Mr. HOSMER. Yes, but you see, Mr. Bennett, that was not my question. I will ask the reporter to read it back. Mr. BENNETT. I thought it was. I am sorry.

(The record was read by the reporter.)

Mr. BENNETT. Did not exceed. And what I answered was that the figures he shows, the figures he gave you will reflect, as against the total water availability on this graph, a total in excess of 712 million going past Lee Ferry each year, Congressman, as I caught his figures running down the line here.

Mr. HOSMER. I believe that is quite true. But what I am trying to determine is whether or not Mr. Larson feels that the Upper Basin can make use of more than its 712 million acre-feet of III (a) water on the average.

Mr. BENNETT. That is a little different question, Congressman. Go ahead and see what he would say to that specific question. It is a little different from the other one because there we were dealing with the figures that he had used in answering your question.

Mr. HOSMER. I disagree with you on that, but go ahead and answer that question, Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. I assume that the Upper Basin cannot use more than 71⁄2 million acre-feet, that is, for beneficial consumptive use.

Mr. HOSMER. That is not in any one year, though, that is on an average of some kind?

Mr. LARSON. That I cannot answer.

Mr. HOSMER. According to your 1917 figure you are taking 15,279,000 acre-feet of water and holding it up, depleting the flow at Lee Ferry by that amount.

Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOSMER. That is a lot more than the 712 million acre-feet.

Mr. LARSON. That is by placing the water in storage so that the Upper Basin States may make it possible to use the water beneficially and consume it on the land.

Mr. HOSMER. In later years?

Mr. LARSON. Right.

Mr. HOSMER. So you are trying not to exceed the use of 712 million acre-feet of water on an average. Is that not right?

Mr. LARSON. No. I am trying to say that we are trying to fill the reservoirs, meet the commitments of the compact, but we may consume and store more than 72 in one year, but not beneficial consumptive use alone. That figure would not exceed 72, but we would have the right to store above the 72 million acre-feet. Just like it is done at Hoover

Mr. HOSMER. That is what I understand. But you have been measuring your beneficial consumptive use in terms of depletion at Lee Ferry, and you are exceeding in 1917, under the figures you gave me, by an amount in excess of 15 million acre-feet.

Mr. LARSON. We have assumed in our plan that the upper basin would have the right to store water in the reservoirs for future beneficial consumptive use, and store it in the same manner that you fill Lake Mead.

Mr. HOSMER. I understand that.

Mr. LARSON. You have to do the same thing there.

Mr. HOSMER. I think probably I will question Mr. Bennett about that a little later so we can go on here.

At this point I think I can shift over now and try to get these geologists out of the way in the next 45 minutes.

Mr. ASPINALL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?
Mr. HOSMER. Yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman's question brought a question to my inind.

Assuming there were 14 million acre-feet of water in the river at Lee Ferry and that Mexico had called for a million acre-feet of water, that would be a call in the average year upon the river at Lee Ferry of approximately 8 million acre-feet of water. Now assuming that out of the 14 million acre-feet, the call there was 8 million, that leaves 6 million acre-feet for the upper basin, and the upper basin can only put to a beneficial consumptive use 4 million acre-feet. That leaves 2 million acre-feet of water. What is the status of that water? Is that surplus water under the compact?

Mr. DAWSON. If the gentleman will yield to me, you are talking about the time during the time the reservoir is being filled?

Mr. ASPINALL. I am talking about any time. My question simply goes this far: If there is that much in the river, does the lower basin have a right to call for its million acre-feet of that 2 million acre-feet of surplus water, and you can only use 1 million acre-feet to fill the upper basin storage facility? Or can you use all of it? What is your thinking on that?

Mr. LARSON. If that 2 million acre-feet is surplus water above the allocation of the two basins, then I assume it is water that has not been allocated yet.

Mr. ASPINALL. Does the mere fact that the upper basin is not able to use its entitlement under the compact cause the water to become surplus?

Mr. LARSON. No; it would be the upper basin's right to use the water when it had the facilities to do so. In the meantime it would be running down the river.

Mr. ASPINALL. Most certainly. That is where we find ourselvesthe water is beyond the use of the upper basin at the present time. Mr. LARSON. As it is today.

Mr. ASPINALL. And it is either going to be stored in a storage facility for the upper basin's use or it is going to be permitted to run down to the lower basin. I think we have to admit, if it is caught in upper basin storage, there is a doubt as to whether it can be used in this method of exchange, using it in the upper basin for the needs it might have at the particular time because the upper basin has water to replace for the use of the lower basin down below.

Now what is the status of the water? Because I can see a direct conflict here between the lower basin's position at the present time and the upper basin's position, and I think the gentleman from California is getting to that.

Mr. LARSON. That is a legal question, I think.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to bring that out with Mr. Bennett when I get to him.

Mr. ASPINALL. I just did not want to leave it that way. The way things are now it is up in the air.

Mr. HOSMER. I am setting the foundation for my questioning of Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Larson, I want to go back to one matter we talked about yesterday, and that was the amount of water needed to produce the firm power commitments at Hoover. Have you arrived at any figure yet as to what is the requirement?

Mr. LARSON. Are you speaking of the theoretical firm power at Hoover on which the power contracts are based?

Mr. HOSMER. That is right.

Mr. LARSON. They are all subject to availability water. I believe at the present time that requirement is around 10 million acre-feet.

Mr. HOSMER. In other words, the 10 million acre-feet does not pass through the generators at Hoover every year. Then the firm-power contract commitments are not met?

Mr. LARSON. It would be less than that amount of water at high stage of Hoover. It depends on how much water is in Lake Mead, the head for the powerplant.

Mr. HOSMER. I am going to refer you to a letter you wrote on October 10, 1951, to Mr. Samuel B. Morris, general manager and chief engineer, department of water and power in Los Angeles. It was vour letter of transmittal of the material called Data From Glen Canyon Investigations by you, the Bureau of Reclamation, dated October 1951. In that letter you advised Mr. Morse: "We have not as yet concluded our studies with regard to the filling of Glen Canyon Reservoir and its effect on downstream powerplants."

That, of course, implies that you have had some kind of a study going on at some time prior to 1951 which was going on after that. Now have you completed that study?

Mr. LARSON. No, I do not think we have. We simply have realized from the stream records there is plenty of opportunity to fill Glen Canyon-Echo Park Reservoirs and meet the commitments to the lower basin under the compact.

Mr. HOSMER. And so you have disregarded this question of effect. on downstream powerplants?

Mr. LARSON. No, we have not disregarded the effect. We have assumed that the plan of operation would fully comply with the provisions of the compact.

Mr. HOSMER. Let us put it this way then: You started on a study, and you apparently believed when you made this study that the question of power at Hoover would be relevant to the filling of Glen Canyon Reservoir. Now you have stated that you abandoned the study, at least did not complete it. So that, apparently, this question no longer enters into your calculations.

Mr. LARSON. That is not correct.

Mr. HOSMER. It is correct, if the statement you gave me in answer to the last question was true, which was, namely, that you were satisfied that there was enough water to meet the compact commitments. Mr. LARSON. We are. But those studies, I think, referred more to coordinating with the lower basin, to try and work out a plan of coordinating the output of power and releases of water at Glen Canyon with Hoover, something I do not think we have since tried to pursue and go on with. We feel that this will be done if this project is authorized, then they will be coordinated; but we have not worked out those details because there are so many assumptions and changes, depending on what is authorized.

Mr. HOSMER. In other words, we are in the dark on this whole matter excepting only as to your opinion that the firm power commitments to Hoover will not be impaired?

Mr. LARSON. Whatever those commitments are under the compact, they will be met.

Mr. HOSMER. And since they need at Hoover 10 million acre-feet of water a year, you are going to be able to operate these reservoirs up above so that they get 10 million acre-feet of water a year. Is that right?

Mr. LARSON. No; that is a theoretical amount under the power contracts.

Mr. HOSMER. That is what they need, and you say they are not going to interfere with the power at Hoover. Then, therefore, you must be releasing at least the 10 million acre-feet a year.

Mr. LARSON. The reason I stated that was that these power contracts are all subject to the compact. So we tie right back to fulfilling the commitments required by the Colorado River compact.

Mr. HOSMER. My understanding of your previous answer was that, so far as you are concerned, you would satisfy the 72 million acrefeet minimum, and in addition to that whatever surpluses were required under 3 (d) and 3 (c), you were meeting the compact. So you must feel, then, that the amount of surplus amounts to at least 2% million, namely, 1 million 3 (d) water and a million and a half 3 (c) water. Is that right?

Mr. LARSON. Not necessarily, I do not believe.

Mr. HOSMER. Then your answers to my questions do not gibe, Mr. Larson.

I will waive at that point, then, because I think you have amply illustrated that there is a serious question as to your understanding of surplus and as to what amount of water should go down the river in addition to the 72 million acre-feet minimum over any period of 10 consecutive years, and that you have disregarded, since 1951, any worries with respect to keeping firm power commitments at Hoover. Now I will go to the geologists.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think you had better go to Mr. Bennett.

Mr. HOSMER. The geologists want to get back to Colorado and go to work, so I want to take them up now, and then I will get to Mr. Bennett. I hope I can take an hour with the geologists, because I do not want to get started on Mr. Bennett and get a couple of questions out of the way, and then give him a chance to do a little research.

Mr. Keener, I just want to ask you about your statement on page 2, the very bottom line, where you start out quoting excerpts from Professor Berkey's memorandum with respect to the dam site at Glen Canyon. Do you recall that in your testimony?

Mr. KEENER. Yes, I do.

Mr. HOSMER. Now, the statements of Professor Berkey sound pretty good, but I am afraid, maybe, that they have been taken out of context. Mr. KEENER. I did not understand your statement.

Mr. HOSMER. Just a moment. Professor Berkey was in this area or in the employ of the Government for a period of a few days back in 1947. I think it was from May 30 to June 4. He wrote a memorandum not only covering this point but some data at Coconino and at Davis Dam. Was not the purpose of the employment of Professor Berkey at this time to make an evaluation as between the mile 4 site

and the mile 15 site, and not for the purpose of giving an opinion as o final construction of the dam at either site?

Mr. KEENER. The purpose of his trip at that time was to pick out a site for more thorough investigation of the foundation conditions. It had been more or less decided at the time that mile 4 and mile 15 were the two most favored sites, to the extent that I believe three holes had already been drilled at mile 4. But it was decided that rather han proceed further with the investigation at mile 4 it would be better from the configuration and from Dr. Berkey's opinion of mile 15 to proceed with the explorations at mile 15.

Mr. HOSMER. In other words, to further determine whether or not a dam could be built at this site?

Mr. KEENER. That is right, and the best site of those that had been considered before.

Mr. HOSMER. In fact, he further stated under his recommendations: There are as yet no boring tests to determine the depth of the gorge or other side studies**

Mr. KEENER. I imagine so. It is in there.

Mr. HOSMER. I am reading from the report. So that he had no benefit whatsoever in 1947 of the cores and so forth that were taken in 1949 and finally analyzed in SP-30 in 1951?

Mr. KEENER. That is correct.

Mr. HOSMER. It was purely a preliminary opinion based on what information was available at that time in 1947, and based upon his view of the canyon during the short period of time in which he was traveling to Coconino and Davis and elsewhere?

Mr. KEENER. That is correct. Dr. Berkey had looked over a good many dam sites before in his life, and if anything was particularly wrong in the surface geology, he certainly would have called attention to it.

Mr. HOSMER. I realize that, but I do not suppose even Dr. Berkey would go ahead and put a dam up on any site unless he had further additional information to that which he had at the time he rendered his memorandum to the Department and his subsequent paper.

Now this canyon is kind of a roughly U-shaped canyon, and when you get down to the water level you have the depth of the river, and going down further you reach a bunch of rocks that is not unbroken massive Navajo sandstone, it is cover rock-what is the technical term for that?

Mr. KEENER. I believe alluvium fill in the river, river fill.

Mr. HOSMER. Then you have to penetrate down through that until you get to the Navajo sandstone formation itself?

Mr. KEENER. Correct.

Mr. HOSMER. There were certain core tests made at mile 15 location and the cores were taken from a barge, I believe. Is that not right? Mr. KEENER. From a barge?

Mr. HOSMER. Yes.

Mr. KEENER. I imagine so. They could have been taken from some of the holes at the site from 6-inch cores that I think were taken out

side of the river section.

Mr. HOSMER. There are a number of cores that are underneath the water; are there not?

Mr. KEENER. Yes.

59799-55-pt. 1-23