The initial energy output at the powerplants would be 9 billion kilowatt hours annually which would be reduced many years hence to an ultimate 6 billion. Estimated market demands for hydroelectric energy in the upper basin would require the total installed powerplant capacity within 20 years.

The 11 participating projects in the 1950 report, to which was added the Shiprock project at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, were for the utilization of the water made possible by the regulatory functions of the storage reservoirs. These uses include irrigation of new land, supplemental water for presently irrigated lands with inadequate water supplies, water for municipalities and industry, as well as recreation and fish and wildlife purposes.

In December 1953 the Secretary of the Interior submitted his supplemental report to the President proposing authorization of 2 units of the storage project, Echo Park and Glen Canyon, and 12 irrigation and multiple-purpose units. One of these, the Shiprock division of the Navaho project, has since been withdrawn. The proposals in this supplemental report are the basis for S. 1555, now before you, which includes 2 additional units of the storage project and 4 additional participating projects. The Navaho Unit, one of the additional units in the bill, would be developed later under the Department's plan as a reservoir for the Navaho participating project.

I first wish to cover briefly the proposals of the Secretary and to the extent necessary their relation to the plan for ultimate development of the upper Colorado River. I shall also describe the additional units and participating projects in the bill. A controversy has developed over the proposal to build the Echo Park Dam, and confusion exists over the necessity for this unit and reasons for its inclusion in the plan. I shall attempt to clarify this issue in my state

ment.

The Colorado River storage project: The Echo Park and Glen Canyon units of the storage project are essential parts of the plan for regulation of the upper Colorado River through which the provisions of the Colorado River compact can be met, and apportioned waters can be used in the upper basin. Although the nine regulatory reservoirs proposed in the plan are generally below the major points of diversion in the upper basin, they serve essentially the same purposes as reservoirs above points of diversion. This is achieved through a replacement practice not unusual on western streams where water is diverted upstream in exchange for storage water releases from downstream reservoirs.

Records over a long period of years show that there is an adequate water supply to assure initial filling of these reservoirs even if drought conditions should prevail. The time required for construction and filling them, however, necessitates initiation of the work at least 20 years before the need for supplementing Lee Ferry flows.

The units of the storage projects in addition to their regulatory functions would provide vital sediment control and would generate power desperately needed for continued economic growth of the upper basin. As I shall explain more fully later on, the anticipated net revenues from the sale of energy at an average rate of 6 mills per kilowatt hour delivered to the load centers by either Federal or other means of transmission would be sufficient under the plan to retire with interest the entire construction cost of the storage project allocated

to power. In addition these revenues would furnish financial assistance to irrigation under the participating projects and make possible over a 50-year period complete repayment of the interest free irrigation construction costs of these projects.

The total consumptive use of all constructed projects, those authorized, and projects under construction, is approximately 22 million acre-feet, or one-third of the 712 million acre-feet annual allotment to the upper basin. The 11 participating projects being recommended by the Department of the Interior would increase present consumptive uses by an additional 400,900 acre-feet of water annually. With expedited development in the future, it may be that in the next 75 years the remainder of the upper basin's share of Colorado River water will be put to beneficial use.

Glen Canyon unit: Glen Canyon Dam would be on the Colorado River in northern Arizona approximately 13 miles downstream from the Utah-Arizona border, and 15 miles upstream from Lee Ferry. On the basis of preliminary studies it would be a concrete curved gravity-type structure rising 700 feet above bedrock and 580 feet above the river. As the reservoir should be built to its economic capacity, the final design height of the dam will depend on engineering and economic factors, and cannot be determined until precise engineering data are made available during preconstruction activities. The reservoir would offer final regulation for deliveries to the lower basin under the Colorado River compact. Out of a total capacity of 26 million acre-feet, 20 million acre-feet intially would be active capacity. The reservoir when filled would have a normal water surface area of 153,000 acres and would extend about 187 miles up the Colorado River, nearly to the mouth of the Green River, and 71 miles up the San Juan River. The reservoir would be the principal sediment depository in the upper basin. In 200 years at the present rate of sediment flow in the river and with upstream storage developed as planned, sediment deposits would fill all inactive storage space and reduce the active storage space by more than half.

A powerplant would be located near the toe of the Glen Canyon Dam. It would consist of seven generating units for a total installed capacity of about 800,000 kilowatts, or approximately one-half the total capacity contemplated for the entire Colorado River storage project. The total construction cost of the Glen Canyon unit, with an appropriate assignment of transmission costs is estimated at $421,300,000.

Echo Park unit: The Echo Park Dam would be located in Colorado on the Green River about 3 miles east of the Utah-Colorado State line and 3 miles below the junction of 2 major tributaries, the Green and the Yampa Rivers, in the tricorner area of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The dam would be a concrete curved gravity-type structure rising 690 feet from bedrock and 525 feet above the river. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 6,460,000 acre-feet, including 5,460,000 acre-feet of live capacity. When filled to capacity, the reservoir would have a surface area of 43,400 acres and would extend 63 miles up the Green River and 44 miles up the Yampa River.

The powerplant at the dam would consist of four 50,000 kilowatt units for a total capacity of 200,000 kilowatts. The construction cost of the Echo Park unit is estimated at $176,400,000, including an appropriate part of the basic transmission system.

Interconnection Glen Canyon and Echo Park: The first filling of the reservoirs requires electrical interconnection between the Glen Canyon and Echo Park units and existing plants in the lower basin. This interconnection would also permit greater flexibility in power operations, increasing the firm power production of the system, and making possible the delivery of Glen Canyon power to load centers in the upper basin. The initial lines will constitute the backbone of the ultimate transmission grid to which subsequent powerplants would be added as increments in the system regardless of what transmission lines are built by private or preference customers or by the Federal Government.

Justification for Echo Park Dam: The Echo Park Reservoir, with its large capacity and strategic location would regulate the flows of the Green and Yampa Rivers not performed by other upstream sites at Flaming Gorge and Cross Mountain. This same regulation would increase the efficiency of Flaming Gorge, Cross Mountain, Split Mountain, and Gray Canyon units for both storage and power generation. In addition, evaporation losses at Echo Park are lower than at any other sites possessing major storage possibilities in the upper reaches of the Colorado River Basin. This factor alone, in an area where evaporation losses are high and water so precious, is a compelling reason for its inclusion. I wish to stress, too, that Echo Park is in the heavy power market area of the upper basin. In effect, Echo Park is sound from an engineering and economic standpoint, and is a vital part of the total plan.

Opposition to Echo Park is based on its effect on the Dinosaur National Monument. Proponents on the other hand claim that a substantial increase in recreational values of the Dinosaur National Monument will be possible as a result of the building of Echo Park Dam.

Persistent claims have been made that satisfactory substitutes for Echo Park exist. The most favorable alternate site to Echo Park would be Dewey, on the Colorado River 30 miles upstream from Moab, Utah. Annual evaporation from this site is estimated at 215,000 acrefeet. This would involve an additional annual evaporation loss of 120,000 acre-feet over the combined losses of 95,000 acre-feet at Echo Park and Split Mountain. With such a substitution there would also be a loss to the power system of 188,000 kilowatts annually.

Although evaporation losses at the New Moab site on the Colorado River just above Moab, Utah, would be slightly less than at Dewey, this reservoir would inundate a portion of the Arches National Monument and would therefore face the same criticism that has been directed against Echo Park Reservoir.

A higher Glen Canyon Dam has been considered by some as an alternative to Echo Park Dam, but we do not consider such a substitute possible. Regardless of differences or arguments on evaporation, the Glen Canyon Dam should be constructed to the maximum height consistent with economy, safety of the structure, and adequate protection of the Rainbow Natural Bridge. From our preliminary studies a dam rising 580 feet above the river creating a reservoir of approximately 26 million acre-feet would meet these criteria.

Final detailed engineering studies for the safe height of the dam may result in a capacity of slightly more or even less than 26 million

acre-feet. If the capacity is less than the 26 million acre-feet, additional capacity must be sought elsewhere. If it is more than 26 million acre-feet, such increase should be used to compensate for a lowering of the Curecanti Dam and possible changes resulting from final surveys. at other sites, to replace capacity of the less attractive upstream sites, or to lengthen the silt retention period beyond 200 years.

Participating projects: The 11 participating projects recommended by the Secretary for construction are: LaBarge, Seedskadee, and Lyman, in Wyoming; Silt, Smith, Fork, Paonia, Florida, and Pine River extension, in Colorado; Emery County and central Utah (initial phase), in Utah; and Hammond, in New Mexico.

Irrigation from these participating projects will bring into agricultural production 132,360 acres of new lands, and in addition supplemental water will be provided 233,930 acres of presently irrigated land having inadequate water supplies. These projects would consume approximately 400,900 acre-feet per annum or about 52 percent. of the waters allocated the upper basin from the Colorado River. Consumption of water by these projects will have no significant effect on the quality of the water now being diverted by downstream users. The cost of constructing the 11 initial participating projects approximates $304,356,000, of which $6,908,000 would be allocated to nonreimbursable purposes such as flood control, fish and wildlife propagation, and recreation. Of this total cost, $46,699,000 will be repaid with interest by power users, and $45,500,000 will be repaid with interest by users of municipal water, both under the initial phase of the central Utah project.

In addition to their annual operation and maintenance charges, the irrigators on the 11 participating projects will repay in accordance with their ability $35,047,000 in 50 years, or about 17 percent of the $199,749,000 allocated to irrigation. The remainder will be repaid by power revenues of the Colorado River storage project.

Considerable variation exists in the abilities of the irrigators to repay their costs due to several reasons, including the differences in productivity of the land and operation and maintenance costs. The repayment ability of the irrigator, however, is not the controlling factor in determining the economic justification of irrigation projects which result in benefits to the Nation as a whole.

In determining the economic justification, net benefits resulting from these projects must be compared with the appropriate costs. Consequently, in determining the benefit-cost ratio, such costs involve amortization with interest at 22 percent of the total Federal investment in the participating project and a pro rata share of the irrigation allocation in the storage project plus the necessary costs of operating and maintaining the participating project. The net benefits are those of the irrigator and adjacent populations plus others of national value such as the profits resulting from the manufacture and sale of goods used in farm operations. Using this method all of the recommended participating projects have benefits in excess of their respective costs amortized at 22 percent interest.

In addition to these 11 participating projects, the Eden project in Wyoming, nearing completion, is included in the Secretary's recommendations as a participating project. This is in conformance with the authorizing legislation of the Eden project.

49500-54- -6

Brief statements on each of the initial participating projects are attached and further details can be found in the supplements to the Colorado River storage project report.

Legal framework: In a plan of this magnitude the authorities and laws under which the various features would be constructed, administered, and operated would normally present serious problems and certainly would raise grave questions of jurisdiction. The plan before you is happily free of such complications. The storage project with its regulatory reservoirs is of interstate significance, and each of its units would be so treated. These would be constructed, operated, and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation and, as far as water is concerned, would be operated in conformance with the Colorado River and upper Colorado River Basin compacts, the latter a document so comprehensive that its provisions cover all necessary aspects of such operation. The participating projects are consumptive-use projects intrastate in character. In the proposed plan, these projects would be constructed, operated, and maintained under reclamation law. Water rights would therefore be obtained and administered under the water code of the State in which the project would be built. The participating projects would in general be operated and maintained by the water users after construction. A clear distinction would be maintained between units of the storage project and the participating projects. Should it become necessary at some future time for a State to make consumptive use of a portion of the water in one of the regulatory reservoirs of the storage project, the compact provides for such a contingency.

Repayment schedule: The plan requires payments against irrigation costs by the irrigators up to their ability to repay in 50 years, and the formation of appropriate districts preferably of the water conservancy type which would, through an ad valorem tax or other revenues, assure local participation to the greatest extent in the repayment of construction costs prior to the irrigator's acceptance of assistance from power revenues. The cost of power features of the project would be repaid with interest to the United States Treasury at the going rate for long-term marketable securities on the unpaid balance by project power revenues within a specified 50-year repayment period for individual generating units. The power features recommended by the Secretary could be paid out completely in the first 41 years of operation. Subsequent power revenues would be sufficient to retire the irrigation costs of the storage project prior to the 46th year of operation of the storage project. In addition, power revenues would retire prior to the 50th year of the irrigator's repayment period all irrigation costs in excess of the irrigator's ability to pay for each of the participating projects recommended by the Secretary.

Additional storage project units and participating projects in bill S. 1555: In addition to the Echo Park and Glen Canyon units of the storage project and the 11 participating projects I have covered, S. 1555 as introduced contains the Curecanti and Flaming Gorge units and the Gooseberry, LaPlata, Navaho, and San Juan-Chama participating projects.

Brief descriptions of these proposals are included among the attached statements, but with exception of Gooseberry feasibility reports are incomplete.