I might show you would not disturb your conclusions, is hardly in consonance with the purpose for which the invitation was extended.

Could we not approach this problem in a most objective manner and arrive at the same conclusions on the following questions:

1. Is the reservation actually imperiled in any manner?

2. Would any scenery be innundated which is not available in many other places in the immediate vicinity?

3. Would access roads be created which would help the recreational possibilities of the area?

4. Would or would not the lake add a beautiful attraction?

5. Is it not possible that different conditions exist in the case of each project, and to reach a fair determination of each case, the facts pertinent to only that case must be considered?

My mind is not made up on the matter, and I suggest that if you do seriously consider accepting my invitation, that we both arrange to secure competent professional assistants, so that any decisions we reach may be based, insofar as humanly possible, on facts. This entire matter has been too much an emotional situation, without reasonable attention to either the recreational aspects or the economical requirements of a given area.

I sincerely hope that through your acceptance of my invitation that we may perform some service to the people of this area and the Nation.

Cordially,

GEORGE CORY.

Senator WATKINS. The next witness will be Frank Delaney, of Glenwood Springs, Colo.

STATEMENT OF FRANK DELANEY, ATTORNEY FOR COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO.

Mr. DELANEY. My name is Frank Delaney. I reside at Glenwood Springs. I have prepared and handed to the committee a short formal statement. If it is permissible, I ask leave to file the statement as a part of the record, and in the interest of brevity I shall attempt to comment on the parts which we deem important.

Senator WATKINS. Do you cover all that you want to say in your printed statement?

Mr. DELANEY. Not all.

Senator WATKINS. I was going to say, if you do I think that would be shorter than trying to deliver it orally. We find that often we prepare a statement because we can cut it down about three-fourths by putting it into writing.

Mr. DELANEY. Senator, may I explain, some unusual things arose here since I arrived in the city of Washington and listened to these hearings, an unusual presentation, something that I have not heard before, so it is necessary to make a few comments with respect to that, and I promise you I shall be brief.

Senator WATKINS. You may proceed.

Mr. DELANEY. Our position is stated on page 2 of this statement so far as the main bill pending before this committee is concerned. We favor storage on the Colorado River wherever storage sites may be found to control and equalize the erratic fluctuation in streamflow. We prefer storage as high on the streams as possible, but the sites are not available, storage lower down may serve the same purpose by use of the system of downstream stored water for the direct flow on the upper reaches of the stream.

The district for which I speak does object to the inclusion in this bill of any amendments or proposals for or in aid of the diversion of

Colorado River water from the Pacific slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic slope.

The reason for that opposition appears in the statement made in behalf of this district at pages 620 to 628 of the hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, 83d Congress, 2d session, on the same bill. The reasons for our opposition to any amendment which will aid exportation of water through the Continental Divide are explained in that statement. We ask that said statement be considered.

Then we summarize the reasons for our opposition to any such amendment. The map before this committee does not exactly illustrate those matters which I wish to call to the attention of the committee. Undoubtedly, many of you have been over the Moffatt branch of the Denver system. If you stand at the town of Kremmling looking east, you will be looking toward the headwaters of the Colorado River. Off to your south the Blue comes in. Then as you proceed up river about 14 miles, the Fraser River comes into the system. The Colorado-Big Thompson project was authorized by the Congress of the United States about 1938. It is for the most part intended to take waters to eastern Colorado. But by this very system of exchange, Senator, which you have mentioned in order to take the low flow of the Colorado River, it was necessary to provide a replacement_reservoir, a reservoir to make exchanges from, and that is the Green Mountain Reservoir on the Blue River. In this Senate document which I will not go into except very briefly, there was a provision that a certain amount of the storage of that project was for replacement purposes, to make the exchanges, a certain part was for future development, and it was written right into the Senate document, that a certain part of that reservoir storage was for future development of the western slope.

We made that proposition. It was enacted into this law by the Congress, and the Senate document was the basis of it, and we now say that the proposal made by the city of Denver is not only taking away some of the benefits from the United States, undermining the United States investment, it would undermine this investment.

Permit me to say that the last figures show that the Green Mountain Reservoir is paying into the Treasury of the United States net, after taking out expenses of maintenance, a half million dollars a year. I would say that most of the repayment that has been made on the Colorado-Big Thompson project has come from the revenues derived from the Green Mountain Reservoir. The agreement that was made, and which is embodied in Senate Document 90, is to the effect that the Grand Valley project people down below, other users of water on the western slope, would have the use of that water impounded in that reservoir free of cost.

With that background, I want to say that my further comments will not be on this question, the sectional question that has arisen in Colorado, but will have to do with the national interest as we see it. We heard mentioned, members of the committee, of uranium, oil shale, the wealth that surrounds Denver. We are proud of our capital city, too, and we want to see Denver develop. But we don't want Denver to develop by getting water which she does not need and which will forever stifle and limit the development of the western

slope where all these great resources are. They have called to your attention that there is an investment of $378 million in installations, man-made installations, about Denver. Over on the western slope, you have all of the public domain that is in Colorado, practically, with the exception of a little in San Louis Valley, something like 6 million acres; over there you have the naval oil shale reserve, of approximately 100,000 acres, as I remember the acreage; over there is the uranium and over there are three-fourths of the forests; over there we expect development to come, based upon reports from the University of Colorado, men like Mr. Tell Ertle, that may support population of 2 million people, far greater than what there is in the State of Colorado today.

After saying to you that we oppose this because we need that water ourselves, we will make the further assertion, and you will find the figures in the paper that I handed you there to the effect that Denver now has enough water in ordinary years for a population of 775,000, which is approximately 200,000 more than there are there.

These predictions, we say to the members of the committee, that Denver is going up and up on this same straight line, evidenced by the graph of growth of the last few years, is not a dependable prediction because it is the history everywhere, that cities when they reach a population somewhere in that vicinity level off, and the controlling factor is the trade area. Denver has, we think, before this committee a very unusual proposal. And so that you will understand exactly why we fear this proposal, let me call your attention to page 328, the language on page 328, of the House hearings, the statement on the part of Mr. Saunders in which he says the construction of the city's project, the tunnel, a dam at Dillon, and a dam at Two Forks, provides the core of a large Blue-South Platte project proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation, to bring an additional 275.000 acre-feet of water to the upper South Platte Valley and thereby create a potential for improving the feasibility of that reclamation project provided that the Bureau is able to negotiate appropriate agreements with Colorado water users on the western and the eastern slopes.

This is a complicated situation, gentlemen, and members of the committee. It has been in two courts and is pending there now. The question is, does the United States, after investing $160 million in the whole project and over $9 million in this power project, from which it is deriving an income of $500,000 a year, net, does it have the prior right to use the waters of the Blue or does the city of Denver. These hearings on the Colorado Big Thompson project were had before the congressional committees in 1938, and Denver at that time never appeared and said, I challenge them to produce one single sentence in which they said, "We have a prior claim on the waters of the Blue."

They remained silent. Now they come into court and try to establish that the investment of $160 million made by the Federal Government is not a firm investment because Denver has the prior right to use that water. It has been said here that the Hill report shows that this water is available. I call your attention to page 51 of the Hill report, where, in accordance with what I think are proper ethics he said he couldn't comment upon the supplies of the Blue River because it was in litigation and it was improper for him to do.

Again we say that in this novel proposal they ask this committee to set itself up or set up legislation which would permit eminent domain proceedings against the United States. They ask this committee to establish a precedent by which a city is furnished with water far in excess of its needs, 70,000 acre-feet would support a million population there. They have enough for 770,000. How do they justify asking for enough water to support another 700,000?

Those are some of the questions that arise in connection with this. We think that the demand is unfair and unjust. We thank you for giving us the attention of presenting our cause. It is from the national standpoint, we say, and not from the sectional standpoint. Thank you.

Senator WATKINS. The prepared statement you have will be inserted into the record.

(Mr. Delaney's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRANK DELANEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

This statement is presented in behalf of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, a public corporation created by act of the Legislature of the State of Colorado and empowered, inter alia, to

initiate appropriations for the use and benefit of the ultimate appropriators and to do and perform all acts and things necessary or advisable to secure and insure an adequate supply of water, present and future, for irrigation, mining, manufacturing, and domestic purposes within said district.1

The district comprises seven counties and part of an eighth county in western Colorado. It embraces all of the area drained by the main stem of the Colorado River in Colorado, except Grand County. This is an area of 10,180 square miles, including the area in Grand County, which is within the Middle Park Water Conservancy District. Said district concurs in this statement. The combined population of these districts is between 90,000 and 100,000 people.

In this statement the organization I represent will be referred to as the "district."

The district approves the Senate bill as originally introduced. It opposes the amendments which would further, or aid in any way, the exportation of water from the Colorado River Basin to the area about Denver in eastern Colorado. That there is no surplus water for transmountain diversion is the basis for our opposition to such diversions. We favor storage on the Colorado River wherever storage sites may be found to control and equalize the erratic fluctuation in streamflow. We prefer storage as high on the streams as possible, but if sites are not available, storage lower down may serve the same purpose by use of the system of exchange of downstream-stored water for the direct flow on the upper reaches of the stream.

The district for which I speak does object to the inclusion in this bill of any amendments or proposals for or in aid of the diversion of Colorado River water from the Pacific slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic slope. The reasons for that opposition appear in the statement made in behalf of this district at pages 620 to 628 of the hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of

1 See ch. 220, Colorado Session Laws of 1937, p. 997, and particularly sec. 5c, pp. 1000-1001.

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, 83d Congress, 2d session, on the same bill. The reasons for our opposition to any amendment which will aid exportation of water through the Continental Divide are explained in that statement. We ask that said statement be considered.

To summarize the contents of said statement, we say that any acknowledgment by Congress of any claim by others to export water from the Blue River in Colorado will undermine the investment of the United States in the Colorado-Big Thompson reclamation project in which the United States has already invested $160 million; it will be a repudiation of Senate Document 80 and a violation of the protective provisions designed to safeguard the rights of the water users of western Colorado in the use and operation of the Green Mountain Reservoir.

Any such action will affect, directly or indirectly, the litigation now pending in Federal court in which the question whether the United States has the superior right to the use of the waters of the Blue River in and through the Green Mountain Reservoir, or whether Denver has the superior right to the same waters, is raised. Such effect must necessarily be adverse to the interests of those whose rights were to be protected under Senate Document 80.

Denver does not need the water of the Blue River. We base this assertion upon the testimony of J. R. Riter, chief planning engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation, formerly chief hydrologist of said Bureau. The city has water rights from the South Platte River and its tributaries and from certain tributaries of the Colorado River for a firm, dependable supply of 183,500 acre-feet per annum, evidenced by absolute and conditional decrees. The decrees are conditional only because the works for diversion have not been completed and, therefore, the water has not been used. This is enough water, according to Denver's own record of use, a use which is conceded to be largely unmetered and extravagant, to serve a population of 770,000. This is approximately 200,000 more persons than the population of Denver and its metropolitan area according to the last United States census and reliable estimates of subsequent growth. Now the city wants another 177,000 acre-feet of water. This would supply an additional population of approximately 700,000.

In the present year of 1954, water is short everywhere in Colorado and this condition undoubtedly applies to Denver.

The answer to Denver's problem is more storage reservoirs to utilize high runoff of the streams in western Colorado from which the city already has appropriations. It does not matter how many direct-flow rights the city has, evidenced by decrees, from the streams if there is no water in those streams at the time water is needed. Let me illustrate by giving you some figures on the Green Mountain Reservoir, the replacement slope feature of the Colorado-Big Thompson project; Senate Document 80, page 3, paragraph 5-A, provides:

The Green Mountain Reservoir, on similar facilities, shall be constructed and maintained on the Colorado River above the present site of the diversion dam of the Shoshone powerplant, above Glenwood Springs, Colo., with a capacity of 152,000 acre-feet of water with a reasonable expectancy that it will fill annually. On April 22, 1954, when the amount of water stored in said reservoir was at the lowest for the year 1954, 43,767 acre-feet of water was in the reservoir. This included 7,757 feet of dead storage. On June 22,