at Scofield Reservoir with the project. Although not classified as a direct mitigation measure, it would nevertheless be very beneficial influence."

During the years of below-average precipitation, Gooseberry Creek below the Narrows Reservoir would constitute an improved fishery over the present conditions. Seepage losses from the reservoir will maintain a higher base flow than now occurs during the below-average years.

Mr. SKEEN. Senator, may it be understood that if such a study is supplemented and filed, the opponents would have a copy furnished so that we would have an opportunity to see what they are contending? Senator Moss. Certainly so. You will have an opportunity on anything that is filed in the record and given a reasonable length of time to file anything you wish to do, commenting on it or disputing it, if that is your desire.

Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. This was supposed to be simply setting the stage on this to give the reason that the Soil Conservation Service people have recommended the building of this project, and I think we have it before us now, the details, the amount of water, and where it would be diverted, and the controversial question about whether or not they could still satisfy all the primary rights in Carbon County with so diverting it. So now we will proceed from that point. And, Mr. Nielsen, you may call your people in any order that you wish, or speak yourself. The only limitation on you is that time starts to run right now.

Mr. NIELSEN. Thank you, Senator Moss. I would appreciate an opportunity at this time to introduce the Honorable J. Bracken Lee, presently mayor of Salt Lake City and formerly mayor of Price. Mayor Lee has an appointment that he must keep in a few minutes, so I am, in a sense, calling him out of order, because his statement would probably be more appropriate after the record shows somewhat of the history of this matter. But, briefly, may I state that the project involved in the construction of this reservoir has been in the planning stage for many years, and it has been the subject of discussion, conference, and agreement between the interest of Carbon County and Sanpete County in past years, with which matters Mayor Lee is familiar, and I would like to ask him to come forward and make a

statement.

Senator Moss. That certainly may be done. May I suggest, Mr. Hansen, you might move on the other side of Mr. Nielsen and then the mayor may sit here, if he likes. I appreciated the former witness' standing, but it isn't necessary at all. You may be seated and be comfortable.

This is Mayor J. Bracken Lee, who will now make a statement for us.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. BRACKEN LEE, MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY

Mr. LEE. I was called the other day by Mr. Hansen, who informed me of this hearing and who asked that I come over and make a statement, I guess to the best of my ability to remember, concerning the agreement that was signed. It is quite awhile ago for me to remember all the details, but I do know that we were about to lose our dam. Senator Moss. This is the dam at Scofield?

Mr. LEE. The present Scofield Damn. At that time-I have forgotten the date, along about 1939 or 1940, and this, of course, was a very serious thing to people in Carbon County. We did save the dam,

20-128-63- -2

but it was condemned by the State and we were told that we could only store so much water in this dam, so it was rather a desperate situation, and we then began to talk to the Federal Government about replacing the dam and attempting to find a way to finance this.

It took a number of years, as I remember, before we finally were able to get this underway. And the Federal Government agreed to give us more money and loan us money to build the new dam, providing we would agree to enter into an agreement to permit the people in Sanpete to build the Gooseberry Dam and obtain water on the other side of the mountain.

I am sure that the majority of the people at that time-we were desperate for water; we needed it-I think I have no right to speak for anyone except myself. My feeling was that Carbon County was gaining by this, because we were getting what would amount to better than a 2-year storage of water, with a higher dam. And I personally was sold on the theory that we could afford-if the Government records were right-that we could afford to let the people in Sanpete County have this water and, in exchange, we would get a greater reserve for our county, which seemed to me, at the time, to be beneficial to the people in our area. I am expressing, again, only my own opinion. There was some objection by some water users to entering into this agreement, but I believe that the majority of us eventually were sold on the theory that this was beneficial to Carbon County to enter into this agreement, and we organized the-I believe it was the Price River Water Conservation District-conservancy district, of which I was secretary. The directors authorized the signing of this agreement. I signed this agreement as the secretary.

Senator Moss. So at that time there was already talk about a Gooseberry project, and this thing was in some planning stage anyway at that time?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. And as a result of the negotiations that went around about the building of the new dam or the raising of the dam, whichever it was, is what the conservancy district signed an agreement that they would not object to the building of the Gooseberry, is that what the substance was-they would not object to it?

Mr. LEE. Well, I don't know exactly what the agreement provided, whether it was a question of not objecting to it, or consenting to it. I don't know which it was.

Senator Moss. I see. Your testimony today is that, in signing it as secretary, you did that because the board of directors had so voted and directed you as secretary to sign the document?

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mayor Lee. This really isn't a crossexamining situation, but if there is a question you would like to have me put at any time, I would be glad to try to straighten out the record.

Mr. BEHLE. There has never been any question about this since our hearing in Washington before the House. It has been, in effect, determined and stipulated that that agreement means what it says, and it is binding on the parties who signed it and their successors. There has never been any question on this matter.

Senator Moss. All right. Thank you very much, Mayor Lee. We appreciate your coming to offer this testimony and being with us today. Thank you, sir.

Mr. NIELSEN. I would now like to introduce Mr. Leo P. Harvey, who is vice president of the Utah Water & Power Board, and he, in turn, will introduce Jay R. Bingham, executive director, who is representing the Water & Power Board of the State of Utah today.

Senator Moss. Mr. Harvey, will you come forward. This is Mr. Leo Harvey, vice president of the Utah Water & Power Board. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. HARVEY. Yes.

Senator Moss. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF LEO P. HARVEY, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN, UTAH

WATER & POWER BOARD

Mr. HARVEY. Senator Moss and gentlemen, I am here to enter into the record of these hearings the action taken by the Utah Water & Power Board with respect to the North Sanpete watershed project.

Before presenting this resolution, I would like to state that out of a lifetime of activity in water development, I have become an ardent supporter of projects of this type and as chairman of the American Fork watershed project of Utah County, I know from personal experience the benefit that can come to the local people from projects of this sort. I know that the North Sanpete watershed project will be a significant step forward in developing the resources of the State, and I offer my own assistance and that of the board in achieving a fuller development of the Price River system.

The following resolution of the Utah Water & Power Board was adopted at its regular meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on November 17, 1961, and followed a hearing and a full discussion of factors relating to this project. This resolution summarizes the official position of the board and as you have been advised, has the endorsement and approval of Governor Clyde. The records should show that the vote on the resolution was 11 yea votes and 1 nay.

RESOLUTION OF THE UTAH WATER & POWER BOARD, REAFFIRMING ITS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS OF THE SANPETE COUNTY INTERESTS TO MAKE TRANSBASIN DIVERSION

Whereas, on October 4, 1961, the Soil Conservation Service transmitted to the Governor, this board, and other State agencies, copies of the North Sanpete watershed work plan; and

Whereas the Governor has been requested to express his approval or disapproval of the project; and

Whereas the Utah Water & Power Board has been requested by the Governor to make recommendations to him respecting this development; and

Whereas the board has afforded full and equal opportunities for the proponents and the opponents of this project to present information on this proposed development, and the board, has, in addition, drawn from its long experience and consulted with competent advisers; and

Whereas the board finds (1) that the project meets the requirements of law with regard to water rights, inasmuch as the basic water right has been extended for a period of 2 years by the State engineer, the district court of jurisdiction, and the Utah Supreme Court, (2) that the so-called triparti contract evidences a valid agreement which provided for the construction of excess storage capacity in the Scofield Reservoir to provide for the transbasin diversion of water from the Price River to Sanpete County, and (3) that reliable studies indicate that with reasonable conservation use of the water, good operation of Scofield Reservoir, and further development of tributaries of the Price River, water requirements for the foreseeable future can be met in the Price area: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Utah Water & Power Board reaffirms its previous position in support of the development of the water rights to divert waters to Sanpete Valley from the Price River system in accordance with State water law; be it further

Resolved, That this board pledges its support to the Price River interests in whatever form appropriate and feasible to assist in the further development of other waters of the Price River for the most beneficial ultimate use; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Governor of the State of Utah, the congressional delegation, and the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service.

I am submitting, for the files of the committee, a copy of the verbatim transcript which was held at the Utah Water & Power Board on November 16, 1961.

Senator Moss. That transcript may be received and will be made part of the committee files. It will not be reproduced in full. It seems rather voluminous.

Would you like me to put a question to Mr. Harvey?

Mr. BEHLE. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Harvey.

Was that the meeting of the water and power board where you had voted to approve the project and then called in representatives of industry and other elements of the society, to have a hearing, when had already voted to approve it?

you

Mr. HARVEY. We had the Price River interests and the Sanpete interests, and they both gave their sides.

Mr. BEHLE. Is not that the case where project before you held the hearing? Mr. HARVEY. No, I don't think so.

you had voted to approve the

Mr. BEHLE. Could we have, in addition, as a part of the record, the minutes of that meeting, the full minutes of the meeting, which I believe will show what did occur?

Senator Moss. Are the minutes available?

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, I think so.

Senator Moss. Would you make a copy of them available, Mr. Harvey, and they will be placed with the transcript as an exhibit in this hearing?

Mr. BEHLE. Yes. Does the transcript also show your meeting with the Governor in the morning of the second day of the hearing?

Mr. HARVEY. That will show in the minutes.

Mr. BEHLE. That will show in the minutes, not in the transcript. Senator Moss. All right. The minutes will be made part of it. Thank you.

Mr. NIELSEN. I would like the record to show that Mr. Harvey's address is Pleasant Grove, Utah.

Senator Moss. The record will so show. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Mr. HARVEY. I would like to introduce Mr. Jay Bingham, executive secretary of the Utah Water & Power Board, who will make a further statement.

Senator Moss. Fine. Mr. Jay Bingham will come forward and be the next person to give a statement. Mr. Bingham is the executive director of the Utah Water & Power Board. You may proceed any way you like, Mr. Bingham.

STATEMENT OF JAY R. BINGHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH WATER & POWER BOARD

Mr. BINGHAM. Senator, I had to write my own speech, and I am sure I do a poor job of reading it, so I would like to submit-I have two copies here substantially the same information, briefed down, as was placed in the House record and, with your permission, to comment on a few points I think would be pertinent to this hearing.

Senator Moss. Well, that may be done. The full text may be made a part of the record and, if you will comment on the parts that you want to discuss, Mr. Bingham, go ahead.

Mr. BINGHAM. First of all, Senator, I think we would all like to have you visit here and bring to our State the committees and the officials of our Government when we are more united than we are at the present time.

So far as the deliberations of the Utah Water & Power Board are concerned, the board has responsibilities, so far as the comprehensive aspects of water development and is, by statute, charged to promote the development of this vital resource.

I am sure, in very few areas of the State, and in the minds of perhaps no people, do we have any situations where water would be in excess. I think the long-range problem of the State of Utah is making our available water supply provide the most in economic growth and opportunity.

În view of this fact the board has represented the State's interests since 1947 in interstate streams, and the waters developed by this project are a part of the Colorado River system and would come under the allocation provided by compact. I am sure, as you are aware of the fact, that by terms of the 1922 compact, and later the Upper Basin as apportioned to the States of the Upper Basin, Utah has the compact allocation or the right to develop 1,710,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River.

Our present uses are in the order of 650,000 acre-feet, something in the order of 31 or 32 percent of our total allocation presently in use. With that as a background the board has considered, and I will submit, a chronology which in very brief form summarizes actions which were taken by the Utah Water and Power Board and by its predecessor organization, the Utah Water Storage Commission, relating to this project. The board's position, as referred to in the statement by Mr. Harvey, is a reaffirmation based upon a more recent plan to accomplish this development but, in general scope and intent, is the same project. (The chronology referred to follows:)

SCOFIELD-GOOSEBERRY CHRONOLOGY

June 9, 1925: A delegation from Sanpete County met with the Utah Water Storage Commission and requested its aid in obtaining supplemental water supply through the storage of waters in the Gooseberry Creek watershed.

March 23, 1927: Utah Water Storage Commission appropriated $250 to obtain stream measurement data.

March and April 1928: Utah Water Storage Commission appropriated $850 to obtain stream measurement data.

August 31, 1928: Specal committee appointed by the Utah Water Storage Commission recommends that a survey of the proposed reservoir, damsite, and diversion tunnel be made by, and in cooperation with, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.