Manti » After nearly 80 years of hoping, bickering and legal challenges, farmers in northern Sanpete County are closer than ever to having water flow to their fields in the arid months of summer from a dammed creek high on the Wasatch Plateau.

The Narrows Dam on Gooseberry Creek, planned since the 1930s, is nearing approval with the release of a supplemental environmental impact statement that would allow the county to build an earthen dam to impound 17,000 acre-feet of water. The Sanpete County Water Conservancy District would then divert 5,400 acre-feet for irrigation that would produce an extra hay crop in the dry summer months.

But environmentalists remain opposed to the plan and say a lawsuit is possible. And Carbon County officials, who have fought the dam for decades, argue it would divert water needed by residents in Price and Helper. Public comment on the environmental impact statement will be accepted by the Bureau of Reclamation until June 1.

David Cox, secretary and treasurer of the Sanpete County Water Conservancy District and a farmer, said the project is needed because the northern part of the county has no water storage to make farming viable in July and August. Presently, farmers rely entirely on runoff in streams for irrigation. The dam would allow up to 250 farmers to grow an extra crop of alfalfa every year.

Cox said Sanpete's claim to the water has been upheld by the Utah Supreme Court. But the battle goes on, although Carbon agreed in writing to allow the project to proceed in 1984 when Sanpete was granted the 17,000 acre-feet of water. He asserts Carbon County has resisted the project so it can claim Sanpete's water shares by default.

"As long as they [Carbon County] keep it in court, they hope to get the water," said Cox, alleging that Carbon's legal maneuvering "has enabled many lawyers to send their kids to college and build big houses."

Carbon County's objections continue in comments on the latest environmental study, with claims the project will likely cost $50 million rather than the estimated $32.2 million -- too costly to be subsidized by taxpayers.

In comments sent to the Bureau of Reclamation, Carbon County Commissioner William Krompel said the dam could leave Carbon's 20,000 residents high and dry. Carbon officials also are concerned about water needed for natural gas production and electricity generation.

Krompel said Friday that his main concern is enough drinking water for residents. During three major droughts since the 1960s, Krompel said, the Scofield Reservoir dropped to 10 percent of its capacity.

"In a drought in the 1990s, there was only 3,000 acre-feet in the reservoir and we had to dredge to get water to the spillway and back into the river," he said.

The project gained steam in 1943, when the Scofield Dam was on the verge of collapse and repairs were critical. Such a catastrophe would have wiped out the railroad tracks necessary to transport coal from Carbon County to Geneva Steel in Utah County for the war effort.

Once the Scofield project was completed, the Gooseberry project was put on hold and is still awaiting completion.

Since then the project has been on a list of projects for federal funding under a Bureau of Reclamation program that was dissolved in the 1990s.

To have the dam built now, Sanpete County would need a loan from the federal government that would be repaid by water users.

Environmentalists argue that a dam built on Gooseberry Creek would damage fisheries and ecosystems on Fish Creek, and drop water levels in the Price River and Scofield Reservoir that residents of Price depend on for drinking water. They also fear a drop in water would affect the spawning of the threatened Colorado squaw fish, and water backing up behind the dam would destroy wetlands.

"We think the project would be devastating for Fish Creek and the Price River all the way to its confluence with the Green River," said Rosalie Woolshlager, staff attorney for the Utah Rivers Council. "This could turn Scofield [Reservoir] into a dry lake."

She said studies have shown that the cost and benefits of the project is a waste of taxpayers' money, especially when conservation measures would easily compensate for the water the project would deliver.

Woolshlager said legal action may be taken if the project is approved.

"It's always on the table," she said.

Claudia Jarrett, chairwoman of the Sanpete County Commission, said the county is working on conservation methods by putting available water in pipes and cementing irrigation canals and covering them to prevent absorption and evaporation.

"Sanpete County is probably the poster child in going above and beyond what is necessary in conservation," she said.

She said the issue has been studied to death and it's time to move forward to meet future demands in a county that has grown 20 percent since 1998.

Beverly Heffernan, chief of the environmental group for the Bureau of Reclamation office in Provo conducting the supplemental environmental impact statement, said a new environmental study is needed because one completed for the project in the 1990s has become too old to use and new information is needed.

Should the new reservoir be built, she said, it would offer recreational opportunities to the area, including fishing.