Protect

NEWTON

Cache County
Fathom Restoration
41° 54′ 19″ N
111° 59′ 11″ WNEWTON RESERVOIR
Donate to Protect Newton
Reclamation says the reservoir that stood here before this one was probably the first irrigation reservoir in the United States. It failed three times. Every figure on this page is quoted from the record it appears in.
1871The year the first dam went in here, seventy five years before this one
8%Of capacity in September 2025, five months after 94 percent
1947The year anything last measured the creek that fills it
100+Tiger muskie that left through the outlet pipe in 2013
153Acres in the federal outline, against 290 to 350 published by three agencies
Live from a station that serves one series in three
The storage figure here is monthly and the service flags it as derived, because the daily series this station advertises returns nothing. There is no flow card: the creek has not been measured since 1947.
contacting federal services
Water in the reservoirNRCS
reading the monthly storage record
Of capacityReclamation
against 5,600 acre feet
The creek that fills itUSGS
no gauge
Clarkston Creek was measured at site 10115500 and the record ends on 12 April 1947, the year after the dam was finished. Seventy nine years.
Forecast over the waterNWS
contacting the National Weather Service
About  ·  01

Probably the first one in the country

Reclamation makes a claim about the reservoir that stood here before this one that it makes about nowhere else in Utah, and then the dam it built to replace it had to be raised three feet after a 1984 spill.

Reclamation makes a claim about this place that it makes about nowhere else in Utah. Of the reservoir that stood here before the present dam, verbatim :

"This reservoir was the first large body of irrigation storage in the State of Utah and probably the first in the United States."

That reservoir was not this one. Reclamation says its dam "replaced an older privately constructed reservoir of inadequate capacity which had been formed by a dam 1.5 miles upstream from the present Newton Dam" .

DateWhat Reclamation's chronology says
24 July 1855Initial settlement attempt
1871Original dam construction begins
1874"Reservoir first used"
14 January 1890Newton Irrigation Company organised
The old dam failed three times, and this page will not tell you when. Reclamation's chronology gives 1874 as the year the reservoir was first used . The national register listing for the historic reservoir gives 1874 as one of three significant years and says nothing about what happened in it . A widely repeated non agency account has the dam washing out in 1874. Two of those three are agencies and they do not agree, so the failures are described here and not dated.

The listing itself is worth knowing about. The name "Newton Reservoir" is on the national register of historic places, listed 30 November 1973 . What is listed is the history, not the reservoir you can drive to.

The present dam is an earthfill structure 101 feet high, 410,000 cubic yards, with a service spillway on a radial gate and an emergency spillway with an uncontrolled crest 1,000 feet long at the west end . It was finished in 1946. Forty years later it was not big enough.

WhenWhat happened
1978A dam safety evaluation finds three feet of unknown material added to the emergency spillway, and seepage above elevation 4,780
1982A second evaluation finds the unlined auxiliary spillway cannot pass the updated inflow design flood
June 1984The reservoir spills
1986 to 1987The crest is raised three feet, with a grade sill and a training dike
The finding behind the work was that the dam could overtop. Not that it was leaking, not that it was cracking: that the flood the engineers now expected was bigger than the spillway they had . The dam inventory corroborates the work independently, carrying years modified as "1987 - Hydraulic, 1987 - Structural" , two separate categories in one year.

And the inventory carries no condition rating for this dam at all. The assessment field reads Not Available and the assessment date is empty . That is the third dam in this series with no published condition rating.

Newton Dam is on Clarkston Creek, and that is settled four ways: Reclamation says "an earthfill structure on Clarkston Creek" , the dam inventory's watercourse field reads Clarkston Creek and not offstream , the hydrography dataset flags the water body on network , and the drainage area is the right order of magnitude for a dam that intercepts its own creek.

Where it is, on the other hand, Reclamation gives two answers. Its project page says the dam is "approximately 2 miles north of Newton" . Its facility page for the same dam says "1 Mile East of Newton, Utah" . North and east are not the same direction. Running the arithmetic on the two agency point locations puts the dam about two and a half miles north northeast of the town centre, which is closer to the first answer than the second, but that is arithmetic on coordinates and not a third agency statement, so it does not settle it.

One thing this page can report as unusually good. Reclamation and the dam inventory put this dam about forty five metres apart, which is the closest those two records have agreed anywhere in this series. At the last two lakes they were 222 and 583 metres apart. Reclamation still publishes its coordinate to fifteen decimal places , which is the sixth lake running.

Science  ·  02

The federal outline is the one that is wrong

A hundred and fifty three acres in the hydrography dataset against two hundred and ninety to three hundred and fifty published by three agencies, and a storage record that explains why.

Every page here checks the traced print artwork against the federal water body polygon, and on every previous page the federal polygon has been the reference. Not here.

SourceSurface area
Utah's watershed restoration initiative 350 acres
Reclamation and the dam inventory 297 acres
The federal recreation portal, when full about 290 acres
The hydrography polygon 153 acres

The polygon is less than half of what three agencies publish. Against Reclamation's 297 acres it is 48 percent smaller; against the restoration initiative's 350 it is 56 percent smaller.

The polygon is not measured wrong. It is a picture of a different day. Adding it up by hand gives 153.5 acres against the 153.2 the dataset publishes, so the geometry and the attribute agree to two tenths of one percent. What it looks like is a reservoir digitised from imagery taken at low pool. And this reservoir goes very low: the gauge record below shows it at 440 acre feet in September 2025, which is 8 percent of capacity.

So the honest comparison runs the other way here. The traced outline and the federal polygon are recognisably the same lake, the same diagonal run, the same bend, the same lobed southeastern end. The artwork draws it full and the polygon draws it low, and the arms that are fat in one are stringy in the other. On aspect ratio they sit 21.9 percent apart, which is far the largest gap in this series, and that gap is the finding rather than an error in the drawing.

What the artwork implies at full pool. Scaled so its area matches Reclamation's 297 acres, the traced outline is about 1.47 miles across by 1.60 miles long. Scaled to the polygon's 153 acres it is 1.06 by 1.15. No dimension is published by anyone, so both are stated as scalings rather than as measurements, and the page prints no single surface area.

Utah's water quality rule holds five Cache County waters, and two of them now have pages here .

WaterClasses
Hyrum Reservoir2A, 3A, 4Frequent primary contact, the swimming tier
Newton Reservoir2B, 3A, 4Secondary contact, one tier lower
Porcupine Reservoir2B, 3A, 4Also 2B, and the only Cache water open to spearfishing
Two independent reproductions of the rule agree on all five rows in the same order , which is better than three of the last five pages in this series managed and is worth saying.

It also corrects something on the Hyrum page. That page gives Porcupine as 2B, 3A, 4, which is right. An earlier working note had it as "2B" alone, which is the first element of a three part string rather than the whole class. The published page is correct and no change was needed.

What 2B means beside 2A. Class 2A protects frequent primary contact, where people swim and swallowing water is likely. 2B protects secondary contact, where people boat and wade. Both waters share 3A, cold water game fish, and 4, agriculture. The difference between them is entirely about how close people get to the water.

Newton Reservoir carries a fish consumption advisory for largemouth bass, and unlike the last few pages in this series, both of Utah's two disagreeing advisory lists carry it .

SpeciesMercuryPregnant women and childrenWomen of childbearing ageEveryone else
Largemouth bass0.605Do not eat1 meal a month5 meals a month
And here is the thing that would have got this page wrong. The state department's advisory page was read twice. One read enumerated forty three entries and left Newton out of the list entirely. The same read, asked directly whether the string "Newton Reservoir" appears on the page, answered yes and returned the row .

A page built from that enumeration would have said this reservoir has no advisory. Exactly that error was published on another page in this series and had to be corrected. The lesson is now a rule here: never trust the list, always ask the question.

The underlying sample is the best fish evidence on this page and it names four species, not one. Utah's health department collected thirty seven fish from this reservoir in 2021 :

SpeciesFishMean mercuryRangeAdvisory
Largemouth bass100.6050.3 to 1Yes
Black crappie70.2250.08 to 0.3No
Bluegill100.1720.07 to 0.3No
Yellow perch10sampled, below the screening valueNo

The bass is three and a half times the bluegill, which is the ordinary shape of mercury in a warm water fishery: it concentrates up the food chain. No harmful algal bloom advisory of any level has ever been issued here: the state runs its own recreational monitoring page for this reservoir with dated 2025 results and no advisory .

Storage comes from soil conservation service station 09UTNEWT:UT:BOR, and the card above reads the monthly series because it has no choice .

This station advertises three series and serves one. Daily and semimonthly are both listed in its metadata and both come back as an empty array. That was checked against a control: the identical query at Hyrum, twenty miles south on the same network, returns full daily and semimonthly data. The query is right and this station's advertised series are not there. This is the third station in the series found doing it, and a card written the ordinary way renders blank.

The monthly figure is also flagged derived rather than observed, so the number above is worked out rather than measured, and the card says so.

What the record shows is a reservoir that emptied and then failed to come back.

MonthAcre feetOf the 5,600 Reclamation publishes
April 20255,27394 percent
September 20254408 percent
April 20262,75649 percent
July 20261,07019 percent

From 94 percent to 8 percent in five months, a drop of 4,833 acre feet, which is 92 percent of the peak. And then the next spring peaked at barely half the previous one .

There is no flow card because nothing has measured this creek since 1947. USGS site 10115500, Clarkston Creek near Newton, is the only water survey site on the stream and its record ends on 12 April 1947 , the year after the dam was finished. Seventy nine years. That is the longest gap on any page in this series.

Recreation  ·  03

Where everything is

Eight places, one of which is a dam that stopped existing in 1946 and one of which is a different reservoir twenty miles south.

The whole reservoir
Midpoint of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset water body extent, derived rather than published
Eight places, one of which is a dam that has not existed since 1946 and one of which is a different reservoir entirely.

Utah's zoned waters rule has eighteen sections. Section eighteen is titled "Newton Reservoir", and it reads, in full :

"A person may not operate a vessel on Newton Reservoir at a speed greater than wakeless speed when the reservoir's elevation is at or below 4,761 feet above sea level."

Two independent reproductions return that sentence word for word, with the same section title and the same provenance: adopted by Utah State Bulletin 2024-02, effective 9 January 2024.

This is the most useful sentence on the page for anyone taking a boat out, and it needs one piece of arithmetic to be usable. Reclamation's maximum water surface here is 4,774.5 feet . The rule bites at 4,761. So the reservoir becomes a wakeless water once it has dropped thirteen and a half feet below full pool, and it stays wakeless for the next thirty six feet of stage down to the top of dead storage.

Read that against the storage record above. This reservoir spent much of 2025 and 2026 well below full. The rule is not an edge case here; it is the ordinary condition for most of a season.

A near coincidence that is not a fact. The gauge station's published elevation is 4,760 feet and the wakeless threshold is 4,761. One foot apart, and no agency source connects them. This page does not say the station is set at the rule elevation, because nothing says it is.

The section names no county, which is worth flagging because the neighbouring section sixteen names "Huntington Reservoir" with no county either, and Utah has two of those. There is only one Newton Reservoir in Utah, so the ambiguity does not bite here.

Utah's watershed restoration initiative describes this reservoir as "best known for its once dense population of tiger muskie" . Then it describes what happened to some of them.

In 2013, during low water, more than one hundred large tiger muskie left the reservoir through the outlet works, entered the irrigation system, died in it, and clogged the infrastructure . The proposed fix was a screen of four inch by three inch galvanised steel mesh on the outlet, to hold the fish in and keep the pipes clear as the system converted to pressurised delivery.

The project is recorded as cancelled. So this page does not say Newton has an outlet screen. It says a screen was proposed in the 2018 financial year at a total project cost of 146,730 dollars and the project did not proceed.

And the muskie are still the subject of active rulemaking. On 12 August 2026 the wildlife division published a proposal "increasing the daily limit for tiger muskie caught at Newton Reservoir to 1 fish over 40 inches" .

That word "increasing" implies Newton currently has something more restrictive than the statewide limit, and six reads of the fishing guidebook found no Newton entry at all . The page states the proposal and does not state what it would be changing from, because the current water specific rule, if there is one, could not be found in the guidebook.

The fishing guidebook has no water specific entry for Newton Reservoir. The name appears once in the whole document, on the dead yellow perch bait list, and the statewide rules otherwise govern entirely . That list was checked four ways, including a separately issued question phrased so that "no" was the easy answer, and it survives.

The list, verbatim: "Dead yellow perch may be used as bait only in these waters: Big Sand Wash, Deer Creek, Echo, Fish Lake, Gunnison, Hyrum, Johnson, Jordanelle, Mantua, Mill Meadow, Newton, Pineview, Red Fleet, Rockport, Starvation, Utah Lake, Willard Bay and Yuba reservoirs" .

Eighteen waters in the state, and both Cache County reservoirs with pages here are on it. Hyrum is sixth on the list and Newton is eleventh. Eleven of the others already have pages: Deer Creek, Echo, Fish Lake, Jordanelle, Pineview, Red Fleet, Rockport, Starvation, Utah Lake, Willard Bay and Yuba.

Underwater spearfishing is not open here. Utah's rule lists forty two waters, lettered (a) to (pp), and the only Cache County entry is Porcupine Reservoir . Newton is not on it and is not on the guidebook's page 19 list either . No diving rule specific to this water was found in any source, which is an absence rather than a permission.

Fishing  ·  04

Five species, four of them weighed by the state

Thirty seven fish out of this reservoir in 2021, measured for mercury. Only one of the four drew an advisory, and printing the other three is the point.

Largemouth bass

The one species on the advisory. Utah's health department took ten of them out of this reservoir in 2021 and measured a mean of 0.605 milligrams a kilogram of mercury against a range of 0.3 to 1 . The limits are do not eat for pregnant women and children, one meal a month for women of childbearing age, five for everyone else .

On the mercury advisory

Tiger muskie

What the reservoir is known for. Utah's restoration initiative calls it "best known for its once dense population of tiger muskie", and in 2013 more than a hundred large ones left through the outlet pipe during low water and clogged the irrigation system . The division proposed a limit change here in August 2026 .

What it is known for

Black crappie

Sampled and cleared. Seven were taken in 2021 and averaged 0.225 milligrams a kilogram, below the screening value, so no advisory attaches to them . That is a species presence established by an agency putting fish on a scale.

Sampled, cleared

Bluegill

The cleanest of the four sampled. Ten fish, mean 0.172, range 0.07 to 0.3 . That is three and a half times lower than the bass, which is the ordinary shape of mercury in a warm water fishery: it concentrates upward.

Cleanest of the four

Yellow perch

Also sampled in 2021, also below the screening value . And Newton is one of eighteen waters in Utah where dead yellow perch may legally be used as bait, which is the only time this reservoir is named in the entire fishing guidebook .

Legal as bait here

Four of the five species above are named the hardest way there is. Utah's health department collected thirty seven fish from this reservoir in 2021 and measured the mercury in every one of them . Ten largemouth bass, ten bluegill, ten yellow perch, seven black crappie.

Only the bass drew an advisory, and that is the point of publishing the other three. A fish advisory naming one species is often read as a warning about the water. Here the state sampled four species from the same reservoir in the same year and three of them came back below the screening value. The problem is specific to the fish at the top of the food chain, not general to the reservoir.

Tiger muskie is the fifth and it is named by two agencies, the restoration initiative and the wildlife division . Nothing else is drawn. The federal recreation portal adds "sunfish", which is a family and not a species, and a rainbow trout that no other agency names . The town's own website adds brown trout. None of those is enough to draw a fish.

No wildlife division fishery report for Newton Reservoir could be found. Eight direct addresses were tried across three known filename conventions and five years, and every one returned nothing.

The server is not the problem, and that can be proved. The equivalent file for Hyrum, twenty miles south, loads from the same directory and was read in full for that page. So the convention works and the file for this reservoir is either not published or is published under a name nobody has guessed. The directory index itself returns an error, so files are reachable only by guessing addresses.

The publishable statement is that no report was found, not that the division does not survey this water.

Blue Ribbon status is unresolved, which is the honest answer: the division states a count of designated waters and does not print the list. And no stocking record for this reservoir was obtained beyond the August 2026 news release naming tiger muskie .

Recreation  ·  05

What to watch for

Nothing found in searchable press, a search that returns people rather than places, and a reservoir that is often far lower than any map of it shows.

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

That search is harder than it sounds and the difficulty is worth naming. Newton is a surname. Any query combining the word Newton with drowning, recovery or search and rescue returns people rather than places. There is also a Newton in Massachusetts and a Newton in Iowa, both with water features carrying the name, and the hydrography dataset holds three United States water bodies called Newton Reservoir of which only this one is in Utah .

A page assembled from search results would attach somebody else's death to this reservoir.

The publishable sentence is "no incident found in searchable press." It is not "nothing has happened here." No agency incident record, sheriff's log or dive team report for this reservoir was located either.

The single most practical hazard fact about this reservoir is not an incident. It is the stage.

In September 2025 this reservoir held 440 acre feet against a published capacity of 5,600 . Eight percent. Five months earlier it had been at 94 percent. It did not refill: the following spring peaked at 49 percent.

The federal water body outline is drawn at something close to that low state, which is why it maps at 153 acres against the 290 to 350 that three agencies publish for full pool. Anyone reading a map of this reservoir is looking at one particular day, and that day may not be the day they arrive.

And the boating rule follows the stage rather than the calendar. Below 4,761 feet, wakeless speed only . That is thirteen and a half feet below full pool, so in a season like 2025 the restriction is in force for most of the summer. There is no public gauge you can read at the ramp: the storage number on this page is monthly and derived, and the creek has not been measured since 1947 .

Utah's environmental quality department runs a recreational monitoring page for this reservoir, covering both harmful algal blooms and E. coli, with dated results through the 2025 season .

No advisory of any level has ever been issued here. Not a warning, not a danger advisory, not a health watch. That is a real, current, dated agency programme reporting clean water on the stretch people actually get into .

One oddity worth knowing. The department's index of monitored waters does not list this reservoir, while the reservoir's own page under the same department exists and carries dated 2025 results. The index is not a reliable guide to what the department monitors, which is the same lesson the advisory table taught two panels up.

Mussel status was not established and this page does not claim one in either direction. Nor is there any total maximum daily load naming this water that could be retrieved, and the department path that would carry it is closed to automated reading.

The state weighed thirty seven fish out of this reservoir. Three of the four species came back clean.

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 Newton

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 Newton. The claim about the first irrigation reservoir in the United States belongs to the dam that stood here from 1871, not to the one you can drive to, and Reclamation hedges it with the word probably. The three failures of that older dam are described and not dated, because two agencies give different meanings to the year usually attached to them. No single surface area appears here: three agencies publish between 290 and 350 acres and the federal water body polygon is 153. No depth appears, because none is published and the surface area is itself in dispute by more than a factor of two. The outlet screen proposed in 2018 was cancelled, so this reservoir does not have one. And no incident is reported here because none was found, which is not the same thing as none having happened. This is a reference for the public and is not a navigation chart.