Subsequent to this endorsement by the State of Utah, certain revisions have been made as set forth in the Supplemental Report on the Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects, Upper Colorado River Basin, October 1953.

Under the authority of Utah's Gov. J. Bracken Lee, and Statute 73-10, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, creating the Utah Water and Power Board, it becomes my responsibility to submit official views and recommendations on the reports for the State of Utah.

I wish to commend the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, and their staffs on the painstaking investigations that have made the original and supplemental reports possible. The basic principles underlying the report and the supplement are sound. The original report is comprehensive and the revisions set forth in the supplement are fully justified. Region IV of the Bureau of Reclamation is to be particularly commended and Utah appreciates the complete cooperation and congenial working relationships that have continuously existed between the State and the Bureau during the period of investigation and report. Full compliance with the spirit and purpose of section I of the Flood Control Act of 1944 has been made.

The original report, with minor exceptions as to details, was officially endorsed and approved by the Utah Water and Power Board, the Utah Water Users Association, the Colorado River Development Association, representing 21 affected counties in the State, chambers of commerce, Utah Fish and Game Commission, the Utah State Agricultural College and its agricultural experiment station, the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and consulting engineers, individual water users, and citizens of the State. Now comes the Supplemental Report on the Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects, Upper Colorado River Basin dated October 1953. The Utah Water and Power Board, acting for the State of Utah and with the approval of the Governor, endorses this report and subscribes to the recommendations of the Bureau of Reclamation as set forth in section 29, items "a" to "k" inclusive.

Endorsement of this supplemental report by the State of Utah must not be considered as limiting the extent to which the authorizing bill already introduced may be amended to cover the matter of including the Gooseberry project as a participating project or other phases of the Colorado River storage project and participating projects as set forth in the 1950 report. The matter of amending the bill will be left to the discretion of the congressional delegation from Utah. The Gooseberry project located on the Price River, a tributary to the Colorado River, and designed to store for and convey water to lands in the Bonneville Basin in Sanpete County, Utah, was not included in the Colorado River storage project as a participating project because at the time the Colorado River storage project and participating projects was submitted, the Gooseberry project was not eligible to participate.

In 1946 the original Gooseberry project report was released at field level and circulated to all interested Federal and State agencies for comment. In November 1946 the report was revised as per comments and sent to Washington. This project, as developed, did not qualify as a participating project of the Colorado River storage

project. In January 1952 this report was revised as a participating project and submitted to Washington for review but not distributed for comments. It was later revised in harmony with comments made by the chief engineer and Chief of the Hydrology Division and in January 1953 it was resubmitted to Washington and recommended as a participating project in the Colorado River storage project.

This project, as now proposed, satisfies all criteria governing participating projects and should be included as one of the participating projects to be constructed in the initial phase of the Colorado River storage project and participating projects. Inasmuch as the Gooseberry project was among the first developments recommended by the States of the upper Colorado River Basin for participation in the benefits and revenues of the storage project, it is recommended that you include the Gooseberry project in your final recommendations to the Budget Bureau, the President, and the Congress, as a participating project in the Colorado River storage project.

Sincerely yours,

GEORGE D. CLYDE,

Executive Secretary, Utah Water and Power Board and Commissioner of Interstate Streams for Utah.

Approved:

LETTER OF DECEMBER 21, 1953, FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Hon. DOUGLAS MCKAY,

STATE OF WYOMING,

STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE, Cheyenne, Wyo., December 21, 1953.

Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: A copy of your revised report on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects sent to Hon. C. J. Rogers, Governor of Wyoming, by Acting Commissioner McPhail of the Bureau of Reclamation, has been referred for comment to me by Governor Rogers.

Since I have already reviewed the report of December 4, 1952, and commented thereon in behalf of Governor Rogers, I will offer only additional comments concerning the revision.

First I will comment that I find nothing in the revised report to which I take exception or make objection for the State of Wyoming. As I read the revised report, I conclude that it was intended, as was the original report, to be subject to changes as further studies may warrant. We concur with your revised report's inclusion of the Eden, LaBarge, Lyman, and Seedskadee units among the participating projects for initial construction. In regard to the Seedskadee unit, I believe that the advance planning for the project should include further study of the possibility of providing storage at Kendall Reservoir to increase the project acreage, and a possibility of including a high diversion dam at the Fontenelle site in lieu of the low diversion dam, diversion canal, and Green River siphon.

While I concur generally with the memorandum of the Under Secretary concerning the construction of dams in Dinosaur National Monument, I will comment that I have: (1) visited both Echo Park

and Split Mountain Dam sites on the ground and have traversed a greater part of the area proposed to be inundated, (2) viewed them from the air, (3) carefully considered the alternate dam sites and (4) weighed the benefits against the possible damages. My conclusion is that, in addition to the saving of about 300,000 acre-feet of water per year over the best alternate plan, the increase in recreational value will much more than offset any primitive area value. People will visit the area by the hundred of thousands when the dams are built and in operation, while at best only a few hundred will visit the area as it is today. My conclusion is that I would prefer in any event to see the reservoirs constructed than to see the monument remain in its natural state.

In conclusion, I consider the modifications contained in the review report, dated October 1953, to be sensible and sound, and while I see no objection to inclusion of all the projects in the initial authorization, since none can be built until appropriations are made by the Congress, I have no objection to the plan as changed.

Everything considered, I am convinced that in compiling this report that the Bureau of Reclamation has performed a monumental task in a very excellent manner.

Sincerely yours,

L. C. BISHOP, State Engineer.

SECRETARY'S LETTER OF DECEMBER 10, 1953, TO THE PRESIDENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., December 10, 1953.

(Through: Bureau of the Budget)

The PRESIDENT,

The White House.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On December 4, 1952, my predecessor in office submitted a report on a proposed plan for the development and utilization of a portion of the water resources of the upper Colorado River Basin by construction of the Colorado River storage project and participating projects. By letter of January 27, 1953, Budget Director Dodge asked that I review this report to determine whether it conforms to my program in terms of present policies and whether any modification or revision should be made.

After review of the report and reanalysis of the recommended units and projects by the Commissioner of Reclamation at my request, I submit herewith my revised report on the Colorado River storage project and participating projects, which supersedes the previous report of December 4, 1952.

A proposed report on this project was transmitted to the affected States and to the Secretary of the Army as required by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), and to other Federal agencies in accordance with interagency agreements, and copies of all the comments are included with the report. The comments of the heads of the agencies exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the States in which project works would be located are also included.

It should be noted that my revised report approves the Echo Park Dam and the Split Mountain Dam, both of which would be constructed within the Dinosaur National Monument. Because of the conflicting interests which have arisen in connection with these dams, I requested the Under Secretary to undertake a personal investigation of these proposed dam sites, the extent to which Dinosaur National Monument would be modified by their construction, and the possibility of alternative dam sites. I am attaching copy of his memorandum on this subject.

The Department of the Interior in submitting this report anticipates modification of its opinion on any individual projects or units, at the time appropriations are sought, if necessary in the light of any additional information and economic studies that might then be available.

We shall appreciate having advice concerning the relationship of this proposed project to your program before I transmit the report to the Congress for its consideration and appropriate action.

Sincerely yours,

DOUGLAS MCKAY,
Secretary of the Interior.

UNDER SECRETARY TUDOR'S NOVEMBER 27, 1953, MEMORANDUM TO THE SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., November 27, 1953.

Memorandum

To: The Secretary.

From: Under Secretary.

Subject: Construction of dams in the Dinosaur National Monument. In accordance with your verbal instructions, I have made a study concerning the proposal to build the Echo Park Dam and the Split Mountain Dam as a part of the upper Colorado River Basin development. These two dams, if built, will be located within the Dinosaur National Monument. They were originally proposed to be included in the plan of development of the basin which was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and recommended for approval by the Secretary of the Interior in January 1951. Opposition developed to the construction of these two dams in the Dinosaur National Monument, and on December 4, 1952, the then Secretary of the Interior revised his recommendation and proposed that further consideration be given to studies of alternate sites. It was under these circumstances that you directed me to investigate the matter with particular reference to the suggested alternate sites.

In connection with this investigation I have reviewed the reports, sought and been furnished data and information from both the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, conferred with various interested parties and organizations, and have, in company with the Director of the National Park Service and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, personally visited the two dam sites in question and inspected a considerable portion of the Dinosaur National

Monument. I also inspected on the ground and from the air other portions of the upper Colorado River area.

The opposition to the two dams in question arises from persons and organizations interested in the national parks and their desire to preserve the Dinosaur National Monument in its present natural state. The Echo Park Dam, in particular, will create a large reservoir within this monument and will certainly alter its appearance and the existing conditions. It is a matter of personal opinion as to the extent of the harm that may be created by this reservoir. My own feeling is that the alteration will be substantial and if conflicting interests did not exist, I would prefer to see the monument remain in its natural state. However, I do feel that if the dam is built, the beauty of the park will by no means be destroyed and it will remain an area of great attraction to many people.

It should be noted that neither of these proposed reservoirs will inundate any portion of the quarry where the dinosaur skeletons have been found.

I have examined the proposals for various alternate reservoirs. To be effective these alternates must provide approximately the same storage of water and must waste as little water as possible. The latter is extremely important for the available water for consumptive uses in the upper Colorado River Basin is far less than will be needed for the full economy of this region.

I have been furnished with information on the New Moab, Dewey, Desolation dam sites, and have considered the possibility of increasing the height of the proposed Glen Canyon Dam. I am particularly impressed with the showing that any of these alternate dam and reservoir sites would result in a net loss of water from evaporation from approximately 100,000 to 200,000 acre-feet per year. Even the lower figure is enough to provide all of the domestic, commercial, and industrial water for a city the size of Denver. In an area where water is so precious this is a matter of very serious consequence. Such lost water cannot be replaced at any cost and the ultimate regional economy would have to be reduced accordingly.

There has been some question as to the accuracy of the estimates of evaporation and the application of the formulas used to compute losses. I have reviewed this matter and, while there may be some error due to a shortage of experimental data, I am convinced that the calculations are reasonable and any error that exists is equally applicable to the calculations for all reservoirs. Therefore, the error in net differences in calculated losses between any two reservoirs must be small.

There would be substantial loss in electric generating capacity if any one 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.

I share the concern of those who would preserve the beauties of the Dinosaur National Monument in their present natural state, but as between a choice of altering this scenery without destroying it in a basin which is and will remain rich in scenery, or the irreplaceable loss of enough water to supply all the needs of a city the size of Denver, I believe the conservation of the water in the interest of the Nation is of greatest importance.