887.11 Agricultural prices and the availability of produce were noted regularly in area newspapers. A column in the Coalville Times in August 1894 listed prices for wheat, oats, potatoes, butter, eggs, prime beef, prime mutton, prime veal, dressed chicken, lucerne (alfalfa), timothy grass, and flour.12 Mutton was an especially important local 244 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY product; in 1888, more than 100,000 sheep were grazing in the Coalville area. Farmers soon discovered, however, that they had to contend with sporadic summer frosts, periodic hordes of grasshoppers, and water shortages when the river flows dwindled in late summer. Despite its critical role as a watershed for the lower valleys, Summit County itself often ran short of irrigation water late in the growing season, after the snowmelt had found its way downstream. Farmers raising alfalfa in the fields near Coalville often had enough irrigation water for the first crop but not for the second, a situation causing serious losses.13 Drought made things even worse. In 1871, for instance, a severe drought in Summit County increased the cost of irrigation by five times, to $19.06 per acre.14 No matter how well planned, the irrigation systems weren't fool­proof. When canals crossed, farmers could rightfully become exer­cised over who owned what water. Also, as more people moved to an area, the question of how latecomers could get their own water rights became a tricky issue to resolve. Inevitably, the use of this shared resource led to disputes. In the minutes of the Summit County Court for 18 September 1895 George Baker described how he pushed Caroline Phillips into an irrigation ditch in a dispute over water: "On the 10th day of September 1895,1 wanted some water for my farm, went to turn it into my ditch. Mrs. Phillips forbade me from touching the ditch and placed herself in the way, and said she wanted the water and was going to have it. I told her she should have it, and thereupon, I laid her down in the ditch."15 Conflicts With Downstream Rights While Summit County farmers were developing irrigation sys­tems on the Weber River and its tributaries, farmers downstream also were using the Weber-putting the different water users on a colli­sion course. And, when conflicts arose, Summit County residents soon learned that their interests often took a back seat to those of the powerful population centers in Weber and Davis counties. As these downstream communities grew larger in the late 1800s, so did their water demands. In the spring, when the rivers were swollen with runoff, everyone had enough water; however, by late summer, down- WATER DEVELOPMENT 245 stream users began to r u n short, and they focused their displeasure on their u p s t r e am neighbors. In the late 1890s, water users held a number of meetings in an effort to allocate water between the upper and lower valleys. They met with little success, however. Water users in the lower valleys then t u r n e d to the courts. By one estimate, they filed, or prepared for filing, some 200 to 300 lawuits in the district court of Weber County.16 One of those lawsuits-filed early in 1902 by the Hooper City and Wilson i r r i g a t i o n districts-may have sparked a search for a solution. In response to the suit, t h e Second District Court at Ogden summoned all users between Rockport and Henefer to justify their claims to Weber River water. It would have been a tricky task-very tricky indeed-to sort out all the conflicting claims. "The people here are d e t e r m i n e d to fight it to a finish, a n d declare t h a t t h e people below who are pushing the matter will get more than they bargained for," growled the Coalville Times. "lust what rights they have to the water will be hard to determine, as old settlers here claim that a great many of the ditches here were taken out before the Ogden [Wilson] and Hooper ditches, and further, there are but few records to show when most of the ditches were made." 17 As it t u r n e d out, there was another solution, which the Times went on to describe: The only way that the water question can be satisfactorily settled in this country will be for all the people to join together and build reservoirs to store the surplus water. There are places in the head of Weber canyon where dams can be built which would store up enough water in a few months to supply all the land from one end of the river to another. And these reservoirs could be built, too, with the money that one lawsuit would cost."18 The logic of this proposal wasn't lost on the people from Hooper and Ogden, who agreed to suspend the lawsuit while the water users jointly looked for a peaceful solution. The search began that year. By early October 1902, a delegation of experts led by Summit County Water Commissioner T.L. Allen had picked out two possible reser­voir sites: one at the m o u t h of Weber Canyon just above Oakley, and the other just south of Peoa. Later that same month, representatives 246 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY from Summit, Morgan, Davis, and Weber counties met to form the Weber Reservoir, Power & Irrigation Company and began selling stock to raise money for a reservoir.19 With a little more research, the group decided to rule out the Oakley and Peoa sites. After briefly considering a reservoir on Lost Creek in Morgan County, they settled on a site about one-half mile south of Echo. Reporting on the dam, the Coalville Times noted that: The Weber Reservoir, Power and Irrigation company are [sic] advertising for bids for the construction of an outlet tunnel and gate shaft for the proposed reservoir half a mile below Echo. It is claimed that this is one of the best reservoir sites in the state, and from officials of the company we learn that the big dam is a sure go. The survey of the reservoir was made last fall, but since then negotiations have been pending with the railroad in regard to moving its track higher up on the hill.20 In September 1904 the company organized an expedition from Salt Lake City and Ogden for people anxious to view the Echo site. Almost 700 people boarded a special train to spend the day in Summit County. The citizens of Coalville entertained the visitors, serving lunch at the city park and providing a variety of other amuse­ments, including the following: "A number of wild horses had been brought in from the range and those were saddled and ridden by some of the best riders in the State. This furnished a great deal of amusement for the excursionists."21 Although locals optimistically celebrated the proposed reservoir, the construction of dams had become by this time more than just a local or even regional concern. Since 1891, the National Irrigation Congress had been meeting annually to develop water policy and lobby the federal government on behalf of water users in the western states. In lune 1902 Congress had passed the National Reclamation, or Newlands, Act, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to build irrigation projects in the sixteen western states and territories, using funds appropriated by Congress. Water users were to repay construction costs within ten years, and the money was to go into a revolving fund to bankroll future western reclamation projects. The act also established the Reclamation Service (later the Bureau of WATER DEVELOPMENT 247 Reclamation) as an independent agency within the Department of the Interior. In 1904 and 1905, federal engineers surveyed northern Utah to identify water problems and find potential reservoir sites. Local water officials appeared less than thrilled that the federal government had become involved. "The Weber Reservoir, Power and Irrigation company has been feeling quite blue of late on account of the government engineer taking up the matter of storing water on the Weber system which has somewhat interfered with the project of building a reservoir at Echo," the Coalville Times reported on 7 April 1905. "The company's representatives met with the government engi­neer last Thursday and learned that there had only been $154,000 appropriated by the government for Utah . . . and it would be at least 10 years before it could get available means to take up any work on the Weber system." The delay turned out to be more like twenty years. In the mean­time, officials of the Weber Reservoir, Power and Irrigation Company had "met with a great many difficulties and finally concluded that it would be impossible for it to construct the dam."22 The initiative for promoting water storage on the Weber River shifted to a succession of state organizations, including the Utah Water Conservation Company, the Utah Water Storage Association, and the Utah Water Storage Commission. In 1907, a couple of civil engineers, Frank C. Kelsey and Willard Young, made a study of area water needs and recommended that a private irrigation company build a network of canals and irrigation ditches and, to provide the necessary water storage, construct reser­voirs on the Weber River at Echo, Rockport, Larrabee, and on Smith and Morehouse Creek, a tributary of the Weber about thirteen miles east of Oakley.23 However, a recession and then World War I pre­vented any immediate progress. It wasn't until the early 1920s that the Bureau of Reclamation finally joined forces with local water inter­ests to lay the groundwork for Echo Reservoir. In a report dated December 1922, federal reclamation engineers William M. Green and E.O. Larson recommended that a reservoir be built on the Weber River between Echo and Coalville and that a nine-mile diversion canal be built near Oakley to carry water from the Weber to the Provo River. The project would provide supplemental 248 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY irrigation water to 60,000 acres in the lower Weber and Ogden val­leys and to 20,000 acres in the Provo Valley. The plan was approved by Congress in 1924.24 The federal government wouldn't award any construction con­tracts, however, until local water users had committed to repay the costs of the project. Therefore, an alliance of politicians, business­men, and farmers from Davis, Weber, Morgan, and Summit coun­ties- including Leroy Peterson and Levi Pearson of Oakley-formed the Weber River Water Users' Association in lanuary 1926. The fol­lowing December, the association signed a repayment contract with U.S. Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work. The contract called for the Bureau of Reclamation to build an earth- and rock-filled dam about 1,887 feet long and 158 feet high, creating a reservoir with a capacity of about 74,000 acre-feet of water. Of more than passing rel­evance to the people of Summit County was the fact that the reser­voir would inundate about 1,825 acres of farmland.25 The construction of the reservoir also forced the relocation of about 3.9 miles of the Lincoln Highway between Echo and Coalville. About 4.7 miles of the railroad tracks between Echo and Coalville also had to be moved, as did a short stretch of the b r a n c h line to Grass Creek.26 One of the toughest challenges in moving the tracks was finding a route that could permit a train to climb from Echo to the top of the dam. The chosen route required fifty-six feet of fill over Echo Creek and a 2 percent grade from Echo to the dam.27 Construction of the dam, under the direction of the A. Guthrie Company of Portland, Oregon, began in November 1927 and ended in October 1930. The structure was built of alternating eight-inch layers of clay, sand, and gravel. Both the upstream and downstream slopes of the d am were covered with thick layers of conglomerate rock. "After the final authorization, construction started, using mule teams and simple construction equipment," the Summit County Bee reported later. "Fighting 30 below zero weather, the workers had gas lines, power lines, railroad and highway to re-route, as well as a small graveyard to move."28 Near Kamas, c o n s t r u c t i o n of the nine-mile diversion canal between the Weber and Provo rivers was completed in April 1931. WATER DEVELOPMENT 249 The canal was built for a capacity of about 210 cubic feet per second (cfs), but was designed to allow future enlargement. By the summer of 1932, Echo Reservoir had filled to 84 percent of capacity, and the Salt Lake Tribune declared that, although crop values had yet to be tabulated, "the summer is far enough along . . . to show that the value to the farmers [in the affected counties] is immense."29 The Weber River Water Users' Association assumed control of the dam and reservoir at Echo in luly 1931. To reimburse the Bureau of Reclamation for the cost of the $2.9 million project, the association agreed to pay about $88,000 a year. From the association's perspec­tive, it was money well spent. In 1960, the group estimated that the Echo project had watered crops with an accumulated value of more than $221 million since 1932.30 The final payment was celebrated with a ceremony at the dam in lune 1966. Among those at the cere­mony was E.O. Larson of the Bureau of Reclamation, the man who had recommended construction of the dam more than forty years earlier.31 As a source of irrigation water, the reservoir was a success; how­ever, initially it served few other functions. According to the Weber River Water Users, practically no water from the reservoir made its way into municipal use until 1957. The reservoir also became a trap for silt and nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen, which reduced the water's oxygen content and created an environment unsuitable for many kinds of game fish. In a 1975 study of twenty-seven Utah lakes and reservoirs by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Echo Reservoir ranked next to last in overall trophic (nutri­ent) quality.32 However, Echo Reservoir was never intended to be any­thing but an irrigation project. To meet water needs in Kamas Valley, local irrigation companies built a number of small reservoirs near the headwaters of the Weber and Provo rivers and their tributaries. In 1920, work began on the first Smith and Morehouse reservoir. During the 1920s and 1930s, several small alpine lakes in the Uintas were enlarged by building earth dams at their outlets. Among them were Cliff Lake, Fish Lake, Kamas Lake, Lavinia Lake, Sand Lake, and Seymour Lake (some of these names have since been changed). "Those early dams were built by wagons or 250 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY rock boats and teams, picks and shovels," recalled Ralph A. Richards of Oakley. "There was no large machinery at all used on any of them when they were originally built. Some of them were even built with pack horses-the gravel and sand that they used, for what little cement work that they did, was packed in pack bags to the dam site."33 By the early 1950s, when the next phase of reservoir development on the Weber River began, the Bureau of Reclamation had broadened its horizons to include flood control, power generation, municipal and industrial uses, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreational use in its plans for new projects. By this time, too, a growing popula­tion on the Wasatch Front was requiring more and more water. The Ogden area had seen a building boom ignited by the con­struction of Hill Field and several other defense installations during World War II; between 1940 and 1960, the population of Ogden mushroomed from 43,688 to 70,197. By the end of World War II, water officials in Davis and Weber counties were searching for ways to meet the area's growing needs. In 1946, hoping to harness as much surplus water as possible, the Ogden Chamber of Commerce asked the Bureau of Reclamation to study the entire Weber River. In 1947, the bureau responded with a recommendation calling for the con­struction or enlargement of five storage dams, two diversion dams, and several other features, including two hydroelectric plants and a number of recreational facilities. Among the proposed reservoirs was a 1,200-acre lake on the Weber River about 1.5 miles south of Wanship, at the town of Rockport.34 Despite the fact that Rockport would be obliterated, canal and irrigation companies and municipal users in Davis, Weber, Morgan, and Summit counties (excluding the Park City area) joined together to make the so-called Weber Basin Project a reality. They formed the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District as a lobbying and taxing entity and called for a property tax increase of one-tenth mill in the affected counties to pay for construction costs.35 In August 1949, after heavy lobbying from local water interests, the Weber Basin Project Bill passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. On 29 August, President Harry Truman added his signature. The total price tag for the Weber Basin Project was expected to be about $70 million. Bureau of Reclamation and Weber WATER DEVELOPMENT 251 Basin officials drew up a contract calling for the repayment of about $58 million. The federal government would pick up the rest of the tab because the project also offered "national" benefits, including improved recreation facilities, flood control benefits, and fish and wildlife habitat.36 Because the Weber Basin Project also promised to benefit culi­nary users, the contract called for a bond election to be held in the participating counties. Voters were asked to vote on two propositions: authorizing Weber Basin officials to sign the $58 million repayment contract, and authorizing the issuance of about $6.5 million in rev­enue bonds for water-treatment facilities. Summit County residents weren't sold on the project. Why would they agree to a contract calling for the flooding of about 900 acres of prime farmland and the destruction of the town of Rockport? Most of the benefits, it seemed, would be going to down­stream water users. County residents debated the possibility of pulling out of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District.37 On 25 November 1952, in an effort to bring Summit County res­idents in line behind the propositions, the conservancy district held a special meeting at the Summit County Courthouse in Coalville. District officials, including Edward Sorenson of Summit County, promised to consider the construction of a small reservoir on the upper Weber River to benefit the county's agricultural interests. Sorenson left that meeting convinced that county voters would sup­port the propositions. "The 75 or so persons attending the meeting finally took the view wholeheartedly that Summit County should line up solidly behind the Weber Basin project because of its tremendous importance to our neighboring counties to the west, and its eco­nomic value to the entire area," he said. The Salt Lake Tribune reported his comments under the headline, "Summit Swings Support to Weber Basin."38 As it turned out, Summit did no such thing. When the special election was held on 6 December, county residents sided overwhelm­ingly with the twenty-seven families of Rockport, who had no desire to see their homes disappear beneath the water. Coalville-area voters rejected the $58 million repayment contract by a vote of 47 to 357, and they turned down the bond proposal by a vote of 42 to 352.39 252 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY However, the protest voiced in Summit County was swamped by a tide of approval from downstream residents. Voters in Bountiful, for example, endorsed the two propositions by votes of 640 to 15 and 608 to 29. Overall, b o t h propositions passed by margins of greater than four to one.40 By the following spring, Rockport residents were expressing bit­terness not only over the impending loss of their homes and farms but also over the apparent unwillingess of the Bureau of Reclamation to reimburse t h em fairly for their property: Residents of Rockport resent the proposed Wanship Dam that will take this community off the map. Resistance is increasing as the residents of this fertile dairying and ranching community become more aware of the problems they face in relocating. Ownership of the beef and dairy ranches stated that they had not been able to locate anything comparable to what they were oper­ating and certainly not for the price at which this property was appraised. . . . One rancher stated that last summer he turned down an offer to sell [for] a sum twice the amount at which the Bureau of Reclamation has appraised his property. Appraisals ranged from $300 an acre . . . to as low as $50. It was reported that in 1937 when prices were considerably lower that the State Highway Commission paid as high as $600 per acre for this same ground. Recent sales of similar ground in this area have been reaching as high as $800 per acre. L.H. Grow stated that his modern home with five bedrooms was appraised at $7,500 and he could not build or replace the same floor space for less than three times that figure.41 Several families went to court in an effort to get fair value for their properties. Nevertheless, "not a family is leaving this valley sat­isfied," one resident told the Salt Lake Tribune in the summer of 1954. By that time, many of Rockport's twenty-seven families had packed their bags; some were taking their houses with them. The Tribune described the abandoned community: Along the highway from Wanship to Peoa you see houses up on beams-waiting for the movers. And you see a few empty base­ments where a left-behind boot or bureau bleaches in the sun. WATER DEVELOPMENT 253 More pathetic are the houses not worth moving. They stand there, doors open, windows broken or soon to be, weeds growing in flower beds-waiting for the bulldozers.42 In an effort to keep the name of their former community alive, the people of Rockport filed a petition asking that the name of the dam be changed from Wanship to Rockport so "our town will not be completely obscured by the passing of time or the water that will cover it."43 Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett took their request to the Department of the Interior, a n d in April 1954 a compromise was reached. The dam itself would keep the name Wanship, but the lake would be n a m e d Rockport. Senator Bennett also n o t e d that the National Park Service was recommending a recreational area at the lake. "Should this materialize," he said, " I 'm sure a good name could be found to further commemorate Rockport."44 Construction technology had come a long way since crews built the Echo Reservoir some three decades earlier. The mule teams of the 1920s had been replaced by "huge earth-pushing monsters . . . plow­ing under waist-high hayfields, shoving dirt around like children in a sandpile," the Tribune wrote.45 The earthfill dam, 156 feet high and 2,010 feet long, created a lake with a surface area of 1,080 acres and a capacity of about 62,100 acre-feet-about 20 billion gallons-of water.46 In May 1957, about 1,000 people gathered in the rain to com­memorate the completion of Wanship Dam. Among the speakers were David Loertscher, chairman of the Summit County Commission; George D. Clyde, governor of Utah; Arthur V Watkins, U.S. Senator; and E.O. Larson, the same engineer who had helped design Echo Reservoir in the early 1920s and had risen to become director of Region 4, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Even some of the former residents of the town of Rockport attended the ceremonies.47 Even before the dam was finished, Senator Wallace Bennett urged t h e federal government to look at the recreational potential of Rockport Lake. Construction of a boat launching ramp, picnic areas, and camping sites soon followed. The state assumed management of the park, which is now known as Rockport State Park, leasing the lake and 550 acres of l a n d from the Bureau of Reclamation.4 8 Today, 254 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY (1997) Rockport State Park has more than 250 camping sites in nine campgrounds, offering both primitive and developed camping in a range of settings. In addition, there are three day-use picnic areas, a marina with a boat ramp, two sets of docks, boat storage, and park­ing. The marina includes a restaurant and store. Fishing, powerboat-ing, waterskiing, sailing, and windsurfing are the most popular activities among the 300,000 people who visit the park yearly. In the last decade, another reservoir has joined Echo and Rockport in providing storage for the ever-expanding population along the Wasatch Front. Although the lordanelle Reservoir itself is in neighboring Wasatch County, most of its water comes from two Summit County sources: the upper Provo River and the Ontario Mine No. 2 drain tunnel. The new reservoir, with its n o r t h e r n arm stretching out below Deer Valley's Bald Mountain and its eastern arm reaching toward Francis, brings increased numbers of summer tourists to the Kamas and Park City areas. It is bringing new perma­nent residents also; developers have planned several projects around the lake, complete with homes, condominiums, hotels, and ski runs. Culinary Systems At the same time that projects such as the lordanelle Reservoir stimulate development, they also place more demands on local ser­vices such as culinary water systems. Providing water to its citizens has always been a struggle for Summit County communities, and the recent economic b o om has only served to emphasize the problem. Most services in Summit County-such as fire protection, garbage collection, sewage treatment, and road maintenance-are provided by a relatively small number of agencies. But culinary water is another story. Almost every individual community in the county, big or small, has its own water company. Partly for this reason, Summit County residents spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy wrangling over water issues. And, with the users in each area left to devise their own solutions, they have developed an assort­ment of delivery systems. The Kamas town board, for instance, voted in February 1916 to install a new culinary system using pipes made of fir. A couple of weeks later, t h e b o a r d reconsidered and decided to use redwood WATER DEVELOPMENT 255 instead.49 Though redwood is more resistant to rot than is fir, it clearly wasn't a long-term solution. Less than ten years later, the people of Kamas approved a bond for another new water system using cast-iron and galvanized pipe.50 In spite of their best efforts, the people of Kamas continued to face culinary water shortages in the late 1920s. During the cold winter of 1928-29, a number of residents were out of water for several weeks when water mains froze. The shortages prompted discussions about connecting the system to a new spring.51 To help curb water consumption, the town board voted in 1948 to install water meters; but, in the late 1950s, water shortages were an issue once again.52 In March 1957, a committee met with noted Utah water attorney Ed Clyde to discuss ways to acquire more water. In the summer of 1960, the town board declared an emergency water short­age. Two years later, local residents voted to bond for $215,000 to upgrade the water system again.53 The improvements were installed during the summer of 1964. Recent growth has forced Kamas to upgrade its system yet again. In December 1994, the Utah Division of Water Resources approved a $1.55-million loan to help Kamas build a new 500,000-gallon storage tank, add fire hydrants, and install larger water lines.54 In western Summit County, many new arrivals in the 1970s and 1980s found that their community water systems weren't up to the big-city standards they had come to expect. Some systems built dur­ing the 1950s and early 1960s were never intended for year-round use. Others were poorly designed and carelessly installed by develop­ers more interested in selling lots than providing quality services. Also, in the 1950s and 1960s, county standards governing water installation were virtually nonexistent. "That was when the county thought that engineers were guys who drove trains," Summit County Planner Stan Strebel quipped in a 1980 interview.55 In Highland Estates, near Silver Creek lunction, residents discov­ered in 1980 that the water lines in their 1960s-era subdivision were too small to provide fire protection. Problems also cropped up in Silver Springs, near ParkWest, as that development mushroomed during the 1980s.56 In 1987, after wrestling with service interruptions for years, residents of the 1960s-platted Timberline subdivision near 256 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY Parleys Summit drilled a new well, built a new storage tank, and replaced all the mains in the system. But no subdivision has been more haunted by water problems than Summit Park. Started in the late 1950s at Parleys Summit, this 850-lot subdivision has come to represent some of the worst aspects of planning-or the lack thereof-and development in the county. Many lots were platted on steep, unbuildable slopes. Treacherous, narrow roads were carved into the mountainsides. The Summit County Commission voted to accept the roads, thereby committing the county to an expensive and dangerous regimen of maintenance and snow removal. But the subdivision's crude water system, which had chronic problems, remained in private hands. Over the years, res­idents of Summit Park dealt with various problems resulting from poor water development: broken and frozen pipes, leaking water tanks, and water contaminated with dirt and other debris.57 After enduring those problems for years, residents finally took control of their own destiny, forming a special improvement district and acquiring the water system in bankruptcy proceedings from the subdivision developers in 1988.58 However, their water woes were far from over. During the winter of 1988-89, water shortages became so severe that the Army Corps of Engineers used tanker trucks to bring water to Summit Park from a neighboring subdivision.59 In the spring of 1989, the county declared a moratorium on the construction of new homes in Summit Park.60 During the following two years, Summit Park residents built a large storage tank, replaced miles of distribution lines and drilled two wells in nearby Toll Canyon. In March 1991, an article in the Salt Lake Tribune implied that the sub­division's troubles were a thing of the past.61 They weren't. As it turned out, the second well was contaminated. Summit Park began looking for a place to drill yet another well. About the same time, a variety of problems experienced by the thirteen separate water systems around the Snyderville Basin prompted Summit County commissioners to suggest combining them into a single water district. However, there was little support for the idea, and the commission did not pursue it.62 However, the resi­dents of Summit Park, Timberline, and the adjacent subdivision, Pinebrook, would soon take the initiative themselves. Summit Park WATER DEVELOPMENT 257 and Timberline had plenty of storage but needed another source of water. Pinebrook had plenty of water but needed storage facilities. So the three subdivisions agreed to connect their systems, allowing Summit Park and Timberline to loosen, at least temporarily, their restraints on new construction. At the same time, Summit Park and Timberline signed a separate agreement to share the costs of drilling two other wells. Those wells were connected to the main lines late in 1996. The building moratrium in Summit Park was lifted shortly afterwards. One of the ongoing questions in the Snyderville Basin is how much water remains in the underlying aquifers. Some residents in the Highland Estates-Silver Creek area report that the water levels in their wells are dropping or have dried up completely. In Park City, most of the drinking water comes from old tunnels originally built to drain water from mines such as the Ridge and the Silver King. However, as growth continues, officials are looking for other ways to meet the town's water needs. Conservation is a partial solution-summer watering restrictions have been in effect for several years-but the town also needs new sources of water. One possible source of culinary water for Snyderville and Park City is the Smith and Morehouse Reservoir in the Uinta Mountains east of Oakley. Built in the 1920s, Smith and Morehouse Reservoir was expanded by the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District between 1984 and 1988 from about 1,000 acre-feet to about 8,300 acre-feet, largely to serve the needs of the growing Park City/ Snyderville area.63 Smith and Morehouse Reservoir was expanded, however, before any serious thought was given to getting the water from the Weber River drainage into the Snyderville Basin-or whether it is even desirable to do so. One proposal is to build a water-treatment plant near Wanship Dam and pump the water over the West Hills into the Atkinson (Silver Creek lunction) area.64 According to Ivan Flint, man­ager of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, about 6,000 acre-feet of Smith and Morehouse water has been designated for the Snyderville area, enough to supply the culinary needs of at least 30,000 people. However, Flint estimates that it would cost $15 to $17 million to build a plant and pipeline from Wanship to Silver Creek 258 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY lunction. In addition to that, there also would be the cost of lifting the water about 1,300 feet over the mountains.65 Several questions now confront county planners: Are there limits to how much trouble and expense the people of Snyderville and the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District should invest in such a ven­ture? Should available water be viewed as a limit to growth in the same way that available land is a limited resource? These questions remain to be answered, as problems relating to growth will dominate Summit County planners and residents in the foreseeable future. ENDNOTES 1. George Thomas, The Development of Institutions Under Irrigation (New York: Macmillan, 1920), 17-19. 2. Fannie J. Richins and Maxine R. Wright, comps., Henefer: Our Valley Home (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing Co., n.d.), 151. 3. lay D. Stannard, "Irrigation in the Weber Valley," Report of Irrigation Investigations in Utah (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903), 173-74. 4. Ibid., 173; Peterson, Echoes of Yesterday, 172. 5. Stannard, "Irrigation in the Weber Valley," 173; Peterson, Echoes of Yesterday, 196. 6. Peterson, Echoes of Yesterday, 215-18; Stannard, "Irrigation in the Weber Valley," 172-73. 7. Arthur P. Stover, "The Utah Lake Drainage Basin," Report of Irrigation Investigations in Utah (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903), 97-99. 8. Coalville Centennial Souvenir (Coalville, UT: Coalville Literary Club, 1959), 36. 9. R.P. Teele, "General Discussion of Irrigation in Utah," Report of Irrigation Investigations in Utah (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903), 31. 10. Deseret News, 27 lanuary 1868. 11. Peterson, Echoes of Yesterday, 218. 12. Coalville Times, 3 August 1894. 13. Peterson, Echoes of Yesterday, 34. 14. Coalville Centennial Souvenir, 24; Summmit County Clerk's office, Summit County Agricultural Report for 1869-1871. 15. Richins and Wright, Henefer, Our Valley Home, 90. WATER DEVELOPMENT 259 16. Echo Reservoir Committee of the Utah Water Storage Commission, "History of the Echo Reservoir," 1931, pamphlet 9088, copy in files of Utah State Historical Society. 17. Coalville Times, 28 February 1902. 18. Ibid. 19. Coalville Times, 3 October 1902, 17 October 1902. 20. Coalville Times, 27 May 1904. 21. Coalville Times, 16 September 1904. 22. See "History of the Echo Reservoir." 23. Richard W. Sadler and Richard C. Roberts, The Weber River Basin: Grass Roots Democracy and Water Development (Togan: Utah State University Press, 1994), 125. 24. Ibid., 126. 25. Project History, Salt Lake Basin Project, Utah (Salt Lake City: Bureau of Reclamation, 1928), 8. 26. Final Report on Design and Construction of Echo Dam and Reservoir, Salt Lake Basin Project-Utah (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Reclamation, 1934), 93. 27. Project History, Salt Lake Basin Project, 9 28. Summit County Bee, 16 lune 1966. 29. Salt Lake Tribune, 21 August 1932. 30. Annual report of the Weber River Water Users' Association, Ogden, Utah, 20 December 1960. 31. Summit County Bee, 16 lune 1966. 32. Report on Echo Reservoir, Summit County, Utah, EPA Region VIII Working Paper No. 838, 1975. 33. Sadler and Roberts, Weber River Basin, 96. 34. Ibid., 263. 35. Ibid., 164. 36. Park Record, 27 November 1952. 37. Sadler and Roberts, Weber River Basin, 216. 38. Salt Lake Tribune, 28 November 1952. 39. Ogden Standard-Examiner, 7 December 1952. News stories of the time variously describe the population of Rockport as twenty-three, twenty-four, or twenty-seven families; however, twenty-seven is the figure most commonly used. 40. Ibid. 41. Summit County Bee, 2 April 1953. 260 HISTORY OF SUMMIT COUNTY 42. Salt Lake Tribune, 22 August 1954. 43. Summit County Commission, minutes, 18 February 1954; Salt Lake Tribune, 9 February 1954. 44. Summit County Bee, 15 April 1954. 45. Salt Lake Tribune, 22 August 1954. 46. "Weber Basin Project, Utah: Davis, Morgan, Summit and Weber Counties," Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Project Data Book, revised October 1982. 47. Summit County Bee, 16 May 1957. 48. Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Rockport State Park General Management Plan, September 1986. See also lohn V. Young, State Parks of Utah, A Guide and History (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989). 49. Kamas Town Board, Minutes, 11 February 1916 and 23 February 1916. 50. Kamas Town Board, Minutes, 22 September 1925. 51. Kamas Town Board, Minutes, 11 November 1929. 52. Kamas Town Board, Minutes, 8 March 1948. 53. Kamas Town Board, Minutes, 4 March 1957, 1 March 1960, 18 luly 1960, 3 luly 1962, 5 October 1964. 54. Deseret News, Utah County edition, 9 December 1994. 55. The (Park City) Newspaper, 12 lune 1980. 56. Salt Lake Tribune, 19 lune 1985. 57. Salt Lake Tribune, 8 December 1987. 58. Salt Lake Tribune, 28 luly 1988. 59. Salt Lake Tribune, 12 lanuary 1989, 16 lanuary 1989. 60. Salt Lake Tribune, 12 May 1989. 61. Salt Lake Tribune, 20 March 1991. 62. Salt Lake Tribune, 28 March 1989. 63. Park Record, 19 luly 1984, 6 September 1984; Deseret News, 13 luly 1988. 64. Deseret News, 3 March 1996, 1 April 1996. 65. Ivan Flint, interview on KPCW radio, Park City, 4 October 1996; tape and transcript in possession of authors. CHAPTER 12 LIVING OFF THE LAND I.n the spring of 1997, a survey went out to residents of the more rural areas of Summit County-including the Kamas and Weber River valleys. The survey, which asked residents what they thought about commercial development, also attempted to measure attitudes about the importance of agriculture in these areas. Of those who responded, only 5.6 percent said they personally benefited from hav­ing agriculture in the area, and only 3.9 percent said that agriculture was the occupation of the head of the household. On the other hand, a majority (53 percent) said agriculture plays a dominant role in the community, and many residents said it was important to preserve that lifestyle. "There is a perception that the economics of agriculture is more important than what is actually taking place," planner Shawn Seeger told the Park Record.1 When compared to the vast wheat fields of the Great Plains or the irrigated valleys of central California, Utah's agricultural output is small. And even among Utah's twenty-nine counties, Summit County is no agricultural powerhouse. Its growing season is short and its arable land is limited to a few mountain valleys. In the 1992 U.S. 261