When the true facts are known about the millions of acres already reserved in the four upper basin States for public recreational purposes, few reasonable people will deny the upper basin States enough ground, even in a national monument, to build a reservoir to conserve waters which are so desperately needed. It should be remembered that water is literally the lifeblood of these States, and without its conservation thousands of the youth of those States will be denied the opportunity to make their homes in the land of their ancestors. MONUMENT "INVADES" DAM SITE The real truth is that there is no invasion of national monuments by this reclamation project. The true situation is the other way around. National monuments have invaded what Nature had really developed as a fine reservoir site, and which had been long in contemplation by the people of the upper basin States as a storage reservoir. And the people of that area were led to believe that if they did not object to the extension of a national monument-which at that time consisted of approximately 80 acres, where some dinosaur bones were found that there would be no objection whatever to the building of a reclamation project in the same area. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point as a part of my remarks an affidavit made by Mr. David H. Madsen, former superintendent of the Dinosaur National Monument; also a statement by Dr. J. Leroy Kay, curator of vertebrate paleontology, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa. There being no objection, the affidavit and statement were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: "STATE OF UTAH, "County of Utah, ss: AFFIDAVIT "David H. Madsen, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That he is over the age of 21 years and a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Utah County, Utah. That at the time the area of the Dinosaur National Monument was expanded to include the canyon unit I was employed by the National Park Service under the title of "Supervisor of Wildlife Resources for the National Parks." Among my other duties I was Acting Superintendent of the Dinosaur National Monument, and in that capacity was ordered by the National Park Service to arrange for hearings at Vernal, Utah, and Craig, Colo., for the purpose of securing the approval of the citizens of that area for the expansion of the Dinosaur National Monument to include the canyon unit. Meetings were accordingly held at Vernal, Utah, June 11, 1936, and Craig, Colo., June 13, 1936. A large representation of the citizens of the area were present at these two meetings. "Among other questions which arose was the question of grazing and the question of power and/or irrigation development which might be deemed essential to the proper development of the area at some future time. I was authorized to state and did state, as a representative of the National Park Service, that grazing on the area would not be discontinued and that in the event it became necessary to construct a project or projects for power and irrigation in order to develop that part of the States of Utah and Colorado, that the establishment of the monument would not interfere with such development. "The first part of this agreement with reference to grazing has been carried out, and the residents of the area involved are entitled to the same consideration with reference to the development of power and irrigation at the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dam sites, and any other development that may not unduly interfere for the purpose of the establishment of the monument and which is necessary for the proper development of the area. "DAVID H. MADSEN. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of March A. D. 1950. KARL H. BENNETT, "Notary Public, Residing at American Fork, Utah. "My commission expires December 25, 1950." "STATEMENT OF J. LEROY KAY, CURATOR OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, CARNEGIE MUSEUM, PITTSBURGH, PA. "I am J. LeRoy Kay, curator of vetebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa. I spent 8 years excavating dinosaurs at the Dinosaur National Monument-1915 to 1923-and several summers since that time in the area. "There has been considerable controversy in regard to the benefits and damage to the Dinosaur National Monument by the construction of Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams. I have read with much interest the pros and cons of this controversy as I have a deep personal interest in the matter, having spent many years in the area as a paleontologist for the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh, Pa. During this time, I visited by boat, horseback, and on foot, most all of the present accessible places in the study of the natural history in which the area abounds. There are rock formations representing several hundred million years of the earth's history within the confines of Dinosaur National Monument. "In the early days of the controversy the opponents of the dams maintained that the backed-up water would cover the dinosaur beds, for which the monument was primarily established. This argument is no longer used as it is well known that the waters will not cover the dinosaur beds. However, the impounded waters would allow visits to the more or less inaccessible places by boat. There are many such places where one could visit and study the canyon walls and rocks with embedded fossils, which are not accessible at present. The cost of building hanging walks or tunnels with viewing windows along the canyon walls would be prohibitive. It is true that trails, or even roads, could be constructed to the canyon rims where people could. view the canyons at a distance but few would ever see many miles of the canyon walls close up where they could study the geological structures and fauna and flora both living and extinct. "There have been a few people that have gone through the canyons of Lodore, Yampa, Whirlpool, and Split Mountain by boat and some have lost their lives in the attempt. Which is the better judgment— to preserve these canyons as they are for a few daredevils to have the thrill of shooting the rapids or thousands of people visiting these canyons by boat on still water? One only needs to compare the additional number of visitors that each year visit the areas of the Hoover Dam in Nevada, the Roosevelt Dam in Arizona, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington, or the Fort Peck Dam in Montana, to mention a few, to see what the results will be at the Dinosaur National Monument if the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams are built. Since the National Park Service took over the Dinosaur National Monument a few thousand people have visited the monument headquarters at the dinosaur quarry each year and spent a few hours, or less, and a very few have visited other accessible places within the monument. A large percentage of those that visited the headquarters came away disappointed in what they saw for at the present there are few dinosaur bones exposed. This condition is at present being corrected as the Park Service is starting the reliefing of the dinosaur bones in the Morrison stratum. This should increase the attendance at the monument considerably. When the Carnegie Museum was excavating dinosaurs at the quarry there were nearly always many bones exposed, usually the greater part of one or more skeletons. Thousands of people visited there although we did not encourage visitors as it interfered with the work. We did, however, treat the visitors with courtesy and many spent a day or even as long as a week. The waters back up by a dam at Echo Park would cover the lower part of the Lodore formation (see cross section submitted for the record). This formation is non fossiliferous, at least, no fossils have been found although many workers have searched diligently for them. The formations above the Lodore are younger geologically and most of them contain invertebrate and plant fossils, some in abundance. I know of no way that these fossiliferous localities could be more easily reached than by boat on the waters impounded by Echo Park Dam. I feel sure that the building of the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams and the reliefing of the dinosaur bones at the dinosaur quarry will make the Dinosaur National Monument one of the outstanding attractions of our national parks and monuments. Mr. WATKINS. The people of the States involved are coming to believe that these so-called conservationist opponents to Echo Park Dam are more than a little selfish in their determination to block a worthwhile project that will result in saving water enough for a large-sized city, when at the same time the reclamation project will make available practically all of the ruggedness of the canyon and the wilderness scenery for literally millions of people who will then be able to visit it. Incidentally, it may interest recreationists that an appropriation of $21 million for recreational development of Dinosaur National Monument is authorized in the upper Colorado River storage project bill. For years now I have been fighting vainly for funds to build adequate access roads and modest facilities to permit tourists to enjoy this monument. The past administrations and Congress have refused to appropriate such funds and the monument is largely inaccessible and a disappointment to tourists who drive over the unimproved road leading to the shack which substitutes for an adequate monument headquarters. Without this reclamation development, Dinosaur Monument undoubtedly would continue to be a fringe unit of the national-park system-like several others in the upper basin Statesunderfinanced and without support or interest here in Washington, and elsewhere in the country for that matter. OPPONENTS KNOW FACTS The leaders of this outrageous propaganda campaign against Echo Park Dam know the facts. They have been spelled out time and again in congressional hearings. They know that the dinosaur bones of the monument will not be affected by the construction of Echo Park Dam. They know that the construction of Echo Park Dam and the proposed Split Mountain Dam will inundate less than 10 percent of the total monument area, and that much of this inundation will cover little more than the flood-washed portions of canyon floors. They should know that approximately 89 percent of the monument will remain free of water and in a wilderness state, and that the safe waterway provided by the Echo Park Reservoir will make the area available to thousands for every person who visits the rough, isolated area today. They know also that the West has literally hundreds of miles of canyons equally as rugged and colorful as those in the Echo Park area. They know these facts and they are well aware that the storage capacity of Echo Park Dam is essential to the success of the entire project because of prior commitments downstream. They have heard experts testify that alternative sites proposed will lose by evaporation enough water for a city of a half-million people. They know these facts and yet they deliberately seek to spread misinformation calculated to inflame and alarm honest recreationists and conservationists throughout the country. I respectfully urge the Members of this body, and all honest conservationists everywhere, to get the true facts on the Echo Park Dam controversy. They can rest assured that the people who will pay for and benefit directly from the great upper Colorado River storage project are outstanding conservationists in their own right, and that the four upper basin States are making and will continue to make a most impressive contribution to national recreation. Mr. BOWER. The facts are that if the monument is developed as proposed in this bill, it will be made more readily and safely accessible to the public than it is today. I thank you. I certainly concur with the statement that was made by Mr. Cory, when I refer to the fact that the monument will be more accessible to the public than it is today. I also, Mr. Chairman, would like to ask to have inserted into the record a letter that I have here from Mr. William E. Welsh, secretarymanager of the National Recreation Association, addressed to the Honorable Eugene D. Millikin, chairman of the Irrigation Subcommittee, in which he outlines some of the policies of the National Reclamation Association in regard to water and power development. Senator WATKINS. May I see the letter? Mr. BOWER. Mr. Welsh wrote this letter to Senator Millikin, and I would like to request that it be made part of the record. It simply outlines the policy of the National Reclamation Association. Senator WATKINS. It will be received for the record. (The letter referred to follows:) NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, Hon. EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MILLIKIN: It has been suggested that the undersigned should set forth in a letter to you, for insertion in the record on the hearings for the upper Colorado River storage project, the background and objectives of the National Reclamation Association, emphasizing particularly its position with respect to multipurpose, basinwide reclamation projects and the use of power revenues to assist in the repayment of costs. The National Reclamation Association was organized in 1932 upon the urgent insistence of western governors and leaders in reclamation, including the late Elwood Mead, then Commissioner of Reclamation, "to save reclamation for the West." Recognizing the benefits and the value of reclamation to the West and to the Nation, NRA has consistently supported reclamation over the years. The call for the first meeting was issued by George H. Dern, then Governor of Utah and later Secretary of War. The membership includes the active leaders in reclamation and water resource development from each of the 17 Western States which comprise approximately 60 percent of the area of the country. The National Reclamation Association has long realized that the costs of reclamation projects properly allocable to irrigation are, in almost every instance, well beyond the ability of the water users to repay. With that in mind, NRA has consistently urged, over a period of years, the use of power revenues to assist in the repayment of the costs allocable to irrigation. We have likewise recognized that reclamation development in the great river basins of the West should be carried forward on a multipurpose, basinwide basis. RESOLUTION-BASIN WIDE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF POWER REVENUE The policy of NRA is that a resolution once adopted remains in full effect and force as NRA policy unless and until it has been modified, amended, nullified, or repealed by subsequent action. The following resolution on basinwide devel opment and the use of power revenues was adopted by the membership in 1951 and still stands as the policy of the association. RESOLUTION NO. 3-BASIN ACCOUNT Whereas reclamation development on a basinwide basis is now generally recognized as the only means by which full utilization of river basin water resources can be utilized; and Whereas in such basinwide development, revenues from all Federal power projects within the basin are being and must necessarily be made aavilable as an aid to irrigation to repay the costs allocable to irrigation but which are beyond the ability of the water users to repay; and Whereas there are numerous other basins throughout the West which are now being studied and reported upon by the Bureau of Reclamation, which said reports propose basinwide reclamation projects; and Whereas in all river basins of the West where future reclamation development is contemplated, it will be necessary that any surplus revenues of the Federal development of the basin water resources be made available to assist in the repayment of the irrigation costs: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the National Reclamation Association, That it does hereby endorse and approve the general plan of basinwide water resource development and the use of revenues from all federal water development projects within the basin to the extent necessary to fulfill the repayment requirements of the reclamation projects within the basin : be it further Resolved, That the subject of basin account legislation be further explored and studied; and that such study be undertaken in conjunction with further studies of basin development and national water and power policies; be it further Resolved, That the National Reclamation Association recognizes the commendable efforts made by the basin account committee and their valuable services as evidenced by the report of said committee. A NATIONAL WATER POLICY In 1952 the NRA membership, at its annual meeting in Long Beach, Calif., approved in principle a national water policy; from which the following is quoted: "2. All future projects should insofar as appropriate be proclaimed for basinwide development with all agencies participating in development to be brought about for every beneficial use. "4. Local interests shall have a share in the revenues of power developed from multiple-purpose, interstate projects, this to take the form of contribution to the cost of construction when such cost exceeds the ability of the water users to repay after reasonable tests of feasibility have been made. "5. The basin account should at the option of the basin be used as a bookkeeping method. "8. ** such installation (power) shall be placed upon a revenue-producing basis sufficient to retire capital cost and to aid in other development." NATIONAL WATER POLICY STATEMENT A national water policy statement was presented to the Task Force of the Hoover Commission at a hearing in Denver, Colo., May 17, 1954. This statement was approved by a 17-State water policy committee and the board of directors. Following are excerpts from this statement: 11. Repayment of costs by irrigation water users.—Agriculture, which is basic in the economy of any part of the country, is dependent on irrigation in the West for stabilization and advancement. The extent of making use of the land resource in that part of the Nation is likewise measured by the ability to bring the land and water resources together. And allied with such resource development |