Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-1 

Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions, Water Supplies 

and Infrastructure 

2.1 Background 

During the early settlement of the Snyderville Basin, population was concentrated within the 

boundaries of the mining town of Park City, with only a few scattered individual homes located 

within the rest of the Basin. In the late 1950's and early 1960’s, a ski resort was developed on 

the mountains adjacent to Park City. Since then, the dynamics of the region have dramatically 

changed; initially to a winter vacation destination, and more recently to a year-round resort 

community. 

With the increased recreational opportunities, residential developments expanded within Park 

City and into the surrounding unincorporated areas. Park City continued to expand its water 

supply system to meet the needs within its boundaries. Water development within the 

unincorporated portion of the Basin was initially a private enterprise. The earliest developments, 

Summit Park and Pinebrook, developed their own water companies and water systems. Most 

consisted of wells and small storage tanks. Some of these evolved into community systems and 

some eventually combined to serve more than one developed area. Summit Water Distribution 

Company was founded in 1979, to develop a Basin-wide water system that would supply 

numerous developments owned by the principles of the water company. 

When a countywide wastewater system was developed in the 1970's, development within the 

unincorporated areas accelerated. Eventually, Summit County incorporated several service 

districts to take over ownership and operation of these smaller water systems. Several private 

water companies also emerged to own and operate systems. Some of these systems are operated 

as mutual water companies, where each user owns a portion of the system. Others remained as 

private companies governed by the Utah Public Service Commission. 

In 2000, Summit County established MRWSSD. MRWSSD subsequently assumed ownership 

and/or operation of several smaller systems which were either privately owned or formerly in 

other special service districts. Several of these smaller systems had experienced difficulty in 

providing water to their customers for a variety of reasons. Some experienced problems with 

their supply wells, and their efforts to find new sources were unsuccessful. Others were under 

capitalized and unable to fund operation and maintenance needs. 

2.2 Summit County Concurrency Requirements 

In the Snyderville Basin, water has become a critical component in the ability to sustain growth. 

In addition to the State Engineer closing the area to new appropriations, Summit County has 

implemented a concurrency ordinance to all non-municipal public water supply providers in the 

Snyderville Basin, which requires them to demonstrate they have adequate water to meet current 

and approved growth demands within their boundaries. The ordinance requires that concurrency 

reports be submitted which provide the county with accurate data that is used to update the 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-2 

carrying or design capacity of an existing water system. The concurrency review focuses on the 

existing public water supplies, and the dependable peak-day source capacity. This new capacity 

value is used by the county to determine if sufficient water source production capacity is 

available and if infrastructure improvements are in place before development approvals and 

building permits are issued for new construction. Reported 2004 concurrency capacities are 

listed in Table 2-1. This table shows the maximum capacity of the water supply sources and an 

estimate of the annual production capacity of that source, and it also shows the rated capacity. 

Rated capacity is a term used in the concurrency process to discount the available supply for 

drought and operational problems that reduce the capabilities of the source to produce water. In 

estimating the volumes of water produced, it is assumed that spring and surface sources are 

constant year around. However, since SWDC's East Canyon Water Treatment Plant only 

operates from April to September, it was rated at one-half the yearly maximum capacity. In the 

future, SWDC may choose to operate the treatment plant during the winter months to reduce its 

dependence on groundwater and reserve use of its wells for peak periods of demand. Due to 

operational constraints commonly associated with wells, well sources are considered to be 

operational one-half of the year. The rated capacities are determined for each system by the 

Utah Division of Drinking Water (UDDW), based on pump tests after well completion. The 

UDDW rules require that the wells be pumped at 150 percent of the anticipated design capacity. 

The county generally subtracts an additional 15 percent from the UDDW rated capacity as a 

drought reserve. These criteria are reflected in the tables. 

2.3 Existing Water Systems and Source Descriptions 

In describing existing water systems and sources, two factors are important to consider: 

(1) maximum water supply available under present conditions, and (2) reliable system source 

capacity. The maximum water supply is defined as the total water resource that is presently 

developed. The ability to use this total resource is limited by mechanical constraints (such as 

pump capacity or pipe size), hydrologic constraints (such as reliable streamflow or groundwater 

safe yield), or legal constraints (such as a water right or contract). For purposes of this study, the 

least water supply available after considering these constraints is considered to be the reliable 

system source capacity. Determination of well pump capacities, spring flow estimates, treatment 

plant capacities, and water right information all aid in the calculation of this value. 

Because most culinary water system storage tanks are designed to store only about 1 day's worth 

of water demand, and many systems only use the full capacity of their wells during the peak 

season, not all of the maximum water supply is available to meet future water needs. Therefore, 

the system source capacity is more useful in determining future water capacities of the particular 

community water system sources (wells, springs, etc.). See Section 2.4.1, for a more detailed 

definition of a reliable supply. When the system source capacity is divided by the average 

annual per capita water use for the system, the result represents the population that can be 

reliably served by the present system sources. 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-3 

TABLE 2-1 

Reported Concurrency Capacities 

2004 

Water Supplier/ 

Source Name 

Source 

Type 

Max Capacity 

(gpm) 

Max. Annual Capacity 

(ac-ft/yr.) 

Rated Capacity 

(gpm) 

Annual Rated 

Capacity 

(ac-ft/yr.) 

Community Water Company 

Ambush #1 Well 40 32 -1

 -1 

Ambush #2 Well 25 20 -1 -1 

Wagon Trail #2 Well 16 13 16 13 

Gulch Well 105 85 95 77 

Bushwacker Well 15 12 -1 -1 

Willow Creek Treatment Plant Surface 200 323 180 290 

Totals 401 485 291 380 

Gorgoza Mutual Water Company 

Two Mile Springs Spring 70 113 60 96 

Well #1 Well 125 101 85 69 

Dan's Well Well 120 97 85 69 

Well #P3 Well 100 81 100 81 

Well #4B Well 547 441 425 343 

Well #4R Well 500 403 340 274 

South Ridge #1 Well Well 43 35 43 35 

Ankareh Well 225 181 150 121 

Summit Water Connection Intercon 300 242 300 242 

Totals 2,030 1,694 1,588 1,328 

High Valley Water 

High Valley Old Well Well 150 121 128 103 

Atkinson Well #2 Well 86 69 73 59 

Totals 236 190 201 162 

Mountain Regional Water Special Service District2

2 22222 

Atkinson Well #2 Well 194 156 165 133 

Jailhouse Well #3 Well 120 97 102 82 

Silver Creek Well #10 Well 306 247 260 210 

Starpointe Well #15b Well 1,225 988 1,041 840 

Three Mile Well Well 150 121 128 103 

Blackhawk Well #2R Well 123 99 105 85 

Gorgoza Well #6 Well 188 152 160 129 

Nugget Well Well 200 161 170 137 

Spring Creek Spring Spring 125 202 125 202 

Lake Well #1 Well 194 156 165 133 

Sun Peak Well #2 Well 35 28 30 24 

Winter Park Well #3 Well 76 61 65 52 

Summit Park Well #2 Well 37 30 25 20 

Summit Park Well #4 Well 20 16 17 14 

Summit Park Well #5 Well 72 58 61 49 

Summit Park Well #7 Well 120 97 87 70 

Spring Creek Well #1 Well 252 203 213 172 

SWDC Sports Park Intercon 80 65 80 65 

Totals 3,517 2,937 2,999 2,520 

Park City Corporation 

Spiro Tunnel Spring 2,350 3,791 2,350 3,791 

Judge Tunnel Spring 1,200 1,936 650 1,048 

Thiriot Spring Spring 1,600 2,581 628 1,013 

Middle School Well Well 1,000 807 1,000 807 

Divide Well Well 1,000 807 667 538 

Park Meadows Well Well 1,000 807 -1 -1 

JSSD Interconnect Intercon 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Totals 9,150 11,726 6,295 8,196 

Summit County Special Service Area No. 3 

Well #1 Well 145 234 128 206 

Totals 145 234 128 206 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-4 

The major water suppliers in the study area are composed of public water systems and privately 

controlled water systems. In addition, there are numerous individual systems that typically 

provide water to a single home or property using a well or spring. A description of each of the 

major water providers is presented in the following paragraphs to provide an understanding of 

the water supply system of the area. Figure 2-1 shows the present service area of each of the 

major water providers in the Basin. Summit County's Concurrency Officer, who oversees the 

reports and enforces the county's ordinance, has developed a definition of equivalent residential 

connections (ERC) with which the number of ERCs for each water system has been determined. 

The officer uses the ERC numbers to evaluate each water provider's capacity to meet expected 

peak day water demands. An ERC is defined to be 0.86 gallons per minute or 1,238 gallons per 

day. 

Community Water Company 

Community Water Company is a privately-owned water system serving an area of The Canyons 

Ski Resort and surrounding developments. Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, submitted 

by Community Water Company, the system is currently servicing 286 ERCs, with an expectation 

of increasing to 439 ERCs at build-out. There are three connections to SWDC in Community 

Water Company's water system, and one connection to MRWSSD. 

TABLE 2-1 

Reported Concurrency Capacities (cont.) 

2004 

Water Supplier/ 

Source Name Source Type 

Max Capacity 

(gpm) 

Max. Annual 

Capacity 

(ac-ft/yr.) 

Rated Capacity 

(gpm) 

Annual Rated 

Capacity 

(ac-ft/yr.) 

Summit Water Distribution Company 

Rest Stop Well Well 1,200 968 800 645 

Hiute Well Well 150 121 128 103 

Jeremy Well Well 511 412 434 350 

Knight Well Well 71 57 60 48 

White Pine Well Well 20 16 17 14 

Church Well Well 95 77 81 65 

Storage Well Well 750 605 638 515 

Old F-7 Well Well 185 149 157 127 

U224 Well Well 250 202 167 135 

New F-7 Well Well 468 377 398 321 

Spring Creek Springs Spring 500 807 425 686 

East Canyon Treatment Plant3 Surface 3,820 907 1,120 452 

Totals 8,020 4,698 4,425 3,460 

Timberline Special Service District 

Ponderosa Well Well 22 18 19 15 

Cedar Well Well 14 11 12 10 

Gorgoza Interconnect Inteconnect 20 16 20 16 

Summit Park Well #7 Well 26 21 22 18 

MR Interconnect Interconnect 2 2 2 2 

Totals 84 68 75 60 

1 Incomplete data 2

 Mountain Regional Water Special Service District includes systems formerly known as Atkinson Special Service District, Summit 

Park, Silver Springs, Spring Creek, Pivotal Promontory, and Quarry Mountain. 

Well capacity for volume calculations was assumed to operate 50 percent of the time. 

3

 Summit Water Treatment Plant was assumed to operate only 1/4 of the year due to water availability in East Canyon Creek. 

Annual Capacities are derived from converting capacity to annual use assuming full time availability of springs, 1/2 time for wells and 

1/4 time for Summit Water's Treatment Plant. 
Park City

SCSS3 Mountain

Regional

Mountain Regional

Gorgoza

Mountain

Regional

Summit Water

Summit Water

Summit Water

Mountain Regional

Mountain Regional

High Valley

Community Water

Timberline

±

Snyderville Basin

Water Supply Study

Figure 2-1

Present Distribution Areas

Legend

Community Water

Gorgoza

High Valley

Mountain Regional

Park City

SCSS3

Summit Water

Timberline
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-6 

Sources for Community Water Company includes: two wells (Wagon Trail No. 2 Well and 

Gulch Well) and one treated streamflow (Willow Creek Treatment Plant). UDDW rates the 

current total system source as 291 gallons per minute (gpm). In addition to the connections 

requiring service throughout the year, Community Water Company has a standby commitment to 

The Canyons Ski Resort to provide water for snowmaking. 

Gorgoza Mutual Water Company 

Gorgoza Mutual Water Company is a mutually-owned water system originally developed to 

provide water to the Pinebrook development. Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, submitted 

by Gorgoza, the system is currently servicing 1,399 ERCs with an expectation of increasing to 

1,540 ERCs by 2009. No additional growth or development is anticipated beyond that point. 

Sources for the Gorgoza system include seven wells and one spring, with a total rated capacity of 

1,588 gpm (in 2004). Additionally, up to 300 gpm is available through interconnections with 

SWDC's system on an emergency basis. Gorgoza recently completed drilling a new well. Well 

tests documented a maximum capacity of 300 gpm, and the State of Utah has approved a rated 

capacity of 200 gpm. Gargoza may drill an addition well in the future for reserve capacity. 

Gorgoza also has an interconnection with MRWSSD through which they can receive or supply 

water as needed. 

High Valley Water Company 

High Valley Water Company is a mutually-owned water system serving customers located in the 

area southwest of I-80/U.S. Highway 40 Junction. Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, 

submitted by High Valley, the system is currently servicing 211 ERCs with an expectation of 

increasing to 225 ERCs by 2009. High Valley has no plans to increase their service area or build 

new developments in the current service area. 

Sources for the High Valley Water Company system include: two wells (High Valley Old Well 

and Atkinson Well No. 2), with a total UDDW rated capacity of 201 gpm. Atkinson Well No. 2, 

is jointly owned by High Valley and MRWSSD. Because of the wells water quality problems, 

MRWSSD voluntarily exchanges the poor quality water for higher quality water and supplies it 

to High Valley. A replacement well for Atkinson Well No. 2 was drilled but found to be 

unproductive. Since then, High Valley Water Company has contracted with SWDC to provide 

additional water when needed. 

Mountain Regional Water Special Service District 

MRWSSD is a county organized water district. It includes systems formerly known as Atkinson 

Special Service District, Summit Park, Silver Springs, Spring Creek, Pivotal Promontory, and 

Quarry Mountain. Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, the system is currently servicing 

2,700 ERCs with an expectation of increasing to 5,540 ERCs by 2009. 

Sources for the MRWSSD system includes: 16 wells and 1 spring, with a total UDDW rated 

capacity of 2,999 gpm. MRWSSD recently completed a surface water treatment plant (Signal 

Hill) that treats water pumped from shallow wells located along the Weber River just upstream 

from Rockport Reservoir. The plant has been operational since October 2004 and has an initial 

capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-7 

Park City Municipal Corporation 

Park City Municipal Corporation operates a public water system. Because it is a publicly 

operated system, no concurrency report is required. Based on information provided by the city, 

it services approximately 4,700 connections. These connections consist of single and multifamily homes, hotels, golf courses, two ski resorts, restaurants, and a variety of other businesses. 

Park City has projected future water needs and developed a Master Plan that assumes a growth 

build-out by about 2030. 

Sources for the Park City system includes: three wells, one spring, and two tunnels, with a total 

UDDW rated capacity of 6,295 gpm. Currently, one of the three wells has been taken off line 

due to water quality issues. Once adequate treatment can be provided, this well will add another 

670 gpm to the total rated capacity. Additionally, the city currently imports 1,000 gpm, up to a 

maximum of 1,000 acre-feet per year, from Jordanelle Special Service District (JSSD). JSSD is 

a water district located in Wasatch County that serves water to the area surrounding Jordanelle 

Reservoir and is described below. 

Summit County Service Area No. 3 

Summit County Service Area No. 3 (SCSA3) is classified as a county authorized water system 

that provides water to the area north of the I-80/U.S. Highway 40 Junction. Based on the 2004 

Concurrency Report, the system is currently servicing 149 ERCs with an expectation of 

increasing to 194 by 2009. 

The source for the SCSA3 includes: Well No. 1, with a UDDW rated capacity of 128 gpm. It is 

important to note, that there are a significant number of individual wells serving homes in this 

area. As growth occurs in this area, it is probable that there will be a move to a greater 

dependence on the public water system and the numerous small existing wells will not be 

acceptable as a public water source. Thus, as existing individual well owners convert to the 

public system, even without growth, there will be a greater need for water supply in the public 

system serving this area. MRWSSD operates this system under an inter-local agreement. 

Summit Water Distribution Company 

SWDC is a user-owned exempt mutual water company. This means that the operation side of 

the company cannot make a profit, but can only charge the costs for operation, maintenance, 

repair, and replacement of the water distribution system. All costs and necessary actions 

associated with expansion of the SWDC system is the responsibility of the shareholder(s) 

proposing the expansion (Flitton 2005). The system serves a wide area of the Snyderville Basin, 

extending from Jeremy Ranch to U.S. Highway 40, and south to The Canyons Ski Resort area. 

Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, the system is currently servicing 2,805 ERCs, with an 

expectation of increasing to 4,305 ERCs by 2009. 

Sources for the SWDC system includes: a surface water treatment plant, 10 wells, and 1 spring, 

with a total rated peak capacity of 4,425 gpm. The water treatment plant currently receives 

source water from a diversion on East Canyon Creek. The long-range plan is to construct a 

water line and pump stations to withdraw water from East Canyon Reservoir to supply the 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-8 

treatment plant. This would increase the production from that plant to match the installed 

capacity and facilitate future expansion. 

In an agreement dated May 26, 1998, by and between Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWLR) and SWDC, SWDC agreed to a variety of stream enhancement measures, including a 

forbearance from diverting water from East Canyon Creek, unless its base flows exceeded 3.5 

cubic feet per second (cfs), and an intent to continue cooperating to increase base flows above 

3.5 cfs level. With respect to the flows of East Canyon Creek arising naturally above the 

project’s water treatment plant at Jeremy Ranch, Summit Water agreed to not divert any water 

directly from East Canyon Creek, unless the creek’s flow rate at the above-mentioned location is 

greater than 6.0 cfs, thereby establishing 6 cfs as the base flow rate at which Summit Water will 

stop its direct diversions from East Canyon Creek and begin taking water from East Canyon 

Reservoir (any diversion made when the flow is greater than 6 cfs will not reduce the flow to less 

than 6 cfs). As part of the mutual cooperation between the parties, there is a commitment to 

provide incremental augmentation from upstream sources to increase base flows above the 6 cfs 

base flows established by this agreement. Summit Water also agreed to recognize cumulative 

increases to the 6 cfs base flow, when such flows are made possible by quantifiable 

augmentation to upstream flows in East Canyon Creek or its tributaries. During low flow 

periods from droughts, etc. which extend into the identified winter months, the 6 cfs base flow 

will be respected. During low flows occurring at any other time of year, 3.5 cfs base flows will 

be respected (no diversion will reduce the base flow below 3.5 cfs). As a consequence of these 

commitments, SWDC will provide the UDWLR a right to use 2 cfs capacity of the proposed East 

Canyon Pipeline to deliver water for fish, and thereby receives credit toward the 6 cfs minimum 

streamflow. 

Timberline Special Service District 

Timberline Special Service District is a community water system that provides water to the 

Parleys Summit area. Based on the 2004 Concurrency Report, the system is currently servicing 

87 ERCs with an expectation of increasing to 95 ERCs by 2009. Timberline has contracted with 

MRWSSD to provide management, service, and maintenance. They have also been approved for 

annexation into MRWSSD. 

Sources for the Timberline system includes: two wells with a UDDW rating of 31 gpm. 

Timberline also receives 20 percent of the production from two wells jointly owned by 

Timberline and MRWSSD (formerly Summit Park Special Service District). Additionally, 

Timberline receives 20 gpm through a connection with Gorgoza Mutual Water Company. The 

total peak source capacity for Timberline is 75 gpm. MRWSSD operates this system under an 

inter-local agreement. 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District 

The Weber Basin Water Conservancy District (WBWCD) was formed in 1950 to develop the 

water resources of the Weber River Drainage Basin. WBWCD provides primarily wholesale 

treated and untreated water to customers located in Summit, Morgan, Davis, Box Elder, and 

Weber Counties. WBWCD operates a number of reservoirs located on the Weber River and its 

tributaries, conveyance facilities, treatment plants and wells, to provide culinary and secondary 

water to its customers. Since its inception, WBWCD has intended to provide water to the 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-9 

Snyderville Basin, but until recently it had not developed any systems to do so. With the 

completion of the Lost Creek Canyon Project, MRWSSD will provide about 1,600 acre-feet of 

WBWCD water to the Snyderville Basin. Recently, a diversion at Rockport Reservoir was 

examined to evaluate the feasibility of providing an additional 5,000 acre-feet of WBWCD water 

to the MRWSSD treatment plant for use in the Snyderville Basin. Weber Basin has contracted 

with both Park City and MRWSSD to deliver 2,500 acre-feet per year of Weber River water to 

each entity. 

Jordanelle Special Service District (JSSD) 

JSSD was established by Wasatch County to provide water to developments located around 

Jordanelle Reservoir. Although it is not located in the Snyderville Basin, JSSD has a treatment 

plant and distribution system with an existing connection that provides water to Park City 

through Deer Valley Resort. The source of JSSD's water is the Ontario Tunnel, and it is treated 

prior to use. In 2002, Park City and JSSD entered into a 20-year lease agreement to purchase 

1,000 acre-feet per year of M&I water at a maximum rate of 1,000 gpm from JSSD through this 

connection. The city is currently in the third year of that agreement. 

2.4 Existing Water Supply 

2.4.1 Methodology 

To estimate the annual water production capacity of the existing water sources in the Basin, 

several methods were used. The first method was to use the maximum installed capacity of the 

sources within each system. These values were derived by summing the capacity values shown 

in Table 2-1 under the column entitled maximum annual capacity. Table 2-2 lists the total 

maximum source capacity as reported in each water supplier's 2004 Concurrency Report, along 

with the 2001 actual water usage. The actual 2001 supply values were provided by UDWR 

based upon data collected from water providers. 

The use of the 2001 data raises the question of why more recent data was not used. UDWR, the 

agency collecting this data, believes the 2001 data is more representative of the long-term water 

deliveries in the Basin than more recent data. While water use data for 2003 and 2002, was 

available and could have been used, the water use in both of these years was significantly 

impacted by drought conditions. Utilizing water use during a known drought year (2003 was one 

of the most severe on record) to project future water demands is undesirable because it would 

result in a significant underestimation of actual future water needs. 

Given that the County Concurrency Officer has rated each source, a second method was used to 

estimate the annual water production capacities based on the rated capacity of the sources. Table 

2-3 lists these capacities for each water supplier. 

A third method was developed to estimate annual water production capacity using a peaking 

factor. Standard practice in water system planning and operation is to install sufficient capacity 

to meet expected peak demands of the system. This practice typically recognizes that peak 

capacity only needs to be available for short periods of time when peak demands occur. Peak 

demands are generally two to three times the average demand of the system. Given that each 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-10 

water provider has designed their system taking into account peaking factors, an approach that 

evaluates peaking factors was considered appropriate for this analysis. 

Table 2-4 lists the adjusted peak capacities for each source. These capacities were adjusted by 

dividing the maximum annual production capacity (for spring and surface sources) in Table 2-1 

by a peaking factor of 2.3. Well capacities were doubled to reflect year-round operation and then 

divided by the same peaking factor. This peaking factor was calculated in the Park City 

Municipal Corporation Water Supply and Water Demand Update, May 2000 using 1995 through 

1999 water use data. 

Peaking factors define the relationship between infrastructure flow rates and delivery volume – 

the greater the peaking factor, the lower the delivery volume, and visa-versa. Peaking factors are 

influenced by the demand distribution pattern (magnitude and timing of the peak use periods 

versus base flow), available storage volumes, and other factors. While it can be argued that 

different peaking factors should be used for the different areas and/or water companies, doing so 

is beyond the level of accuracy of this study. Importation volumes are provided generally to the 

entire Snyderville Basin and not to specific areas. Also, a primary objective of the study is to 

compare options to determine which best meets the projected water needs within the area. 

Therefore, one peaking factor rate was used in the study for the entire study area. This 2.3 

peaking factor is considered to be representative of the demands in the Basin. Table 2-4 shows 

the capacities available to reliably serve the water demands in the Basin. 

Interviews were also conducted with water providers in Snyderville Basin. Many of the major 

suppliers interviewed stated that their actual production volumes are approaching the capacity of 

their sources to produce water. Based upon this information, the third method's estimate (Table 

2-4) for water production is considered to be a more reasonable estimate of the annual 

production capacities than the first two methods. Each of the other methods estimates the overall 

production capacity higher than experience with these systems would indicate. The peaking 

method appears to more closely estimate the reliable capacity of these systems. The estimate of 

existing production capacity for the Basin is approximately 14,000 acre-feet per year. 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-11 

TABLE 2-3 

2003 Annual Water Production Estimate Method Two (Using Rated Capacities of Systems) 

Water Supplier 

Springs 

Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Wells 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Surface 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Import 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Total 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Total In 

Basin 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

2001 Actual 

Usage 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Community Water Company 90 290 380 380 163

Gorgoza Mutual Water Co. 96 1,232 1,328 1,328 583

High Valley Water Co. 162 162 162 75

Mountain Regional SSD 202 2,318 2,520 2,520 1,697

Park City Municipal Corporation 5,852 1,344 1,000 8,196 7,196 4,728

Summit Water Distribution Co. 686 2,323 452 3,460 3,460 2,065

Summit Co. Service #3 206 206 206 80

Timberline Special Imp. Dist. 60 60 60 16

Others 427 427 427 427

Totals 6,835 8,162 742 1,000 16,739 15,739 9,834

Surplus/(Deficit) 5,905

Assumptions: Summit Water Treatment Plant is rated at 1/4 the annual production because it operates in summer months only. 

Park City Import is contract water delivered by Jordanelle Special Service District under long-term contract. 

Assumes wells at 1/2 installed capacity, springs at full capacity and surface water as shown in Table 2-1. 

Most of the flows shown under springs for Park City are actually tunnels. 

TABLE 2-2 

2003 Annual Water Production Estimate Method One (Using Maximum Installed Capacities) 

Water Supplier 

Springs 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Wells 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Surface 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Import 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Total 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Total In 

Basin 

(AcFt/Yr) 

2001 

Actual 

Usage 

(AcFt/Yr) 

Community Water Company 162 323 485 485 163

Gorgoza Mutual Water Co. 113 1,581 1,694 1,694 583

High Valley Water Co. 190 190 190 75

Mountain Regional SSD 202 2,736 2,937 2,937 1,697

Park City Municipal Corporation 8,307 2,420 1,000 11,726 10,726 4,728

Summit Water Distribution Co. 807 2,984 907 4,698 4,698 2,065

Summit Co. Service #3 234 234 234 80

Timberline Special Imp. Dist. 68 68 68 16

Others 427 427 427 427

Totals 9,428 10,801 1,230 1,000 22,459 21,459 9,834

Surplus/(Deficit) 11,625

Assumptions: Use 1/2 well capacity and full spring and surface water capacities shown in Table 2-1. 

Most of the flows shown under springs for Park City are actually tunnels. 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-12 

TABLE 2-4 

2003 Annual Water Production Capacity Estimate Method Three (Using Peaking Factor 

Adjustment) 

Water Supplier 

Springs

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Wells 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Surface 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Import 

(Ac-Ft/Yr)

Total 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Total In 

Basin 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

2001 Actual 

Usage 

(Ac-Ft/Yr) 

Community Water Company 141 140 281 281 163

Gorgoza Mutual Water Co. 49 1,375 1,424 1,424 583

High Valley Water Co. 166 166 166 75

Mountain Regional SSD 88 2,379 2,467 2,467 1,697

Park City Municipal Corporation 3,612 2,104 1,000 6,716 5,716 4,728

Summit Water Distribution Co. 351 2,595 394 3,340 3,340 2,065

Summit Co. Service #3 203 203 203 80

Timberline Special Imp. Dist. 59 59 59 16

Others 371 371 371 427

Totals 4,099 9,393 535 1,000 15,026 14,026 9,834

Surplus/(Deficit) 4,192

Assumptions: Use Installed or maximum flow rate shown in Table 2-1 and adjust for peak by dividing by the peaking factor of 2.3 

(for springs and surface water (for wells, the maximum is doubled and then divided by 2.3). 

Most of the flows shown under springs for Park City are actually tunnels. 

2.4.2 Limiting Factors 

The actual available water within the Snyderville Basin is somewhat lower than the Method 3 

Estimate, due to several factors. The most significant limiting factor is the lack of long-term 

storage capacity available in the Basin. Typically, the storage is short-term in nature and 

designed to meet daily demands only. If large storage facilities were available, the surplus water 

currently available during the winter and spring months could be utilized to a greater extent than 

is currently possible. 

Another limiting factor is that each system is operated independently from the others. When one 

system is experiencing its peak demand, it cannot be met using another system's resources. 

There are interconnections between some water systems to provide this capability, but they are 

not wide spread. The history of competition among water providers in the Snyderville Basin, 

limits the amount of cooperation achievable to meet each other's needs. 

2.4.3 Water Rights and Groundwater Systems 

A review of the water rights in the Snyderville Basin, indicates that there are significantly more 

paper water rights than physical water. The 2004 Water Use Plans submitted to the State 

Engineer by the various public water suppliers, indicate that they have asserted water rights in 

the Snyderville Basin totaling just over 28,000 acre-feet. However, during the recent series of 

dry years, these entities have only been able to withdraw approximately 10,000 acre-feet per 

year. In addition to the water rights held by the public water supply agencies, there are many 

private water rights for which water use plans are not submitted. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) performed a surface and groundwater budget study of the 

Snyderville Basin in 1998, (USGS, Tech. Pub. No. 115) and concluded that surface and 

groundwater systems are closely connected. The USGS divided the Snyderville Basin into six 

sub-basins and estimated the movement of surface and groundwater between the subbasins. The 

USGS further concluded that, "The rapid increase in discharge to streams and springs that results 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-13 

from the recharge effects of snowmelt is indicative of a groundwater system with little storage." 

This leads to the conclusion that an increase in groundwater pumping will quickly reduce surface 

water discharge. Conversely, increased surface water usage will decrease groundwater 

infiltration in adjacent areas. 

2.4.4 Surface Water Sources 

There are currently three sources of surface water supplying public water systems within the 

Snyderville Basin. The first is Willow Creek. The Willow Creek supply is treated in one of the 

oldest treatment plants in the area. This plant is operated by Community Water Company and is 

located in Willow Draw just north of The Canyons Ski Resort. This plant was constructed in the 

early 1980's, and is a traditional filter plant that has a maximum capacity of 0.29 MGD 

(200 gpm) and is rated by the county at 0.26 MGD (180 gpm). This plant provides water to the 

Community Water Company and The Canyons Ski Resort. 

The second water supply is diverted from East Canyon Creek, under water rights owned by 

SWDC. The diversion point is located just south of SWDC's treatment plant. However, SWDC 

has agreed to not divert to its treatment plant during periods when the stream flow is less than 

3.5 cfs (2.3 MGD/1,570 gpm). To treat this water, SWDC constructed a water treatment plant 

along East Canyon Creek, just upstream from the Snyderville Basin Wastewater Reclamation 

Facility, in 2002. This plant is a pressure membrane plant that has an installed capacity of 5.5 

MGD (3,820 gpm). Due to the limited water supply to the plant the County has rated the 

capacity of the plant at 1.6 MGD (1,120 gpm). It operates primarily in the spring and summer 

months when there is sufficient water flowing in East Canyon Creek. 

Plans have been developed to further develop this water supply by construction of pump stations 

and a pipeline from East Canyon Reservoir to the treatment plant site. A portion of the pipeline 

has been installed in the Jeremy Ranch Development with the balance of the system awaiting 

development. With the construction of the pipeline and pump stations, it is anticipated that the 

full 5.5 MGD (3,820 gpm) existing capacity would be utilized. Space is provided in the 

treatment plant to increase the capacity of the plant to 22 MGD (15,500 gpm) by adding 

additional treatment equipment. Initial plans are to import up to 5,000 acre-feet of water from 

East Canyon Reservoir each year, with an ultimate capacity of up to 12,500 acre-feet per year. 

These plans are further discussed in Chapter 5 as a part of future development options. 

The third surface water source is water imported from the Weber River through the new Lost 

Creek Canyon Pipeline to MRWSSD's new Signal Hill Water Treatment Plant, located in The 

Promontory Point Development, east of Highway U.S. Highway 40. The facilities to pump 

1,600 acre-feet per year have been operational since October 2004. This plant is a pressure 

membrane plant with an initial capacity of 3.0 MGD (2,080 gpm). The source of the water 

supply is the Weber River above Rockport Reservoir. MRWSSD has constructed a series of 

infiltration wells near the banks of the river where water is pumped to a booster pump station 

then transmitted up the mountainside to Promontory Point Treatment Plant. The plant is 

expandable to 6.0 MGD (4,200 gpm) within the treatment building. Water is purchased from 

WBWCD to supply the system. WBWCD and MRWSSD have been investigating ways to 

increase the water supply to this system from either Rockport Reservoir or from the Weber River 

just upstream of the reservoir. A study was conducted by Reclamation to examine the possible 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-14 

diversion options. The preferred option from that study is incorporated into the list of potential 

options presented in Chapter 5 of this report. 

2.4.5 State Engineer's Interim Groundwater Management Plan 

To determine available in-Basin water supplies, the State Engineer used modeling software to 

extend the stream gauging data for East Canyon Creek and Silver Creek and develop 50 years of 

synthetic record. From this data, annual discharge from the Basin was determined for each 

creek. The State Engineer then selected the driest year at each gauge (the dry years were not the 

same for both gauges), summed the two total annual values, and came up with 23,700 acre-feet 

of total "dry year" or "safe" yield of the Basin. The State Engineer further determined that public 

water supply agencies should only depend on this 23,700 acre-feet of dry year supply. In the 

analysis, the State Engineer determined that this is the amount that can be depleted, not just 

diverted. However, if this amount were to be fully depleted, discharge from the Basin would be 

reduced to zero in the driest year. 

In order to determine the distribution of the 23,700 acre-feet per year, the State Engineer 

proportionately distributed this volume between the six subbasins found in the USGS study. The 

State Engineer then estimated using a standard methodology, the amount of current depletion in 

the Basin based on approved uses. That effort resulted in an estimate of between 11,000 and 

12,000 acre-feet of existing approved annual depletion. The State Engineer then found that in 

two of the six subbasins, all of the allocated depletion has been committed under existing rights. 

In reviewing future change applications to move water rights, the State Engineer will use these 

totals to determine if additional water can be developed in each subbasin. Using the single driest 

year in each basin to calculate the safe yield is a very conservative method. In the absence of 

better data, this was considered a reasonable approach. However, the water needs to be 

physically available when needed in order to be a legitimate source. 

The 23,700 acre-feet of safe or dry year yield from the Snyderville Basin is sufficient to supply 

the present and most future needs of the Basin residents if the supply matched the demand or if 

there was significant storage. However, the water that is available in the high runoff period as 

shown in Figure 2-2, does not correspond with the same time period as peak demands. Further, 

much of this high flow or runoff water discharges from the Basin and cannot be used because of 

downstream water rights that require the runoff water to be stored in East Canyon or Echo 

Reservoirs. 

2.4.6 Comparison of Available Supplies with Basin Safe Yield 

Figure 2-2 below depicts two hydrographs charted over the water year of October 1 to September 

30. The area under the top hydrograph represents the 23,700 acre-feet of safe yield of the Basin, 

including the East Canyon Creek and Silver Creek drainages. The shape of this graph was 

patterned after the hydrograph of the data from the streamflow gage on East Canyon Creek for 

the years 1990-1995. Using this pattern, the graph was developed for the total volume of 23,700 

acre-feet. The area under the lower hydrograph represents the 2003 Adjusted Peak Water Supply 

Production Capacity of the Basin water supply systems, which is estimated at approximately 

14,000 acre-feet as shown in Table 2-4. This graph is represented on the figure as Available 

Supply. 
Park City and Snyderville Basin Water Supply Study Special Report 

2-15 

Downstream Storage

 FIGURE 2-2 

Snyderville Basin Safe Yield vs. Available Supply