Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment within the limits of apportionment made to the upper basin by the Colorado River compact of 1922. It is further believed that the plan contains that desirable degree of flexibility which will permit the upper basin States, the Department of the Interior, and the Congress, to consider from time to time, the addition of other worthy units and participating projects. It also provides coordination of the interests of the Nation and the upper Colorado River Basin States.

(b) The upper Colorado River Basin account as proposed in the report. We strongly endorse the provision for aid to irrigation from surplus revenues.

(c) The upper Colorado River development fund, as set out in the report. We recommend a development whereby all States of the basin will move forward on an even basis.

Relative the development of the Whitewater unit, as proposed in the report, Utah wishes to indicate its support of the views and comments of the State of Colorado with respect to the more complete development of power potentials on the Gunnison River. We understand that such development will be basically comparable to that proposed within the report.

With respect to the Shiprock project we wish to point out that inasmuch as the report treats it as a participating project, a project planning report should be prepared and made available to affected States. As of this date, no such report has been made available to the State of Utah. Without a planning report on the proposal and therefore not being advised as to project cost, size, or the water users ability to return operation and maintenance costs, we are not prepared to comment further. It is believed that any approval or construction relating to the project should be deferred until there has been made available to all of the affected States, as provided under the Flood Control Act of 1944, and approved by the Congress, a report on the project comparable to reports already prepared for the other participating projects. Such report should demonstrate project feasibility, its favorable qualifications as a participating project and its compatibility with other major projects on the stream which compete directly for the same water supply.

The hydroelectric plants of the Colorado River storage project should be operated in conjunction with other power plants present and potential on the Colorado River in such a way as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates. In this connection, however, Utah calls attention to the possible necessity, in the interests of its future economic welfare, as well as the welfare of that portion of the States which lies in the upper Colorado River Basin, of making available the full power output of the Colorado River storage project for use within the upper basin or within the States of the upper division. The determination of this objective involves consideration of conditions, such as production and market demand, which cannot, at this time, be foreseen. It also involves consideration of the extent of future interconnections and of the effect of Federal laws pertaining to preference in the use of power and the application of such laws to an entire river basin, comprising a number of States. Utah, for a number of reasons, reserves the privilege to seek at the appropriate time, adequate provisions of law or approval of plans or procedares for such power opera

tions as will insure the use of the power output of the Colorado River storage project in a manner consistent with greatest future benefits for the upper Colorado River Basin or the States of the upper division. Provision should be made, either in the report or in ensuing legislation, or both, for the specific authorization of appropriations of investigation funds, in addition to those provided by the Colorado River development fund, reclamation funds, and those recommended in subparagraph (j) of the Commissioner's letter of December 22, 1950.

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

The initial phase of the central Utah project plan reported in the supplement to the Colorado River storage project report dated February 1951, would bring water into Salt Lake County, now being partially served by the Provo River project, and also contemplates the use of works of the Provo River project including the Provo Reservoir canal and the Salt Lake aqueduct. The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, in commenting upon the report, has raised questions which are of concern to the district. The district points out:

(1) That water from the central Utah project should not be brought into Salt Lake County in competition with existing supplies from the Provo River project;

(2) That the district should be given the first opportunity to replace with water from the central Utah project its Provo River project water disposed of to Salt Lake County interests;

(3) That the district cannot surrender any of its capacity in the Salt Lake aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir canal; and

(4) Expressed some alarm as to integrating the proposed power development at Deer Creek with the central Utah project.

Any legislation authorizing the central Utah project should be sufficiently broad to permit scheduling the availability of water to Salt Lake County and repayment with respect thereto so as to permit full use of the water now available from the Provo River project. It appears that no central Utah project water for municipal and industrial purposes will be required in Salt Lake County prior to the year 1970.

Project authorization should also permit the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, or other proper organizations, to obtain water made available by the central Utah project for use in Salt Lake County. The circumstances existing at the time should determine the organizations to which central Utah project water should be made available.

Use of capacity in the Salt Lake aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir canal which is in excess of that required to deliver Provo River water is in the interest of development in Salt Lake County. Appropriate arrangements should be made with the Provo River Water Users Association, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and other proper interested parties for the use of any works of the Provo River project. Such an arrangement, we believe, can be accomplished without detriment to any participants in the Provo River project, and is for the best interests of developing the State of Utah. Legislation authorizing the central Utah project should be sufficiently flexible to permit these arrangements to be worked out and agreed upon when the central Utah project plan is in the final planning stages.

In regard to integrating the proposed power development at Deer Creek Dam with the central Utah project, appropriate agreements

should be made with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and the Provo River Water Users Association and other proper interested parties during the final planning stages of the central Utah project.

Some concern has been expressed by the Utah Water Users Association about building the Strawberry aqueduct from Rock Creek to Strawberry Reservoir in two barrels as proposed in the report, see pages 27 to 34 of the central Utah project. Careful consideration has been given to this matter and it appears that the most economic way is to build the aqueduct to the capacity as required in the initial phase and then to build an additional barrel in the future when required. It is our view that since the second barrel of the aqueduct will not be needed for many years, the report presents the most economic plan for construction of the Strawberry aqueduct and we favor proceedingin accordance with the plan recommended in the report.

We have given careful consideration to all questions raised by the Metropolitan Water District and the Utah Water Users Association.. These questions should not be interpreted as objections to the project. plan. They are matters that can be dealt with appropriately during the final planning stages of the central Utah project.

In the light of the above comments, the State of Utah approves the plan of development of the water resources of the upper Colorado River Basin described in the report and requests authorization for the construction of the projects listed in paragraph (b) of the Commissioner's letter of December 22, 1950. We recommend that such projects be constructed and thereafter operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto).

While recommending the construction of these projects, we believe such construction should be deferred if it in any way will impede the defense effort or injure our economy. It would appear to be desirable, in view of the shortages of materials and manpower, to defer such projects until these shortages no longer exist.

Sincerely yours,

[blocks in formation]

COMMENTS, UTAH FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

Mr. ALBERT M. DAY,

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION,
Salt Lake City, Utah, March 5, 1951.

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. DAY: Reference is made to Mr. John C. Gatlin's com munication of February 21, 1951, relative to the proposed Colorado River storage project.

We have carefully examined the report of the Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to this project and are in agreement with its contents. This Department has conferred with representatives of the river basin group of your Service and the report reflects our opinions.

45515-54- -21

We regret that shortage of funds and personnel have not permitted greater activity and more concentrated contact on such matters during the past several years, during which construction and development plans were being prepared. The meager information we have gained from actual field observations offers no additional data for your report.

Trusting this answers Mr. Gatlin's request, we remain,

Very truly yours,

UTAH FISH AND GAME COMMISSION,
J. PERRY EGAN, Director.

COMMENTS, WYOMING STATE ENGINEER

STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
Cheyenne, Wyo., March 30, 1951.

(This letter to be substituted for our letter of February 17, 1951.) Mr. WESLEY R. NELSON,

Assistant Commissioner,

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. NELSON: Agreeable to your request I have reviewed the final report of the Bureau of Reclamation on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects dated December 1950.

Upon receipt of the preliminary draft, I mailed 8 of the 9 copies furnished me to the Wyoming Upper Colorado River Compact Commissioners and asked them to review same and meet with me at the United States Bureau of Reclamation Office in Rock Springs, Wyo., on October 28 at 10 a. m. for discussion and final review of the report. On October 24 I received a letter from Mr. Emil C. Gradert, one of the compact commissioners, in which he informed me that he could not be present at the Rock Springs meeting, but that he had reviewed the report and forwarded his copy direct to Mr. Larson. In his letter he stated:

I wish to state that I have read through said report, as time permitted, and find same a rather definite and comprehensive report, well gotten up, and far be it for one so little informed as I to criticize, in any way, or add to or detract from, such an authentic estimate and record of facts.

On October 28 a meeting was held in Rock Springs as scheduled with eight members of the Green River Basin Development Co. present. Also in attendance were 5 members of the industrial development committee of the Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. George M. Stevens, chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Sweetwater County, and 6 employees of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Messrs. Jacobsen and DeLong of the Bureau staff explained the project and answered questions. Members of both the Green River Basin Development Co. and the Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce voiced approval of the project.

It is noted that there is no recommendation in the proposed report for legislation permitting preferential use in the upper basin of electric energy generated by Colorado River storage project units. It is our belief that such a provision should be included in the bill for authorization of the project. We hope you will see fit to include an appropriate recommendation to this effect in your final report.

I will comment that the report is in accord with statements of plans proposed by Mr. E. O. Larson, director of region No. 4, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, at meetings held in Rock Springs, Wyo., and Salt Lake City, Utah, during the last 2 years. It seems to provide the flexibility for basin development and coordination of the interests of the States as proposed by Mr. Larson.

The plan has been made to conform with allocations of water contained in the upper Colorado River Compact and provides storage facilities to assure delivery at Lee Ferry of not less than 75 million acre-feet in continuing 10-year periods.

Reservoir storage is planned for multiple purposes. The plan is to hold over water from years of plentiful supply to meet the obligation of the Upper Basin at Lee Ferry under the terms of the Colorado River Compact, and to produce revenues to assist in repaying the costs of the dams and other facilities.

The upper Colorado River account will permit uniform power rates and equate costs of the developments with revenues from all sources and assist in repayment of the costs of participating irrigation projects made possible by the storage reservoirs.

From the report it appears that the storage project and participating projects are feasible, economically justified, and financially sound. The benefit in cost ratio being 1.8 to 1. The total benefits to exceed the costs in every instance.

The setting up of a special fund from receipts of the Colorado River storage project to be known as the upper Colorado River development fund is in my opinion a sound and equitable basis upon which to construct the entire project.

We note that in the initial participating projects that four Wyoming projects are included as recommended by the Green River Basin Development Co. and our Water Conservation and Planning Board, namely: LaBarge, Lyman, Seedskadee, and Eden.

Wyoming will be interested in securing detailed plans on the participating projects listed herein.

In conclusion I will say that the report appears to be comprehensive and very well prepared, and as the official representative of Wyoming, I respectfully urge your approval of the same.

Sincerely yours,

L. C. BISHOP,

State Engineer and Interstate Streams Commissioner for Wyoming.

COMMENTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, D. C., July 3, 1951.

Hon. MICHAEL W. STRAUS,

Commissioner of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. STRAUS: Reference is made to your letters of January 30, 1951, to the Secretary of the Army and to the Chief of Engineers, inclosing for the information and comments of the Department of the Army, in accordance with section 1 of the Flood Control Act of

« PreviousContinue »