we have never lost a crop due to frost. We have lost some because of ack of water.

Mr. THOMSON. Dean Person, you have been a civil engineer for sevral years, have you not?

Mr. PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. And you have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and cooperated in working with them on various projects? Mr. PERSON. I have worked in cooperative work, working with the State of Wyoming.

Mr. THOMSON. Yes. You have cooperated with the Bureau. You are familiar with this Glen Canyon site, are you?

Mr. PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. Are you concerned at all, or do you have any concern with the safety of a 700-foot structure proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation to be built at Glen Canyon?

Mr. PERSON. I have enough confidence in the Bureau of Reclamation and their records in building dams that, if they say you can build a 700-foot dam, you can build it.

Mr. THOMSON. You are also familiar with the fact that this area is developing as far as atomic energy is concerned, very rapidly? Mr. PERSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMSON. And I believe in and around Lander they are looking forward to a uranium mill-and in the DuBois area uranium has been discovered-and the Colorado Plateau. Are you familiar with the electrical requirement in order to develop that atomic energy to make it available

Mr. PERSON. I know they are very short of power at the present time. The whole area.

Mr. THOMSON. In the development of atomic energy or uranium, it does require a great deal of electricity, does it not?

Mr. PERSON. It does that.

Mr. THOMSON. And that has been one of the principal reasons for the growth of the country as a whole?

Mr. PERSON. That is right.

Mr. THOMSON. Senator Crippa, you were a United States Senator last year?

Mr. CRIPPA. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. Did you vote for the flood-control project that passed, almost a billion dollars?

Mr. CRIPPA. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. Did you try to compute the interest that would accumulate on that compounded for the next 100 or 200 or 500 years? Mr. CRIPPA. I am afraid I could never do that.

Mr. THOMSON. Why was it you voted for something like that which meant absolutely nothing directly to the benefit of Wyoming?

Mr. CRIPPA. Mr. Congressman, I feel this way: When I was in the United States Senate I felt it was the duty of the Congress of the United States to take care of and do the things that the people themselves cannot do. If private industry can do them, I am willing to go long with private industry. But I find in flood control that is almost out of the hands of private enterprise. You are spending a great deal of money, that is true, but you are also saving lives, saving Farms, everything else, where you have an abundance of water with o control over it. It is a much different issue than we have out in

Wyoming where we are now fighting to try to conserve what we have by building reclamation dams. That is one of the reasons I am fully convinced, if I had the opportunity to be in the United States Senate again today, I would vote for flood control and also insist upon recla mation for the West.

Mr. THOMSON. I think Senator Duff, of Pennsylvania, sat beside you as your colleague at that time.

Mr. CRIPPA. Yes.

Mr. THOMSON. And you told him that if it was good for another area of the country, it will be good for the country as a whole, and you would support it.

Mr. CRIPPA. I did; I told that to Senator Duff. As a matter of fact. I happened to be one of the few Senators in the United States Senate who had never been in Pennsylvania. I listened to Senator Duff. He told me it was a very good idea and thought it was needed. From what I have been able to read, where we have disasters I think it is the duty of the Congress to take care of those things, and I also felt he should go out and visit with us and see our problems where we have a shortage of what they have an overabundance and no control over. Mr. THOMSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHUFORD (presiding). Mr. Dawson, do you have any further questions?

Mr. DAWSON. That is all I had, except, Mr. Chairman, to commend ; the witnesses for a fine presentation. I think it is a good picture of the situation in Wyoming.

I particularly want to commend Mr. Rechard for the fine statement he has made, particularly in reference to the 58 or 56 percent doctrine that has been enunciated here by some of the opponents of this project. I think that is a very clear statement of what the facts are.

Mr. ASPINALL (presiding). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hosmer.

Mr. HOSMER. No questions.

Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SISK. Yes; I have one comment to make, Mr. Chairman. With reference to Mr. Rechard's statement on page 3, as a Representative from California, I wish to commend him for the fact that he does not believe that certain statements that have been rather promiscuously tossed around do represent the views of the people of California. I want to assure him, as one Representative to the State of California, they do not.

I would like to say, we very strongly believe in reclamation. I happen to come from the central part of the great State of California, and we are certainly in need of further reclamation projects, and particularly in northern and central California we are desirous that they continue.

I would like to commend the gentlemen from Wyoming, from that great State, for the excellent presentation that they have made here this morning.

I, for one, am anxious to see that they, along with other States of the West, have an opportunity to develop and to use reclamation and irrigation for the development of that great area. I heartily disagree with some of the propaganda that has been presented by, what I feel

But

to be, a small group of rather perverse thinkers in our area. I can assure you that the State of California is interested in being completely fair to the West and to the Nation as a whole.

So far as I am concerned, in my particular area we stand shoulder to shoulder with the development of the West.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAWSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOSMER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. ASPINALL. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. SISK. I will yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. HOSMER. I think my colleague from California has made a very fair statement in expressing to this committee that the State of California does believe in reclamation and does believe in the upper Colorado River development.

Our only concern is that it be carried on in such manner as not to trample upon the water rights of the State of California, and so as not to withhold in the upper basin water which is reasonably necessary for us to carry on our existing uses in the lower basins.

The kernel of the nut in this whole controversy is whether or not this project will permit sufficient water to pass Lee Ferry to carry on these uses, and whether or not the project is so conceived and designed and is proposed to be constructed and operated in such a manner as to observe these rights of the lower basin acquired by appropriation, contract, and compact.

Mr. DAWSON. Will you yield to me there?

Mr. HOSMER. There is in the rivers of the Colorado system sufficient water to permit reasonable development in the upper basin and to permit reasonable uses in the lower basin. That amount of water is undoubtedly, to my mind, fixed and determinable. So at any time the proponents of the projects in the upper basin will admit that fact and come to the figure and agree to it, and keep it, we have no objection to the upper basin development. But we see before this committee a constant series of people coming in proposing some developments, and then some of the other witnesses in the upper basin come in and disagree with them, and they want other developments, and then we have other bills for additional developments in the upper basin, and as reasonable men we do not know where it will stop. But, as reasonable men, we know you can build those projects within the live-and-let-live doctrine, which for the first time I heard announced by an upperbasin proponent this morning, Senator Barrett, of Wyoming.

All we are trying to do is live and let live on that river, and any time the upper basin will decide and agree upon that doctrine, I doubt if they will have any opposition whatsoever from the lower basin. I yield back.

Mr. SISK. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. DAWSON. I want to commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Sisk, for a very fair statement, and I can assure him it is reassuring to those of us in the upper basin States who are only asking for our fair share of this water, to find such a fair attitude on the part of the Representative from California.

And to my friend on this side of the aisle, I simply want to remind him once again there is written in this bill in a number of places the provision that nothing shall be done in the development of these waters which will in any way violate the terms of the Colorado River com

lined portion represents the use by the storage and participating units now being considered for authorization. On this chart a line has been drawn to show a total consumptive use of 71⁄2 million acre-feet in the upper basin in accordance with the 1922 Colorado River compact apportionment.

From this chart it is evident that the upper basin needs carryover storage, not only to make possible the use of the 72 million acre-feet apportioned to it by the 1922 compact, but also to take care of presen uses, and the uses contemplated by the projects included in the bills which are now under consideration.

(Chart B faces this page.)

Carryover storage required: Every engineer who has studied the upper Colorado River situation has arrived at the conclusion that carryover storage is essential in connection with the further development and utilization of the water resources of the upper basin. This is the conclusion of the Bureau of Reclamation. This is the conclusion of the engineering firm of Leeds, Hill & Jewett in their report, Depletion of Surface Water Supplies of Colorado West of Continenta! Divide, prepared for the Colorado River Water Conservation Board in which they say

Increased diversions of water for use by agriculture and industry on the western slope and for transmountain diversions will depend upon the provision of sufficient storage capacity in reservoirs for conservation of flood flows and some cyclic regulation; in order that Colorado may make full use of the water allocated to it by the compacts, cyclic regulation of Colorado River over periods longer than 20 years will also be necessary.

An examination of chart B shows that the period from 1914 through 1930 was one of generally high flows. During this period the Colorado River water supplies were adequate for the upper basin to meet the Lee Ferry delivery obligations, to provide the 712 million acre-feet of consumptive use allocated to the upper basin and to furnish water to store in carryover storage reservoirs. During the period 1931 through 1953 carryover storage water would have to be 19 years to meet the Lee Ferry delivery obligation, the present uses in the upper basin, and the contemplated uses under the projects included in the bills now being considered. Also, during this 1931 through 1953 period, carryover storage water would have to be used 14 years to meet the Lee Ferry delivery obligation and to provide 72 million acre-feet consumptive use for the upper basin.

A study of the 1914-53 streamflows indicates that something over 30 million acre-feet of active carryover storage capacity will be required in order to permit the upper basin to meet its Lee Ferry delivery obligation and consumptively use the 72 million-acre per year apportioned it by the 1922 Colorado River compact. Possibly as additional streamflow records become available, it may be found that the required carryover storage capacity may be even greater.

Sufficient water available: A study of the flows of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry for the 1914-53 period, indicates that there would have been sufficient water available during this period to meet the Lee Ferry delivery obligation, and to permit a total annual consump tive use in the upper basin of 712 million acre-feet, provided adequate carryover storage capacity is provided in the upper basin. Referring again to the chart B, this means that the excess flow indicated by the solid black color above the line representing the 7 million scre-feet

Virgin

Flow of Colorado River at Lee Ferry in millions of

acre-feet

1

14

121

10

1.76 million acre-ft, depletion in Upper Division States on projects proposed to be authorized. Includes 773, 000 acre-ft. evaporation from 6 Storage Units and 989,000 acre-ft, used on 14 participating projects. (incl. 576,000 acre-ft. for San Juan-Chama and Navajo)

10

8

51

53

Estimated present use of 5,35 million acre-ft. in Lower Basin.