An Independent 3rd Party Opinion.

In 2006, after decades of objecting to the Narrows (even after agreeing -- in writing -- to stop objecting) Carbon County suggested that an independent third party be hired to consider alternatives to the Narrows that were being proposed by Carbon.

Sanpete agreed, hoping a responsible, unbiased third-party arbitrator could bring agreement on the Narrows matter. A highly-respected national water engineering firm was hired to conduct the study. Carbon and Sanpete agreed that the firm, CH2MHill, was both technically capable, and unbiased about whether or not, and where the Narrows should be built.

Two years later (fall of 2008), the extensive study was finished. It concluded that the alternative proposed by Carbon is not feasible (which is what Sanpete's engineering studies indicated over ten years ago).

The study offered ten alternatives to the Narrows Project. It then concluded that five of those ten do not meet the "purpose and need" that the Narrows was intended to serve in the first place. Of the remaining five alternatives, the study concludes that four have significant disadvantages.

The only remaining "alternative" suggested by the study is to build the Narrows, where it has always been proposed, only smaller. The study then points out the disadvantage that a smaller reservoir may not deliver the water that Sanpete owns during dry years.

Which brings up the question, "Why build a reservoir that is too small to serve the need?"

Building the Narrows at the always-proposed location, the size it is presently proposed, is the logical conclusion of the study.

In summary, another two years and $100,000 of Sanpete's money was wasted, only to conclude what Sanpete's engineering studies have been telling us for decades.