So you are doing some speculating when you get it down and say now it is only about 25,000. Is that your judgment as between the alternate sites that are seriously considered, that there is only 25,000 acre-feet in favor of Echo?

Mr. GRANT. It would make a difference as to which alternate you take.

Senator WATKINS. Leave out the High Glen Canyon and go on from there.

Mr. GRANT. I don't remember for the moment, sir, just what it works out at, but it is nothing like the 350,000.

Senator WATKINS. Does it compare with Mr. Tudor's statement of, say, 100,000 or 120,000?

Mr. GRANT. I think it might be maintained to be somewhere around there, allowing for the inaccuracies and difficulties of getting any definite determination.

Senator WATKINS. It could just as easily be a mistake getting it too low as too high?

Mr. GRANT. That is possible.

Senator WATKINS. But you want to take it on the low side?

Mr. GRANT. No, sir, not particularly. I am just interested in showing that the argument was not a very sound argument.

Senator WATKINS. I am just an ordinary layman and I would still take my comparison of the deep well as compared to the pond. I think Echo in its location, its physical location at a higher elevation. than the others downstream, and the depth that it will have at the dam site at least, compares very favorably with the example used. Maybe it is the well as compared to some of the other sites.

Mr. GRANT. I think you are perhaps giving credit to the canyons for containing nearly the entire Echo Park Reservoir, but they are only a small proportion of the reservoir. It extends over flat country outside of the canyons quite a distance. That doesn't really play as much part in it as one would think in thinking of it as a comparison between a well and a pond because there is a lot of pond to that reservoir.

Senator WATKINS. I understand, of course, you can't have all straight up and down canyons. In fact, looking at some of the photographs, I wonder where the straight up and down canyons are as compared to the total heigth of the canyon. A small part of it is perpendicular and the rest is vertical, as you mentioned in your state

ment.

Mr. GRANT. Yes, it goes back somewhere around 600 feet, it begins to go back quite drastically.

Senator WATKINS. It isn't quite a 500-foot depth at the dam site according to the height of the dam mentioned.

Mr. GRANT. Well, the whole thing slopes up a bit, sir.

Senator WATKINS. What would be the depth of the water at the dam site at Echo?

Mr. GRANT. I think it is 525 feet as I remember it. That is subject to correction.

Senator ANDERSON. Five hundred feet would be the depth of the water when full.

Senator WATKINS. That is what I had in mind. You may proceed, and we will let you get through with your statement and then we will have more questions.

Mr. GRANT. Having disposed of the major advantage claimed for the Echo Park Dam site, on which much more might be said but it is highly technical and may well be left to such questions as you may wish to ask, it is noted that in his report of November 18, 1953, to the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary says:

There would be substantial loss in electric generating capacity if any of the alternate sites were selected. While this is a matter of economic importance, I do not attach as much weight to it as to the loss of water. The power loss could be replaced by steam power at some increased cost.

The comparison in the Reclamation Bureau's own figures, as set forth in attached tables 1 and 2 indicates an actual gain in power potential, according to the Bureau's computations with a saving in first cost of $59,400,000.

Those were 1950 costs, which go up, and presumably the saving would have gone up.

Senator WATKINS. Who made the computations to show that the saving was made? Did you do that?

Mr. GRANT. I took it from the Reclamation Bureau's report, and I have corrected figures I got from the Interior Department.

Senator WATKINS. Who took their figures and worked out the computation from those figures?

Mr. GRANT. I simply put down the figures and added them together, sir, and there are the results in tables 1 and 2.

Senator WATKINS. In other words, you did the computing from their records?

Mr. GRANT. From their records.

Senator WATKINS. That is what I tried to find out.

Mr. GRANT. All those figures are their figures except the differences and the sums.

Senator WATKINS. And the conclusion you came to?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir, the conclusions I am willing to be responsible for.

Senator WATKINS. I don't know how they would figure that out, but we will give them a chance to figure it. Will you give us those figures and show us just how you arrived at that, please?

Mr. GRANT. Well, I took the figures given for Gray Canyon and Cross Mountain, which were to be brought forward and they were projects that were in the Reclamation Bureau's overall program, brought them forward to the first phase instead of Echo Park. That gives you a comparison of a gain of water storage of 800,000 and to annual power of 153 million kilowatt-hours, and an additional cost of $88,300,000.

That is for the first phase, but that would be absorbed and the gain comes in using the alternatives for Echo Park in the second phase. Senator WATKINS. You considered Gray Canyon and Cross Mountain to be an alternate site?

Mr. GRANT. Those were the ones

Senator WATKINS. You understand they are not alternate sites, but part of the regular program?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir, that is the point I make. In other words, they were projects that were approved by the Reclamation Bureau. Senator WATKINS. In fact, you have to have nine dams to even get anywhere in the storage of water necessary to fulfill the commitments

the upper basin has made to the lower basin and have any water left for the upper basin.

Mr. GRANT. They divided their program into a first and second phase, and my proposal was that they move the Gray Canyon and Cross Mountain forward into the first phase and postpone the Echo Park to the second phase.

Senator WATKINS. Why do you want it postponed?

Mr. GRANT. Because we feel that it should not be built and

Senator WATKINS. You want it postponed permanently but not just to the second phase?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.

Senator WATKINS. Would you agree it could go to the second phase? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.

Senator WATKINS. Will you support it for the second phase?

Mr. GRANT. No, sir. Table 2 shows you what can be changed, the substitution that can be made in the second phase.

Senator WATKINS. As I understand it, it is the desire of not only the upper basin but the lower basin as well, to have as full a development of the entire river basin as we can get. If we are going to make any development at all upstream so they can have water and energy downstream, it will take all the feasible sites on the river to harness and regulate the flow. Do you understand that?

Mr. GRANT. I do not take the entire first phase of table 1. I merely showed you the difference that might be put in the first phase instead of Echo Park.

Senator WATKINS. I would say if you agree that if they put off Echo Park until the second phase and use others of the proposed dams as alternates for the first phase, and agree that when the second phase comes around they could build Echo Park, you might get some encouragement.

Mr. GRANT. It isn't necessary in the second phase.

Senator WATKINS. What you are saying, in effect, is you are against it first, last, and all the time.

Mr. GRANT. Oh, yes, Senator.

Senator WATKINS. So why say anything about the second phase and put it off until that time?

Mr. GRANT. Then in the second phase I propose some alternatives, and I made a mistake there. I put in the New Moab Dam, and the New Moab Dam will back water into the Arches National Monument, which I realized after the hearing on April 3, 1950; so in my August memorandum I suggested the Dewey site instead of the New Moab site.

That would complete the second phase without the Echo Park or Split Mountain Dams and give you 1,130,000 acre-feet more storage and 181 million kilowatt-hours more firm power and save $59,400,000, and that is all their figures and not mine.

Senator WATKINS. Is this your own computation and have you arrived at these conclusions on your own analysis of the situation? Mr. GRANT. No, sir; I took their figures.

Senator WATKINS. What I am wondering is, have you had other engineers figure this for you?

Mr. GRANT. Not this part, sir. I was concerned with the program as proposed by the Reclamation Bureau, and I thought that it was

possible, as I showed here, to put in substitutes for the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams and still come out with a better project than if you had the Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams in it. Senator WATKINS. And still have plenty of storage?

Mr. GRANT. More storage and more electric power and cost less. In doing that I used entirely the figures of the Bureau of Reclamation that I had from the Interior Department.

Senator WATKINS. You didn't use their conclusions; you just used some of the figures along the line and then worked out your own formula, your own line of reasoning; isn't that right?

Mr. GRANT. No, sir, I merely added their figures and showed the results.

As it was found that the New Moab Dam (originally proposed by me as an alternative site, table 2) would back water up into the Arches National Monument, in August 1950, I suggested the Dewey Dam as a substitute.

Senator WATKINS. I spoke on the Senate floor and pointed out you would destroy the Arches National Monument, and that changed your mind?

Mr. GRANT. You caught me, Senator.

Senator WATKINS. We can all make errors.

Mr. GRANT. I certainly can.

Senator WATKINS. I have made a lot of them, I know.

Mr. GRANT. The loss of potential electric power could hardly be "substantial," as the Bureau had recommended the same installed power as for the New Moab. In any case any slight power differential that might be found in working out the Dewey Dam design could be made up when and if found necessary by steam power auxiliary, as suggested by the Under Secretary, such auxiliary steam power being probably necessary anyway because of the great variation in streamflow volume.

Senator WATKINS. You don't take seriously the suggestion about using steam power there, do you? It isn't actually cheaper or anywhere near as cheap as the hydroelectric power is it?

Mr. GRANT. The construction costs are cheaper, sir, but after you have got the construction, the hydroelectric power should be cheaper to make, and there again you get into a very involved computation.

Senator WATKINS. The people, General, who are operating on a practical day-to-day basis, running a going concern of furnishing electric energy, ought to know which would be better for them, is that right?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir.

Senator WATKINS. You realize the utilities companies in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona have offered to take all this power notwithstanding the fact that in at least three of those States they have immense quantities of coal available for steam power purposes?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir, I think you will find, of course, most of these multiple-purpose dams are fairly new as I remember it. I mean, they have been built in the last 20 years, most of them, but I think that they are finding that the variation of water and the unreliability sometimes of having all of the water they expected makes a steam auxiliary plant desirable in many cases.

49500-5431

Senator WATKINS. They use them occasionally, to firm up their power but most of them are delighted to get hydropower.

Mr. GRANT. I agree with you that the hydroelectric power is cheaper to make after you have your plant in.

Senator WATKINS. It goes on for say several hundred years.

Mr. GRANT. They figure these dams will silt up in 200 years, so that it is not a permanent resource but 200 years, after all, is a somewhat temporary period in history.

Senator WATKINS. I wanted to make this point and see if you wouldn't agree. These people who are in the business of generating electricity for the market, who know the costs and who have steam plants and hydro plants, were willing to come and enter into a contract to take all of the power produced at all the dams in this project. They have offered at the House hearings, and they will offer again in the Senate hearings. Would that not be a pretty good indication that they believe, as practical men, that the hydro power is much more desirable?

They do have some steam plants to firm up their power occasionally, but if this program for the upper basin is operated as planned-that is the various reservoirs used in connection with the others to get the utmost output of electric energy from the operation and use of the stream-then that program ought to be a rather good program, shouldn't it?

Mr. GRANT. I think that when they say they think it is a good thing if they can get it cheaper than they can make it by steam, which they should be able to do in some of these cases.

Senator WATKINS. At least they were willing to buy it notwithstanding they had ample coal and other facilities for steam plants. Mr. GRANT. Isn't that based on the cost that it is to be sold at? Senator WATKINS. I beg your pardon?

Mr. GRANT. Their readiness to buy it is based on its being sold at 6 mills.

Senator WATKINS. That is right.

Mr. GRANT. And it costs them 7 mills or over to make it by steam. Senator WATKINS. Under those circumstances I think the argument about the steam is completely answered by the people in the business when they come in and say "We prefer to buy the hydro and are willing to," and it can be sold at 6 mills.

Mr. GRANT. According to this figure, it ought to be 181 million kilowatt hours firm power more if you take the substitute I have suggested than if you take the Echo Park and Split Mountain combination.

Senator WATKINS. That is according to your calculations?

Mr. GRANT. That is taking the figures I got from the reports of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Senator WATKINS. You understand that the men who are graduates of some of our best engineering schools, men who spent almost their lifetimes working on this type of project, are the ones who make the calculations and come out with something quite different?

Mr. GRANT. Mr. Larson in his statement, I believe, said there would be 185 million less of power instead of more.

Senator WATKINS. I don't have his statement before me. there would be less at the Echo end than at the others?

You mean