Protect

CURRANT CREEK

Wasatch County
Fathom Restoration
40° 20′ 31″ N
111° 03′ 37″ WCURRANT CREEK RESERVOIR
Donate to Protect Currant Creek
Both of Utah's fish consumption advisory lists name this reservoir and they name different species. Every figure on this page is quoted from the record it appears in.
1975The year this dam was completed. Federal, and the Bureau of Reclamation in every ownership field
2Utah advisory lists that name this water, and they name different fish
277xBetween the two federal drainage area figures for the same dam
1994The year the gauge below this dam stopped measuring
101,900Acre feet a year the system this reservoir feeds moves out of the Uinta Basin
Live, and for once every card has a working feed
The storage station serves a genuine daily series, which is unusual in this series. The percentage is worked against the capacity two federal sources agree on, and the card shows what it would read against the other two. The flow gauge is fourteen river miles below the dam, because the two gauges at the dam are dead.
contacting federal services
Water in the reservoirNRCS
reading the daily storage record
Of capacityThree figures
working it against the figure two federal sources agree on
The creek, fourteen miles downUSGS
reading Currant Creek near Fruitland
Forecast over the waterNWS
contacting the National Weather Service
About  ·  01

A federal dam, and a creek the government spells two ways

Seven Utah streams share this name, two federal publications misspell it, the reservoir exists to send its water over a basin divide, and its high hazard dam carries no condition rating at all.

The water is Currant Creek Reservoir, in Wasatch County. Currant, the berry. And two federal publications spell it Current.

WhereWhat it says
The national dam inventory, river field"Current Creek"
Interior's project questions pagenames "Current Creek" among four Uinta Basin streams
The names system, the water survey, the wildlife division, the environmental department, the soil conservation service, the Forest Serviceall "Currant"
This is not a public typo. Two federal publications carry it, which means a search for "Current Creek Reservoir Utah" returns federal documents about this lake and so does a search for the correct spelling. Anyone using either one is looking for this water.

And the correct spelling is not much help on its own. Seven separate Utah streams are named exactly Currant Creek , in Wasatch and Duchesne, Juab and Utah, Washington, Sanpete, Rich and Sevier counties. Utah also has a second dam with the name, PacifiCorp's Currant Creek evaporation ponds near Mona in Juab County, which is not this reservoir and is not on this creek .

Two more that get merged. Currant Creek Peak is in Wasatch County and Currant Creek Mountain is a different summit in Duchesne County . And the water quality rule that classifies this reservoir also classifies a different Currant Creek, the one running to Mona Reservoir in the Utah Lake drainage . A careless lookup lands a hundred miles away.

Only two features in the entire country are named Currant Creek Reservoir : this one, and a private forty acre irrigation pond in Oregon .

Currant Creek is a tributary of the Strawberry River, which runs to the Duchesne, which runs to the Green, which runs to the Colorado. The water in this reservoir does not go that way.

Interior's account of the Central Utah Project puts it in one sentence :

"Currant Creek Reservoir, with a total capacity of 15,671 acre-feet, diverts Currant Creek and five tributaries into the Strawberry Aqueduct."

That aqueduct runs the wrong way on purpose. The Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System is described as "the single largest component of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project", gathering ten named streams: "Rock Creek, South Fork Rock Creek, Hades Creek, Twin Creek, Wolf Creek, West Fork of the Duchesne River, Currant Creek, Layout Creek, Water Hollow Creek, and the Strawberry River" .

Diversions through it average 101,900 acre feet a year, moved out of the eastern Uinta Basin to the Wasatch Front . That is an interbasin transfer: water leaving the Colorado River basin for the Bonneville Basin, which has no outlet to the sea at all. The federal water body record still files this reservoir under reach code 14060004, the Upper Colorado region , because that is where it sits, not where its water ends up.

The system also gives some back. It "releases 44,400 acre feet of water at various points along its course to support and enhance trout and other sport fishing annually in four important Uinta Basin streams" , and Currant Creek is one of the four named, spelled Current .

Where the aqueduct ends is a lake this series has already covered. The system delivers into Strawberry Reservoir, about sixteen miles southwest . That is a physical connection stated by a federal agency, which is a rarer thing on these pages than it sounds: most reservoirs that get linked together share nothing but a list.

This one is federal, unlike the last several in this series .

FieldValue
Owner typeFederal, and the owner, funder, regulator, inspector and operator fields all read Bureau of Reclamation
State regulatedNo
Year completed1975, construction 1974 to 1975
Hazard potentialHigh
Last inspected9 June 2021, on a four year inspection cycle
Condition assessment"Not Available", and the assessment date field is empty
Read the last row against what this series usually finds. Two other dams on these pages carry a condition rating that is decades older than the inspection beside it, which is a records problem. Here there is no rating to be stale. The federal inventory publishes a hazard classification, an inspection date and an inspection frequency for this dam, and publishes no assessment of its condition at all .

A hazard potential of High is a statement about what is downstream, not about the structure. The nearest downstream town in the record is Fruitland, fourteen miles away . The emergency action plan was last revised 7 July 2022.

The inventory also flags this dam as associated with the Uintah and Ouray Reservation . This page does not develop that, because no source retrieved here explains what the association is, and a land status flag in a dam database is not a statement about jurisdiction. It is recorded because it is in the record.

Nothing here is disputed by much except the two things that are disputed enormously.

MeasureOne federal sourceAnother
Drainage area46.93 square miles, the dam inventory 13,000 square miles, Reclamation
Capacity15,671 acre feet, Interior and the dam inventory's maximum and normal storage, agreeing 17,210 in the dam inventory's own combined storage field , and 17,240 from the wildlife division
Height177 feet, the dam inventory 164.0 feet structural height, Reclamation
Spillway capacity840 cubic feet a second 850 cubic feet a second at elevation 7,683.2
Surface area300 acres, the dam inventory 305 acres, the wildlife division . The federal water body polygon computes to 290
The drainage area is the one that cannot be split. A tributary of the Strawberry River does not drain thirteen thousand square miles: that is roughly a sixth of Utah. This page prints both figures and adopts neither, and notes that a basin scale value sitting in a facility field is a much likelier explanation than a 277 fold measurement error. That explanation is this page's inference and no agency states it.

The capacity spread is small enough to work with, and the page still shows its working. Interior calls 15,671 the total capacity in a sentence about this reservoir , and the dam inventory's maximum and normal storage fields both read 15,671 . Against that, the same inventory record's combined storage field reads 17,210, which contradicts its own published definition of that field.

What Reclamation does publish is elevations, and only elevations. Crest 7,692.0, maximum water surface 7,683.2, top of active conservation pool 7,678.0, top of inactive 7,674.0, top of dead storage 7,575.0 . Its facility page carries no capacity figure of any kind, which was checked twice. The one useful cross check is that the federal water body polygon stamps its own elevation at 7,678 , exactly Reclamation's top of active conservation pool, so the outline is drawn at a full working pool and not at a drought low.

Science  ·  02

Two advisory lists, two different fish

The first water in this series to appear on both of Utah's mercury advisory lists, a 2024 bloom warning the state's own bloom index does not carry, and an outline that needed checking.

Utah publishes two fish consumption advisory lists and they do not agree with each other. Earlier pages in this series found waters on one list and not the other. This is the first water found on both, and the two lists name different species.

ListDatedSpeciesMercury
The environmental department's advisory table 4/23/18Brown trout0.460
The health department's list, from a 2022 mercury analysis 2022Tiger troutnot machine readable

The brown trout limits, verbatim from the older list :

Pregnant women and childrenWomen of childbearing ageEveryone else
0 four ounce meals a month2 eight ounce meals a month6 eight ounce meals a month
Neither list is wrong and neither supersedes the other on its face. The health department's list is four years newer and names twelve waters. The environmental department's list is older and much longer. A reader who checks only the newer one learns about tiger trout and not about brown trout. A reader who checks only the older one learns the reverse. This page prints both and merges neither into "trout", because they are different fish and one of them has a published number attached.

The tiger trout figure could not be retrieved. The health department links a per water sheet for this reservoir and that sheet is an image with no machine readable text in it , so the mercury concentration and the meal limits behind the tiger trout listing are not quoted here.

One detail in the newer list is worth flagging rather than resolving. It writes this entry as "Currant Creek", with no Reservoir on the end, while writing eight of the other eleven entries as Reservoir something . Given that seven Utah streams carry this name, that is a real ambiguity. The linked sheet's own filename and the Spanish version of the entry both say Reservoir, which is why this page treats the entry as the reservoir. That identification is an inference from a filename, not a statement by the agency, and it is marked as such here rather than smoothed over.

Utah's environmental department issued a warning advisory for this reservoir on 9 October 2024, through the Wasatch County Health Department . The finding, verbatim:

"A harmful algal bloom is present at Currant Creek Reservoir."

Monitoring closed for the season on 26 November 2024, and the closing note reads :

"A harmful algal bloom may still be present at this waterbody."

None of that appears on the page you would go to for it. The department's harmful algal blooms home page does not name this reservoir, and the advisory table on it is a 2018 archive . The 2024 warning lives on a separate per water page that the index does not link.

So the honest statement is narrow in one direction and firm in the other. This water is monitored and it has a documented bloom warning. Absence from the index proves nothing about any water, which is a lesson this series learned by nearly publishing the opposite at another reservoir.

No cyanotoxin concentration and no cell count is published on the page , so none is given here. And nothing was found for 2025 or 2026, which is a not found rather than an all clear: the page's last entry is the November 2024 seasonal close, and it ends by saying a bloom may still be present.

The shape in the header is traced from the Fathom print artwork and checked against the federal water body polygon .

MeasureTracedFederalGap
Width against length0.61470.683810.11%
Share of its bounding box0.3620.32212%
Area, matched on length293.6 acres290.6 acres1.03% over
Area, matched on width363.3 acres290.6 acres25% over
Ten percent is the second widest gap this series has measured, and it was worth checking whether the artwork traced a different lake. It did not. The federal ring and the traced outline were rendered side by side: the northwest arm, the notch above it, the eastern lobe and the southern taper all match feature for feature. What the drawing does is compress the west arm, which narrows the whole shape without shortening it. Matched on length the two enclose the same area to one percent.

The self check is clean. Adding up the federal polygon by hand gives 1.1758 square kilometres against the 1.1740 the dataset publishes, agreement to about fifteen hundredths of one percent.

About a mile and a half long and a mile across at the widest, from the federal polygon. Three surface areas are published and this page prints all three: 300 acres in the dam inventory , 305 from the wildlife division , and 290 computed from the federal polygon . No maximum depth, no mean depth and no shoreline length is published by anyone. Reclamation's "hydraulic height" of 124.2 feet is the operating depth of water at the dam and is not a lake maximum, so it is not printed as one.

Utah classifies its waters by the uses each one is protected for, and Currant Creek Reservoir carries four classes at once :

ClassDefinition, verbatim
1C"Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment by treatment processes as required by the Utah Division of Drinking Water"
2B"Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for secondary contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of bodily contact with the water."
3A"Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain."
4"Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering."
Both the classification and the definitions above are non agency sources and they are chipped as such. Utah's own rules site returns a 404 for the text of this rule, and the state's mirror is closed to automated reading. So this page is quoting two legal publishers reproducing Utah code, not Utah, and it will not pretend otherwise.

Notice 2B rather than 2A. 2A is the class for frequent primary contact where ingestion is likely. This reservoir is protected for infrequent primary contact . That is the swimming class, and it is the lower of the two.

Whether this water is on Utah's impaired waters list could not be determined. The integrated report landing page describes the report and its comment period and publishes no direct downloads, and does not name this reservoir either way. That is unresolved, not clean, and it is listed with the other gaps rather than glossed. The federal impaired waters service that would settle it returns an authorisation error on every request this series has ever made to it.

Recreation  ·  03

Where everything is

Nine places, two of which are gauges that stopped measuring this creek decades ago.

The whole reservoir
Midpoint of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset water body extent, derived rather than published
Nine places, two of which are gauges that stopped measuring this creek decades ago.

Currant Creek Campground is run by the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Heber-Kamas Ranger District . Not a state park: the full Utah roster of forty six was checked and this water is not on it . Not a county park either.

PublishedNot published
Season 6/5 to 9/20Number of sites
Boat ramp on siteFees, which the page defers to the booking service for
Two minimum stay rules on weekends and holidaysAny horsepower or wake restriction
The two federal pages for this campground disagree about how high it is. The booking service gives the campground "at an elevation of 8,000 feet" . Reclamation puts the crest of the dam at 7,692.0 feet and the maximum water surface at 7,683.2 , and the soil conservation service lists the reservoir station at 7,680 .

A lakeside campground cannot sit three hundred feet above the crest of the dam that makes the lake. Both figures are printed and neither is averaged into the other. The Forest Service's own page for the same campground publishes no elevation at all .

No horsepower limit and no wake restriction is published by the managing agency , so none is stated here. That is an absence in the record and not a permission.

Both federal pages carry the same sentence about the surface :

"The road from the highway is paved for 10 miles and graded gravel for 7 miles."

And the route, verbatim :

"From Heber City, Utah, take Highway 40 east for 45 miles to the Currant Creek Junction. Turn off the highway and travel in a northwest direction approximately 17 miles to the campground."

No high clearance requirement, no four wheel drive requirement and no seasonal closure date is stated by the managing agency . The campground season of 6/5 to 9/20 is the only seasonal bound any agency publishes for this place, and it is a campground season, not a road status. This page does not invent an ice off date or a gate closure, and anyone driving it in shoulder season should ask the district rather than a web page.

An alternate route exists and it is longer in instructions than in miles : Highway 40 southeast about 22 miles to Forest Service Road 082, the Coop Creek road, then eight miles north and six more east and south. Co-op Creek is a real named feature and it is separately regulated in the fishing guidebook, three entries above Currant Creek on the same page .

Fishing  ·  04

Four fish, and a rule that excludes this lake by name

Two species come from mercury advisories and two from the wildlife division. The artificial flies and lures restriction everyone attaches to this water says in its own text that it does not apply to the reservoir.

Brown trout

Named by Utah's environmental quality department, on the state fish consumption advisory table, at mercury 0.460, dated 4/23/18 . An advisory requires tissue sampling, so it is about as hard as species evidence gets. Zero meals a month for pregnant women and children.

On the 2018 advisory

Tiger trout

Named by Utah's health department, on its own twelve water list from a 2022 mercury analysis . The two state lists name different fish in this reservoir, and this is the one the newer list names. Its mercury figure could not be read: the per water sheet behind it is an image.

On the 2022 advisory

Cutthroat trout

The wildlife division calls this water's cutthroat "abundant native cutthroat trout" . No subspecies is drawn or named, because no agency source names one for this reservoir, although the division plainly does distinguish them elsewhere.

Wildlife division

Mountain whitefish

Listed by the wildlife division as a possible catch here . It is the only species on this page that is not a trout, and the only one named by a single source in a single line.

Wildlife division

That is the whole list. Two species come from consumption advisories and two from the wildlife division's own page for this water.

What is not drawn, and why. No rainbow trout, no brook trout, no splake, no kokanee and no grayling. The guidebook's statewide line "Trout, kokanee salmon and Arctic grayling (a combined total) ... 4" is a limit that applies to every water in Utah and is not a statement that any of those fish live in this one.

And tiger trout being here is not evidence of brook trout. A tiger trout is a brown by brook hybrid, and the presence of a hybrid is not the presence of its parents. Brown trout is drawn because an agency names brown trout, not because it is half of something else.

No survey and no stocking record could be retrieved for this reservoir. The wildlife division's stocking application returns a 403, and five separate addresses for a technical report were tried across all four filename conventions this series has confirmed working for other waters. All five returned 404. So the species list rests on two advisories and one description page, and it is four fish long rather than the eight or ten a reservoir this size probably holds.

Search for fishing regulations at Currant Creek and you will find an artificial flies and lures restriction. It is real. It is current. And it is not about the reservoir.

The entry, verbatim and in full :

"Currant Creek, Wasatch County. From the confluence with Water Hollow Creek upstream to the headwaters, including all tributaries to Currant Creek Reservoir, but not the reservoir itself. Artificial flies and lures only."

Six words do all the work: "but not the reservoir itself." The restriction runs up the creek from the Water Hollow confluence to the headwaters and takes in the tributaries. It stops at the water line.

And there is no other entry. A separately issued existence question, phrased so that "no" was the easy answer, confirmed that the 2026 guidebook contains no standalone rule for Currant Creek Reservoir at all . The reservoir is governed by Utah's general statewide regulations: four trout, season open all year, two poles with a licence.

The 2023 guidebook says the same thing, word for word, on page 27 instead of page 30 . Nothing was dropped between editions here, unlike the previous lake in this series, where a restriction people still quote had quietly disappeared.

Why this trips people. The creek and the reservoir share a name, the rule's own text names the reservoir twice while excluding it once, and a search engine has no way to tell a water body from the stream it is on. The alphabetical order of the guidebook entries was checked against a first reading that had them out of order, and the first reading was wrong: Cow Hollow, then Currant Creek, then Cutler Reservoir. The entry is real and sits where it should.

Seventh page in this series where this cannot be settled. What is different here is how close it came to being settled incorrectly, and that is worth writing down.

A search index carries the page title "Currant Creek Reservoir (Blue Ribbon)" for the wildlife division's fishing application. That looks like a definitive agency answer. It is not.

Fetching that page directly returns a title of "Fish Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources", and the served document contains neither the words "Blue Ribbon" nor the words "Currant Creek". The application builds its content in the browser, so the served page is an empty shell for every water in the state. The only artifact carrying that string is a third party crawler's stored title, undated and not reproducible.

It is suggestive: something rendered that page with its scripts running and captured a title the application had built. It is not an agency document and it is not cited as one here.

What the division does publish is counts, and they do not agree. Its Blue Ribbon page describes the programme and its four criteria, names two waters as examples, states that a downloadable card "includes all 43 waterbodies, current as of 2021", and prints no list . A funding release says "There are currently 43 waterbodies in addition to two mountain areas in Utah" . Earlier pages in this series recorded 41 in a July 2026 release and 44 in a third. None of them names this reservoir.

The division does publish per water designation releases. Gunlock Reservoir, four hundred miles south, has one . No equivalent release naming Currant Creek Reservoir was found, which is a not found rather than a no. Unresolved remains the honest answer, and it is a better answer than a crawler artifact dressed up as a federal fact.

Recreation  ·  05

What to watch for

Nothing found in searchable press and a county full of decoys, a bloom advisory whose last word was that it may still be present, and no measurement of what leaves this dam since 1994.

No incident of any kind at Currant Creek Reservoir was found in searchable press. No drowning, no boating fatality, no missing person, no vehicle in the water, no ice incident, no recovery operation.

A county level search here is actively misleading. Wasatch County also holds Deer Creek Reservoir and Jordanelle Reservoir, both far busier and both carrying incidents in the press. Every result a search returned belonged to a different water.

Add the name problem from the top of this page: seven Utah streams called Currant Creek, a second Utah dam with the name in Juab County, a Currant Creek Reservoir in Oregon, and two Currant Creeks in Nevada . A list assembled from search results would carry incidents from at least two states and three Utah counties.

The publishable sentence is "no incident found in searchable press". It is not "nothing has happened here".

What was not queried. Utah's public safety department and the Wasatch County sheriff's own incident records were not searched directly, and they remain the sources that would actually answer this. That is a gap in this build, stated rather than hidden.

The one hazard statement about this water that comes from an agency is the 2024 advisory , and the sentence that closed it out is the one worth carrying:

"A harmful algal bloom may still be present at this waterbody."

That is how the season ended, not how it resolved. Monitoring closed on 26 November 2024 with the bloom unconfirmed as gone rather than confirmed as gone. Nothing for 2025 or 2026 was found, and the statewide index would not show it if there were: this reservoir is not on that index at all .

Check the state's current monitoring page before getting in this water, and understand that a quiet page here can mean an unmonitored season rather than a clean one. Blue green algae is cyanobacteria and dogs are at higher risk than people, because they drink the water and lick their coats.

Note also what class this water is protected for. 2B, infrequent primary contact, which is the lower of Utah's two recreation classes . That is a designation, not a warning, and it is not a statement that the water is unsafe. It is recorded here because the combination of a 2B classification and a bloom advisory is the context a swimmer would want.

Three gauges have measured this creek. The two near the dam are both dead .

GaugeDaily discharge record
Below Currant Creek Dam, site 092867001 October 1983 to 2 October 1994. Thirty one years ago.
Below Red Ledge Hollow, site 092870001 October 1945 to 12 October 1983
Near Fruitland, site 092880001 January 1935 to today, still reporting
The second one died the same month the first one was born, which is what a relocation looks like: the older gauge below Red Ledge Hollow stopped in October 1983 and the gauge below the new dam started in October 1983 . Then the replacement stopped too, in 1994, and nothing replaced it.

The live gauge on this page is not a dam release gauge and the card says so. Site 09288000 sits at 6,664.78 feet, roughly a thousand feet lower and fourteen river miles down, near Fruitland . It measures a creek that has picked up Water Hollow and other tributaries on the way. It is a real, continuous, ninety one year record of the creek, and it is not a measurement of this reservoir.

Which matters more here than at most reservoirs, because this one is a diversion structure. The water it sends into the Strawberry Aqueduct never passes any of these gauges . No public gauge measures the diversion itself, and none was found in this build.

Utah issued a harmful algal bloom warning for this reservoir in October 2024 and closed the season saying it may still be present.

Fathom Restoration is a Utah 501(c)(3) that runs volunteer dive cleanups and is built to pull what does not belong out of Utah water, statewide.

Donate to Protect Currant Creek

Every figure on this page is quoted from the source named beside it.

FATHOM RESTORATION
Six things on this page are narrower or more awkward than what is usually written about Currant Creek. The artificial flies and lures rule applies to the creek and its tributaries and excludes the reservoir in its own words, and the reservoir carries no special regulation at all. Both of Utah's fish consumption advisory lists name this water and they name different species, so both are printed and neither is merged into the word trout. The two federal drainage area figures for this dam differ by a factor of 277 and neither is adopted. The campground elevation on the federal booking page is higher than the crest of the dam, and both figures are printed. The water quality classification is quoted from two legal publishers rather than from the state, because the state's own rules site returns an error. And the Blue Ribbon designation this water is widely given could not be confirmed: the only artifact carrying it is a search engine's stored page title, and the page itself contains no such string. This is a reference for the public and is not a navigation chart.