Protect

HUNTINGTON NORTH

Emery County
Fathom Restoration
39° 20′ 47″ N
110° 56′ 53″ WHUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVOIR
Donate to Protect Huntington North
Four agencies call this reservoir four different names, and one of those names belongs to a different lake in a different county. Nothing on this page is taken from a search result. Every figure is quoted from the record it appears in.
4Official names for one reservoir, one per agency
3BWarm water game fish, and the only 3B in the county table
2.3Square miles draining to this dam. The creek beside it drains 187
583Metres between Reclamation's dam and the Corps' dam. Same dam
0Mammoths found at this reservoir. The other Huntington has one
Live from the only gauge there is
One station measures this reservoir and it has done so daily since October 1974. There is no flow card because there is no flow gauge, not below the dam, not on the ditch that fills it, and not on the canal it empties into.
contacting federal services
Water in the reservoirNRCS
reading the daily storage record
Of capacityReclamation
against 5,420 acre feet
The creek that fills itUSGS
no gauge
Huntington Creek was gauged at site 09318000 from 3 May 1909 to 4 October 1979 and has not been gauged since. The reservoir is filled by diversion and nobody measures the ditch.
Forecast over the waterNWS
contacting the National Weather Service
About  ·  01

Four agencies, four names, and none of them agree

Two Utah state agencies use the string "Huntington Reservoir" for this water. Three more use it for a lake in another county, two thousand seven hundred feet higher. Every one of them is current.

This reservoir does not have a name. It has four. Every one of them is used by a government body with authority over some part of it, and they do not agree.

NameWho uses it
Huntington North ReservoirReclamation , the soil conservation service , the fishing guidebook , and the water quality rule
Huntington ReservoirUtah State Parks, on the park's own page , and Utah's environmental quality department, on its monitoring page
Huntington LakeThe geographic names system , the national hydrography dataset , and the watershed boundary dataset
Huntington NorthThe Army Corps of Engineers, in the national dam inventory
Now the part that matters. There is a different reservoir, twenty three miles away, two thousand seven hundred feet higher, in a different county, whose official name is Huntington Reservoir , and whose dam the Corps files under the bare name Huntington . So the string "Huntington Reservoir" is used by Utah State Parks and Utah's environmental quality department to mean the water at this state park, and by the wildlife division , the water quality rule and the Forest Service to mean a lake at nine thousand feet in Sanpete County. All five of those are agencies. All five are current.

And there is no geographic names record for "Huntington North Reservoir" at all. The names system carries three Utah features matching the string: feature 1434738, Huntington Lake, which is this water; feature 1428947, Huntington Reservoir, which is the Sanpete one; and feature 1434742, a two and a half acre pond in Emery County also called Huntington Reservoir . The dam inventory is no easier: query it for every dam in the country whose name contains the string untington and twenty come back, six of them in Utah, two of which are these two reservoirs . A page citing a names record for "Huntington North Reservoir" would be citing something that does not exist. A page filtering by county to avoid the Sanpete confusion lands on the pond.

Nearly everything written about this reservoir says it impounds Huntington Creek. It does not. It sits beside the creek in a bowl of its own and is filled by a ditch. Three federal records say so independently, and a fourth proves it arithmetically.

  • Reclamation, on how water gets in: "A short distance below this juncture, water is released from North Ditch into the Huntington North Reservoir" . North Ditch is the structure that diverts from Huntington Creek.
  • The dam inventory's own watercourse field reads "Huntington Creek - Offstream" . The Corps says offstream in plain text.
  • The hydrography dataset flags the water body off network, a single integer that separates an impoundment from an off channel storage pond .
  • The arithmetic. The dam inventory gives this dam a drainage area of 2.3 square miles . Huntington Creek two miles upstream drains 187 . A dam across the creek would carry the creek's number.
What it is for is irrigation, and recreation is not on the list. Reclamation: "Storage water from this reservoir is released into the Huntington North Service Canal and carried to numerous canals and ditches to be distributed for irrigation" . The dam inventory's purpose field reads Irrigation and nothing else . The state park is a use layered onto an irrigation asset, not a purpose the dam was built for.

Reclamation puts the reservoir in a sentence with three structures, not one: "Huntington North Reservoir, created by Huntington North Dam and by the East and West Dikes, has a total capacity of 5,420 acre-feet and a surface area of 242 acres" . Two dikes and a dam. The service canal that empties it heads at the East Dike.

Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers both publish a coordinate for Huntington North Dam. They are not the same coordinate and they are not close.

SourceLatitudeLongitudeWhat it is
Reclamation 39.34173-110.94749The dam
The dam inventory 39.34518-110.94239The dam
The gauge station 39.34275-110.94355The storage station
The names system 39.34636-110.94807The water body
Recreation.gov 39.34733-110.94526The state park

583 metres between the two dam points. Reclamation's falls essentially on the southern edge of the water body, which is where a main dam across the south end would be. The inventory's falls inside the eastern part of it, which is where the East Dike would be. That is a hypothesis, not a finding, and this page does not choose between the two coordinates.

Reclamation publishes its coordinate to fourteen decimal places. 39.34173234304089, -110.94749450683594 . Fourteen decimals is sub nanometre precision on a number that is good to tens of metres. The same failure mode turned up at Causey, where Reclamation's own coordinate sat nine hundred metres from where three other agencies put the dam.
MeasureReclamation The dam inventory
Structural height85 ft74 ft
Hydraulic height59.1 ft59
Crest length2,897 ft at elevation 5,8452,897
Capacity5,420 acre feet, total5,420 normal, 5,690 maximum, headline storage field empty
Surface area242 acresEmpty
Drainage areanot published2.3 square miles
Purposeirrigation storageIrrigation

The two agencies agree on the crest to the foot and disagree on the height by eleven feet. Both are printed above and neither is preferred here. The hydraulic height, which is the one they do agree on, is a dam dimension: it is the normal operating depth at the dam, not a measurement of the deepest point of the reservoir.

No agency has measured how deep this reservoir is. No bathymetric survey, no contour map, no maximum depth from any source. What can be said is that the top of the active conservation pool sits at 5,838 feet and the streambed at the dam axis at 5,780, a difference of 58 feet . Dividing 5,420 acre feet by 242 acres gives a mean depth of about 22 feet, which is this page's arithmetic on Reclamation's two figures and not a measurement anyone took.

Two things in the inventory record are worth naming as absences. The maximum discharge field reads 100 cubic feet a second and the record does not say whether that is a spillway or an outlet figure; the spillway width and outlet gate fields are both empty . No spillway or outlet capacity for this dam is published by anyone, so no such number appears on this page.

The county is Emery. The town is Huntington. The creek is Huntington Creek. The canyon is Huntington Canyon. There are two reservoirs called Huntington something and a set of ponds on the community fishing list called Huntington Game Farm Ponds .

And the Emery County Sheriff who gave the public statement after the 2025 drowning at this reservoir is named Tyson Huntington .

This is not a joke at anyone's expense. It is the reason the page exists in this shape. A name that saturates a landscape stops being an identifier. Every search for one Huntington water returns results about another, every agency picks a different name, and the errors that follow are not careless: they are what happens when the label carries no information. The rest of this page is the specific, checkable consequences.
Science  ·  02

A bowl beside a creek, classified for warm water fish

The only 3B water in the Emery County table, an outline that agrees with the federal one to 1.7 percent, and a single gauge whose station code is two transposed letters away from a different reservoir.

The shape in the header is traced from the Fathom print artwork for this series. Before using it, it had to be checked against the federal outline, and on this page that check had a second job: it also had to prove the artwork traces the right Huntington.

MeasureThe traced outlineThe federal outline Gap
Long axis against width0.82170.83601.70%
Share of its bounding box0.6520.6460.9%
Area, matched on length182.6 acres183.8 acres0.7% under
Area, matched on width188.9 acres183.8 acres2.8% over

1.70 percent on the aspect ratio is the second closest agreement in this series. And the check validates itself: adding up the federal polygon by hand gives 0.7438 square kilometres against the 0.744 the dataset publishes, which is agreement to two hundredths of one percent. The arithmetic is right, so the disagreement above is a real difference between two drawings of the same lake, not an error in the measuring.

The second job, and the answer is unambiguous. Run the same measurement against the Sanpete Huntington Reservoir and the traced outline is 31 percent off on aspect ratio: that lake is wider than it is tall, at 1.1901, and fills only 0.307 of its box against this one's 0.646. The artwork traces the Emery County reservoir. On a subject where two state agencies cannot agree which lake a name belongs to, that was worth proving rather than assuming.

This is a fat lake, and that is unusual here. It fills nearly two thirds of its own bounding box. Causey, built two pages ago, fills a tenth. A reservoir made by damming a canyon is a thin branching thing; a reservoir dug beside a creek and filled by a ditch is a bowl. The shape is the evidence of the off channel design.

Utah classifies every named water for the uses it is protected for. Huntington North reads 2A, 3B, 4 . The Emery County table holds six waters, in this order:

WaterClasses
Cleveland Reservoir2B, 3A, 4
Electric Lake2B, 3A, 4Twenty three miles up the same drainage
Huntington Reservoir2B, 3A, 4The Sanpete one, filed in the Emery table
Huntington North Reservoir2A, 3B, 4The only 3B in the table
Joes Valley Reservoir2A, 3A, 4Same recreation tier, different fish tier
Millsite Reservoir1C, 2A, 3A, 4The only one carrying a drinking water class

Class 3A is cold water game fish and 3B is warm water game fish. Five of the six are 3A. This one is 3B. The state of Utah has classified this reservoir as a warm water fishery in its own water quality rule, and everything else lines up with that: the park calls it "this warm-water reservoir" , and the only fishing rule the state writes for it is a bass limit .

It also moves up a tier for recreation. Class 2A is frequent primary contact, where people swim and ingestion is likely; 2B is secondary contact. The three high lakes at the top of the drainage are 2B and the three lower down, including this one, are 2A. The classification follows the swimming, not the water.

One honest weakness, stated up front rather than buried. This classification rests on a single reproduction of the rule, from a law school library , because Utah's own rules site returns an error for the rule text. It was read twice, separately, and both reads returned the identical six rows in the identical order with the identical class codes, which is a stability check and not a second source. The same weakness was disclosed on the Causey page for the same reason.

Utah's environmental quality department publishes a recreational monitoring page for this water. It is titled "Huntington Reservoir Recreational Monitoring" , and the sampling points it names are "Huntington State Park (south of boat ramp and north of boat ramp, approximately 130 meters and 80 meters respectively)". So the department is sampling at this park and calling the water by the other lake's official name.

The 2025 season, every entry:

DateResult
27 May 2025E. coli below thresholds
23 June 2025E. coli below thresholds
15 July 2025E. coli below thresholds
12 August 2025E. coli below thresholds
15 September 2025E. coli below thresholds
1 November 2025Season ended, resuming June or July 2026
Read that page carefully, because it is easy to take it for something it is not. It is an E. coli programme. Nothing on it concerns cyanobacteria or cyanotoxins. No harmful algal bloom advisory was found for this water at any date, and four separate agency checks support that: the state's algal bloom page lists twenty five monitored waters and no Huntington water is among them ; the state parks division's own 2017 bloom notice names four parks and this is not one ; and the park's live conditions block reads "Algae Status: Clear" . A shallow warm reservoir with a swimming beach is exactly where you would expect to find one. It is not there.

What is not established, and is therefore not claimed. No approved total maximum daily load names any Huntington water , which is not the same as saying none exists. The impaired waters assessment status was not resolved, so this page says nothing about it either way. No fish consumption advisory names any Huntington water: twelve Utah waters carry one and Electric Lake, twenty three miles up the same drainage, is on the list . And mussel status is unknown: the park offers boat decontamination by appointment , which is the statewide inspection programme and is not evidence about this water.

There is exactly one gauge of any kind on this reservoir: soil conservation service station 09UTHUNT:UT:BOR, at 5,830 feet in Emery County, reporting reservoir contents daily since 29 October 1974 . It carries one element and nothing else.

Now look at the station list for the same network. Sitting a few rows away is 09UTHNTN:UT:BOR, at 9,000 feet, in Sanpete County . Two transposed letters. That is the whole difference between the reservoir this page is about and the reservoir the mammoth came out of.

So what happens if you point a card at the wrong one? Both answers were tested, and they are different.
Ask it for daily and you get a bare empty array, even though the station advertises a daily series running from 1900 to 2100 and flags it not derived . A card written the ordinary way would report a service failure that never happened.
Ask it for monthly and you get a full, healthy record. July 2026 reads 2,387 acre feet . Divide that by this reservoir's 5,420 acre foot capacity and the card says 44 percent, which looks entirely reasonable and is a number about a lake in another county.

The second failure is the dangerous one, and it is the exact shape the Electric Lake card had to be built in, because that station serves an empty daily array too and its card reads monthly out of necessity. This is the third station in this series found advertising a duration it does not serve.

The station serves three durations and they come back in three different shapes. Daily values carry a date string. Monthly values carry integer month and year keys and no date at all. Semimonthly adds a monthPart field which is a quoted string, not a number. Code written for one and pointed at another gets an empty list and reports a timeout that never happened.

The card reads daily, and there is a reason beyond currency: daily is the only duration here flagged not derived. The monthly and semimonthly numbers are computed from it. The card shows an observation, not a calculation.

There is no flow card because there is no flow gauge. Not below the dam, not on the ditch that fills the reservoir, not on the canal it empties into. The nearest continuous record on Huntington Creek is site 09318000, which ran from 3 May 1909 to 4 October 1979 and stopped . A second site downstream stopped on 29 September 2006. The creek that fills this reservoir has not been gauged in forty seven years.

Electric Lake and this reservoir are in the same county on the same creek system, and the relationship is not what it looks like. Working it out from the federal watershed file rather than from a map :

  • Electric Lake sits in unit 140600090102, Headwaters Huntington Creek, which drains to 140600090103, then 140600090104, then 140600090107.
  • This reservoir sits in unit 140600090105, Huntington Lake-Huntington Creek, which drains directly to 140600090107.

The two chains do not touch until 140600090107. Electric Lake's sub basin does not drain into this one. They converge below both.

This corrects something already published on the Electric Lake page, and that page has been amended. It described this reservoir as downstream on the same creek. It is downstream in the sense that the creek runs that way, but it is not on the creek, and the sub basins are siblings. That page also described the Sanpete Huntington Reservoir as upstream on the same creek, and that is wrong outright: it sits in the Left Fork unit, 140600090101, which meets Electric Lake's headwaters unit only below them both.

The straight line distance is 22.85 miles, computed from the two gauge station coordinates , and the drop is about 2,740 feet from Electric Lake's 8,580 to this reservoir's top of active conservation pool at 5,838 . The Electric Lake page says "roughly thirty miles" and "about 2,700 feet lower". The elevation is right and slightly understated. The thirty miles is unverified rather than wrong: no agency publishes a channel distance for that reach, and thirty channel miles against a 22.85 mile straight line is an ordinary amount of bend for a canyon creek.

Recreation  ·  03

Where everything is

Eight places, one of them the same dam twice, one of them a different lake, and not one of them a boat ramp, because no agency publishes where it is.

The whole reservoir
USGS Geographic Names Information System feature 1434738, which files this water as "Huntington Lake"
Eight places, one of which is the same dam twice and one of which is a different lake entirely.

Utah State Parks describes the water in one sentence : "Cinnamon-colored buttes provide a backdrop for this quiet desert oasis. Popular with locals, this warm-water reservoir is ideal for waterskiing, fishing, and crawdad catching."

ItemFee
Day use, private vehicle$10
Day use, walk in or bike$5 a person
Camping, full hookup$33
Camping, partial hookup$30
Group pavilion, to 50 people$50
Boat launchNot published

Hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in summer and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in winter, closed Thanksgiving and Christmas . Camping is booked through the reservation system, up to four months ahead and not inside 48 hours. A construction notice on the park page said shower facilities would be closed until 29 August 2026 while new campground amenities went in.

No agency source in this build names the park's individual facilities. Not the boat ramp, not the beach, not the campground loops. The state parks sub page that should list them served content for a different park entirely when fetched. So none of them is pinned on the map above. Utah's environmental quality department samples 130 metres south and 80 metres north of the boat ramp , which proves the ramp exists and that an agency knows where it is, and no agency publishes its position.

Utah's zoned waters rule has eighteen sections. Section sixteen reads, in full :

"A person may not use a motor with a manufacturer listed horsepower of 10 horsepower or more on Huntington Reservoir."

That is the entire section. It names no county and gives no geographic description. Search for boating rules at this state park and that sentence is what you find.

Four things say it is about the Sanpete lake, and none of them is the rule itself.
One. The Forest Service publishes the identical limit for the Sanpete water: "Motors must be less than 10 horsepower" . Same threshold, same wording, different agency.
Two. Utah State Parks calls this water "ideal for waterskiing" . A ten horsepower cap and waterskiing cannot both be true.
Three. The wildlife division uses the bare string "Huntington Reservoir" to mean the Sanpete water, and writes "Huntington North Reservoir" when it means this one .
Four. The water quality rule does exactly the same thing .

And here is the detail that makes it worse. The section immediately before it is titled "Lost Creek Reservoir in Morgan County" . The drafters knew to attach a county when a name is ambiguous. They did it for Lost Creek and they did not do it for Huntington. This page cannot prove the rule is about the Sanpete lake from the rule text, because the rule text does not say. What it can do is print the sentence, print the four reasons, and refuse to apply a ten horsepower cap to a water the managing agency advertises for waterskiing.

No motor limit, wake restriction or speed zone for this reservoir was found in any source. There is no zoned waters section for it. The fishing rules contain no boating rule for it. That is an absence, not a permission.

Underwater spearfishing is not open on this water. Utah's spearfishing rule lists forty two waters, lettered (a) through (pp), and says those "are the only waters open to underwater spearfishing for game or nongame fish", carp excepted . No Huntington water appears on the list. The guidebook's own page 19 list, checked four separate ways, does not carry one either .

The forty two matters, because this series keeps meeting a wrong number. The guidebook prints nine lines, one of which collapses seventeen Uinta lakes into a single heading. Nine lines is not nine waters, and neither nine nor twenty five nor forty two supports an "one of only N" sentence. Electric Lake is entry (j) on the rule list and does appear on the guidebook page. Twenty three miles apart, one open, one not.

No diving rule specific to this water was found in any source. Not in the zoned waters rule, not in the spearfishing rule, not on the park page. That is an absence and this page states it as one: it does not mean diving is permitted and it does not mean it is prohibited.

Fishing  ·  04

Three fish, and one of them the state will not name properly

Two are in the stocking record. The third is in the only fishing rule written for this water, which says "bass" and stops there.

Rainbow trout

Stocked, and the record is exact: 1,801 and 1,445 fish at 9.75 inches on 24 March 2026, catchable size, in two plants on the same day . That is 3,246 rainbows into a 242 acre reservoir in one morning.

3,246 stocked in one day

Brown trout

Also stocked, and stocked completely differently: 1,000 fish at 2.97 inches on 28 April 2026 . Fingerlings, not catchables. One species is put in to be caught this season and the other is put in to grow.

Fingerlings, not catchables

Bass

The one water specific fishing rule the state writes for this reservoir: "Limit 6 bass, only 1 may be over 12 inches" . It does not say which bass. On the same page the Holmes Creek entry says "6 largemouth bass" in so many words, so the division distinguishes when it means to. This drawing is a black bass because that is as far as the rule goes.

The only rule on this water

Three fish are drawn above and that is not the fishery. It is the evidence. Two are there because the wildlife division's stocking database records them going in . The third is there because the fishing guidebook writes one rule for this water and that rule is about bass .

The state park adds one more animal, and it is not a fish: the park page lists "crawdad catching" among what people come here for . Crayfish are not drawn on this page because there is no crayfish in the artwork for this series and one is not being invented.

Everything else you will read about this water is guesswork, and the guesses do not agree. Non agency guides variously list bluegill, green sunfish, channel catfish, wipers, Utah chub and Utah sucker. Only one of them lists wipers. Only one lists green sunfish. Two list catfish. A list assembled from them would be a list of what other websites say, and this page does not print one.

Two further absences. No fishery monitoring report for this water was found, and the search was not exhaustive: the division's report filenames are inconsistent, one lake using an underscore before the year where another uses a literal space, and only two filename forms were tried here. And the Blue Ribbon status is unresolved: the division's own page says there are forty three designated waters and does not print the list . Unresolved is the honest answer and it is better than a guess in either direction.

The fishing guidebook prints three Huntington waters within a few lines of each other. Here they are as printed, in the order printed :

EntryCountyThe rule
Huntington CreekEmeryBelow Electric Lake. Right Fork: limit 2 trout, artificial flies only. Left Fork: artificial flies and lures only
Huntington ReservoirSanpeteClosed to the possession of cutthroat trout or trout with cutthroat markings
Huntington Reservoir tributariesSanpeteSame cutthroat closure, anglers encouraged to harvest tiger trout, artificial flies and lures only, closed 1 January to the second Saturday of July
Huntington North ReservoirEmeryLimit 6 bass, only 1 may be over 12 inches
Notice the order. Alphabetically, Huntington North Reservoir belongs second, before Huntington Reservoir. It is printed fourth, after the Sanpete tributaries entry. The guidebook keeps the Sanpete pair together and puts this water after them. So a reader scanning alphabetically hits the Sanpete cutthroat closure first and may take it for this water's rule. That is the guidebook's own contribution to the collision.

This series uses alphabetical order as a fabrication test: an entry out of order usually means the read invented it. Here the anomaly is real. Three separately worded reads returned the identical order and the identical text, and a fourth question asked flatly whether the heading exists at all. It does. The test was overridden deliberately and this note is the disclosure.

The contrast is total. The Emery water gets a bass limit. The Sanpete water gets a cutthroat protection, a tiger trout harvest encouragement, an artificial only restriction and a seasonal closure. No source names the cutthroat subspecies at the Sanpete lake and this page does not guess one.

Recreation  ·  05

What to watch for

A mammoth that belongs to another lake, a drowning whose accounts disagree about who found him, and a name that makes searching for either of them unreliable.

On 8 August 1988 a bulldozer operator working on a dam in Utah uncovered a nearly complete Columbian mammoth, Mammuthus columbi, preserved in a bog. It was found with plant fossils, a cheekbone and teeth of the giant short faced bear Arctodus simus, and several human artifacts . It was excavated by the then Utah State Paleontologist . It sits at about 9,000 feet, which the survey calls "a record-high elevation for the species" .

That dam is not this dam. The Utah Geological Survey writes: "The Huntington Mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was found on August 8, 1988 by a bulldozer operator working on the Huntington Reservoir Dam on the Wasatch Plateau in central Utah" . The Forest Service, independently: "During the 1988 reconstruction of the Huntington Reservoir dam, workers discovered the remains of a giant Columbian mammoth" . Huntington Reservoir is in Sanpete County, twenty three miles from here and about three thousand feet higher. This reservoir sits at 5,838 feet in Emery County and it has no mammoth.

Two agencies disagree about the animal and neither is corrected here. The Forest Service says it was a bull about 60 years old ; the geological survey says roughly 65, by comparing dental wear with modern elephants . On its age in the ground, the survey contradicts itself: one of its pages says roughly 11,220 radiocarbon years before present and another says about 10,500 years ago . Nothing on either page reconciles the two.

Where it is now, also disputed. One survey page says the skeleton is held at the museum in Price and casts are elsewhere ; another lists that museum among the places holding casts . The institution has been renamed since the older sources were written. No source in this build states the depth the bones were found at, so no depth appears here.

On Sunday 6 July 2025, a man drowned while swimming near the shore at Huntington State Park. The Emery County Sheriff's Office received a 911 call at 4 p.m. . He was found about seven feet down, not far from shore .

How he was located, and this page will not resolve it. Utah State Parks searched with sonar; the Carbon County Dive Team searched in the water. One outlet reports that "the Carbon County Dive Team located and recovered the body" . Another reports the sonar search and says "deputies retrieved the man's body" . A third describes both operations running . This page does not write "found by divers" and does not write "found by sonar." Two teams searched, the reports conflict on which of them found him, and that is what is on the record.

The time is also disputed. Three accounts give about 7 p.m., one quoting the sheriff's office directly . A fourth gives 7:17 p.m. and calls that the moment of discovery rather than of recovery , so the two may not be describing the same event at all.

Everything in this section is news reporting. No agency record of this incident was obtained: the sheriff's office statements reach this page only through the outlets that quoted them, and Utah State Parks published nothing about it that could be found. No incident at this park before 2025 was found in searchable press, and no vehicle in the water, missing person or boating fatality was found at any Huntington water.

Searching for what has happened at the Sanpete Huntington Reservoir returns, over and over, the drowning at this state park. The mechanism is specific and it is worth naming. News outlets covering the July 2025 death called this water "Huntington Reservoir"; one outlet's web address for the story is literally body-recovered-after-drowning-in-huntington-reservoir-state-park .

So any search anchored on Huntington Reservoir, Huntington Canyon, Huntington Creek or Electric Lake pulls this one incident to the top. The contamination is name driven and systematic, not incidental. A page built from search results would attach this drowning to the mammoth reservoir, twenty three miles away and three thousand feet higher, and produce a story that never happened. This is the same failure that put a Huntington drowning into searches for Electric Lake incidents, which that page already notes.

No incident was found in searchable press at the Sanpete Huntington Reservoir, or on either fork of Huntington Creek. That is the publishable form. It is not the same sentence as "nothing has happened there", and this page does not write that one.

Two teams searched. The reports still disagree about which one found him.

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 Huntington North

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

FATHOM RESTORATION
Six things on this page are narrower than what is usually written about Huntington. The 1988 mammoth was found at Huntington Reservoir in Sanpete County and not at this reservoir. The ten horsepower motor limit in Utah's zoned waters rule names Huntington Reservoir without a county, and four separate lines of evidence point at the Sanpete lake, but the rule text itself does not say, so this page prints the sentence and refuses to apply it here. This reservoir does not impound Huntington Creek; it sits beside it and is filled by a ditch, which Reclamation, the dam inventory and the hydrography dataset all state and the drainage areas confirm. There is no geographic names record for the name Huntington North Reservoir. No agency publishes a species list, a maximum depth, a shoreline length or a spillway capacity for this water, so none appears here. And the water quality classification rests on a single reproduction of the rule rather than the two this series normally requires. This is a reference for the public and is not a navigation chart.