project in 1959. The project was approved for planning in August of that year.

The Soil Conservation Service and other agencies assisted the local sponsors of this project in the development of the project work plan. Completing this project, we sent it on in for approval, as in our judgment, the judgment of the State government of Utah, indicated that the project had the necessary water rights, that there was an adequate average annual yield of water for the Narrows site over the decreed primary rights to satisfy the planned capacity of the reservoir, economically it is sound with an overall cost-benefit ratio of 2.7 to 1, and the people in the project have repayment ability to pay for the project on completion.

The Bureau of the Budget cleared the project for the executive branch of the Government after reviewing comments from other agencies, Sanpete people, and Price people.

A major part of the controversy over this project pertains to the water rights. Public Law 566 requires that local organizations acquire the water rights, pursuant to State law, as may be needed in the installation and operation of the works of improvement.

Before planning the project, the water rights are checked with the State government. In this case, the Governor of Utah advised the Soil Conservation Service that the local organizations do have adequate water rights to install the planned works of improvement.

At this point I would like to call on John Bradshaw, who heads up our watershed planning activities in our State office, to explain the main features of the watershed work plan.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BRADSHAW, ASSISTANT STATE CONSERVATIONIST, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. BRADSHAW. Senator Moss

Senator Moss. Thank you. And, Mr. Bradshaw, you may go ahead. These charts, I think, should be marked "A," the one on the right, and "B," the one on the left, so that in reading the record we may refer to whichever one you refer to in the testimony.

Mr. BRADSHAW. Map A

Senator Moss. Do you have small copies of these that might be reproduced in the record?

Mr. BRADSHAW. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. If we may have them, we will keep those designations on them.

Mr. BRADSHAW. I don't have them with me.

Senator Moss. If you will submit them for the record, they will be pages in the record.

Mr. BRADSHAW. Map A outlines the boundaries of the North Sanpete watershed project area, in relation to the San Pitch River and the Price River systems.

Map B shows the location of the North Sanpete project over here [indicating]. This area is the same as this [indicating].

The Narrows Reservoir, which is in controversy, is this drainage area here, and the relationship, the size of this area [indicating] to the Price River drainage. This is the use area of the Price area [indi

cating]. This is the use area of the San Pitch River, the agricultural land [indicating].

The principal features as shown on map A are the Narrows Reservoir, feeder canals from Cabin Hollow Creek and from Brooks Canyon, a tunnel from the Gooseberry Creek into the head of Cottonwood Creek and down into the San Pitch River. Near Fairview two highline canals, one to the north and one to the south, provide the water to the irrigated area.

In addition to the reservoir system there are about 96 miles of canals to be lined in the irrigation plan. This will include improvements, diversions, and measuring devices, so that the water can be adequately handled.

Throughout the cultivated area, land treatment measures will include such things as land leveling and the lining of on-farm ditches. These measures on the farm and the lining of the distribution systems themselves will make more water available, an equivalent amount of water available to farm headgates, than the Narrows Reservoir.

However, with the combination of the Narrows Reservoir, the improvement, and irrigation efficiency development of the ground water supply to a maximum of 3,300 acre-feet to farm headgates, the area still will be short about .45 of an acre-foot of water for a full water supply throughout the year.

The Narrows Reservoir will release on the average annually 9,333acre-feet of water.

The area that it will serve is 17,300 acres. The total irrigated area that will be treated is 23,300 acres.

I will not go into the cost, Senator, unless you would like for me to.

Senator Moss. Is there any difference in the cost than what appears in the record?

Mr. BRADSHAW. No. We have a summary of the cost to submit for the record.

Senator Moss. That may go in.

Mr. BRADSHAW. Because of the nature of the river problems that relate between the San Pitch River and the Price River, the Soil Conservation Service conducted more intensive water supply studies than we ordinarily do. We made two types of water yield studies, one based on beneficial use and one based on the water rights. The study based on the beneficial use indicated that there would be an excess of 9,800 acre-feet of water in the Price area. The depletion of the Narrows Reservoir at the Narrows Reservoir site amounts to 8,410 acre-feet, which would allow a surplus, based on the beneficialuse study. In this area at Price now the average annual diversion in the irrigated land is 4.6 acre-feet of water per acre. In the San Pitch River the average diversion per acre at the present is 1.6 acrefeet per acre. With the Narrows Reservoir the supply, the lining of the canals, the diversion, will be about 2.55 acre-feet per acre.

In cooperation with the State engineers, an analysis was made on the storage at the Narrows site in relation to the primary rights. The daily discharges recorded at the U.S. Geological Survey Heiner gaging station, were analyzed in cooperation with the State engineers for the 1942-60 period, a period of 19 years. The Heiner station measures a total Price flow from all irrigation and industrial diversion below

Castle Gate. River diversions above the Heiner gaging station include the White River irrigation diversion, the Independent Coal & Coke Co. coal treatment plant, the Utah Power & Light Co. carbon-steamelectric generating plant.

The average daily flows recorded at the Heiner gaging station, which included storage released from Scofield in excess of primary rights, were determined for the 19-year period. During 17 of the past 19 years, there were daily flows in excess of total primary rights which, when converted to volumes on an annual basis, ranged from 400 acrefeet to a maximum of 145.900 acre-feet. Only during 1959 and 1960 were the daily Heiner flows less than or equal to the total primary rights. The average annual volume of flows exceeding the total primary rights amounted to about 15,800 acre-feet for the past 19 years. The major portion of the annual flow volume in excess of the total primary rights occurs during the May through July period. This indicates that there is ordinarily a considerable amount of water in excess of direct flow rights which could be saved for use later in the irrigation season. The Narrows Reservoir is estimated to cause an average annual depletion of 8,410 acre-feet. The average annual excess of 15,800 acre-feet over the primary rights is more than sufficient to allow for the expected depletion by the proposed Narrows Reservoir. At the lower end of the irrigated area, the U.S. Geological Survey operated the Price River gage near Wellington gaging station (No. 3140) for 9 years. Annual runoff volumes at this gage ranged from 15,480 acre-feet to 208,800 acre-feet, with an average of 54,590 acrefeet. In terms of percent of the annual runoff volumes recorded at the Heiner station, the downstream Wellington gage had volumes ranging from 25 to 95 percent of the amount passing the Heiner gage. The average percentage for this period was about 50 percent. Essentially, there is no further demand on the waters of Price River below the Wellington gage. The last major industrial user, United States Steel's Wellington coal washing plant, is located above this station. No estimates were made by this study of how much of the average annual 54,590 acre-feet could be recaptured for use in the HelperPrice area.

Our next study included the water yield to determine what the total vield of the watershed area above the Narrows Reservoir was going to be, including the drainage areas by diverting Cabin Hollow and Brooks Canyon into the Narrows Reservoir.

The drainage area above the Narrows Reservoir which would feed waters into it would amount to 15.8 square miles. This is only about six-tenths of a square mile less than the Mammoth site, about at this point (indicating), that was considered by the Bureau of Reclamation. At this site the Bureau of Reclamation estimated 13,320 acre-feet of yield. Our estimate at the Narrows site is 12,780 acrefeet. There have been some estimates made, and I believe entered into the testimony of the House, that the yield at this point would only be about 7,870 acre-feet-7,670. This yield was based on an entirely different area, a much smaller area than the area that we are considering. The testimony stated that the average flows at the Narrows site were 58 percent of the Mammoth site. Using 60 percent of the flow at the Mammoth site, the flow was estimated at 7.672 acrefeet. Since the areas are the same, by dividing 60 back into 7,672, we come up with 12,780 acre-feet as the flow at the Narrows Reservoir.

One thing that I should mention: The Fairview Lakes are now diverting on the average each year, 1,540 acre-feet into the San Pitch River. This is a long-time diversion and belongs to the Cottonwood Irrigation Co. Under the proposed North Sanpete project the water from the Fairview Lakes will be moved into the Narrows Reservoir, so that this present 1,540 acre-feet of diversion into the San Pitch River is part of the 9,333 acre-feet that will be diverted from this site and makes up the total yield to the Narrows Reservoir of 12,780 acre-feet.

There have been some questions raised as to the financing and repayment ability of the people in the North Sanpete area. The Soil Conservation Service made a pretty careful study of the financing and repayment ability.

The annual amortization repayment costs to be made by the local organizations for the Narrows Reservoir and distribution system will be $3.26 per acre.

I am shaking worse than when I was talking to the House, Senator. I don't think you scare me that much.

Senator Moss. Go right ahead. I won't bite.

Mr. BRADSHAW. Annual amortization repayment costs to be made by the local organizations for concrete lining, that is, the lining on the present irrigation system, is $1.44, making a total amortization annual repayment cost of $4.70 per acre.

The Soil Conservation Service further consulted the Farm Home Administration, whose business it is to determine repayment ability of people, and in a letter to Mr. Libby they assured him that the North Sanpete people were able to make the repayment costs as proposed in the North Sanpete watershed work plan.

We consulted with Mr. Jay Bingham at the Utah Water and Power Board, since they are financing some 120 similar projects in the State, and to date they have not had 1 delinquency on such projects, and these projects have very similar cost-benefit ratios.

The Farm Home Administration has made loans to some 200 borrowers in similar situations, and they have no delinquencies. Five of these are now in the North Sanpete project area.

In the House hearings, testimony was given that the per acre-foot cost of water was $16.20. The actual cost to the water users is $4.90 per acre-foot.

With the present amendments to Public Law 566, which allow increased cost sharing on agricultural water management, this cost per acre-foot will be reduced to $4.20. Now, this cost is based on the total amount of water that will be made available at the farm headgate, which includes the water from the Narrows Dam, the improvements that are made in the irrigation system-or irrigation distribution system-which will make an increase of some 21,600 acre-feet more water available at the farm headgate.

The Utah State Department of Fish and Game is one of the sponsors of the project. Participation by the department in the proposed development has been fully approved through the action by the fish and game commission.

Measures included to enhance the fish and wildlife resources are upland game habitat improvement. The upland game habitat improvement will include some planning to provide feed for upland game birds.

This area down here is a revegetation area of 4,000 acres for big game, assistance in big game management, and at the same time will reduce the erosion on the watershed.

A fishery in the narrows site with a minimum pool of 2,600 acre-feet. Actually it is 2,500 acre-feet. Conversion of Fairview Lakes from an irrigation reservoir to a fishery, with a permanent pool of about 2,000 acre-feet. The total participation by the Utah State Fish and Game Department is approximately $275,000.

The Utah State Department of Fish and Game has stated, and I quote:

Upper Gooseberry watershed has unique qualities which could make for an outstanding recreational area. It is only a short driving distance from population centers in Utah County. Good roads provide easy access into the upper watershed. State Highway No. 31 linking Fairview and Huntington crosses the proposed reservoir area. Another entry is afforded by the "Skyline Drive" which originates from U.S. Highway No. 50 near Soldier Summit and follows along the divide to connect with No. 31 near the damsite. Large, well-equipped forest campgrounds are located in the immediate vicinity.

With these added advantages, any increased fishing resources which could be developed in the area would prove doubly important. Provision of good trout fishing in Narrows Reservoir and Fairview Lakes would result in greatly expanded fisherman day use. Prolonged fishing trips with extended camping out for the entire family could also be expected to develop.

No less important would be the provision of new fishing opportunity in the upper Gooseberry Creek watershed to offset in some degree the fishing losses expected at Scofield Reservoir with the project. Although not classified as a direct mitigation measure, it would nevertheless be very beneficial influence. That would be on the Scofield Reservoir.

During 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 water years.

Senator, that concludes our presentation.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. In your statement you referred to the primary water right, saying that there was more than enough water in Scofield to satisfy the primary water rights. Would you explain that to me a little.

Mr. BRADSHAW. There is 15,800 acre-feet average annual flow in excess of the primary water rights to be served on the Price River. Senator Moss. So you mean that on an average annual yield of water there is more water goes down the Price River than there are water rights to claim it?

Mr. BRADSHAW. Yes, sir, by primary water rights, at the head of the Narrows Reservoir, some 15,800 acre-feet. Now, the annual depletion here is 8,410.

Senator Moss. One of the problems here, of course, is changing the water from one basin to another, and the claim is made that there is not adequate water in the Price River Basin. That is the reason I would like to clarify that point for the record. This is something that is going to have to be decided.

By a "primary water right" you mean where an application has been filed and it has been approved finally by the State engineer, giving a person a beneficial use to a certain amount of water.

Mr. BRADSHAW. Yes, sir. There is 15,800 acre-feet over and above these rights available for storage at the Narrows Reservoir.