Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Clifford S. Blackham, and I live in Moroni, Sanpete County, Utah. It is a pleasure to appear before you in support of the north Sanpete watershed project which has been planned to assist in the needed development of my county. I am a member of the Board of County Commissioners, Sanpete County, and have served in this capacity during the past 10 years.

Sanpete County is virtually the geographic center of Utah. It is positioned approximately 100 miles south of Salt Lake City. The valley is from 5 to 20 miles in width and 60 miles long, flanked on the west by the San Pitch Mountains and on the east by the Wasatch Plateau which rises to an impressive altitude of 12,300 feet. The valley terrain is characterized by low rolling hills with a gentle slope from the northwest and northeast to the Sanpitch River which is fed by small streams and springs from the higher altitude.

Sanpete County's history dates from November 1849, when a caravan of 50 families in covered wagons migrated from Salt Lake City to the virgin Sanpete Valley. From this humble beginning Sanpete Valley developed into a substantial agricultural center. Water is the lifeblood of the valley and the main economic controlling factor of our people. In 1940 our population was 16,063, but this number had dwindled to 13,891 by 1950, and to 11,053 by 1960. We believe that our insufficient water supply is the main contributing factor to this discouraging population trend. It becomes necessary for our young people to leave the valley in search of employment because industrial employment is not available to take the place of the agricultural employment we have lost. Many of our people who have moved away to the urban areas constantly express their desires to return to the valley if and when water is available to increase the economic potential of our county.

The Federal Government has recognized in our county a condition of economic distress and his given Sanpete an official ARA designation that we may be eligible for assistance under the Area Redevelopment Act. We are moving along as rapidly as possible under this program in an attempt to strengthen our economy. Our ARA committee is organized and working and has prepared and written the county overall economic development program. Water still remains the chief economic factor and with additional supplies we can by our own strength reverse the trend and move toward better conditions.

When dry years come along, and we do not have average precipitation, we find our storage water to be inadequate. Our economy takes a serious setback such as has been the case in our sugarbeet industry during recent years. Sugarbeet acreage has been curtailed and the sugar factory in the valley has been forced to close which makes 200 additional of our our people being unemployed. Sanpete County sprawls over an area of 1,022,080 acres of which 64 percent, or 654,132 acres, is included in farms and used as tillable land or pasture. Much of this land is used as grazing land for livestock. Sanpete ranks fourth in the State of Utah in agricultural income, with over $12.5 million annually in cash receipts from the sale of agricultural products; ranks first in turkey production; first in sheep and wool production; fifth in beef production; and eighth in dairy production in the State. We have been proud of our valley and we have worked hard and long to hold the economy intact for ourselves and future generations but the signs of economic deterioration face us and we realize that the key is water. Our location favors agricultural expansion because we are "next door" neighbors to the urban industrial areas of central and northern Utah where agricultural lands are giving way to housing units, business and industrial firms, super highways, defense plants, etc. We envision our valley as a great source of milk supply to the cities of the north if our pastures can be kept green with additional water.

In every possible way our people have resisted the loss of economic status in our agricultural valley. We have realized the importance of placing to the best beneficial use our present water supplies through every known means of conservation. The records will show that our people have exceeded most all counties in the State in agricultural conservation practices; they have been eager to cooperate with the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization Committee in their serious attempt to improve their conditions. Your examination of the work plan of the north Sanpete watershed project will indicate to you the thorough planning of the many members of the North Sanpete Watershed Committee in cooperation with various State and Federal agencies in a further effort to improve our present condition.

With the decreasing valuation of property in the county the problem of financial support to cities, schools, and county government becomes greater each year.

Costs continue to rise and in the face of reduced valuation, tax levies must be increased placing a greater burden upon those who live in the county. As the population decreases, the increased burden must be carried by fewer and fewer people. It is our sincere feeling that this unfavorable situation can best be improved by the increase in our water supply which will result from the approval of the north Sanpete watershed project.

It has been a pleasure to appear before you in behalf of the people of Sanpete County, Utah, and we earnestly ask your favorable consideration of the north Sanpete watershed project. I thank you for this privilege.

Mr. NIELSEN. Mr. Keith S. Hansen, Fairview, Utah, who is president of the Sanpete Water Users Association, will now offer his

statement.

Senator Moss. Commissioner Hansen, county commissioner, as well as president of the water users. You may go ahead, Mr. Hansen. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KEITH S. HANSEN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT OF SANPETE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Moss, and chairman of this water group here today, for the record I am Keith S. Hansen. I reside at Fairview, Utah. I am now chairman of the Sanpete County Commission, president of the Sanpete Water Users Association, Inc., and chairman of the North Sanpete Watershed Committee. I also have a prepared statement that I would like to file with the clerk.

Senator Moss. That may be made part of the record.

Mr. HANSEN. And, if I may, I would like to read, in the essence of time, just one paragraph

Senator Moss. All right, you may do that.

Mr. HANSEN (continuing). To bring to the attention of you here today:

The work plan of the north Sanpete watershed project was prepared by the Sanpete County Soil Conservation District, Sanpete County Water Conservancy District, Sanpete County, Fairview City, Mount Pleasant City, Spring City, Moroni City, and the Utah State Department of Fish and Game. Technical and other assistance was provided by the Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, and the State and county offices of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Land Management; the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Geological Survey of the U.S. Department of the Interior; the Bureau of Public Roads of the U.S. Department of Commerce; the Utah Water and Power Board; the Utah State Land Board; the Utah State Board of Forestry and Fire Control; the Utah Cooperative Extension Service; the Sanpete Water Users Association (a corporation), and 26 local irrigation companies.

The work plan has been audited and screened by all necessary State agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Budget. Both State and Federal agencies have also heard, in private conference and by public hearing, the arguments presented by our opposition, and thereafter have approved the project. In behalf of Sanpete County, the Sanpete County Water Users Association, Inc., and the North Sanpete Watershed Committee, I ask your approval for this very much needed project.

I would also like to mention that we have in the audience here today over 50 people from Sanpete County in the State of Utah, here in the interest of this project, and they have come from irrigators, farmers, businessmen, and all types of economy in our county.

Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hansen. I appreciate your statement, and it has been placed in the record in full.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Hansen is as follows:)

I am Keith S. Hansen. I reside at Fairview. Utah. I was born and raised in Sanpete County, and am now chairman of the Sanpete County Commissioners, president of the Sanpete Water Users Association, Inc., and chairman of the North Sanpete Watershed Committee.

Sanpete County has been declared a depressed area and is in need of help to boost its employment and improve its economic condition. The North Sanpete watershed project, which covers approximately 204,000 acres in the north end of the county, will help to stimulate the economy of the entire county area. We have lost one-third of our population in the last 20 years, and will continue to lose population if something is not done.

Our livelihood is mainly agriculture, so that we need this watershed project to help make our agricultural economy more stable. We are likewise very interested in attracting some industrial business to the area, which cannot be done without a more firm water supply. To date we have very little water storage for the area, so that our farmers, as well as our various communities and small industrial users, must depend upon a very irregular and uncertain water supply governed principally by the stream flows, which are greatly reduced in the late summer months.

This project will provide storage facilities for irrigation which will furnish a supplemental water supply to our lands already under cultivation. It will not bring additional acreage into production. It will also provide for the development of such recreational facilities as public fisheries, boating, camping, and hunting. There are other important possibilities such as skiing, resorts, lodges, and so forth which will attract tourists into our area.

Other aspects of the project will convert our wet bottom lands to duck, geese, and other bird habitat; and 4,300 acres of range land will be renovated for multiple use, mainly livestock and big game. In fact, the Utah State Fish and Game Commission is participating in the project and will contribute about $200,000 to the construction of the reservoir and water storage facilities.

It is planned that the farmers and irrigation companies will apply conservation improvements that will conserve our water supplies and soils so that the fullest value can be obtained from our water. The farmers in our county realize the importance of conserving water. In the last few years they have lined over 300,000 feet of canals. They have built many ponds and leveled many acres of land and put forth a lot of effort and work to conserve the water we already have. The economy in our county is one of the lowest of the counties in Utah, and yet application of conservation measures ranks among the highest.

The work plan of the north Sanpete watershed project was prepared by the Sanpete County Soil Conservation District, Sanpete County Water Conservancy District, Sanpete County, Fairview City, Mount Pleasant City, Spring City, Moroni City, and the Utah State Department of Fish and Game. Technical and other assistance was provided by the Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, and the State and county offices of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Land Management; the Bureau of Reclamation and the Geological Survey of the U.S. Department of the Interior; the Bureau of Public Roads of the U.S. Department of Commerce; the Utah Water and Power Board; the Utah State Land Board; the Utah State Board of Forestry and Fire Control; the Utah Cooperative Extension Service; the Sanpete Water Users Association (a corporation), and 26 local irrigation companies.

The work plan has been audited and screened by all necessary State agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Budget. Both State and Federal agencies have also heard, in private conference and by public hearing, the arguments presented by our opposition, and thereafter have approved the project. In behalf of Sanpete County, the Sanpete County Water Users Association, Inc., and the North Sanpete Watershed Committee, I ask your approval for this very much needed project. I think the work plan is well conceived and the material therein reliable and correct. It is one of the most economical projects planned by the SCS in Utah, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.7 to 1.

We have men here today who can answer and explain questions about water supply, water rights, or any other technical or legal matter concerning this project; but I would like to draw to your attention just one reason why I think you, representing the U.S. Government, should give your final approval to this project so that Federal funds will be made available to assist the local organizations 20-128-634

in putting the work plan into effect. Our opposition is attempting to repudiate an honorable and moral obligation to Sanpete County which has been protected by the Bureau of Reclamation through a valid contract between the U.S. Government, the Carbon Water Conservancy District, and the Price River Water Conservation District, with Sanpete as a third party beneficiary. This agreement is known as the tripartite contract agreement. It specifies and provides for the building of two reservoirs-the Scofield and the Gooseberry. It guarantees existing rights in Carbon County and provides additional water for Sanpete from the unappropriated supply through extra storage in the Scofield Reservoir and construction of the Gooseberry Reservoir. Although this is only a part of the north Sanpete watershed project, our opponents are here today to resist the entire work plan and water supply. There is water available for storage in the proposed Gooseberry Reservoir. On January 1, 1963, Scofield had 16,900 acrefeet of water, on January 1, 1962, 1,300 acre-feet, and the average is 13,700. The estimated inflow into Scofield Reservoir today is 82 percent of normal, considering our past dry season, and the supply at Gooseberry Creek is 83 percent.

The Sanpete Water Users Association, Inc.. have final plans for the building of a tunnel to divert storage from Gooseberry Creek to their farms and have acquired property for the impounding of the storage water. They have also an easement from the U.S. Forest Service to build the tunnel and have commenced construction of the tunnel with local finance.

In summary:

1. This project is a sound, economically feasible project.

which

2. There is water available for this project and the water in question, by the way originates in Sanpete County, is held under legal and valid filings by the Sanpete Water Users Association.

3. Recognizing the importance of conserving water, Sanpete people have in the last few years lined over 300,000 feet of canals to their farms and are trying to use all available water in a more economical and beneficial way.

4. The Sanpete Water Users cooperated in good faith with Carbon County and the Government in the rebuilding of Scofield Reservoir before the Gooseberry project, which latter project was protected by the tripartite agreement. 5. No prior valid and existing water rights in Carbon County will be jeopardized by the north Sanpete watershed project.

6. We have the endorsement and support of our local people, irrigation companies, cities, counties, State organizations and agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the approval of the Bureau of the Budget for this project. 7. Our county has been declared a depressed area, and we need this project to help our local economy.

8. We have started work on this project and are determined to see it finished, and we ask your approval of funds for this project.

9. We appreciate the support we have received from all State and Federal agencies in the past, and I again earnestly urge you to give your approval to this project.

Mr. NIELSEN. Mr. Chairman, there may be others here who would like to have spoken on this matter and in support of this project, because of the numbers who are here. I would just briefly like to mention one or two of the people in the area who are here today in the interest of this project, and I regret that I can't name them all. But among them, of course, are G. Stanford Rees of Gunnison, Utah, who is the State senator from the district; Mr. L. L. Peterson of Fairview, Utah, who is State representative from the district; Mr. Kendrick Harward, who has just spoken to us; Mr. Ray D. Christensen of Moroni, Utah, who is chairman of the Sanpete Water Conservancy District; and other men of prominence who are interested in business, as well as in farming and irrigation, in the entire area.

These gentlemen, with thousands of others in Sanpete County and the area, are very vitally interested in the action which will be taken by the committees of the House and the Senate on this particular project.

It is my purpose here today to help and assist in presenting the project to you, to give to you such facts as I may have, and to submit to you such points as I think are significant in assisting you in mak

ing your determination. I have prepared also a written statement, which I would like to submit in triplicate copies, and will, to some extent, refer to it in the course of my discussion and perhaps may have occasion to make certain observations from it.

Senator Moss. That may be made part of the record in full, and then you may refer to it or comment on it as you see fit, Mr. Nielsen.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR H. NIELSEN, ATTORNEY AND COUNSEL FOR THE SPONSORS OF THE PROJECT

Mr. NIELSEN. I am first concerned with reporting to you and to the committees of both the House and the Senate as to the matters which have taken place since the hearings before the House committee last August 15 and 16.

At that particular time there were two matters that were brought before the hearings which seemed to be of some concern to the members of the House committee and gave some problem to some of them in determining, or in deciding, in their own minds just what actions should be taken upon this proposed watershed work plan. First of those was the reference made at the very beginning of the hearing that there was litigation still pending over the water rights that would be involved in the construction of the Gooseberry Reservoir. At that time Mr. Skeen, in response to a question, although it was in the course of the proponents' presentation of the case, got up and mentioned that there was then pending in Carbon County a certain proceeding whereby the irrigation companies of Carbon County had brought an action for an interlocutory order against the U.S. Government and the Sanpete Water Users Association with respect to clarification of certain matters in respect to the tripartite agreement and to define and determine the water rights. At that particular time I pointed out, and I do again point out, that this action was not brought until after we had received notice of the fact that there were to be hearings in Washington on this particular project.

However, since the time of the hearing in August, that matter has been heard by the court. The action was brought in Carbon County, where the opponents to this project, of course, are resident. An outside judge was brought in to hear the matter, and Judge Harding of Provo heard this matter in the early part of December 1962. At that particular time full opportunity for both sides to present such views as they had was given. Some testimony was taken. The matter was submitted to the court, and the court made findings and conclusions and entered an order, which I have incorporated as exhibits B and C to my statement, in effect determining that there had been no, either attempt to infringe upon any rights in Carbon County by the Sanpete people or the Government through this proposed plan, that there was no indication that there would be any future infringement upon any water rights, and that the petition that was brought on behalf of various water users in Carbon County did not present a justiciable issue, and the action was dismissed, the petition was dismissed.

That was done in January, and more than the time of appeal has expired, 1 month, and the action, of course, and the determination of the court, the judgment, is now final.

The other matter which was also raised in the course of the hearing was a reference to a letter that had been written by Mr. Kenneth