fruitless many studies in more accessible areas.

The ruins in Lake Canyon

are famous in closed scientific circles. The remarkable Indian rock carvings of Newspaper Rock can well lay claim to being America's very finest petroglyphs. Biological studies of the area, even though a natural corridor between major faunal areas, are yet practically nonexistent. All this will be lost without protection from inundation.

The widely differing explanations of the value of a dam in Glen Canyon are indicative of the deplorable nature of the campaign so effusively and expensively waged by the proponents of this dam. Residents of Utah, especially its southern portion, have been led to believe that this dam will supply water to southern Utah and northern Arizona. Many residents of Utah and especially those of the Uintah Basin have been led to believe that this dam and development of the upper Colorado and central Utah projects are inextricably conjoined. Many Utahans and other Americans have been led to believe that this dam would create a vast lake for recreational purposes which will in no way injure Rainbow Bridge National Monument. None of this is true

It is our belief that the purposes of this proposed dam have been publically and officially stated as follows:

1. To regulate the flow of the Colorado to insure an adequate flow to the lower basin States under the terms of the Colorado River compact.

2. To establish Utah's right to the stored water, which otherwise would pass to California in "another few years."

3. Power production: 3

mate).

billion kilowatt-hours per year (latest official esti

4. Silt control to slow the silting of Lake Mead.

5. Recreation.

It is our belief that none of these arguments is valid, for the following reasons:

CONCERNING THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT

Article III-A of the Colorado River compact reads as follows: "There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River system in perpetuity to the upper basin and to the lower basin respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist." Additional portions of this compact, correlated with international agreements, guarantee a portion of this 7,500,000 acre-feet of each basin to Mexico, but this apportionment does not otherwise enter into calculations.

The average flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, based upon Bureau of Reclamation figures from 1931 to 1940, is 10,151,000 acre-feet. Even with the addition of the estimated 1,849,800 acre-feet already beneficially consumed in the upper basin, it is evident that the total flow of $12,000,800 acre-feet per year falls far short of the amount divided by this compact. Nevertheless, this section indisputably serves to "lay the ghost" of the oft-repeated assertion that the upper basin States will lose all rights on the Colorado in another few years if this dam is not built.

A calculation which is of real interest is that of the result if this reservoir were completely full at the time the upper basin States began to consume their allotted 7,500,000 acre-feet per year. Even ignoring the heavy evaporation loss from this reservoir, with an annual deficit of 3 million acre-feet per year, less than 9 years would be required to completely empty the reservoir, after which it would be of value only in occasional flood years, without any possibility of fulfilling its planned function. This is a very disturbing realization.

There is furthermore an irreconcilable conflict between this paramount article IIIA of the compact and its article IIID. If article IIIA, just quoted, were deleted from the compact, the upper basin States would lose all water rights to the first 75 million acre-feet per decade. As the document now stands, however, there is no statement in the compact designating which shall take precedence in case of conflict. When correlated with the actual flow of the river, therefore, this self-contradictory document can only be considered totally unrealistic. This is a long-recognized fact, stressed at the 1954 Governor's Conference in Washington, and it is acknowledged that the compact must eventually be rewritten. Meanwhile, it is obvious that any calculations based purely upon this pact can in no way indicate the actual scope of the problem.

Unfortunately, the figures offered in support of construction of the proposed Glen Canyon Dam are based on one section, then the other, of this compact. 4950054 -43

Since it canot be considered as a satisfactory document, calculations based upon its mutually contradictory sections cannot be accepted as valid. It is the contention of the Utah committee that before construction of any such fabulously expensive dam be even considered, that a unified, unassailable and non-selfcontradictory division of the water of the Colorado River be drawn up, so that Utah and America can judge the actual needs to be met in full development of the intermountain West, rather than mere statistics based on inconclusive and contradictory data. Any other course is an unconscionable waste of hardearned tax dollars, regardless of destruction or its lack, or of proposed repayment.

Even worse treachery against the American taxpayer becomes evident upon study of the Colorado River compact. This is the biased interpretation by the proponents of this dam of article IIID under which they claim that a Glen Canyon Dam is necessary to insure the unhindered flow to the lower basin of 75 million acre-feet per decade. We have already pointed out that it would serve this purpose for only 9 years after diversion of the guarantied share of the upper basin, after which it will stand mute and empty most of the time. This represents an expenditure of $80 million to $140 million per year of service, which is preposterous when its existence can be rendered unnecessary by a mere stroke of the pen. Even this, however, is not the worst indictment that can

'be made.

Let us, in order to dramatize the preposterousness of this plan, temporarily grant the falsity that article IIID is the supreme section of the compact, and even grant that before a single drop of water can be diverted by the upper basin States, the 75 million acre-feet per decade must be allowed to flow downstream. If this be granted, the construction of Glen Canyon Dam, together with close restriction of the water use of the upper basin States is indeed indicated. Even so, however, it would be so required only because of an insignificant technicality in the drafting of the compact, more than 30 years ago.

This is because the compact states that the water shall be allowed to flow downstream to the lower basin, rather, to the highest point of diversion in the lower basin, which is the station which is of real significance. To the lower basin, correction of this technicality would make no difference since Lake Mead serves their storage needs, except, perhaps, that their drinking water would not become more salty as the result of evaporation from an additional lake. To the upper basin, it would remove the necessity for justification of futile construction of a billion-dollar dam in the worst possible location-the falsity of its necessity still being assumed. To the American people, it would mean the elimination of an outlay of a billion dollars and the destruction of one of its most superb scenic attractions simply for an unnecessary technicality in a contradictory agreement of no Federal standing. The present situation is an unmitigated offense against every American taxpayer.

Were the Congress of the United States to require by legislation that this technicality be corrected before any appropriation be made for any reclamation project in the basin States, it would be achieved almost overnight, and the need for a Glen Canyon Dam in terms of the Colorado River compact, would be forever excluded. Under these circumstances, if the desirability for a dam and reservoir in this area could be justified, Marble Canyon or other dams could be constructed on their own merits, which greatly exceed those of Glen Canyon Dam. Legally, this may be possible in any event. If they are not justifiable, Lake Mead would continue to serve the storage needs of the lower basin admirably. If the Bridge Canyon Dam were constructed, it, too, could assist in storage.

CONCERNING POWER PRODUCTION

The production of large quantities of power by this dam is undeniable, although estimates have been subject to remarkable variations. The economic use of this power, however, is beyond the judgment of the Utah committee, though we would like to point out that the nearest railroad point is 150 miles away at Flagstaff, which would seem to seriously limit development of industries interested in its use. It is nearly 300 miles from Salt Lake City. In view of the limiting factor of power loss in transmission, the tremendous cost of the dam, and the availability of power from other sources, we believe a careful study of the economic feasibility of this isolated dam must be given close scrutiny before this factor is given serious consideration. It is significant that no one has proposed that this dam be constructed as a power source alone.

CONCERNING SILT CONTROL

That a dam in Glen Canyon would prevent the collection of considerable quantities of silt in Lake Mead is undeniable. It would be retained in Glen Canyon instead. It is hardly justifiable, however, to spend about a billion dollars to accomplish this former worthy goal. An infinitesimal fraction of this sum devoted to much smaller silt control dams on the Little Colorado River, which supplies to Lake Mead half as much slit as the Colorado itself, on the San Juan, and perhaps a few other tributaries, would serve the purpose as well and probably far better without destroying Glen Canyon. If dams are constructed on the Green or Yampa Rivers, these other tributaries become of even greater proportional importance. Proper watershed management at a far smaller cost is also a much more desirable partial solution where applicable, but is not applicable to the slick-rock country, where the silt of the tributaries is largely derived from corrosion of their barren stream sources.

CONCERNING RECREATION AND RAINBOW BRIDGE

The belief that a lake in Glen Canyon would result in a vast recreation area like Lake Mead is one of the most tragic misconceptions associated with the entire project. This is no Black Canyon, where high walls give way to gentle slopes a short distance above Hoover (Boulder) Dam. Sheer walls 200 to 2,000 feet above the water level preclude launching of any boat at the damsite or for miles above along the main canyon, even if roads existed in this incredibly dissected country. The upper end of his proposed lake is even more forbidding. There, Cataract Canyon is inaccessible to man and beast alike. Only one usually passable road, connecting the outposts of Hanksville and Blanding by way of the ferry at Hite, approaches the level of his proposed lake, and the treacherous canyons through which it snakes will be inevitably silted up by the same upstream silting process which has made similar side canyons of Lake Mead totally impassable. The only other access location given public attention was suggested by a resident of Kanab, Utah, in one of the letters to the editor published by the Deseret News in this heated controversy. It was his belief that the Lone Rock area in Wahweap Canyon, some 65 miles east of Kanab, could be made accessible by road construction. A jeep road now runs to this point along the streambed of the Paria River, over Clark Bench and down the streambed of Wahweap Creek, but begins at Henrieville, over a hundred miles to the northwest. This jeep road will, of course, be silted up like all the other side canyon floors.

It is true that the cliffs near Lone Rock are less precipitous, and that a man or horse can make his way from the canyon rim to the highwater line. On the other hand, inspection of the Bureau of Reclamation maps of the area indicate why a boat trailer cannot, and this is confirmed by others who have studied Wahweap Canyon.

This proposed lake would indeed be a fine recreation area, but one accessible only by seaplane. This is not a service to the people of America.

It is not necessary to point out to those who have studied the Glen Canyon project proposal that the lake formed by the dam is not destined for any irrigation or culinary use in Utah or northern Arizona, despite the widespread belief to the contrary. It is, however, important to dispel misconceptions of the relation of the proposed dam to Rainbow Bridge National Monument which have even been included in the so-called Fact Sheet circulated by the Department of the Interior. As previously mentioned, the elevation of the maximum level of the proposed lake is 3,707 feet. According to the figures of the Bureau of Reclamation, this is 53 feet higher than the canyon bed at Rainbow Bridge, which is 3,654 feet above sea level. This dam will result in submergence of the lower end of the National Monument a hundred feet deep.

Parts of Rainbow Bridge National Monument will thus be flooded whenever the lake is within 100 feet of capacity. This, of course, will be no problem when the upper basin States begin to consume their full 7,500,000 acre-feet per year, and the reservoir is standing empty and useless. Meanwhile, if it were possible to float up to or beneath the Bridge, as might be suggested by these figures, little objection could be raised. Unfortunately, it has already been shown that boats cannot be launched on this reservoir, but even were this possible, experience gathered from the varying height of Lake Mead and its silting indicates how extremely rarely the reservoir would be at this maximum height. Actually, silting rather than flooding will be the agent of maximum damage to Rainbow Bridge:

National Monument, which is recognized as one of the seven natural wonders of the world. This upstream silting process has already been mentioned. It would be very little affected by alterations of a few dozen feet in the level of such a lake. Even in the opinion of one of the few backers of the plan actually familiar with the area, "after one or two seasons of floods" it will be impossible to reach Rainbow Bridge from either the river trail or the upstream trail from Rainbow Lodge. To continue his statement: "I can predict this with accuracy because the side canyons entering Lake Mead below Separation Canyon are now clogged with heavy deposits of silt. This, likewise, will happen to all of the side canyons of Glen Canyon".

Although no official statement has been made, and its cost nowhere appears in the estimates of the cost of this project, there has been talk of protecting Rainbow Bridge National Monument with a dike or check dam below the National Monument in Bridge or Aztec Canyon. This would, of course, have to be in excess of 100 feet in height, and would be a multimillion dollar project. What is worse, such a dam would cause even more severe backing up of silt into a stagnant quicksand pool behind its barrier, and would thus worsen the problem it was designed to correct. Of the two, the lake is the lesser evil, as a portion of the silt would find its way down the canyon arm into the main lake. Even such proponents of the dam as the Salt Lake Tribune admit that "serious flooding * of this truly unique natural attraction would be deplorable." There is no way that severe damage to Rainbow Bridge National Monument by flooding and silting can be avoided under the present terms of the Glen Canyon project.

If a real need for a major dam in this area of northern Arizona is demonstrated in this or later investigations, admirable alternate sites preserving the magnificence of Glen Canyon and Rainbow Bridge National Monument are available in Cataract, Stillwater, Labyrinth and Marble Canyons, and at least the last two of these have already been approved by the Bureau of Reclamation. One is Marble Canyon damsite. A comparison of the two projects is very worthwhile.

Marble Canyon damsite is located about 50 miles downstream from the Glen Canyon damsite. The proposed 300 foot dam here would back water up some distance above Lee's Ferry. Here, in contrast to Glen Canyon, would be a freely accessible, magnificent recreational area with broad sloping beaches just off United States 89. Today an area of fierce, treacherous rapids, in contrast to the broad currents of Glen Canyon, its magnificent canyon would rise far above the lake level and be freely accessible to boats. One beauty spotVasey's Paradise-would be lost, but how little this compares with the terrible destruction which would occur in Glen Canyon, where Rainbow Bridge, Music Temple, Lake Canyon, Hole-in-the-Rock Crossing and all its other glorious features would be totally destroyed or heavily damaged.

Power production and water storage are, of course, less because of the lower height of the dam. The former is estimated at 234 billion kilowatt-hours per year which is about three-fourths of that of Glen Canyon, estimated to produce 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year. On the other hand, the topography of Marble Canyon strongly suggests that the proportional evaporation would be considerably less, partially balancing the lesser storage. The Utah Committee has been unable to obtain an estimate of the cost of this dam, but is hardly credible that it would exceed the near-billion dollar cost of Glen Canyon Dam. It is our belief that serious consideration should be given the question of whether these somewhat different storage and power potentials will not be more than adequate, in the event that the desirability of a dam in this general area ever becomes apparent. Such alternate sites, in contrast to Glen Canyon, can be of great value to the people of the Southwest and of America. In the even more unlikely event that an auxiliary dam should ever prove essential, one located at the Glen Canyon damsite which would back water up only to the mouth of Azete Canyon, thus causing a minimum of destruction, might be further added without the moral indefensibility of the present plan.

The Utah Committee for a Glen Canyon National Park therefore wishes to present the following plan:

1. Establishment of a Glen Canyon National Park with the specifically limited reservations outlined above.

2. Revision of the Colorado River compact before any projects are finalized. 3. Determination of the needs for development of the Colorado River Basin under the revised compact.

4. Construction of silt control dams on the Little Colorado River, the San Juan River and elsewhere, in locations of minimum destructiveness.

5. Construction of a Marble Canyon, Cataract Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon or Stillwater Canyon Dam if the need be proven.

6. Construction of a Glen Canyon Dam limited to a height which would back water up only to the mouth of Aztec Canyon if further need be ever proven. Finally, it is the belief of the Utah Committee that the evidence against the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam is so strong that the only real reason for its inclusion in the upper Colorado storage project is an underhanded one. If the power from this dam could be sold, and credited to the account of the Echo ParkCentral Utah projects, the somewhat vulnerable financial status of the latter would be considerably improved. The frightful destructiveness of this dam is too great a cost to pay for the mere sake of this tainted bookkeping. Glen Canyon and Rainbow Bridge are fully worthy of preservation and development for the people of America. Let us not allow a costly, destructive, unnecessary dam to destroy their eternal magnificence.

Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

United States Senate.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 2, 1954.

Please be assured of my wholehearted support for S. 1555 which authorizes the construction of the Colorado River storage project. Including the Echo Park Dam. This legislation has the support and approval of the overwhelming majority of the people of Utah. The further development and expansion of this State depends in large measure on the approval of this project, which will assure the protection and ultimate beneficial use of our Colorado River water rights. In view of conflicting statements regarding my stand, would appreciate having the foregoing inserted in records of your hearing.

J. BRACKEN LEE,
Governor, Utah.

Senator WATKINS. The hearing will recess subject to further call of the Chair.

There are numerous statements, letters, and telegrams which will be considered by the committee, and such of those which are pertinent will be placed in the record at this point.

Senator EUGENE MILLIKIN,

NUCLA, COLO., June 30, 1954.

United States Senate Building, Washington, D. C.

Local sentiment overwhelmingly in favor of Echo Park Dam project. Exert every effort to gain approval.

P. J. CAMPBELL,

President Nucla Chamber of Commerce.

JOHN S. GILMORE, Publisher Nucla Forum.

VERNAL, UTAH, June 28, 1954.

Chairman of Echo Park Dam Hearing,

Senator MILLIKIN,

Myton City Lions Club wholeheartedly advise your committee that we endorse the construction of the Echo Park Dam and central Utah project.

LIONS CLUB,

Washington, D. C.

Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

REX LAMB, President.

DELTA, COLO., June 29, 1954.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

We request outright authorization of projects in Colorado River storage bill and any others included by amendment. Drought conditions are disastrous to the economy of this area. Water storage is our only solution.

DELTA COUNTY WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.