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.

Mr. Wilson moved that the board accept the resolution as read. seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Woodruff Narrows Dam

Mr. Yardley

With the aid of a blackboard, the director showed the present status of construction of the Woodruff Narrows Dam.

He stated that the costliest feature of the project was the outlet works, consisting of a double-barreled reinforced concerte conduit, 5 by 6 feet, and at the present time the conduit was completed and the Bear River had been diverted and was flowing through the conduit. Principal remaining items of work consists of completing the excavation of the cutoff trench and the placing of the earth embankment.

Porcupine Reservoir

The director referred to a letter received from the Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Salt Lake City. Mr. Clinton called Mr. Bingham to tell him in advance about the letter. Mr. Bingham suggested to him that he reconsider before actually sending the letter. Mr. Clinton said that he had no choice in the matter, he had been directed by higher authority to send the letter, and copies went to the Governor, the State engineer.

The letter stated that the Bureau considered the Porcupine Dam a high risk structure, and they were concerned because of its location above Hyrum Dam, which is a Federal structure. The letter gave no supporting information, Mr. Bingham said, for the accusations.

This action is most peculiar in view of the fact that Mr. Clinton was present at our meeting when the board considered the project, and a complete set of plans, consultant's reports, and model studies were provided Mr. Clinton on June 30, 1961. The letter making the charges of the Bureau did not reach the board until October 24, Mr. Bingham continued, and by then the dam, of course, was well under construction.

A meeting to explore the Bureau's concern was held on November 1, at which time the State engineer, the water users, the Soil Conservation and representatives of the board were present. The objections to the project were discussed at that time, and Mr. Bingham outlined these briefly. The Bureau would not say that the dam was unsafe, or would fail, but they did say that it uses a safety factor less than they would use by reason of the fact that the slope is steeper than they would normally design. The embankment material was tested by Dr. Peterson, and he made a stability analysis in which he said that a structure could be built safely to a height of 183 feet on a 21⁄2 to 1 slope throughout. Whereas Dr. Peterson's study indicated a safe height of 183 feet we have used only 75 feet of the steeper slope. This gets to be a point of judgment. We still feel that the structure is safe and will have an adequate safety factor under the assumed conditions which would not occur simultaneously.

The second objection of the Bureau concerned the grouting in the bottom of the cutoff trench. The Bureau would have us cut a 3- by 3-foot excavation into the rock and refill with a concrete grout cap, and then grout down through that into the dam approximately 30 feet. We eliminated the grout cap, Mr. Bingham said, because blasting would do more harm than the grout cap would offset. The grout cap serves two main purposes (1) to anchor the header and (2) to permit pressure grouting near the surface. It was felt however that this rock was so hard and dense that we should go to another form of grouting, Mr. Bingham said. Bureau officials admit stage grouting is superior to their packer method. We go down one length of steel, which is 12 feet, and grout in the first 12 feet. We redrill and go down another 12 feet, and then we have the weight and the support of this upper zone and can put on heavier pressures to grout the lower formation, and where there is any question, we go down not 40 feet, but 60 feet. Mr. Bingham commented that if the dams had had to be built by the Bureau of Reclamation it wouldn't have been built. We used a different method than the Bureau would have used of necessity. They would have used diamond drills and taken out a core of rock. This is a slower and more costly process. We used percussion drills and even Bureau published reports say that if you don't want to recover the core, the percussion method is, in general terms, as good as rotary drilling.

Another item of objection, Mr. Bingham said, was the spillway chute. On the spillway we decided to use a rock trench. The Bureau points out that if the rock is not suitable it could erode and endanger. If the rock is not sound when we excavate to the required depth we will concrete those sections. This we agree on.

One other element concerned the capacity of the outlet works. Here, Mr. Bingham said, a calculated risk was taken. There may be years of tremendously heavy runoff while the embankment is not complete, when the oulet works would not carry the full peak through the dam. This was realized, but we depended on two things. First, with all the water going through the outlet works we will have some storage capacity to take off the peak. Secondly, this runoff will occur next spring, and we think could be on the job and working for 3 weeks to 30 days before the peak would hit, which would give us an opportunity to increase the height of the fill. Other precautions could be taken if the predicted runoff presents a problem.

In conclusion, Mr. Bingham said that these four objections had been discussed with the Governor and the State engineer. The Governor has been personally on the job, and is anxious to join us in a letter to the Bureau. We are agreed that the letter should deplore the Bureau's method of communication and to also reiterate our feeling that the dam will be safe.

Dixie project

Mr. Bingham informed the board that a meeting on the Dixie project was scheduled for the following Tuesday in St. George with officials of the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation from Boulder City, Nev. The meeting was requested by Agriculture so they would understand fully what the Dixie project would be, in order that they would not invest money or build projects in the project area that would not contribute to the overall development of the Dixie. Mr. Bingham suggested that Mr. Wilson be designated to represent the board at this meeting, inasmuch as he is the board member for the area. Colorado River storage project

Mr. Bingham commented that the power feature of the Colorad River storage project has caused a major controversy. The State of Colorado has felt that the all-Federal system is definitely in the best interest of the project. The Governor of Utah, and others, have felt that participation by private utilities would be more beneficial to the project. On September 1, the Colorado River Commission met and solicited a second proposal by the power companies and as a result the commission recommended a combination system.

This action caused more concern and strong feeling. Consequently, one of the congressional committees on Government operations undertook to investigate the commission concerning the propriety of its holding secret meetings and dealing with private utilities on transmission matters, where the Secretary of the Interior was, by the authorization act, the official who was to make those negotiations and report to the Congress. A commission meeting was held at Albuquerque in October in an attempt to help resolve the difficulties that had developed. At that meeting a reolution was prepared to the effect that the commission recognized the responsibility of the Secretary. The commission offered its assistance to the Secretary, and brought out that we were interested in that arrangement which brought the greatest power revenues to assist water development. It was decided that the four Governors should go to Washington and meet with the Secretary of the Interior, but the Governors were not able to schedule this. So it was decided that each Governor appoint a representative to go to Washington to represent him, and meet with the Secretary.

Governor Clyde asked Mr. Bingham to go to Washington to represent him. Secretary of the Interior Udall was in Japan, Mr. Bingham said, and the Under Secretary, Mr. Carr, met with the State representatives. As a result of this meeting, the Under Secretary welcomed the commission reviewing and working with him on the whole matter of power transmission. In light of the Secretary's offer the commission met in Denver and decided to assign to the engineering committee of the commission the responsibility of working out this power matter with the Secretary so that we would be better informed, and if possible, eliminate some of the controversy. A report is desired by he 1st of February on most of the lines, and a report on the complete power study by March 1. The best we can hope to do, Mr. Bingham continued, is to sit in and review and analyze the studies made by the Bureau and the commission staff.

Arizona versus California

Mr. Bingham commented on the special master's report on the Arizona versus California litigation. The report was generally favorable to Arizona. Time has been set up for the parties concerned to go before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 8, and at that time, Mr. Bingham said, California intends to move that the recommendations of the master are not valid because the upper basin States were not brought into the lawsuit. Utah, Mr. Bingham added, has 15 minutes in which to explain its position to the Supreme Court.

NEXT BOARD MEETING

Mr. Bingham asked that as soon as it could be arranged, a meeting should be held in the Dixie project area so that some of the problems connected with making appearances before committees of Congress on this project, and unifying the efforts at the local level and State agencies, could be taken care of.

After some discussion, Mr. Scott moved that the December meeting of the board be held on December 15 in St. George, and that the details of the trip be left to the director.

Mr. Hammond seconded the motion. Motion carried.

JAY R. BINGHAM,

Director, Utah Water & Power Board,

State Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.

COLTON & HAMMOND, Vernal, Utah, January 18, 1962.

DEAR MR. BINGHAM: I have read a copy of the resolution of the Utah Water & Power Board adopted on November 17, 1961, reaffirming its previous position in support of the North Sanpete watershed work plan.

In view of the fact that I was out of the State and unable to attend the meeting at which this resolution was adopted and did not have an opportunity to state my position on it, I wish to have the records of the board show my vote against approval of the North Sanpete plan at this time for the reasons set out below:

The North Sanpete plan proposes the storage of some 17,500 acre-feet of water on Gooseberry Creek in the Price River watershed, of which 15,000 acre-feet will be taken by means of a tunnel into the Sanpitch River drainage area for use for irrigation. I have been familiar with this project for many years and do not believe that a transmountain diversion of water shoud be approved unless it is clearly shown that such water is surplus to the needs in the basin of origin. The Carbon County water users contend that the water to be taken to Sanpete County is subject to existing water rights in Carbon County, and that the proposed project, if constructed, will cause serious water shortages. Engineering studies seem to support this contention. It is also urged that there are large quantities of underground water available for use in Sanpete County which can be developed at a unit cost less than that proposed for the transmountain diversion.

The Sanpete people deny these contentions and claim to have a prior right to the water. The controversy between the counties is bad for the State and for reclamation.

I believe that a study should be made for the coordinated development of the remaining water resources in both the Price and Sanpitch River areas to determine the availability of water in both areas and the most feasible means of making the maximum use of this vital resource. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to undertake further construction in either area until a comprehensive plan is developed.

Please include this letter in the minutes of the meeting of November 17, 1961. Very truly yours,

Mr. BEHLE. Does that include Mr. Colton's letter?

HUGH W. COLTON.

Mr. BINGHAM. We will be happy to make that a part of it.

Mr. BEHLE. Letter of January 18, 1962, where he asked that that

be made a part of the minutes of November 17 of 1961.

Mr. BINGHAM. That is a part.

Mr. BEHLE. Thank you.

Mr. BINGHAM. In addition, should the committee desire, I am sure that I can give you assurance that the office of the State engineer will be happy to comment and give you its analysis of any of the water right matters that are involved.

The board, I think, also relied, as is stated in the resolution, on the sanctity of the agreement which was reached by the parties when this was envisaged as one project, with a transbasin diversion feature and with the enlargement of scope. I think the concept of the project was then, and is now, that the added storage regulation at Scofield would compensate for the transbasin diversion.

I am sure that the board had in mind, as is automatic under our system of State law, that no vested prior right would or could be adversely affected by this development.

May I, Mr. Chairman, read-and it is attached to the statement I have submitted-a letter from the Governor of the State of Utah, Gov. George D. Clyde, under date of May 15, 1963. This letter is addressed to you, Senator. The letter in the text reads as follows:

Through the years, I have taken a keen personal interest in the conservation and development of the water resources in the State of Utah. At this time I would like to comment briefly on the proposed north Sanpete watershed project report that the Soil Conservation Service has prepared and is now before the subcommittee for consideration.

I should like to advise you at this time, that I am in full and complete agreement with the findings and recommendations of the Utah Water and Power Board with regard to this proposed project.

I have been closely associated with the north Sanpete water project for more than 40 years in fact my first professional assignment was on this project. My present endorsement of the position taken by the Utah Water and Power Board is based on my personal knowledge of the project and its background, as well as on a careful review of the water and power board report.

The State of Utah is concerned with the most beneficial development of our limited water resource. While I give full endorsement to the north Sanpete watershed project, I wish to make it abundantly clear that I also will wholeheartedly support any project that will more fully develop the waters of the Price River system for the Carbon County interests. I am pleased with your personal efforts to bring about this development and I wish to assure the subcommittee and the Carbon County residents that the State of Utah will do all within its power to make full development of this river system and obtain the most beneficial use from this system to make full utilization a reality. Sincerely yours, George D. Clyde.

Senator, I think I will conclude with that and supply, for proper distribution, the summary I have referred to previously, which is a brief reference to actions of the board and its predecessor organization. In connection with this

Senator Moss. That summary will be printed as part of the record. (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Bingham is as follows:)

My name is Jay R. Bingham, I am executive director of the Utah Water and Power Board. The Utah Water and Power Board is an official agency of the State of Utah with offices in the State Capitol Building at Salt Lake City, Utah. The board is composed of 15 members who represent all areas of the State. The board has existed in its present form since 1947. Prior to that date, the Utah Water Storage Commission, a predecessor organization, was responsible for promoting water development in the State of Utah.

The Utah Water and Power Board is specifically charged by statute with the following powers and duties:

"To make studies, investigations, and plans for the full development, and utilization and promotion of the water and power resources of the State * * *" and

"To consider and make recommendations on behalf of the State of Utah of reclamation projects or other water development projects for construction by

any agency of the State or United States and in so doing to designate the order in which projects shall be undertaken."

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the north Sanpete watershed project. My appearance here today is in response to a directive from the board made at its regular meeting on June 22, 1962.

I can assure you that it has been the policy of the State of Utah to resolve problems relating to our water development at the local level. In this regard we have been successful in presenting to the committees of Congress, projects which have had the full support of our State agencies and local groups. In the case of the north Sanpete watershed project, formerly planned as a participating unit of the Colorado River storage project, the State has been unable to reconcile the differences that exist. The board, its predecessor organization and the Governors of the State have spent considerable time in attempts to resolve this controversy dating back as far as March 23, 1927. For reasons which I will briefly refer to later in my statement, it is the position of the State of Utah that the development of the water resources of the State should proceed in an orderly manner and that in this case, differences of opinion should not further delay development.

The project was at one time planned to develop storage on the natural water course and at the same time to provide transbasin diversion to meet needs in another area. Because of an emergency situation, the development was undertaken in two phases. The facilities on the natural water course have been constructed; the beneficiarcies of this development now oppose completion of the project in its originally conceived form.

The Utah Water and Power Board has on many occasions considered the views of the opponents to the project and has studied their cause for concern and as recently as November 16, 1962, the board conducted extensive hearings on this project. The board concludes that the north Sanpete watershed project is an essential part of the plan for development of the waters of the State of Utah. The board has used its influence to reduce the amount of water that will be diverted out of the Price River system for this project from 12,500 acre-feet as proposed under the Bureau of Reclamation's plan to a present depletion of 8,410 acre-feet. The board has encouraged and is pleased to note that the north Sanpete watershed project as presently proposed will not only increase the efficiency of use of presently available supplies in the project area, but will call upon underground water sources. The resulting transmountain diversion has been reduced to the amount that cannot be supplied from other sources. The board while making this decision to support the proposed diversion of water from the Price River system, wishes to assure the Carbon County interests that it stands ready to cooperate with them in developing additional water supplies from tributaries of this system. To implement this offer, the board initiated a request to the Department of Agriculture for application procedures to start a comprehensive watershed project for the lower Price River area. The board welcomed the concurrence of Senator Frank E. Moss that a companion watershed project be undertaken in the Price River system to further develop new water supplies for future growth of the Carbon County area.

In its deliberations, the Utah Water and Power Board has given consideration to the future needs of the Carbon County area. It is the considered opinion of the board that future requirements in that area can be met by careful water management and the development of tributary water supplies. The board is convinced that valid existing rights will not be adversely affected by this project. The board is further aware that solemn agreements have been reached which provided for full development of this river system and in view of the need to develop the full potential of our water supplies, these commitments and agreements should be kept.

As the representative of the official agency of the State of Utah, authorized to make recommendations on behalf of the State, I urge your favorable consideration of the North Sanpete watershed project in order that the last impediment to its realization can be removed.

Mr. Chairman, I would request that the following letter from Gov. George D. Clyde be attached to and made a part of my statement. The Governor's letter dated May 15, 1963, reads as follows:

"Senator FRANK E. MOSS,

"Subcommittee on Flood Control in Rivers and Harbors,

"Federal Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.

"DEAR SENATOR Moss: Through the years, I have taken a keen personal interest in the conservation and development of the water resources in the State