« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
NORTH SANPETE WATERSHED PROJECT, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1963
Salt Lake City, Utah. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m. in the U.S. courtroom, Federal building, Salt Lake City, Utah, Senator Frank E. Moss presiding
Present: Ron M. Linton, staff director of the Committee on Public Works; Theo W. Sneed, professional staff member of the committee.
Senator Moss. This hearing will now come to order. This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors of the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works to consider today the North Sanpete watershed development project.
This is a project that has been prepared and submitted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. It has been under consideration for a long time. It has been before the committees of the Congress now with the appropriate approval of the State agencies and the Federal agencies for about 2 years. The chairman of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate, Senator McNamara, has directed me to proceed with this hearing. It is his belief that the matter should not be allowed simply to sit, that we should get on with it, get it thoroughly considered and dispose of it, with whatever is the proper disposition.
So after this hearing has been concluded, and the record is prepared, the Senate committee will then consider the record and the project, and we will either approve or disapprove, depending on the views of the members of the committee.
We have a time limit today because of a very tight schedule. There was a hearing on some water matters this morning in Price that I attended, and this evening I must be in St. George. I have a meeting tonight, but in the morning we open hearings down there on the Dixie project, and for that reason the time will be controlled today. Each side will be allotted an hour and a half to present its testimony.
Mr. Arthur Nielsen, attorney, represents the Sanpete water users, and he will be in charge of the time and the witness list for the proponents of the project, the people from Sanpete County. I will depend on him to say who is to speak next.
Mr. E. J. Skeen represents the Carbon County water users, and he will control the time similarly on that side.
There is a sharp difference of opinion between residents of these two counties about the project, and that is the reason this sort of falls into an adversary proceeding, as it were, which is somewhat different from what we have in most of our public hearings.
We will control the time that way. There will be two witnesses on which the time will not be controlled. They will be the State conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service and the assistant conservationist, who will simply set the stage and outline the project.
This hearing is not intended to be exhaustive and to cover ground that has already been covered, except where it is important for emphasis. Last year the House Committee on Public Works held hearings in Washington, and a record has been printed of the testimony there. This record is available, not only to the House, but to the Senate, and therefore it is not necessary to cover all of the ground again.
The chairman's direction to me was to bring this matter up to date today as fully as possible with the record we make today, so that he can then present it to the committee.
One other thing I should point out is that, if time does not permit oral presentation of all of the testimony or argument that is to be made by either side, it is possible to submit statements to be printed in the record. If they are submitted, they will then be included and placed in the record and be part of the record, just as though they had been spoken, and this enables more people to have their views made known than there may be time to hear from orally.
And with those explanations we will begin on the testimony that we have. I suggest that witnesses may sit at the corner of either of these tables so that they may be heard here and that the recorder will be able to record everything that is said.
I should introduce the staff assistants who are here from Washington. This is Mr. Ron Linton on my right, who is the staff director of the Senate Public Works Committee, and this is Theo Sneed, professional staff member and engineer on the staff of the Senate Public Works Committee. These gentlemen have traveled out from Washington to be here for this hearing and will be available for any services that we need during the hearing.
With those words of introduction and explanation we will call on Mr. Libby, J. A. Libby, who is the State conservationist for the Soil Conservation Service, and Mr. Bradshaw—they may want to come forward together; if they do it is perfectly all right-to present the outline, as it were, of the project to begin with, and get us started.
Mr. Libby and Mr. Bradshaw.
Senator Moss. This is Mr. Libby. You may go right ahead. STATEMENT OF J. A. LIBBY, STATE CONSERVATIONIST, SOIL CON
SERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. LIBBY. Senator Moss, I would like to just make a brief statement outlining the reason for the development of the project, followed by Mr. Bradshaw, who will sort of summarize the plan and some of the important studies which have gone on into it.
Senator Moss. That will be fine.
All of these people are interested, Mr. Libby, or they wouldn't be here today, so let's see if we can keep our voices at a pitch where those in the audience may hear.
Mr. LIBBY. At the request of representatives of Utah State government, who review watershed applications and recommend priorities for planning, I requested planning authority for the North Sanpete