September 26, 1928: Utah Water Storage Commission appropriated $375 which was matched by a contribution of $375 by Sanpete interests, to defray expenses of surveys by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. October and November 1928: Survey of proposed dam, reservoir, and diverting tunnel made by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. June 20, 1929: Utah Water Storage Commission appropriated $800 for obtaining additional stream measurement data. March 26, 1930: Sanpete interests contributed $1,000 for expenses of cooperative investigation and report on Gooseberry project by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. September 22, 1932: Utah Water Storage Commission made an official inspection of the proposed Gooseberry and Ephraim projects in Sanpete County. November 17, 1933: Governor Blood convened Sanpete and Carbon water users at capitol to resolve sectional difficulties; representatives of both interests presented their views; after discussion a committee to consider the facts and reports and render the Governor a report. November 2, 1940: Utah Water Storage Commission adopted a resolution recommending the construction of either the Gooseberry or Mammoth projects for diversion of water to Sanpete Valley, and the construction of Scofield Reservoir to a capacity of 73,000 acre-feet, "* * * *that Carbon County shall be amply supplied with water; and that any excess water above that required for diversion to Sanpete Valley and for use in Carbon County, shall be made available to the Strawberry Water Users Association." April 6, 1944: Repayment contract between Carbon Water Conservancy District and United States signed. Contract stipulates among other things that district shall pay United States $216,000 reimbursable construction costs, and district agrees to operate Scofield in accordance with Gooseberry plan. Gooseberry interest to assume $116,000 of above reimbursable construction upon completion of Gooseberry. April 6, 1944: Contract between United States, Carbon Water Conservancy District, and Price River Water Conservation District signed. The contract commonly known as triparti contract provides, (1) construction of 65,000 acre foot Scofield Dam; (2) specifies water supply and reservoir operating conditions; (3) proposes the building of Gooseberry project. April 16, 1948: Sanpete County Water Users ask water and power for assistance with $90,000 modified Gooseberry project. Board authorized immediate engineering investigations. June 16, 1948: Utah Water & Power Board appropriated $90,000 subject to approval of engineering report, sponsor to furnish additional funds and repay cost in 25 years. June 25, 1949: John S. McAllister requested water and power board to extend appropriation of $90,000 for 6 months to explore prospects with Price River group and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Board extended appropriation for 6 months from above date. February 23, 1950: Gooseberry project representatives request additional 6 months in which to start construction of their project. Board extended time to begin construction to August 25, 1950, that plans and specifiactions would be prepared and, when approved, a 30-year repayment contract would be entered into. April 22, 1950: Water and power board recommended that Gooseberry project receive Bureau of Reclamation's first attention in development of the Colorado River. May 20, 1950: J. A. Howell reported to water and power board that board committee had met with Sanpete County people who had agreed to promote the Mammoth site as a part of the Upper Colorado River development program. Keith Hanson was present and released the $90,000 commitment made by the board. J. A. Howell stated he had assured Sanpete representatives that board cooperate to fullest extent to make certain their filings will be preserved and board could, if deemed advisable, become assignee in those water rights. December 15, 22, 1953: George D. Clyde, executive secretary, Utah Water & Power Board, wrote Secretary Douglas McKay urging inclusion of Gooseberry project in the Colorado River storage project. Mr. Clyde advised the Secretary: "The Utah Water Users Association, the Utah Water & Power Board, and the Governor of the State have fully endorsed this project.” January 18, 1955: Senator B. H. Stringham called meeting of Carbon County representatives at request of Irving Gerber. George D. Clyde, director of the Utah Water & Power Board, conducted the meeting. Carbon County views were presented and it was suggested that the Carbon group meet with the Bureau and get contract interpretation and results of latest studies. February 19, 1955: John S. McAllister representing the Sanpete Water Users Association asked the Utah Water & Power Board to reiterate their stand on the Gooseberry project. The board indicated their action was on record and would seek to convince protestants that project authorization will not jeopardize their interests. February 21, 1955: George D. Clyde, director of the Utah Water & Power Board, conducted meeting in which Carbon people presented their views. Mr. Clyde proposed that the Carbon group withdraw opposition to Gooseberry and he would ask to have legislation amended to include entire Price River in proposed development so entire area would benefit from power revenues. March 23, 1955: Carbon County representatives asked water and power board to withdraw recommendation for inclusion of Gooseberry project carefully investigated. March 26, 1955: Carbon County representatives appeared before Utah Water & Power Board and requested the "withdrawal of your recommendation for the inclusion of the Gooseberry project," and urged a careful investigation of the entire matter by the board. A committee, composed of B. O. Colton, Henry D. Moyle, and Heber Winget, was appointed to conduct a hearing and report back to the board. April 8, 1955: The special committee of the water and power board met and heard the proponents and opponents of the Gooseberry project. April 23, 1955: The board, after considering the objections of Carbon County interests, found that the existing triparti agreement was in full force and effect and that no evidence had been presented that would justify the board in altering its position in favor of the Gooseberry project. November 16, 1961: The Utah Water & Power Board conducted hearings to give opportunity for opponent and proponent of the North Sanpete watershed project to be heard. November 17, 1961: After review and consideration of hearings held on November 16, 1961, the board reaffirmed its position with respect to rights of the Sanpete County interests to make transbasin diversions. Mr. BINGHAM. I would like to call to your specific attention, Senator, the fact that the previous formal report prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for this project proposed the transbasin diversion of 12,500 acre-feet of water from the Price River system to the Sanpete area. I think the minutes and records will show that the board has used its influence in limiting the diversion to the absolute minimum to make a project feasible and to serve the project purposes. The plan, as proposed and presented by the Department of Agriculture under Public Law 566, contemplates the transbasin diversion of 8,410 acre-feet of water, which would have a lesser impact on the Price River system and the lower users than the previous report. In this connection the board, I think, is in complete harmony with the concept of watershed developments in that this project has started at the end of the ditch and has included in project water supply and project planning the careful use of existing supplies and again, at the suggestion of the Utah Water & Power Board, has looked to the development, where feasible, of the underground water supplies, and the resulting figure I have just quoted, and the transbasin diversion would be a lesser figure, and would be, by reason of these two features, incorporated in this version of the project. The board would regard this project as feasible, and I think the basis for that judgment would be the experience of the board in constructing projects, smaller projects than this, but projects, in terms of repayment costs and dealing with a similar farming operation and similar people, that out of its experience would regard this as a feasible project. The question has been raised concerning the minutes of the meeting where the resolution quoted by Mr. Harvey was approved. They will be furnished to the committee. (The minutes referred to follow :) UTAH WATER & POWER BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING HELD IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FRIDAY, The regular meeting of the Utah Water & Power Board convened at 9:30 a.m. in the auditorium of the new State office building Salt Lake City, Utah, on Friday, November 17, 1961. Board members present: Dr. P. L. Jones, chairman; Leo P. Harvey, first vice chairman; Wallace D. Yardley, second vice chairman; Raymond Hammond; Byron O. Colton; Orville L. Lee; David A. Scott; M. Cutler Henrie, Wayne Wilson; Clyde E. Conover; Harry Drew; Wayne D. Criddle. Staff members present: Jay R. Bingham, executive director; Daniel F. Lawrence, assistant director; Robert D. Berrett, controller; Ray H. Zenger, engineer; Dr. Ray E. Marsell, geological consultant. Others present: Arthur H. Nielsen, Sanpete water users; Junius Anderson, Taylor Flat Irrigation Co.; Robert D. Nielson, Taylor Flat Irrigation Co.; Keith S. Hansen, North Sanpete watershed. Actions Taken at Board Meeting, November 17, 1961 PROJECTS TABLED 1. Northwest Irrigation Ditch Co.- No. 209 Mr. SCOTT. I move that the Northwest Irrigation Ditch Co.'s proposed reservoir enlargement project application be tabled pending clarification of their water rights situation. Mr. DREW. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. 2. Center Creek Irrigation Co.-No. 210 Mr. HAMMOND. I move that the Center Creek Irrigation Co.'s proposed irrigation reservoir project application be tabled until such time as they can produce a valid water right from the State engineer. Mr. HARVEY. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. Rock Dam Irrigation Co.-No. 211 Mr. HENRIE. I move that the Rock Dam Irrigation Co.'s well equipping project application be tabled and presented again after December 1, 1961, at which time it could be considered on the basis of availability of funds, and as an emergency type project. Mr. YARDLEY. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. PROJECTS AUTHORIZED FUNDS COMMITTED 1. Taylor Flat Irrigation Co.-No. 184 Mr. HENRIE. I move that the Taylor Flat Irrigation Co.'s project be approved, and funds be committed in the amount of 38.5 percent of the cost of construction, but not to exceed $10,000, to be repaid in 10 years. (Total estimated cost of project $26,000.) This approval to be subject to the State engineer approving the sponsor's change application. Mr. YARDLEY. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. REVISION OF CONTRACT Rocky Ford Irrigation Co. Mr. HENRIE. I move that the board instruct the staff to rewrite the Rocky Ford Irrigation Co.'s contract to extend it for 10 years, and reduce their payments to $2,250 per year. Mr. B. O. COLTON and Mr. YARDLEY. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. Rockville Town Ditch Irrigation Co., No. 158 Mr. WILSON. I move that the amount of $26,000 originally committed to the Rockville Town Ditch Irrigation Co.'s project be taken out of the "Funds committed" category and placed back in the operating funds. Mr. YARDLEY. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. NORTH SANPETE WATERSHED PROJECT Mr. HARVEY. I move that the board reaffirm its previous position in support of the right of the Sanpete interests to proceed with their development, and that the director prepare a resolution to that effect, to be transmitted to the Governor, the congressional delegation and the Commissioner of the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. YARDLEY. Seconded the motion. Motion was carried. (A vote showed all in favor except one.) DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION Mr. DREW. I move that the board authorize the officials of the board to go before the board of examiners, at the appropriate time, to request a deficiency appropriation for the necessary increase in the Colorado River Commission budget to cover participation in costs of a study of the transmission lines study requested by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. WILSON. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. BOARD MEETING FOR DECEMBER Mr. SCOTT. I move that the December meeting of the board be held in St. George, Utah, and that the details of the trip be left to the director. Mr. HAMMOND. Seconded the motion. Motion carried. INVOCATION The chairman called on Mr. Wallace Yardley to commence the meeting with prayer. NORTH SANPETE WATERSHED PROJECT The chairman stated that the first matter for consideration would be the north Sanpete watershed project on which the board had been asked to give a recommendation. He added that, having heard from the proponents and opponents the previous day, it was now thought wise to ask the proponents to appear again this morning to be available for questioning if the board desired. Mr. Arthur Nielsen and Mr. Keith Hansen have been invited back for that purpose. The chairman then called on the executive director to review the project under consideration. Mr. Bingham complied with the chairman's request by giving a résumé of the north Sanpete watershed project as follows: "Gentlemen, I appreciate that many of you have been directly connected with this longer than I have, but I will be glad to give background and review the actions of the board if it will be helpful. "The first record we have of this project goes back to 1902. That concerned the application for the reservoir site for the Mammoth Reservoir. That, you will recall, is the reservoir which was contemplated to be developed under the Bureau of Reclamation plan. The one that is before you now is a slightly different version. The Mammoth Reservoir site would be lower down on this tributary and would require approximately a 3-mile tunnel to bring water to the Sanpete drainage. The project now before you proposed a reservoir at the narrows site. Most of you have been there. It is higher up on the drainage, and because it is higher up it permits a shorter tunnel. "Beginning about 1928, the water storage commission, which was, in essence, the predecessor of this board, made some appropriations to help study the water supply for this proposed development. Matching funds were made available from the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation. This type of activity generally would summarize what was done up until 1932. "In 1933, the first report of any consequence was made on this project by the Bureau of Reclamation. The cost of this particular project was in the order of three-quarters of a million-$764,000, and the State of Utah furnished through the water storage commission $4,000 of the $6,000 to prepare this report. "The first attempt to invite a State agency to help resolve the controversy between the two areas occurred in 1933, when Governor Blood convened the representatives of both areas. No conclusive result came from the meeting. A committee was appointed to study and report back. From the available records there is no evidence that a report was made. "On November 2, 1940, there occurred what appears from the record to be the first official action of a State agency, when the water storage commission adopted a resolution recommending construction of either the Gooseberry or Mammoth project for the diversion of water to Sanpete Valley, and the construction of Scofield Reservoir to a capacity of 73,000 acre-feet; that Carbon County should be amply supplied with water, and that any excess water above that required be available for diversion. The Governor (then Governor Blood) forwarded a copy of the Utah Water Storage Commission's resolution to Commissioner Page of the Bureau of Reclamation, and urged expeditious construction of the Gooseberry project. “In 1944, a repayment contract between the Carbon Water Conservancy District and the United States was signed, and the contract provided that the Gooseberry interests would be committed to repay $116,000 of the costs of the Scofield Reservoir, which would be that part of the construction cost allotted to provide the excess capacity to offset their diversion. In other words, that excess capacity was calculated to store in years of good supply sufficient water to offset the effect of the out of basin diversion to Sanpete. The contract provided that that money was not payable, although they were committed to pay it; but it was not payable until their project was built. But it was provided, and that part remains an obligation to Sanpete when they realize this development. "At this point the Scofield construction went ahead as an emergency measure, to protect the railroad and life and property, because of the condition of the old Scofield Dam; and the Gooseberry project, because of the war effort and other problems at the time, was not able to commence. "In 1948, Keith Hansen came before the board, and asked for $90,000 to build a modified Gooseberry project. This is still another version of this project. We have the Mammoth, which is the larger, and lower down on the stream. We have the narrows site, which is intermediate in size, and the one covered by this report today. The one presented to the board in 1948, is still another version a little further upstream, and involving a short tunnel and did not contemplate any storage. On June 16, 1948, the board appropriated $90,000, subject to approval of an engineering report, and even specified that the costs would be repaid in 25 years. A cost estimate was later presented which showed the cost to be $97,000, but $90,000 had been set up, and it was provided in the motion that anything above the $90,000 would be provided by the local people. In December of 1948, William R. Wallace, then chairman of the water and power board, took official action and asked the authorization of the Gooseberry project under the Bureau of Reclamation. "In June 1949, which was 1 year from the time the board had committed its funds, John McAllister requested the board to extend the life of this appropriation for 6 months, while they made some explorations with the Price group to try and put themselves into a position to proceed. The board did accede to that request and extended for 6 months. "In 1950, at the April and May meetings of the board, this problem was again before the board. The board recommended that the Gooseberry project be given first priority in the Bureau of Reclamation development of the Colorado River. Judge Howell reported, on May 20, 1950, that a board committee had met with Sanpete people, and the board had agreed to promote the Mammoth site, as a part of the upper Colorado River development program. Keith Hansen was present and released the $90,000 commitment made by the board. Mr. Howell stated he had assured Sanpete representatives that the board would cooperate to the fullest extent to make certain their filings would be preserved, and the board would, if deemed advisable, become involved further in those water rights. "That brings us up to more recent history. Let me give you, from my memory, just two or three other points. With the recommendation of this board, there were three Utah participating projects in the Colorado River storage project as presented to Congress. The Central Utah, the Emery County, and the Gooseberry. For some reason the Gooseberry report was not formally forwarded to the Congress by the Secretary of the Interior. Our Congressmen, and the Upper Colorado River Commission, supported all three of these Utah participating projects in the bills before the Congress, and the Senate, in S. 500 authorized the Goosebery project as a part of the Colorado River storage project. In the House it was brought out that the report on Gooseberry had not been formally forwarded by the Secretary of the Interior to the Congress. Therefore, technically, the Congress was in no position to act upon this particular unit. So, in the House version of the storage project the Gooseberry was taken out. There was opposition. from Carbon County interests as well as antireclamationists in Congress, but I think most people would agree that had the report been properly forwarded by the Secretary, the general momentum that was built up with that |