notice of meeting agenda gomeiittee · 20/07/1972 · notice of meeting and agenda , \ ./ bear...

$: NOTICE OF MEETING AGENDA GOMEIITTEE · 20/07/1972 · NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA , \ ./ BEAR RIVER NEGOTIATING GOMEIITTEE The next meeting is scheduled in Evanston, Wyoming on$
. .

NOTICE OF MEETING A N D AGENDA , \ ./

BEAR R I V E R N E G O T I A T I N G GOMEIITTEE

T h e n e x t m e e t i n g i s s c h e d u l e d i n E v a n s t o n , Wyoming o n J u l y 2 0 , 1 9 7 2 . I t w i l l b e p r e c e d e d by a f i e l d t r i p t o t h e C o y o t e and Y e l l o w C r e e k r e s e r v o i r s i t e s and t h e Woodru f f N a r r o w s R e s e r v o i r . The t o u r w i l l l e a v e t h e E v a n s t o n High S c h o o l a t 9 : 0 0 AM and i f t i m e p e r m i t s we may b e a b l e t o v i s i t o t h e r p o i n t s of i n t e r e s t . T r a n s p o r t a t i o n w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h o s e who wou ld l i k e t o t a k e t h i s f i e l d t r i p .

The G o v e r n o r s a n d t h e i r s t a f f members , and t h e N e g o t i a t i n g C o m m i t t e e members , a r e i n v i t e d t o a l u n c h e o n t o b e h e l d u p s t a i r s a t t h e J o l l y R o g e r a t 1 2 : 3 0 PM. O t h e r s who w i l l b e a t t e n d i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n m e e t i n g may p u r c h a s e l u n c h i n t h e m a i n d i n i n g room o f t h e J o l l y R o g e r .

The N e g o t i a t i n g C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g w i l l c o n v e n e i n t h e High S c h o o l a t 1 : 3 0 PM.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r c o m m i t t e e members , G o v e r n o r s A n d r u s , Rampton a n d Hathaway a r e p l a n n i n g t:o a t t e n d .

AGENDA

A. G e n e r a l D i s c u s s i o n

1. C a l l t o o r d e r by S e n a t o r J . W . M y e r s , t e m p o r a r y c h a i r m a n 2 . B r i e f h i s t o r y o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s b y F l o y d B i s h o p 3 . T e c h n i c a l S u b c o m m i t t e e r e p o r t 4 . S t a t e m e n t o f U t a h Power & L i g h t by R o b e r t B . P o r t e r

B . D i s c u s s i o n of t h e p r o p o s a l p r e s e n t e d b y I d a h o , F e b r u a r y 3 , 1 9 7 2

1. S t a t e o f U t a h 2 . S t a t e o f Wyoming 3 . S t a t e o f I d a h o

C . D i s c u s s i o n o f a n y new p r o p o s a l s

D . D a t e a n d l o c a t i o n o f t h e n e x t m e e t i n g

AGENDA

BEAR RIVER NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE

EVANSTON, TTfOMING

J u l y 20, 1972 - 1:30 P.M. Evanstol:~ High School

A. Genera l Discuss ion

1. C a l l t o o r d e r by Sena to r J. W. Myers, temporary chairman

2. Opening S ta tements a . Governor Hcthaway b. Governor Andrus c . Governor Rampton

3 . B r i e f h i s t o r y o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s by Floyd Bishop, Wyorning S t a t e Engineer

4 . Techn ica l Subconmniittec r e p o r t by Dan Lawrence, D i r e c t o r , Utah Water Resources Board

5. Sta tement of Utah Fowea & L i g h t by Robert B. P o r t e r

B, D i scuss ion of t h e proposa l p re sen ted by Idaho, February 3, 1972

1. S t a t e o f Utah 2 . S t a t e of Wyoming 3. S t a t e o f Idaho

C. Discuss ion o f any new p roposa l s

D. Date and l o c a t i o n of t h e next meet ing

TRI-STATE BEAR RIVER NEGOTIATING MEETING

Ju ly 20, 1972 Evanston, Wyoming

THOSE PRESENT:

NEGOTIATORS:

F e r r i s M. Kunz, Idaho William G . J e n k i n s , Idaho Edwin C. Schlender , Idaho J . C. Hedin, Idaho

GOVERNORS :

C e c i l D . Andrus, Idaho Calv in L. Rampton, Utah S t a n l e y K. Hathaway, Wyoming

Marion Olsen, Utah Daniel F. Lawrence, Utah Gordon P e a r t , Utah Simeon Weston, Utah Calv in Funk, Utah Paul Holmgren, Utah

J. W . Myers, Wyoming Floyd A . Bishop, Wyoming S. Reed Dayton, Wyoming

OTHERS PRESENT:

IDAHO

Robert R. Lee, Idaho Water Resources Board, Boise William 3. Murphy, Adminis t ra t ive A s s t . t o Governor, Andrus, Boise Donald S . Rex, County Committeeman, C l i f f o r d J. Skinner , County Committeeman, Bear Lake J. Reed Crane, County Committ'eeman, Bear Lake M e r r i l l D . Hubbard, Las t Chance Canal D i r e c t o r , Grace Kenneth Ta rbe t , L a s t Chance Canal P res iden t , Grace Alan Robertson, Idaho Water Resources Board s t a f f , Boise J i m Johnson, Idaho Water Resources Board s t a f f , Boise Nabhan R ige r , At torney G e n e r a l ' s Of f i ce , Boise

UTAH

Gordon E. Harmston, Department of Natura l Resources, S a l t Lake C i ty D a l l i n W . Jensen , Off ice of Utah Attorney Genera l , S a l t Lake C i t y Norman E. S t a u f f e r , J r . , Div is ion of Water Resources, S a l t Lake C i t y James G . Chr is tensen , Divis ion of Water Resources, S a l t Lake C i ty Joseph H . F r a n c i s , Commissioner of A g r i c u l t u r e , S a l t Lake C i ty James A . Suann, F e r r i s Chambers, Farmer, Trenton Dee C . Hanson, D iv i s ion of Water Rights , Logan Walter L. Wood, West Cache I r r i g a t i o n Company, Trenton Kay I. Thornock, Rich County Commission, Randolph S t u a r t Hopkin, Rich County Conmission, Woodruff Kr i s K. Cook, Rich County Commission, Garden C i t y W . G . Bruhn. Department of Coirnunity Aff?.irs, S a l t Lake C i ty Bert A . Page, Divis ion of Wzter Resources, S a l t Lake C i ty Connie Borrorman, Divis ion of Water Resources, S a l t Lake C i t y

w

WYOMING

John T e i c h e r t , S t a t e Board of Cont ro l , Cokevi l le Marvin Bo l l schwe i l e r , S t a t e Board of Cont ro l , Mike McCall, Spec ia l A s s t . At torney Genera l , Boise H. T. Person, Advisor t o Wyoming's group, Laramie Tom Barker , S t a t e Eng inee r ' s O f f i c e , Cheyenne Kenneth C . Hansen, Farmer John W . Dayton, Lives tock Rancher, Clarence Lowham, Rancher, Evanston Lewis R. Mar t in , Rancher, Evanston DeWayne E. Barker , Rancher, Evanston John J . Mar t in , Rancher, Evanston Car l Lynn, Rancher, Evanston 3. R. Broadbent, Rancher, Evanston Richard Sims, Rancher, Evanston Jack Sims, Rancher, Evanston E l v i n Sess ions , Rancher, Evanston John L. M i l l s , Sulphur Reservoi r Company, Evanston P h i l i p Myers, Rancher, Evanston Ken Myers, Rancher Alex J . Lowham, Rancher Ben Larson , Rancher Joseph E . Barker , Rancher Dean Hansen, Rancher, Evanston Alex Jamison, Rancher, Evanston

Dean E. B i schof f , U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Wallace J ibson, U.S. Geologica l Survey D. L. Cranda l l , U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Thomas 0 . Parker , Regional S o l i c i t o r , U.S.Dcpartment of I n t e r i o r Donald J . Watkins, Utah Power & Ligh t Company R. B . P o r t e r , Utah Power & Ligh t Company LaMar Day, Utah Power & L i g h t Company Doug Parker , S a l t Lake Tribune Melvin L. Baldwin, Uinta County Herald

, B. Nor thco t t , KUTV Channel 2

BRIEF HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS

Bear R ive r T r i - S t a t e N e g o t i a t i n g Con:nittee

BY

FLOYD A. BISHOP - Wyoming S t a t e Engineer

F o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e Evanston, bTyomi.ng, Meeting

J u l y 20, 1972

A b r i e f revic1.7 o f t h e Bear River situati.011 and t h e back-

ground l e a d i n g up t o fo rma t ion o f t h e T r i - S t a t e N e g o t i a t i n g

Committee should be h e l p f u l i n s e t t i n g t h e s t o g c f o r o u r d i s c u s s i o n s

today.

A number o f y e a r s ago , t h e Bureau of Reclamat ion proposed

s e v e r a l l a r g e p r o j e c t s on t h e Bear R i v e r , i n v o l v i n g s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r s

and d i v e i s i o n s i n t h e lower s e c t i o n of t h e R ive r , w i t h b e n e f i t s

i nvo lved f o r Idaho and Utah, bu t n o t h i n g f o r Wyoming. These pro jec t : ..

proposa1.s were e x p l a i n e d and d i s c u s s e d a t s e v e r a l Bear R ive r Compact

Commission meet ings i n t h e l a i e 1 9 6 0 1 s , and .as an outgrowth i t was

dec ided t h a t s i n c e development and u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l a v a i l a b l e

wa te r supp ly i n t h e Bear R ive r d r a i n a g e was contempla ted , a l l t h r e e

s t a t e s shou ld be i nvo lved and t h a t a p l an should be worked o u t t o . .

provide e q u i t a b l e b e n e f i t s t o each of t h e t h r e e s t a t e s . I n September

of 1968 a t J ackson , Wyoming, t h e f i r s t o f a s e r i e s of i n f o r m a l meet ings

was h e l d t o e x p l o r e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f f u r t h e r development on t h e Bear - River d r a i n a g e . Idaho, Utah, and l\Tyoming were a11 r e p r e s e n t e d a t

t h i s i n i t i a l meet ing, and t h e t h r e e s t a t e s were ag reed a s t o t h e

d e s i r a b i l i - t y o f pursu ing d i s c u s s i o n s r e l a t i v e t o Bear River develop-

ment. Subsequent ly , t h e t h r e e governors appo in t ed r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

to form the Tri-State Negotiating Committee with an ultimate

objective of reaching agrecrr~cnt regarding devclopmcnt of the

unconsumed flows of the Bear River.

Several exploratory meetings vere held in 1.968 and 1969.

During these early discussions, the problems that had to be

resolved were identified. One such problem was disagreement over

the quantity of water available to divide, How to evaluate existing

water rights, and particularly those owned by Utah Power and Light

was another. Beyond that, the objectives of each state vere dis-

cussed and an understanding of mutual concerns was obtained.

Since early 1970, seven meetings ofthe Tri-State Negotiating

Committee have been held. During 1971, only one meeting of the

Conirnittee was held and little progress was apparent at that time.

At the meeting in Malad, Idaho, onLFebruary 3, 1972, Idaho made

a new proposal which seemed tb clear the way for new progress and

hopefully, the discussions today will bear out this optimism.

The disagreements over the volume of unconsumed water

supply have continued to be a problem. Voluminous Bear River water

studies, including a $13 million study completed by the Bureau of

Reclamation, have not dispelled the conflicting estimates of water

quantities actually available for new uses,both above and below

Bear Lake. Betwccn 1927 and 1965, an annual average of 923,000

acre-feet flowed into the Great Sa1.t Lake. The Bureau of Recla-

mation estimated that if the quantities of water consumed in 1965

had been d e p l e t e d th roughout t h e e n t i r e 38-year p e r i o d , o n l y

824,000 a c r e - f e e t a n n u a l l y would have emptied i n t o t h e Grea t S a l t

Lake. The Bureau t h e n assumed t h a t i f an i d c a l d i v e r s i o n of

218,000 a c r e - f e e t were main ta ined f o r t h e Uenr R ive r Migratory

Bi rd Refuge, 537,000 a c r e - f e e t would s t i l l be a v a i l a b ~ e i n t h e

lower r i v e r f o r new u s e s and 69,000 a c r e - f e e t x.7oul.d be a v a i l a b l e '

above Bear Lalce.

M r . I J ; ~ l l a c e Ji.bson, e n g i n e e r wi.th t h e U.S. Geo log ica l

Survey i n Logan, Utah, who i s A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y of t h e Gear

River Com!nission, updatecl numerous s t u d i e s niacle d u r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l

Compact n e g o t i a t i o n s . Using s t reamflow r e c o r d s f o r t h e peri-od

1924 to .1968 , he found t h a t an ave rage o f 97,000 a c r e - f e e t had

been a n n u a l l y a v a i l a b l e f o r a d d i t i o n a l s t p r a g e above Bear Lalce

w i t h ve ry l i t t l e i n f r ingemen t on d i r e c t f low i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s

h o v e o r below Bear Lake. Th i s s t u d y presumably involved t h e

u s e of Rear Lake s t o r a g e throughout t h e f u l l r ange of i t s c a p a c i t y .

The Idaho Water Resource Board progracln>od t h e Bureau o f

Reclamation wa te r supply f i g u r e s i n t o t h e i r con~pu te r simul.ation

model and found 61,000 a c r e - f e e t a v a i l a b l e f o r a d d i t i o n a l u s e s '._

above Bear Lake.

Utah computer s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t even w i t h

p r e s e n t u s e s , 916,000 a c r e - f e e t s p i l l i n t o t h e Grea t S a l t Lake

a s an average , i n s t e a d o f t h e 824,000 a c r e - f e e t e s t i m a t e d by t h e

Bureau. This 90,000 a c r e - f e e c d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e mouth of tile

Bear I<iver hel.ps e x p l a i n why t h c Utah s t u d i e s s11o.i~ more than

100,000 a c r c - f e e t of unconsumccl wn t e r above Bear Lcke.

I n s p i t e of the devel.opcr;.nt o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d computer

s i m u l a t i o n moclels, t h i s d i s p a r i t y (GI ,000 Ac- f t - 100,000 Ac- f t )

i s s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t . HyclrologL~ists i n t h e Bureau and t h e Utah

Water Resources D i v i s i o n x,~ould l i k e t o meet and t r y t o r e a c h an

agreement . 11-1 a d d i t i o n , e f f o r t s a r e b e i n g made t o upda te a l l

s t u d i e s t o t h e y e a r 1970, which w i l l improve t h e r c l T - a b i l i t y o f

e s t i m a t e d p r e s e n t d e p l e t i o n s . A s t h e Bureau r e v i s e s t h e i r s t u d i e s ,

so w i l l t h e S t a t e s , and hopeful'y t h i s p r o c e s s x i i l l u l t i m a t e l y

l e a d t o agreement on t h e q u a n t i t y of unconsuliled f lows.

k n o t h e r key problem i s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e proper o p e r a t i o n

/ o f Bear L.ake. I r r i g a t o r s ri7ould l i k e con t inued a s s u r a n c e t h a t a l l

<

ava i . l ab le s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y w i l l be u t i l i z e d i n , t h e even t of a

prolonged drought . T h i s ~ m u l d - i nvo lve a 21 - foo t dra;idown w i t h

t h e l a k e b e i n g pumped d0i.m t o e l e v a t i o n 5902 which b70uld d imin i sh

t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f Bear Lake f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use . Even though

a 21- foo t f l u c t u a t i o n of a 200-foot deep s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r i s n o t

u n u s u a l , t h e r e s o r t owners and o t h e r people who have b u i l t c a b i n s

and o t h e r improvements on t h e sho re l i n e want t h e l a k e main ta ined

a t a c o n s t a n t e l e v a t i o n , even though they have n e i t h e r a wate r

r i g h t nor l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r demanding c o n t r o l over t h e

o p e r a t i o n o f t h e l a k e .

A l i m n o l o g i s t , D r . Wil l iam F. S i g l e r , h a s s t u d i e d Bear

Lake f o r many y e a r s and f e e l s t h a t a 12 - foo t f l u c t u a t i o n ~ , ~ u l c l

have l i t t l e e f f e c t on t h e f i s h e r y , and t h a t even t h e f u l l . 21- foo t

f l u c t u a t i o n would n o t endanger t h e f o u r endemic s p e c i e s o f f i s h

i n t h e lalce.

A s f r i v o l o u s a s t h e demancls o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n i s t s may seeril,

many people f e e l t h a t t h e s e r e q u e s t s should be g i v e n s e r i o u s

c o r ~ s i d e r a t i o n . Yet , i f t h e Lake cannot be used a s a s t o r a g e

r e s e r v o i r t h e b e s t e s t i m a t e s o f unconsumed w a t e r cou ld become

~ n e a n i n g l e s s . A f i r m d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e o p e r a t i o n o f Bcar Lake

i s e s s e n t i a l i n determining q u a n t i t i e s of w a t e r a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l

u s e s .

F i n a l l y , i n o r d e r t o conc lude t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s succes s - /

f u l l y , t h e s t a t e s must r e a c h an acco rd w i t h Utah Power and Lj-ght . Company on two p o i n t s :

1. The e f f e c t of i n c r e a s e d d e p l e t i o n s above

Bear Lake on p roduc t ion o f h y d r o - e l e c t r i c power,

and p o s s i b l e ways o f a m e l i o r a t i n g t h e s e e f f e c t s .

2. The e x t e n t of t h e power company's r e s p o n s i -

b i l i t i e s t o d e l i v e r wa te r t o i r r i g a t o r s below

Bear Lake, and p o s s i b l e means of meet ing t h e s e

comiriitinents i n a way which w i l l b e cornpatible w i t h

an expanded-use of wa te r th roughout t h e d r a i n a g e .

I f t h e s t a t e s could a g r e e on t h e hydrology of t h e Bear

R i v e r , d e v i s e s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangeinents w i t h Utah Power and L i g h t

Coiupany and f irrr i ly es-tabli .sh t h e o p e r a t i o i l of Rear I,ake, t h e r e i s

a good chence t h a t a n agreement cou3.d be reached on t h e b a s i c

e lements o f a b a s i n p l a n and cornpact m o d i f i c a t i o n s i11 a r e l a t i v e l y

s h o r t ti.me. There a r e o f c o u r s e many a d d i - t i o n a l m a t t e r s i nvo lved

which must be r e s o l v e d by t h e n e g o t i a t o r s , b u t t h o s e seem t o be

t h e major s t u m b l i n g bloclcs a t t h e p r e s e n t t i n e .

Because o f t h e i . n t e r e s t shown by o u r gove rno r s , I f e e l

optimistic t h a t t h e s e n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o p r o g r e s s , and

t h a t t h i s mee t ing toclay w i l l t a k e u s doiirn t h e road toward a

s a t i s f a c t o r y agreer:]ent.

TRI-STATE BEAR RIVER NEGOTLATING CO>MITTEE

SUMMARY OF MINUTES 0 f

MEETING IELD JLKY 20, 1972

WANSTON, WYOMING

Summary of Minutes of T r i - S t a t e Bear River Negot ia t ing Committee meeting held i n t h e High School, Evanston, Wyoming, on J u l y 20, 1972, a t 1:30 p.m.

The meeting was c a l l e d t o o rde r by t h e Chairman f o r t h e day, J . W . Myers

Governors S tan ley K . Hathaway of Wyoming, Ceci l D . Andrus of Idaho, and Calvin L. Rampton of Utah were i n a t tendance a t t h e meeting; and each made b r i e f remarks. They each expressed t h e thought t h a t t h e b a s i c concern of the s t a t e s i s i n coming t o agreement, without undue de lay , on t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e waters of t h e Bear River t o b e s t s e rve t h e i n t e r e s t s of a l l concerned.

M r . Floyd Bishop brought t h e Negot ia tors up- to-da te wi th a b r i e f h i s t o r y of the nego t i a t ions s i n c e t h e governors of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming f i r s t appointed r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n 1968 t o form a T r i - S t a t e Negot ia t ing Committee, "with an u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e of reaching agreement regard ing development of t h e unconsumed flows of t h e Bear River". isa agreement over t h e volume of unconsumed water supply and opera t ion of Bear Lake continue t o be problems of t h i s group.

Daniel F . Lawrence presented t h e REPORT OF TECKNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE, us ing c h a r t s and graphs t o show h i s t o r i c flows of t h e River , a c t u a l l e v e l of Bear Lake, t h e r e s u l t of v a r i o u s f l u c t u a t i o n s of t h e Lake, and an assessment of how much water upstream from t h e Lake remains uncommitted. This r e p o r t i nd ica t ed t h a t t h e average inf low t o t h e Lake i s about 350,000 a c r e - f e e t per y e a r . Under present condi t ions of use and Bear Lake management, t h e Lake would meet a l l downstream i r r i g a t i o n requirements and r e t a i n some water i n s t o r a g e a t i t s lowest p o i n t . Addi t ional water could be developed f o r upstream use above Stewart Dam; and t h e manner of Bear Lake ope ra t ion i s a major f a c t o r i n t h e q u a n t i t i e s a v a i l a b l e . Lowering Bear Lake sp i l lway l e v e l only one foo t reduces t h e poss ib l e added upstream d e p l e t i o n by approximately 20,000 a c r e - f e e t .

Robert B . P o r t e r read a r epor t of Utah Power & Ligh t Company's water r i g h t s on Bear River; what c o n t r a c t o b l i g a t i o n s t h e Company has ; and t h e Federa l Power Commission l i c e n s e s . There was cons iderable i n t e r e s t and d i s c u s s i o n regarding t h i s r e p o r t .

Discussion of t h e Proposal presented by Idaho on February 3 , 1972, followed. M r . F e r r i s Kunz passed out copies of a s t a t emen t , IDAHO COFPlENT AND PROPOSAL ON INCREASE OF WATER USE ALLOWANCE ABOVE BEAR LAKE, br inging up- to-da te Idaho ' s f u r t h e r cons ide ra t ion of the February 3 Proposal . Both Utah and TJyoming f e l t t h a t , i n view of t h e a d d i t i o n a l comments by Idaho, it would be necessary f o r them t o f u r t h e r cons ider Idaho ' s s ta tements before responding o f f i c i a l l y .

The fol lowing Motions were made and passed by t h e Negot ia t ing Committee:

1. That Mrs. Connie Borrowman be permanent Sec re t a ry t o t h e T r i - S t a t e Bear River Negot ia t ing Committee;

2 . That a complete verba t im t r a n s c r i p t of t h e Minutes be provided t o each s t a t e fol lowing each meeting, w i th a very b r i e f summary of t h e Minutes prepared f o r review and adopt ion a t t h e fol lowing meeting;

3 . That t h e r e be a permanent Chairman, appointed on a y e a r l y b a s i s ;

4 . That M r . F e r r i s Kunz se rve a s t h e f i r s t permanent Chairman, t o se rve from t h e present t ime u n t i l November, 1973; wi th Mr. Marion Olsen t o serve a s Vice-Chairman.

5. That assignments t o t h e Technical Subcommittee, t o t h e s t a t e s , o r t o o t h e r s , be s t a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y s o t h a t t h e r e i s f u l l understanding by a l l of what i s expected;

6 . That responses t o proposa ls presented i n any meeting be received from each s t a t e w i t h i n one month fo l lowing t h e meeting;

7 . That any new proposals f o r cons ide ra t ion be presented t o each s t a t e 30 days i n advance of any scheduled meeting;

8. That a l e t t e r go t o each of t h e t h r e e governors express ing a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r h i s a t tendance a t t h i s meet ing.

(These l e t t e r s were prepared by t h e Secre tary and mailed over M r . Myers' s i g n a t u r e on August 4 , 1 9 7 2 . )

The nex t meeting of t h e T r i - S t a t e Bear River Negot ia t ing Committee was scheduled t o be held on September 29, 1972; t h e time and p lace t o be determined by Idaho.

Meeting adjourned a t 4 : 4 5 p.m.

BEAR ~ I V E R TRI-STATE NEGOTIATING MEETING

J u l y 20, 1972 Evanston, Wyoming

(Verbatim Minutes)

The meeting commenced a t 1:30 p.m. i n t h e Evanston High School, wi th

J. W . Myers a c t i n g a s Chainnan f o r the meeting.

CHAIRNAN MYERS: Ladies and gentlemen -- i n order t o ' g e t t h i s show on the road'

we a r e going t o c a l l t he meeting t o o r d e r . This , a s you know, i s t h e meeting of

the Bear River Negot ia t ing Committee. We meet on c a l l , r o t a t i n g from one s t a t e t o

the o t h e r . It was Wyoming's t u r n t h i s t ime; so I have the p r i v i l e g e and p leasure

of cha i r ing t h i s p a r t i c u l a r meeting.

We want t o thank you f o r coming. The s i z e of t h e group i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e

i s cons iderable i n t e r e s t . Me welcome you t o Wyoming. We r~elcome you a l s o t o

Evanston. We had q u i t e an a r t i c l e w r i t t e n a yea r o r two ago by a man who went

through h e r e a s a t o u r i s t on h i s way t o C a l i f o r n i a . He was moved t o w r i t e a column

o r two about the l i t t l e v i l l a g e t h a t reminded him of t h e olden days -- he re fe r red

t o Evanston; and we got q u i t e a t r i b u t e from him. Sometimes we move ahead so f a s t

t h a t we l o s e s i g h t of some of t h e t h i n g s t h a t we would l i k e t o r e t a i n ; and we s t i l l

have some of those th ings here .

I want e s p e c i a l l y f o r you people t o t ake note t h a t we a r e p r iv i l eged today

t o have with us t h e Governors of a l l of our t h r e e s t a t e s who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e

Bear River . And t h e f i r s t th ing t h a t we in tend t o do i s t o ask each of them t o take

t h e i r p lace and g ive us any message they have f o r u s . I w i l l c a l l on Governor

Hathaway f i r s t - t he Governor of Wyoming.

GOVERNOR HATHAWAY: Thank you, Senator . I would j u s t l i k e t o r e i t e r a t e your welcome

t o the good people of Idaho and Utah who jo in us he re today; and my two good f r i e n d s ,

t h e r e spec t ive Governors of those s t a t e s , Governor Andrus and Governor Rampton -- Dave Crandal l , and our f r i e n d s from t h e Bureau of Reclamation.

This i s t h e f i r s t meeting t h a t I have a t tended of the Bear River Negot ia t ing

team. I am not going t o pose a s an i n s t a n t exper t . I do a t t end a g r e a t many water

meetings, and I f ind i t i s one sub jec t t h a t i s much l i k e wel fare . We continue t o

t a l k and t a l k and t a l k about i t ; t h e a c t i o n s t age i s o f t en very cumbersome.

It seems t o me t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of a l l t h r e e of our s t a t e s t o

r e -nego t i a t e c e r t a i n provisLons of t h e Bear River Compact. That being t h e case , i t

would seem t o me t h a t we could g e t about t h e job of doing so. I know t h a t we can ' t

over -s impl i fy t h e i s s u e s involved, but reasonable people can come t o conclus ions

t h a t w i l l permit u s t o r e -nego t i a t e t h e Compact and develop t h e waters of our

r e spec t ive s t a t e s . Water i s a p r i c e l e s s , no t only h e r i t a g e , but l i f e - b l o o d of

semi-arid s t a t e s l i k e ou r s ; and i t i s incumbent upon us t o put it t o use . I know

t h a t we can make a g r e a t deal. more use than we have of t h e Bear River wa te r by

agree ing upon some of t h e s e fundamental t h i n g s and f ind ing a way t o b u i l d p r o j e c t s

t h a t w i l l put t h e water t o b e n e f i c i a l u se . I hope we can ded ica t e ou r se lves h e r e

today t o t h a t premise.

I now t u r n i t over t o my good f r i e n d from Idaho, Governor Andrus.

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: Thanlc you very much, Governor Hathaway. Ladies and gentlemen, and

Governor Rampton -- I am h e r e - w e l l , yes - a s a n i n t e r e s t e d ind iv idua l and ch ie f of

t h e S t a t e of Idaho; but more t o l i s t e n , probably, than t o t a l k .

We i n Idaho a r e ve ry concerned about t h e Bear River a rea -- t h e amount of

water t h a t goes down; and a s you can see from t h e c h a r t , t h e magnitude - t h e i n c r e a s e - we go from almost a c a p i l l a r y s t a g e a t t h i s end t o a main a r t e r y -- and you see

where a l o t of t h e groruth t akes p l ace . That i s needed i n our s t a t e .

Frankly , l a d i e s and gentlemen; we i n Idaho look somewhat wi th alarm on a n

idea t h a t would c r e a t e massive upstream s to rage p r i o r t o Bear Lake. And I t h i n k i t

i s obvious t o everyone i n t h i s room why we tuould look t h a t d i r e c t i o n . We a r e h e r e ,

b a s i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d -- and a s Governor Hathaway pointed out -- i n coming t o agreement

among t h e t h r e e s t a t e s of t h e t h i n g s t h a t rue have t o do t o make t h e de te rmina t ion

o f the r i g h t of t hose -wa te r s w i th in t h e Bear River dra inage .

As ch ie f execut ive of the s t a t e of Idaho -- and I ' m s u r e you would n o t expect

me t o do any l e s s than t o represent our people wi th t h e i r e x i s t i n g r i g h t s -- t o see

t h a t they a r e maintained; t o see t h a t they a r e upheld; and, hopeful ly , t h e s o l u t i o n

t o t h i s , whenever it comes, will involve t h e water q u a l i t y problems t h a t we have;

t h e environmental a s p e c t s ; along with a pe rpe tua l appropr i a t ion of whatever o u r

Negot ia t ing team comes up with a s t o our sha re of t h a t amount t h a t may be i n excess

of what i s being used r i g h t now ancl f i n d s i t s ruay t o t h e end i n t h e Great S a l t Lake.

We w i l l be f i rm, c e r t a i n l y , i n what we b e l i e v e . But we a r e h e r e with my two good

f r i e n d s , and many people represent ing t h e t h r e e s t a t e s , t o s i t down t o g e t h e r , and

hopeful ly come up ruith a so lu t ion .

Maybe t h a t i s t h r e e o r f o u r minutes of d ia logue . I d i d n ' t r e a l l y have any-

t h i n g t o say. But t h i s i s ve ry , very important t o t h e sou theas te rn corner of the

s t a t e of Idaho. Without t h e water t h a t you see ind ica ted on t h a t c h a r t r i g h t t h e r e

we would be i n ve ry , very s e r i o u s t r o u b l e . I j u s t hope t h a t we can recognize the

source of the water ; who has t h e vo ice i n it; and who a r e t h e people t h a t can b e n e f i t

from it. I know t h a t Idaho ' s Negot ia t ing team i s very well-versed i n a l l of these .

I am he re , r e a l l y , not t o speak f o r them -- I am h e r e t o back them up. Thank you.

I should in t roduce one of my col leagues - one of t h e s e n i o r members of t h e

Democratic Governors of t h e Nation, and i t j u s t so happens, a good f r i end of mine -- (Laughter) I f you d o n ' t g e t t h e message, why -- (Laughter) . Governor Rampton.

GOVERNOR W F T O N : I would l i k e t o thank t h e S t a t e of Wyoming and t h e Ci ty of

Evanston f o r hos t ing t h i s meeting today. You know, it i s paradoxical t h a t the

Governor i n who's s t a t e we a r e meeting had t o t r a v e l t h e longes t way t o g e t here .

I f e e l a k insh ip f o r t h i s corner of Wyoming. We used t o have a d i r e c t o r i n

t h e S a l t Lake Chamber of Commerce t h a t t r i e d t o s e l l a s logan down t h e r e t h a t went,

"Make Utah Square". I ' d be w i l l i n g t o r e v i s e t h a t ; but every time I t r y t o do

something about i t , Stan t h r e a t e n s me with t h e Wyoming National Guard. (Laughter)

So I guess t h i s corner w i l l continue t o belong t o Wyoming.

I can only echo what Stan and Ceci l had t o say . We have problems t h a t must

be s e t t l e d ; problems wherein each s t a t e i s going t o have t o make some concessions

t o come t o a p o s i t i o n t h a t i s b e s t f o r the e n t i r e three-corners a r e a of these s t a t e s .

I d o n ' t th ink any of t h e t h r e e Governors a r e h e r e f o r t h e purpose of a t tempt ing t o

d i r e c t t h e i r Negot ia tors which way t o go. I th ink we a r e a l l concerned by the f a c t

t h a t f o r a number of yea r s , it seems, t h a t while you have been meeting we have no t

seen, perhaps, a s much progress a s we would l i k e t o see i n t h e s e nego t i a t ions .

Our presence, I guess -- We a r e not t r y i n g t o pass on t h e m e r i t s ; we a r e j u s t

prodding you fe l lows a l i t t l e t o g e t on with i t .

Again l e t ' me thank Evanston City and t h e S t a t e of Wyoming f o r being h o s t s

today.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Thank you, Governors. It i s n ' t very o f t e n I g e t t o use t h a t i n plural . .

I want you t o f e e l welcome h e r e and t o e n t e r i n t o our d i scuss ions a t any poin t t h a t

you see f i t ; o r ask any ques t ions , and w e ' l l t r y t o c l a r i f y . We have gone along

slowly and methodical ly, and a t t imes ' h i t and m i s s ' ; and I am su re with your presence

h e r e it i s going t o he lp s t imula te and promote an acce le ra t ed a c t i v i t y i n t r y i n g t o

g e t t h i s th ing worked ou t .

- 3 -

I n d r a f t i n g t h e Agenda f o r t h e meeting t h i s a f t e rnoon , we thought i t might

be h e l p f u l t o l a y t h e groundwork by j u s t p re sen t ing a b r i e f h i s t o r y of what has

t r a n s p i r e d up t o t h i s poin t i n t ime. I have t r i e d t o formula te t h e s e remarks wi thout

any advocacy of Wyoming's p o s i t i o n . I t h i n k t h e r e w i l l b e a t ime l a t e r i n t h e

program and we can p resen t some o f our arguments i n favor of what Wyoming would l i k e

t o see come out of t h e s e n e g o t i a t i o n s .

(At t h i s po in t Mr. Bishop presented a "Brief H i s to ry of Negotiat ions",

which i s a t t ached t o , and made a p a r t o f , t h e s e Minutes .)

MR. BISHOP: I would be very w i l l i n g t o answer ques t ions . However, i t seems t o me

t h a t i t might be b e t t e r , M r . Chairman, t h a t t h e Technical Sub-committee r e p o r t

be presented , and perhaps Bob P o r t e r ; and then we could have a kind of d i scuss ion - ques t ion and answer type arrangement - t o answer any ques t ions t h a t might a r i s e , i f

t h a t i s agreeable . Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: The Technical Sub-committee r epor t i s next on t h e Agenda. We have

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from a l l t h r e e s t a t e s , and a t t h i s moment I do not know who has been

s e l e c t e d . I s i t you, Dan? Dan Lawrence w i l l p resent t h a t .

MR. LAWRENCE: My mother has t e n l i v i n g c h i l d r e n . She i s 86; and she t o l d me once

t h a t i f you go through l i f e wi th a clenched f i s t , nobody can eve r put anything i n it .

I th ink t h a t maybe a p p l i e s t o t h e Nego t i a to r s h e r e today. I s u r e l y hope t h a t we

a r e moving along.

About two yea r s ago, a s has been mentioned, t h e Nego t i a to r s s e t up a Technical

Sub-committee wi th t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o work between the meetings of t h e Negot ia tors

and 'hammer o u t ' f a c f u a l agreement on which t h e r e i s agreement, and on which t h e r e i s

disagreement , between t h e s t a t e s -- t h e s e d a t a inc luding p r i m a r i l y water supply,

consumptive use , water requirements , new developments, c o s t e s t i m a t e s of p r o j e c t s ,

e f f e c t s of proposed p r o j e c t s , water r i g h t s , e t c . The Technical Sub-committee i s

composed of Floyd Bishop from Wyoming, Bob Lee from Idaho, and myself ; and I se rve

a s t h e Chairman. But a s a p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , we have a s t a f f t o do t h e work; and

Tom Barker of Wyoming, Alan Robertson of Idaho, and Norm S t a u f f e r of Utah r e a l l y

work d i l i g e n t l y . And I would l i k e t o t e l l t h e Governors and a l l of you h e r e t h a t I

cons ide r these t h r e e men very competent; and they have a l o t of time i n t h e inpu t of

t h i s ; and I th ink we a r e reaping t h e b e n e f i t s .

When we a r e g iven assignments , we t r y t o prepare a w r i t t e n r e p o r t on which

we can u s u a l l y ag ree unanimously. Sometimes t h i s r e s u l t s i n a s l i g h t l y 'watered

down' r e p o r t i f we have hangups; but t h e r e p o r t t h a t t h e Negot ia tors have be fo re you

i s such a r e p o r t i n which a l l t h r e e of t h e s t a t e s have agreed. I have taken t h e

l i b e r t y a s spokesman f o r t h e group t o do some paraphrasing i n t h e i n t e r e s t of

exp lana t ion ; s o those paraphrased words a r e mine, and they may not be 100% tllc view

of t h e whole Committee.

For t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p r e s s , I thought it might be well t o make one o r two

genera l s t a t emen t s concerning t h e Bear. The Bear River d r a i n s an a r e a of 6,900

square m i l e s i n t h e t h r e e s t a t e s . I t s ' headwaters a r e but 90 m i l e s from i t s ' mouth;

and y e t i t meanders 500 m i l e s i n a c i r c u l a r course reaching Great S a l t Lake. A s

i t t r a v e l s , it c r o s s e s s t a t e l i n e s f i v e t imes i n t h e t h r e e s t a t e s . You may not know

t h a t t h e Bear River i s t h e l a r g e s t t r i b u t a r y t o Great S a l t Lake - and you probably

knew t h a t - but i t i s a l s o t h e l a r g e s t s t ream i n t h e North American con t inen t t h a t

does not reach t h e ocean. The average annual flow i n t o Great S a l t Lake i s about

900,000 acre- f e e t .

Se t t lement of land adjacent t o Bear River began i n 1860; and power development

began i n 1907. I n 1911 Bear Lake was converted i n t o a s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r by construc-

t i n g i n l e t and o u t l e t c a n a l s connect ing t h e Lake and t h e River . Bear River , i t s

t r i b u t a r i e s , and t h e Bear Lake supply i r r i g a t i o n water t o about 500,000 a c r e s of

l and . There a r e approximately 14 h y d r o - e l e c t r i c p l a n t s on t h e River; many c i t i e s

and towns and i n d u s t r i e s a r e deeply involved.

Also v e r y important i s t h e Bear River Bird Refuge and t h e mineral i ndus t ry

of Great S a l t Lake.

Bear Lake, a s has been mentioned and w i l l be mentioned h e r e today, i s a v i t a l

key t o t h e ope ra t ions and t o t h e problems and t o t h e s o l u t i o n s o f t h e problems of

t h e Bear River system. Although t h e Lake was developed a s a s to rage r e s e r v o i r f o r

i r r i g a t i o n and f o r power, it has now become a much-used p lace f o r s m e r homes and

water-borne r e c r e a t i o n .

The Bear River Compact of 1955, r a t i f i e d by t h e s t a t e s and t h e Government i n

1958, appor t ions flows among t h r e e s e c t i o n s -- t h e Upper, Cen t ra l , and Lowcr d i v i s i o n s .

It d e f i n e s s t o r a g e r i g h t s i n t h e e x i s t i n g r e s e r v o i r s ; i t e s t a b l i s h e s new s t o r a g e

r i g h t s above Bear Lake; and i t s e t s up an i r r i g a t i o n r e se rve i n a p o r t i o n of t h e

Bear Lake s to rage t o p ro tec t t h e downstream i r r i g a t i o n u s e s .

The Compact provides f o r an amendment every 20 years o r l e s s a s t h e s t a t e s

d e s i r e , o r dec ide . And a s M r . Bishop t o l d you, t h i s i s p a r t of our problem - t o

cons ider and view the Bear River Compact cond i t ions . Water u s e r s i n Rich County;

water u s e r s i n Wyoming; gene ra l ly want more s to rage r e s e r v o i r s , and t h e r e f o r e i t

would involve t h e r a i s i n g of the s to rage l i m i t a s s e t by the Compact. And Idaho,

a s t h e Governor has s a i d , wants t o b u i l d dams and canals t o more f u l l y involve the

waters downstream.

(Mr. Lawrence then read the "Report of 7:echnical Subcommittee", a t tached t o

these Minutes, with t h e fol lowing comments where indica ted on t h e Report:)

0 You s e e , t h e hydrograph he re of t h e water l e v e l s of t h e Bear Lake. These a r e

h i s t o r i c l e v e l s of the Lake.

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: I s t h a t high; low; o r average, Dan?

MR. LAWRENCE: This i s t h e a c t u a l l e v e l - - r i g h t t h e r e i s 1930; and t h a t i s about

Ju ly of 1930.

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Would it be t h e same day you take i t every year?

MR. LAWRENCE: No; t h i s i s a continuous monthly reading a s t h e Lake i s f luc tua ted

d a i l y . Now, s i n c e t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y a s t r a i g h t - l i n e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e e l e v a t i o n

i n the Lake t o t h e s to rage capaci ty , t h e graph a l s o shows t h e ac re - foo t capaci ty .

So, on t h i s s i d e of t h e c h a r t you have ze ro capaci ty , and 1,500,000 capaci ty -- and

ac ross the way i t shows 1,431,000 - approximately. On t h i s s i d e we have t h e eleva-

t i o n above sea l e v e l corresponding t o those c a p a c i t i e s . Now, t h e Lake i s considered

t o be empty f o r s to rage purposes a t e l e v a t i o n 5902; so we show 5902 over he re , and

ze ro over he re ; and i t i s f u l l f o r s to rage purposes a t 5923.65. That i s a 21.65-foot

f l u c t u a t i o n . I n o t h e r words, t h e r e i s a l e g a l r i g h t t o ope ra te t h e Lake a s a r e se r -

v o i r f l u c t u a t i n g t h e t o t a l 21.65 f e e t . I n t h e drought periods of t h e 1930's and

e a r l y 1940 's t h e Lake got down -- i n 1935, t h e Lake was empty. Note t h a t i n the

l a s t few yea r s t h e Lake has been more than h a l f f u l l . It has been s i n c e 1942 - r i g h t he re - t he Lake has been s u b s t a n t i a l l y more than h a l f f u l l .

One of the reasons f o r the Lake not being f u l l i s t h a t t h e Power Company, a s

a mat ter of publ ic r e l a t i o n s pol icy , has t r i e d t o maintain t h e Lake somewhere a t

l e a s t a foo t below the maximum; because of t h e obvious problems of t h e cabins t h e r e .

There has not y e t been developed, a s Floyd suggested, and accepted i n t o engineering

p r a c t i c e , any p e r f e c t method of p red ic t ing t h e f u t u r e of t h e water supply s i t u a t i o n .

The method widely used i s t o t ake a h i s t o r i c flow and assume t h a t h i s t o r y w i l l r epea t

i t s e l f . Of course t h a t assumption i s not t r u e ; bu t i t i s t h e b e s t study guide t h a t

we have i n gene ra l use. So, i n t h e case of Bear Lake and on t h e Bear River , we

used t h i s kind of an approach; and us ing d a t a of the Bureau of Reclamation, we used

t h e d i r e c t flows and have added these e x t r a i n g r e d i e n t s t h a t Floyd to ld you about .

We have added new r e s e r v o i r s t h a t have come a long, new a g r i c u l t u r a l a c r e s , new

i n d u s t r i e s -- a l l of t h e new uses ; and h i s t o r i c flows have been modified by t h e s e

so-ca l led p resen t cond i t ions . For t h e Bear River we used condi t ions a s i n 1965 - so we're t a l k i n g today about t h e p resen t . We mean t h e cond i t ions t h a t were on t h e

River - r e s e r v o i r s , e t c . , - t h a t were on t h e River i n 1965. And our hydrology i s

based on t h e y e a r s ' record from 1927 t o 1965.

We have h e r e a s an over lay , a red hydrograph; and t h a t i s t h e way t h a t we say

the Lake would look i f we had t h e weather condi t ions a s they were i n those preceding

yea r s with present cond i t ions on the River, and t h e River operated a s i t has been.

This i s b a s i c a l l y a primary premise -- and t h a t i s , t h a t power withdrawals do no t

c o n t r o l . The l e v e l of the Lake, of course, obviously i s a f f e c t e d by the inf low.

Under our s t u d i e s , t h e minimum yea r of inflow i n present cond i t ions was 1934, when

t h e r e was only 16,000 a c r e - f e e t inflow i n t o t h e Lake.

0 Mode 1 -- we assumed t h a t Bear Lake would be operated i t s f u l l 21 f e e t a s a

s to rage r e s e r v o i r . I n o t h e r words, we had a maximum of 1,421,000 a c r e - f e e t drawdown,

i f need be t o e l e v a t i o n 5902. I n Mode 2 , - I th ink t h i s i s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t key t o

our whole p r e s e n t a t i o n he re today - we dropped t h e c e i l i n g on Bear Lake 1.2 f e e t

and sa id t h a t by hypothes is we would not l e t t h e Lake go above 5922.5.

I n category A on t h e c h a r t t h e r e , we a r e t r y i n g t o determine how much water

would be a v a i l a b l e upstream from Bear Lake f o r use , assuming t h a t we could work ou t

t h e l e g a l condi t ions -- t a l k i n g about water supply now. So category A was simply

water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake i n excess of a l l t h e power and o t h e r uses ; and t h e r e

was v i r t u a l l y none. I n o t h e r words, t he Power Company has very , very seldom s p i l l e d

without genera t ing some power -- without some use r e s u l t i n g from t h e water.

0 I n Mode 1 t h e r e , you have power s p i l l s i n March through June of 1948 and

1953, on ly . Put t h e next s l i d e on. -- You n o t i c e i t i s v i r t u a l l y t h e same i n Node 2 ,

where we had t h e Lake a f o o t lower a s a maximum cond i t ion . S p i l l s occurred i n October

and March i n those same y e a r s - 1948 and 1953. So t h e only way we can make t h i s water

a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Upper b a s i n would be t o have very l a r g e r e s e r v o i r s a v a i l a b l e f o r

holdover s t o r a g e ; say, i n t h e 200,000 ac re - foo t range.

8 The average water a v a i l a b l e would be 30,000 under the 21.65 range; and

10,000 a c r e - f e e t i f t h e Lake i s he ld down under t h e cond i t ions of Mode 2 .

0 The s a l t b r i n e on t h i s c h a r t i s t h e same hydrograph a s t h i s red l i n e . It i s

s p l i t . You have t o v i s u a l i z e t h a t you would t ake t h e bottom h a l f of t h a t and pas te

i t out on t h e end t o g ive t h e hydrograph a s you see it he re . You n o t i c e on t h e

bottom c h a r t here , you have the same s p i l l i n g cond i t ions . So t h a t dot ted l i n e i s

t h i s p resen t condi t ion s i t u a t i o n . I f we were t o d e l e t e o r d e p l e t e the inflow i n t o

Bear Lake by 30,000 a c r e - f e e t annual ly over and above the present dep le t ions , you

would have t h a t do t t ed l i n e which i s t h e second l i n e you see t h e r e . I n t h a t case ,

t h e maximum lowering would be about 7% f e e t , o r 520,000 f e e t i f Bear Lake were

operated a t f u l l range.

I f y o u ' l l show t h e next one, Norm -- It i s b a s i c a l l y t h e same hypothes is

except t h a t we only deple ted 10,000 a c r e - f e e t more by hold ing the Lake down and

r e q u i r i n g more s p i l l s , l e s s water a v a i l a b l e ; and t h e maximum range t h e r e i s 2% f e e t

of 180,000 a c r e - f e e t . The hypothesis he re was by a cu t and t r y arrangement, where

only once d id we drop t h e Lake down t o the 5902 l e v e l .

@ Now i n summary, t h e main th ing t h a t we have i l l u s t r a t e d h e r e i s t h a t some

a d d i t i o n a l water can be developed f o r upstream use above Stewart Dam; and t h e manner

of Bear Lake opera t ion i s a major f a c t o r i n the q u a n t i t i e s a v a i l a b l e . For example,

t h e lowering of Bear Lake spi l lway l e v e l only 1 f o o t reduces the poss ib le added

upstream dep le t ion by only 20,000 a c r e - f e e t .

Thank you.

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: M r . Chairman; l e t me make a b r i e f comment, b a s i c a l l y t o t h e

Sec re t a ry t h a t i s keeping t h e r eco rd . I would l i k e t o have t h e record co r rec t ed -- Dan s a i d , ' a s t h e Governor of Idaho s t a t e s ' , we want t o bu i ld dams and make our

development. hat's not e x a c t l y what I s a i d ; and I t h i n k t h e record -- I d o n ' t

want t h a t l e t t e r read back t o me sometime a t a l a t e r d a t e -- s o would you p lease

poin t out t h a t t h e Governor of Idaho sa id 'we ' r e p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g h t s of our water

u s e r s i n Idaho. He a l s o pointed out t h a t we a r e somewhat apprehensive of any

massive re ta inment , c o l l e c t i o n , o r hold ing of wa te r above Bear Lake. We do have

water q u a l i t y problems i n Bear Lake which a f f e c t t h e r e s t of t h e system; and f u r t h e r ,

what we would r e a l l y l i k e t o see -- and I th ink each of t h e t h r e e s t a t e s would -- i s t h a t we have a pe rpe tua l a l l o c a t i o n of our f a i r sha re and then- make t h e

de terminat ion of how we w i l l use i t . '

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Thanlc you.

Next on our Agenda i s a s tatement which was requested a t t h e l a s t meeting,

by Bob P o r t e r of Utah Power & L i g h t . Bob - - MR. PORTER: M r . Chairman; Governor Hathaway; Governor Andrus; Governor Rampton;

honorable Committee; l a d i e s and gentlemen -- You asked me a t t h e l a s t meeting t o

d i g i n t o our r eco rds and come back and t e l l you what we show t h e water r i g h t s on

Bear River and what c o n t r a c t o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t we have; and then t o d i s c u s s b r i e f l y

our f e d e r a l power commission l i c e n s e s .

(Mr. P o r t e r then read t h e Utah Power & Ligh t Company r e p o r t on "Bear River" ,

which i s a t tached a s a p a r t of t h e Minutes .)

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Could I ask Bob a ques t ion . Do you use t h e hydro-power p r i n c i p a l l y

f o r peaking, o r do you use i t f o r cons tant genera t ion?

MR. PORTER: When we have yea r s l i k e t h i s year and l a s t y e a r , we have used i t con-

s i d e r a b l y more than we u s u a l l y would; but you a r e r i g h t -- t h e s e p l a n t s a r e p r i m a r i l y

peaking p l a n t s . GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Of course you have t o have, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e Bear River s t o r a g e

capac i ty , you have t o have some s o r t of s to rage capac i ty r i g h t a t t h e gene ra to r i f

you use i t only f o r peaking, d o n ' t you?

MR. PORTER: No. We use Bear Lake and our Soda p l an t a s r egu la to ry r e s e r v o i r s ; and

we f i g u r e out what time i t t akes t o g e t water from one o r t h e o t h e r .

GOVERNOR W T O N : Can you l e t your water o u t of Bear Lake, f o r example, and say it

i s going t o h i t Oneida a t 6:30 i n t h e a f t e rnoon two days from now? Can you con t ro l

i t t h a t c a r e f u l l y ?

MR. PORTER: Yes; and we do. Ac tua l ly we u s e Soda, p r imar i ly , f o r t h a t purpose -- Soda and Oneida.

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: You a l s o t r a d e some of t h i s w i th Idaho Power, do you no t?

MR. PORTER: Not v e r y much of t h i s . Some - - bu t once t h e p r o j e c t i s i n t h e system

you know which i s going which d i r e c t i o n . P r imar i ly , t h e power we t r a d e w i t h Idaho

i s from our steam p l a n t s .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Do you gene ra l ly f e e l much i n c o ~ n p a t i b i l i t y between your demands

a s t o amount of flow and time of flow, and t h e requirements f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes?

MR. PORTER: The a g r i c u l t u r a l i s p r i o r t o o t h e r purposes. We m n our power p l a n t s

on a secondary b a s i s .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Well, you have been very good with us t h i s yea r , I ' l l have t o say

t h a t , i n hold ing back some of t h e water so we could g e t t hose pumps going down west

of Logan, t h e r e .

GOVERNOR HATHAWAY: Are e i t h e r of your agreements with t h e i r r i g a t i o n companies

cancelable?

MR. PORTER: No; they a r e not only non-cancelable; they a r e decreed r i g h t s .

GOVERNOR HATHAWAY: There a r e supposed t o be some e s t a b l i s h e d water r i g h t s t h e r e , o r - MR. LEE: That wouldn't be t r u e of Las t Chance o r some of t h e o t h e r -- MR. PORTER: No; I th ink Cu t l e r , West Cache, and t h e Sugar Company cana l s a r e now

f i rmly e s t a b l i s h e d by both Compact, by use , and by decree .

GOVEXNOR RAMPTON: Looking down t h e road t o increased gene ra t ion capac i ty i n t h e West

gene ra l ly , e i t h e r from c o a l - f i r e d p l a n t s o r t h e emergence of atomic-power gene ra t ion ,

does your Company have any 10 o r 20 year p lans a s t o what you a r e going t o do with

t h e hydro-capaci ty you have he re and elsewhere?

MR. PORTER: Ac tua l ly we have very l i t t l e hydro-capaci ty except r i g h t h e r e on Bear

River and Bear Lake. The r e s t of our hydro i s l i m i t e d . We have had, and we do have,

developed p lans f o r 10 , 20 yea r s i n the f u t u r e ; which have been ' upso t ' l a t e l y by a

number of o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t have been happening --

GOVERNOR WfPTON: Of course we a l l know t h a t ; bu t i f t h e y do go ahead with t h e major

steam p l a n t s , c o a l - f i r e d o r atomic, and you ge t your gene ra t ion c o s t s down below

3 m i l l s , i s n ' t i t going t o be t o your economic i n t e r e s t t o abandon some of t h e o l d e r

hydro-plants?

MR, WATKINS: Our average gene ra t ion of Rear River i s below t h r e e m i l l s on an average

year . As most of you know, t h e economical hydro-genera t ion s i t e i n our t e r r i t o r y

was p r e t t y well developed i n 1928; and i n these 20 y e a r s p lans a r e made - I guess

more than t h a t - 24 y e a r s , t h a t we do have some p o s s i b i l i t i e s of pump s to rage a t t h e

t i m e t h a t our system i s adap tab le t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n .

GOVERNOR WIPTON: Considering t h e p o s s i b l e obsolescense of your h y d r o - f a c i l i t i e s ,

and what you expect t o come about i n t h e way of development of coa l - f i r ed o r atomic-

f i r e d p l a n t s , what would you say would be t h e breakoff po in t i n c o s t where i t would

appear more economical f o r you t o abandon your hydro s i t e ?

MR. WATKINS: When you t a l k about obsolescense of hydro p l a n t s and o t h e r types of

p l a n t s , e s p e c i a l l y hydro p l a n t s ; t h e r e a r e maintenance improvements and c a p i t a l i z e d

c o s t s t h a t go i n t o t h e s e p l a n t s yea r a f t e r yea r -- and I would say t h a t i f i t i s

economics a lone on our system f o r t h e next 1 5 yea r s , we would s t i l l be ope ra t ing

< t h e s e 5 economical p l a n t s -- I might say 4 -- I t h i n k t h e r e i s a ques t ion i n Cove,

if hconomically we could main ta in t h a t one. Economically, compared t o t h e r e s t of

our genera t i an and assuming t h a t on an average y e a r t h e Bear River i s a peaking

'system, I think you a r e looking a t about 15 yea r s .

MR, PORTER: It could be longe r than t h a t .

MR. WATKINSr I might add t h i s s ta tement : We went t o a program h e r e t h e l a s t seven

y e a r s where we put some automatic equipment on a l l t h e p l a n t s , which has reduced t h e

obsolescense - i f you want t o term i t t h a t way. I t h i n k t h e t h i n g t h a t determines

whether a p l a n t i s o b s o l e t e o r not i n our bus iness i s what t h e p l an t i s t o t a l i n g o u t .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: What i s your average c o s t on t h e s e 5 p l a n t s now?

MR. IWKINS: I th ink on an average yea r we a r e looking a t about 2% m i l l s .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Does t h a t inc lude deprec ia t ion and a l s o a r e t u r n on inves ted

c a p i t a l , o r not? Is t h a t j u s t ba re c o s t ?

MR. VATKINS: No; t h i s i s ba re c o s t . -- opera t ion and maintenance, and ad valorem

t axes .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: So i f you have t o g e t your r e t u r n o f f c a p i t a l and so f o r t h , t h i s

3 m i l l f i g u r e I used a few minutes ago would probably be a p r e t t y r e a l i s t i c f i g u r e ?

MR. WATKINS: I t h i n k wi th a n e t va lue of -- considered by t h e f e d e r a l power commission,

they a r e p r e t t y well dep rec ia t ed on t h e record . Thcre aga in , we a r e -- f o r example,

a t t h e Grace p l an t we a r e going t o overhaul one of t h e u n i t s ; and I am s u r e t h a t when

we g e t through t h a t u n i t w i l l be a s good a s t h e day t h a t i t was put i n , i n 1912;

probably b e t t e r , because of t h e a d d i t i o n a l equipment on t h e u n i t . The technologica l

improvements t h a t w i l l be inco rpora t ed i n t h e u n i t w i l l i n c r e a s e i t s va lue .

GOVERNOR RI1MPTON: Do you f e e l t h a t i t would be reasonable f o r t h i s Negot ia t ing team,

i n making f o r e c a s t s f o r f u t u r e p l ans , t o assume t h e phasing out of t h e use of t h e

Bear River f o r e l e c t r i c a l gene ra t ion over some reasonable period of time?

MR. WATKINS: You'd have t o add, an unbiased p o s i t i o n . I am not s o s u r e i n a l l ca ses

economics a r e i n doubt . I f you cons ide r economics i n a l l ca ses -- i n o t h e r words; can

t h e pub l i c , o r can t h e i r r i g a t o r s , pu t i n f a c i l i t i e s t o upgrade t h e valued nse of t h e

water -- then maybe, yes ; then maybe it should be phased o u t . I f they c a n ' t , maybe

t h e Bear River a s a gene ra t ing system could go on f o r many, many y e a r s . I th ink

we a l l r e a l i z e t h a t $1 a n a c r e - f o o t of water i s one va lue of use , and when you ge t

i t on t h e Wasatch Front i t i s going t o be $30 a n a c r e - f o o t ; and I am s u r e t h a t we

i n t h e Power Company r e a l i z e t h a t a s t h e valued use of wa te r becomes a pawn, t h e r e

w i l l probably be some phasing o u t .

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: One ques t ion -- I d o n ' t mean t o prolong it, but t o e i t h e r one of

you -- fol lowing t h e comment made by Governor Rampton - a l s o I th ink t h e use and the

l i f e span of t h e t h i n g i s a l s o cont ingent upon t h e l i c e n s i n g by t h e f e d e r a l power

c o m i s s i o n . A t t h e f e d e r a l l e v e l t hey w i l l have a de t e rmina t ion involved i n t h i s .

My ques t ion would be , j u s t f o r my own c l a r i f i c a t i o n -- a r e t h e r i g h t s of Utah Power

& Ligh t on t h i s water cont ingent upon t h e continued l i c e n s i n g of t hese p l a n t s ?

MR. PORTER: Not t h e water r i g h t s

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: What would you do wi th them i f you -- MR. PORTER: We probably c o u l d n ' t use them; bu t -- GOVERNOR ANDRUS: T h a t ' s my p o i n t .

MR. SCHLENDER: What do you cons ide r i n your system capac i ty i s t h e n e t dependable

c a p a c i t y of these p l a n t s t o your t o t a l system?

MR. WATKINS: A t t h e present t ime, i t i s around about 11% of t h e t o t a l system capac i ty - t h e Bear River capac i ty . When t h e No. 3 u n i t i s on i t w i l l reduce a l i t t l e b i t .

These l a s t two yea r s we have been up around 14 - 15%.

MR. BARKER: What a r e t h e g ross revenues generated by t h e s e p l a n t s ?

MR. WATKINS: Through t h e 5 p l a n t s it would be about 56 k i l o w a t t s per cub ic foo t .

MR. BISHOP: I would l i k e t o a sk M r . P o r t e r a ques t ion . I d o n ' t r e a l l y understand t h e

i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t commitment s i t u a t i o n . I assume t h a t some, l i k e t h e Sugar Company

r i g h t s - p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e d i r e c t flow r i g h t s - can be met a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y from

inflow below Bear Lake. How much of a cormnitment on Bear Lake i s involved i n t h e

Utah Porver & Ligh t Company's commitments t o d e l i v e r water t o these v a r i o u s i r r i g a t i o n

companies?

MR. PORTER: A pe rpe tua l guarantee t h a t they w i l l have t h a t water a t t h e i r poin t of

d i v e r s i o n .

MR. BISHOP: I n o t h e r words; what you a r e saying i s t h a t i f t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t

d i r e c t flow i n t h e River you have t o make i t up wi th t h e r e s e r v o i r s to rage? I wonder

i f our Technical Subcommittee has eva lua ted t h e e f f e c t on Bear Lake and meeting t h e s e

commitments? Alan - o r Norm - o r Tom -- can any of you fe l lows answer t h a t ?

MR. ROBERTSON: Yes; t h e f i g u r e s t h a t were g iven e a r l i e r have involved t h a t commitment.

MR. BISHOP: So we have no problems wi th meeting t h e commitments t o i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s

t h a t Utah Power & Light Company has?

MR. ROBERTSON: No; t h a t has been taken i n t o cons ide ra t ion .

CHAIRMN MYERS: Thank you, Bob.

MR. LEE: J u s t a comment. Joe (Hedin) wanted t o emphasize he re t h a t t h e assumptions

a r e t h a t your e x i s t i n g water r i g h t s a r e met throughout a l l of t h e s e s t u d i e s . We have

t o meet those ; and those a r e i r r i g a t i o n , and s o on.

CMIRMAN MYERS: We have next on t h e program, a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e Proposal presented

by Idaho on February 3 . No. 1 on t h e l i s t i s t h e s t a t e of Utah.

MR. OLSEN: M r . Chairman; may I suggest a t t h i s time t h a t from h e r e on i n t h e d i scuss ion

we remain i n our s e a t s t o avoid t h e confus ion of g e t t i n g up and s t and ing . I am s u r e

s h o r t s ta tements w i l l be forthcoming; and s o I ask , M r . Chairman, t h a t we remain where

we a r e sea t ed .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: That i s c e r t a i n l y a l r i g h t w i th t h e Chairman, i f people can h e a r you.

MR. OLSEN: One statement: It seems a s though t h a t a f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Idaho

t o t h e s t a t e s i n t h e i r Proposal , t h a t much s tudy and thought has gone i n t o i t by t h e

o t h e r two s t a t e s . We have w r i t t e n copies of t h e th ink ing of t hese s t a t e s i n r e fe rence

t o t h e Proposal ; and I am s u r e t h a t each of t h e s t a t e s do have t h e i r committees working

on t h i s , and have had. We a r e about t o a poin t where we can s t a r t d e l i b e r a t i n g on

s p e c i f i c p o i n t s of t h i s Proposal t h a t have been i n ques t ion and quest ioned p r i o r t o

t h i s t ime. Speaking t o t h i s , I t h i n k t h a t I would c a l l on Dan Lawrence aga in t o g ive

an express ion o f t h e f e e l i n g of Utah i n r e fe rence t o t h i s assignment t h a t we have.

MR. LAWRENCE: Utah, a t t h e meeting i n Logan, presented a formal w r i t t e n s ta tement

which addressed i t s e l f t o some of t h e major i tems; and some of the po in t s r a i s e d i n

t h e Idaho Proposal were de fe r r ed f o r f u r t h e r s tudy. A t t h e Logan meeting, and i n

reading t h e Minutes, i t seemed t o me t h a t t h e r e were s e v e r a l ques t ions which came up

wi th a l l d e l e g a t i o n s ; and I would l i k e t o pass with t h e thought t h a t perhaps Idaho

may have - want t o r e s t a t e o r s t a t e aga in h e r p o s i t i o n . I f e e l t h a t t h e Proposal

made by Idaho i n February i s not completely compatible wi th t h e s ta tements by your

Governor today, and some of t h e s ta tements made i n t h e Logan meeting. So maybe i t

would move along f a s t e r i f Idaho has some s p e c i f i c conunents concerning t h a t Proposal

and t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e Logan meeting.

MR. KUNZ: Do you want me next , M r . Chairman?

(Mr. Kunz passed around a s ta tement , "Idaho Coimnent and Proposal on Inc rease

of Water Use Allowance Above Bear Lake", which i s a t t ached t o these Minutes .)

MR. KUNZ: Gentlemen; I d o n ' t f e e l t h a t any s tatement our Governor has made i s in-

compatible wi th any of our p o s i t i o n . I t h i n k he has t h e r i g h t and t h e p r i v i l e g e ,

and c e r t a i n l y would be remiss i n h i s d u t i e s i f he d i d not r e se rve t h e r i g h t , t o

proper ly review whatever we come up with he re .

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: L e t ' s f a c e i t -- i t ' s going t o have t o c r o s s my desk anyway.

MR. LAWRENCE: I c e r t a i n l y d i d n ' t mean t o imply t h a t ; bu t I had some hope t h a t Idaho

would make some s ta tement such a s t h i s , and I thought we ought t o g e t it out on the

t a b l e .

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: T h a t ' s t h e reason I used t h e word 'mass ive ' . There i s a d i f f e r e n c e

between 20,000 a c r e - f e e t and 100,000 a c r e - f e e t .

GOVERNOR HATHAWAY: Question on t h e 56,500 a c r e - f e e t a d d i t i o n a l s to rage : That i s

below t h e minimum, a s I understand, t h a t you put through your computer process?

MR. KUNZ: There a r e a number of s t u d i e s t h a t we have made Governor; yes . But our

s t u d i e s seem t o i n d i c a t e t o us t h a t anything i n excess of t h i s s t a r t s usurp ing our

water r i g h t s down below. I n a g r e a t number of yea r s - we a r e n ' t t a l k i n g , n a t u r a l l y ,

of t h e extreme high water yea r s we have been having - t h i s i s an average, and even

t h i s i n poss ib ly 16 yea r s , s ince 1927 o r maybe even more than t h a t , might have some

very d r a s t i c e f f e c t s . These averages a r e sometimes mis leading .

- 1 5 -

GOVEmOR HATHAWAY: I misunderstood t h e r e s u l t s of your s tudy , then . I understood

t h a t 69,000 a c r e - f e e t was what you considered a v a i l a b l e water , over and above t h e

minimum requirements of a l l of t hese o t h e r r i g h t s .

MR. KUNZ: Poss ib l e ; bu t it i s s t i l l water t h a t i s -- t h a t has a water r i g h t t o i t .

Even t h i s t h a t we a r e proposing does.

MR. PEART: M r . Kunz, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l 20,000 a c r e - f e e t - t h a t i s t o be s p l i t between

t h e two s t a t e s i n t h e upper River .

MR. KUNZ: This would have a f u t u r e n e g o t i a t i n g p o i n t , I am su re . We have n o t s a id

Utah and Wyoming would s p l i t it t h i s way, o r Utah would have t o take s o much and

Wyoming so much and Idaho s o much; t h i s , we f e e l , i s s t i l l nego t i ab le .

MR. FUNK: It seems t h a t a key item a s t o what we do above t h e Lake i s where we s e t

t h e l e v e l of t h i s Lake. A s Dan pointed out i n h i s r e p o r t on hydrology, i f you peg

i t a t 5923.65 t h a t t op f o o t can g ive you 20,000 leeway above t h e Lake. Th i s i s an

i tem we have t a lked about be fo re . Do you have any f u r t h e r r epor t t o make on a

suggested mode of o p e r a t i o n o r a change i n mode of ope ra t ion i n Bear Lake t o cons ider

t h e r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s ? It seems t h a t we have got t o f i x something h e r e b e f o r e we

make any commitments above s tream.

MR. KUNZ: This i s very much t r u e . I th ink I have s t a t e d t h a t we w i l l never be a b l e t o

g e t away wi th t h i s 21-foot drawdown t h a t we a r e l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o . I d o n ' t t h ink

t h a t p o l i t i c a l l y o r p u b l i c a l l y you a r e going t o be accepted on t h a t , Cal.

MR. ROBERTSON: The second f i g u r e of 10,000 i s based upon dep le t ing t h e Lake -- t o a s i t u a t i o n where -- (Note: t h e Secre tary could not h e a r e i t h e r M r . Robertson

o r t h e tape h e r e . )

MR. KUNZ: Ord ina r i ly , we a r e assuming t h e Lake w i l l be operated t h e same a s Utah

Power & Light has been ope ra t ing t h e pas t many y e a r s .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: I s n ' t even t h i s l e s s e r drawdown t h a t was suggested h e r e - 13 f e e t

o r something - i s n ' t t h a t going t o be so a e s t h e t i c a l l y o f f ens ive t h a t t h e r e i s going

t o be g r e a t pub l i c p re s su re a g a i n s t i t?

MR. KUNZ: Governor, I ' m a f r a i d you a r e r i g h t .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: I c a n ' t see a g r e a t dea l of p r a c t i c a l -- I f you buy a c a b i n around

t h e r e I c a n ' t s ee a g r e a t dea l of d i f f e r e n c e between 13 and 21. It j u s t depends on

how much mud I have t o go through between t h e cab in and t h e Lake. I d o n ' t t h i n k you

a r e so lv ing t h e a e s t h e t i c s ques t ion a t a l l by reducing t h a t drawdorvn from 21 t o

whatever t h e o t h e r f i g u r e was -- was i t 13?

MR. LAWRENCE: Well, i n my p r e s e n t a t i o n i t was 20 t o 21, a c t u a l l y . We have considered

s e v e r a l ; and 13 i s one of them. There a r e any number of s t u d i e s .

MR. KUNZ: However, i n t h e l a s t 5 o r 6 y e a r s , Governor, I d o n ' t b e l i e v e t h e Lake has

been drawn down - where a r e we -- seven f e e t ? Since t h a t yea r i n t h e e a r l y ' 6 0 ' s - we went down almost 14 f e e t i n '61, bu t s i n c e then it has never been more than 10

- i n '64 it was down 14 f e e t -- Since '64 -- i n '61 i t was 13; i n '64 i t was 14 -- and s i n c e t h e n i t has n o t been g r e a t . S ince '64, t h e s e good water y e a r s , i t h a s n ' t -- s o much of t h e Lake development has taken p lace s i n c e t h i s t ime; but t hey d o n ' t

know what t h e Lake means t o be down, and I da re say t h e r e i s n ' t a one of t hose cab in

owners over t h e r e bothered t o ask how much t h e Lake has eve r been down. But j u s t

drop i t down, and s t a r t hea r ing them scream. J u s t Utah Power hea r s when they f i l l

i t t h i s e x t r a f o o t on top which would mean 20,000 t o us , and t h e wind s t a r t s blowing.

GOVERNOR WIPTON: Your h o r i z o n t a l receding of t h e water wi th a given amount of

v e r t i c a l drop i s much more pronounced on t h e West s i d e than on t h e Eas t , i s n ' t i t ?

MR. KUNZ: Right ; on t h e Eas t s i d e t h e r e i s no problem. The North i s worse than t h e

West; and South -- North, West, and South -- where your development i s .

MR. BISHOP: It seems t o me t h a t t h e r e a r e ve ry dangerous impl i ca t ions i n j u s t

calmly accep t ing a r e s u l t whereby we cannot f l u c t u a t e Bear Lake t o t h e t o t a l range

of i t s c a p a c i t y . Wouldn't i t be a much b e t t e r p o s i t i o n f o r t h i s group t o t ake , and

a very d e f e n s i b l e one t o t ake , t h a t t h e r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s should pay t h e c o s t s

of a reduced f l u c t u a t i o n i n t h e r e s e r v o i r . And shou ldn ' t we approach t h e r e c r e a t i o n

i n t e r e s t s w i t h some kind of a focus whereby they could sha re i n t h e c o s t of bu i ld ing

a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e downstream o r wherever it might be cons t ruc ted , t o s o l v e t h i s

problem, thereby s t a b i l i z i n g Bear Lake; bu t impose t h e f i n a n c i a l burden on t h e

r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s , who a r e t h e r e a l b e n e f i c i a r i e s , r a t h e r than imposing t h a t

f i n a n c i a l burden on t h e consumptive wa te r u s e r s who have a l l t h e l e g a l r i g h t s i n

t h e i r favor? I r e a l l y h a t e t o see t h i s group - t h i s Negot ia t ing Committee - pass ive ly

accept a conclus ion t h a t we c a n ' t use Bear Lake i n t h e way t h a t we have every l e g a l

r i g h t t o expect t h a t i t should be .

MR. KUNZ: Floyd, I ' l l go along ve ry much wi th t h a t ; bu t even t h i s s o r t of a proposed

f i g u r e w i l l , i f we h i t another s p e l l of t h e ' 3 0 1 s , c r e a t e some very , ve ry d r a s t i c

drawdown on Bear Lake. We a r e not ignor ing t h i s r e s e r v o i r . I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i t

would probably g e t t o the f u l l 21 under t h e worst s i t u a t i o n , but even t h i s proposal

t h a t we a r e coming h e r e with now - t h i s increased 20,000 - would r e q u i r e a g r e a t

f l u c t u a t i o n of Bear Lake. We a r e not ignor ing t h e s to rage p o s s i b i l i t i e s of Bear

Lake i n t h i s proposal . Our s tudy j u s t seems t o remind us t h a t we b e t t e r be p r a c t i c a l

and not bu i ld on a wet year and then h i t a d ry cyc le which we never know when.

MR. BISHOP: But it s e e m s - t o me t h a t you a r e a d o p t i n g f i g u r e s t h a t a r e based on a

v e r y l i m i t e d f l u c t u a t i o n o f Bear Lake; and by adopt i .ng t h o s e f i g u r e s you a r e a u t o -

m a t i c a l l y r u l i n g o u t p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f f u l l o p e r a t i o n o f t h e Lake which would make

much more w a t e r a v a i l a b l e f o r a d d i t i o n a l deve lopment .

MR. ROBERTSON: T h a t ' s n o t t r u e , F l o y d . The Lake f lucl -ual -cs u n d e r p r e s e n t manage-

ment v i r t u a l l y t o a n empty s i t u a t i o n . These f i g u r e s t h a t have bcen s u g g e s t e d a r e o n e s

t h a t would n o t make i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y worse ; i t i s n o t o n e ruhich would d e t e r i o r a t e .

MR. BISHOP: I t h o u g h t , A l a n , t h a t o u r T e c h n i c a l Sub-committee c o n c l u s i o n s were t h a t

a t least 60,000 a d d i t i o n a l a c r e - f e e t cou ld b e s t o r e d above Bear Lake w i t h o u t s e r i o u s

i n f r i n g e m e n t . Here we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t o n l y 2 0 , 0 0 0 . Wily t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n f i g u r e s ?

MR. ROBERTSON: Keep i n mind t h a t we have had s p o r a d i c f lows i n o n l y a few y e a r s .

MR. BISHOP: Don ' t you t h i n k , though, t h a t i f t h e i r r i g a t o r s a r e w i l l i n g t o assume

t h e r i s k o f o n l y b e i n g a b l e t o s t o r e w a t e r d u r i n g t h o s e h i g h - f l o w i n g y e a r s and

c a r r y i n g i t o v e r , t h a t t h e y s h o u l d have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so?

MR. ROBERTSON: I w o u l d n ' t want t o make t h a t judgment; b u t i f t h e s t o r a g e were b u i l t

f o r l o n g - t e r m c a r r y - o v e r and you t r y t o a l t e r t h a t w a t c r t h a t i s n o t s p i l l i n g o r

s p i l l e d i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t i s o n l y used f o r power, t h a t would n o t have a n e f f e c t

on t h e Lake -- I a g r e e w i t h t h a t . - - - c a r r y - o v e r s t o r a g e o n l y t h a t w a t e r t h a t

s p i l l s i n o c c a s i o n a l y e a r s -- ( c o u l d n ' t h e a r )

MR. BISHOP: Are you t e l l i n g me t h a t by i n c r e a s i n g t h e s t o r a g e a l l o c a t i o n s above

Bear Lake b y o n l y 2 0 , 0 0 0 a c r e - f e e t you would s t i l l b e o p c r a t i n g Bear Lake t o t h e

f u l l 2 1 f e e t o f c a p a c i t y ?

MR. ROBERTSON: I f you i n c r e a s e t h e s t o r a g e a l l o w a n c e and d e p l e t i o n a l l o w a n c e as h a s

been ment ioned, and h a s done each y e a r , t h e t o t a l e a c h y e a r i s 5 ,000 a c r e - f e e t . T h a t

would make t h e p r e s e n t Lake o p e r a t i o n t h a t much w o r s e . And t h a t i s t h e o n l y way you

c a n r e p l a c e i t .

MR. BISHOP: But d o e s it s t i l l o p e r a t e Bear Lake t h r o u g h t h e f u l l 2 1 f e e t ?

MR. ROBERTSON: Yes .

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: You've g o t one more v a r i a b l e , and a p o i n t t h a t should be made -- i n ' 3 6 t o ' 4 0 , i t took f o u r y e a r s t o g e t i t back u p . You had t h e s t o r a g e up t h e r e ,

and y o u ' r e go ing t o compound t h e problem.

MR. LEE: I t h i n k , a s Governor Rampton and a l l o f u s have b e e n t a l k i n g a b o u t , t h e c r u x

o f t h e whole problem on Bear Lake - and w h i l e i t migh t b e i d e a l t o s t a b i l i z e B e a r Lake

a t a much h i g h e r l e v e l t h a n o c c u r r e d h i s t o r i c a l l y , you r u n i n t o s e v e r e problems i n

t r y i n g t o do t h a t because 'of t h e downstream demands on t h a t wa te r . They have a p r i o r

water r i g h t . We ran an o p e r a t i o n s tudy t h a t l i m i t e d t h e amount of drawdown t o - what, Alan, 1 5 f e e t ? -- w e l l , t h e r e have been s e v e r a l , bu t which one was i t t h a t showed

t h a t you would have t o bu i ld a l l t h e s to rage t h a t had even been thought of downstream

and you would s t i l l have a f l u c t u a t i o n of how much? J u s t t o r ep lace -- j u s t f o r

r e c r e a t i o n replacement s to rage . Do you r e c a l l t h a t ?

MR. ROBERTSON: No, I d o n ' t ; bu t i n a gene ra l way t h e answer i s t h a t i t would take a

g r e a t amount of s to rage downstream t o s t a b i l i z e Bear Lake; a very , very g r e a t amount.

MR. LEE: I ' m t a l k i n g about - I ' m depa r t ing from t h i s paper h e r e , because t h i s has

assumed a l a r g e f l u c t u a t i o n . But t o g e t t o t h e o b j e c t i v e I t h i n k t h e Governor was

shoot ing a t , I b e l i e v e wi th a f l u c t u a t i o n of only seven f e e t - I t h i n k t h i s i s the

ope ra t ion s tudy which was run, which was s t i l l q u i t e a b i t ; i t ' s what t h e people

a r e used t o because it i s a l l t h a t has occurred i n t h e l a s t few yea r s -- you would

have t o bu i ld a high Oneida; you would have t o bu i ld a l a r g e Plymouth s i t e - 500,000

a c r e - f e e t of s to rage ; you would have t o bu i ld a Honeyville s i t e ; every th ing t h a t has

been t a lked about - and Caribou - and t h e only amount of new water t h a t you would

g e t would be a small amount f o r a municipal and i n d u s t r i a l water supply. That may

be a l r i g h t , but t h e ques t ion i s - who pays f o r t h a t ?

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: That i s what I was going t o respond t o Floyd over he re , a few

minutes ago. There i s no ques t ion t h a t i f water r i g h t s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d and they a r e

t aken f o r some o t h e r purposes, t h e owners of them have got t o be compensated. He

s a i d l e t t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s pay f o r i t . But you may g e t t o t h e s t a g e t h a t

t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s a r e so broad and cover so many of t h e people t h a t i t

becomes a pub l i c o b l i g a t i o n . And i t may well be t h a t l e g i s l a t u r e s a r e going t o have

t o be asked t o make a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e purpose of purchasing these water r i g h t s .

Now I have been t a l k i n g down home about a $20 m i l l i o n bond i s s u e t o go i n and do

some work i n developing our canyon s i t e . Now t h i s might be t h e s o r t of t h i n g t h a t

we a r e going t o have t o do i n o r d e r t o develop outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ; and

some p r i o r i t i e s a r e changing on t h i s . P r i o r i t i e s a r e changing i n t h e minds of t h e

people; and it i s p r e t t y ha rd , whether you a r e a p o l i t i c i a n o r whether y o u ' r e no t ,

t o f i g h t a g a i n s t changing p r i o r i t i e s t h a t a r e gene ra l ly accepted by t h e pub l i c .

MR. LEE: I th ink t h e point t h a t -- a l l of u s agree with what you s a i d , Governor -- t h e t h i n k t h a t i s so overwhelming i n t h i s a r e t h e tremendous c o s t s t h a t a r e a s soc ia t ed

wi th doing what might be d e s i r a b l e . To purchase e i t h e r t h e replacement s to rage i s

up i n over - well over $100 m i l l i o n ; t o purchase t h e water r i g h t s t o which t h a t

whole Cache Valley economy i s t i e d --

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Well, i f you had t h e replacement s to rage you wouldn' t have t o

purchase t h e wa te r r i g h t s t o o ; you'd be making them a v a i l a b l e a s one o r t h e o t h e r .

MR. LEE: T h a t ' s r i g h t ; bu t e i t h e r c a s e i t ' s a tremendous f i g u r e ; and it almost over-

whelms t h e imagina t ion t o th ink t h a t you could do t h a t . It may be p o s s i b l e ; but I

th ink one of t h e t h i n g s t h a t we a r e t r y i n g t o i d e n t i f y b e t t e r i s what t hose c o s t s

would be of replacement of t h a t s t o r a g e . Because t h a t has t o be a key i s s u e .

GOVERNOR RAMFTON: I ' m s u r e it i s . What I was saying a minute ago -- i f a c t u a l l y

we ' re going t o t ake a p o s i t i o n where t h e r e ' s going t o be a cons ide rab le amount of

f l u c t u a t i o n , i t d o e s n ' t r e a l l y m a t t e r how much i t i s from then on, a s f a r a s I can

see , a s f a r a s t h e a e s t h e t i c s around t h a t Lake a r e concerned. It d o e s n ' t m a t t e r

ve ry much whether i t i s 21 o r 13; i t ' s -- t h e cabin owner i s going t o be j u s t a s mad

a t 13 , and h e ' s going t o have j u s t a s much problem g e t t i n g t o h i s b o a t . H i s marina

i s going t o be high and d ry a t 13 -- i t ' s j u s t how many more s t e p s . I d o n ' t know

t h a t t h e r e i s much t o be gained by debat ing between c e r t a i n l e v e l s of f l u c t u a t i o n

a f t e r you g e t up p a s t t h e amount of f l u c t u a t i o n where t h e receding of t h e waters

c r e a t e s an o f f e n s i v e a e s t h e t i c s s i t u a t i o n . Am I r i g h t ; o r am I - - ?

MR. ROBERTSON: You a r e c o r r e c t , Governor; but t h e r e i s t h i s one th ing : Even con-

s i d e r i n g t h i s - - what t h e s e gentlemen wi th a l l t h i s wonderful s t o r a g e up he re cons ider

a nominal and very small amount of wa te r w i l l , i n c e r t a i n dry y e a r s , f l u c t u a t e t h e

Lake j u s t a s bad a s i t can be f l u c t u a t e d . It w i l l t ake i t t h e f u l l range.

MR. FUNK: We're not t r y i n g t o s t a b i l i z e t h e Lake wi th t h i s proposal .

MR. ROBERTSON: I t ' s s t i l l going t o f l u c t u a t e .

MR. FUNK: I would l i k e t o ask F e r r i s aga in on t h i s proposal t h a t h e ' s made -- I read

i n t o your February 3 Proposal t h a t it had a l o t of imp l i ca t ions about p r o j e c t by

p r o j e c t s equen t i a l development. Now, i f we t ake t h i s f i g u r e t h a t you have w r i t t e n

today t h a t po in t s out a d d i t i o n a l s to rage above Bear Lake without t y i n g i t down t o

where, o r whether i t ' s supplemental use , o r whether i t ' s r e s t r i c t e d t o i r r i g a t i o n ,

o r what -- does t h i s i n any way change your February 3 Proposal?

MR. KUNZ: I th ink n o t , Cal. What we a r e saying i s t h a t we th ink t h e Compact can be

changed t o t h i s . This does not say t h a t Wyoming cannot bu i ld a $400,000 ac re - foo t

s to rage up h e r e ; o r Wyoming and Utah; o r Wyoming and Utah and Idaho -- if, t h e r e i s

replacement s to rage below. This i s a d e f i n i t e poin t we have made. We f e e l t h a t

t h i s i s the l i m i t t h a t t h e Compact can be changed i n A r t i c l e -- As I say, replacement

s to rage below can r egu la t e how b i g a s t o r a g e you can come up wi th .

MR. FUNK: A f u r t h e r a s p e e t of t h i s -- i f we b lock out s p e c i f i c amounts f o r each

s t a t e , we almost have t o know before we can g e t t o anywhere near maximum l i m i t i n

blocking t h a t amount, where and how t h i s water i s going t o be used; because of r e t u r n

flow a s p e c t s of i t s u s e , and s o on. And s o what s o r t of a c o n f l i c t do we g e t i n t o

here? Do we need t o s p e l l o u t where t h i s 20,000 i s going t o be used f u r t h e r t han

you have w r i t t e n h e r e ?

MR. KUNZ: We have s p e c i f i e d a 5,000 a c r e d e p l e t i o n , which we f e e l can be l i v e d wi th

here . I n o t h e r words, i f t h e r e i s an e x t r a 20,000 up he re and you take i t a l l f o r

M & I, you d e p l e t e t h e 20,000 ins t ead of t h e 5,000. There a r e some wonderful s i t e s

up h e r e - some cheap s i t e s . I would l i k e t o f i n d t h e water t o go on them.

MR. BISIIOP: I am s t i l l confused on t h e e f f e c t s of a d d i t i o n a l d e p l e t i o n s upstream.

It seems t o me t h a t t h e p a r t s t h a t were included with t h e Technical Sub-committee

r e p o r t Dan Lawrence j u s t presented show with 30,000 a d d i t i o n a l a c r e - f e e t d e p l e t i o n

above Bear Lake, t h e n t h e Lake i s operated through i t s f u l l s to rage capac i ty . I f i t

i s l e s s than t h a t , I would have t o assume t h a t i t would not be operated t o f u l l capac i ty .

I must be missing something t h e r e . You a r e only t a l k i n g about 20,000 a c r e - f e e t of

a d d i t i o n a l s to rage ; not d e p l e t i o n -- 5,000 a c r e - f e e t of d e p l e t i o n , i f I read your

f i g u r e . MR. ROBERTSON: The 30,000 f i g u r e r e l a t e s t o a s i t u a t i o n i n which meeting p resen t

u ses and us ing t h e Lake f u l l range -- t h a t i s a change s i t u a t i o n whereby t h e Power

Company would f i l l t h e Lake a t every oppor tuni ty . Then you would have a f i g u r e of

30,000 t h a t you could d e p l e t e annual ly and only t a k e it empty f o r yea r s .

That i s not i n e x i s t e n c e now. So, t h e second one, which i s more l i k e 10,000 i s

more r e a l i s t i c .

MR. BISHOP: What do you mean, i t i s not i n e x i s t e n c e now?

MR. ROBERTSON: The Lake i s not f i l l e d now; t h e Lake i s n o t d e l i b e r a t e l y f i l l e d i n any -- MR. BISHOP: I n o t h e r words, you a r e j u s t ope ra t ing a t 22.5 in s t ead of 23.65? Oh,

you a r e t a l k i n g about a d i f f e r e n t ope ra t ion -- not ope ra t ing through t h e f u l l c a p a c i t y

of t h e r e se rvo i r ? O . K .

MR. LAWRENCE: It appears t o me, M r . Chairman, i f I i n t e r p r e t Idaho ' s -- they have

taken t h e smal le r cond i t ion , t h e ope ra t ion a s i t i s p r e s e n t l y -- and taken 50% of t h e

amount t h a t t h e Technical committee ind ica t ed would be a v a i l a b l e ; and t h a t t h e upper

b a s i n s t a t e s could d e p l e t e -- h a l f a s much a s we sa id was a v a i l a b l e -- MR. LEE: It might be wel l t o c l a r i f y why t h e Utah Power & Light Company has opera ted

t h e Lake i n recent yea r s t o only t h e 22 .5 e l e v a t i o n r a t h e r than t o t h e 23.65. I

t h i n k t h a t would h e l p everyone t o understand why you may not go t h e f u l l range on

t h e upper . M r . P o r t e r and M r . Watkins h e r e -- could they e x p l a i n why they d o n ' t

go t h e f u l l range on the upper?

MR. PORTER: P r imar i ly , Bob, because we a r e high enough a s it i s . We have t o put

r e i n s ( ? ) on t h e Lake. ( c o u l d n ' t hea r )

MR. LEE: Is i t r e l a t e d a l s o t o t h e problem of s e p t i c tanks f o r t h e summer homes

around t h e r e ?

MR. PORTER: Yes; i t i s ve ry damaging t o t h e summer homes, t h e r e s o r t owners; and

of course t h e r e a r e too many homes b u i l t around t h a t Lake wi th s e p t i c tanks down

below Lake l e v e l .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: How many a r e t h e r e , Bob?

MR. PORTER: I d o n ' t r e a l l y know.

MR. LEE: I f c e n t r a l sewer f a c i l i t i e s were b u i l t both i n Utah and Idaho f o r those

r e c r e a t i o n communities, would you s t i l l f e e l cons t ra ined t o keep a lower -- MR. PORTER: Yes; because o f wave a c t i o n .

MR. BISHOP: I s t h e wave a c t i o n a problem of s a f e t y t o t h e dam, Bob?

MR. PORTER: No; it i s a ques t ion of proper ty damage.

MR. BISHOP: To t h e r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t .

MR. PORTER: Yes; publ ic r e l a t i o n s .

GOVEXNOR RAMPTON: Let me ask t h i s a s a subs id i a ry m a t t e r h e r e -- Supposing t h e s t a t e s

of Utah and Idaho and t h e two coun t i e s involved i n the Bear Lake - I guess t h e r e a r e

j u s t two, a r e n ' t t he re? - were t o come up wi th some s o r t of a land use p lan which

would r e q u i r e t h e movement of t hose c o t t a g e s back away from t h e Lake, and t h e p u l l i n g

back of those s e p t i c tanks , would t h a t f a c i l i t a t e the problem we a r e s tudying here?

MR. PORTER: It would c e r t a i n l y he lp ; bu t t h e highway i s w i t h i n 52 f e e t of high

wa te r along t h a t -- GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Well, we haven ' t had any p a r t i c u l a r problem t h e r e t h i s yea r , have

we? We have more problem wi th t h e marina than we have wi th t h e highway.

MR. PORTER: T h a t ' s r i g h t .

MR. LAWRENCE: Governor, I th ink i t i s q u i t e poss ib l e t h a t such a plan would c o s t

much l e s s and would permit you t o use t h e s to rage i n Bear Lake - would c o s t much

l e s s than some of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of providing s to rage some p lace e l s e . It ought

t o be considered.

- 22 -

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: I s t h e r e any Pray i n which -- i f we could g e t t h e s e cab ins away

from t h e Lake a l i t t l e b i t , i s t h e r e any way we could modify t h e s h o r e l i n e s on t h e

West and North s i d e s t o reduce t h e receding - t h e amount of receding wi th a given

amount of v e r t i c a l drop i n c e r t a i n a r e a s ? I ' m not t a l k i n g about t h e whole th ing ; I

am t a l k i n g about c e r t a i n des ignated r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s ?

MR. PORTER: I f you v a c a t e t h e road -- MR. LAWRENCE: B u i l t some new beaches; and -- GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Uh-huh.

MR. LAWRENCE: Even t h a t would probably c o s t -- might a c t u a l l y be l e s s c o s t l y than

t h e o t h e r a l t e r n a t e s .

: Any o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e i s looking a t somewhere between $90- and $100-

m i l l i o n .

MR. KUNZ: T h a t ' s r i g h t ; -- o r more.

MR. E'UNK: Wes, j u s t a couple more f i g u r e s t o put i n t o t h i s cons ide ra t ion . A s I

understand, t h e top p a r t of t h e Lake has about 70,000 ac re - f ee t of s t o r a g e . Bob

admits t h a t t hey can meet downstream requirements without us ing t h e f u l l capac i ty of

t h e Lake. Now, he h a s n ' t been s p e c i f i c i n h i s r epor t on Utah Power's mode of opera t ion;

but he i s implying h e r e t h a t t h e r e i s q u i t e a b i t of leeway, and i n r e a l i t y t h e r e i s

a d d i t i o n a l water above Bear Lake. And it could have a g r e a t impact on t h e people i n

t h i s a r e a t o do something with Bear Lake -- a s wel l a s downstream commitments.

MR. KUNZ: CaL, t h e r e s t i l l i s one t h i n g t h a t we do not want t o overlook he re . L e t ' s

face i t . A l l of t h a t water has a wa te r r i g h t - a p r i o r water r i g h t . Regardless of

how much comes down t h e River , even i f i t i s only Utah Power & L i g h t , you might say,

Utah Power & Light s t i l l has a v a l i d wa te r r i g h t t o a l l of t h a t water .

MR. FUNK: Then i t becomes a va lue use . Is it more important f o r t h i s a r e a ; o r i s

it more v a l u a b l e f o r Utah Power t o run on down t o t h e Lake? So t h i s has t o be a

determining f a c t o r .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: I s n ' t i t t r u e t h a t t h e only reason t h a t t h i s e x t r a foo t was used

t h i s t ime was t o prevent f looding i n t h e old channel t h a t h a d n ' t been used f o r a

number of yea r s? Otherwise it would have j u s t been turned loose and gone down. Is

t h a t n o t t r u e ?

MR, PORTER: T h a t ' s p a r t l y t r u e , Wes.

Cl3AmNN MYERS: Which would make i t so t h a t i t wouldn' t ma t t e r whether they had a

water r i g h t o r n o t ; i t wasn ' t r e a l l y intended t o be used f o r s to rage -- j u s t t o keep

MR. LAWRFNCE: M r . Chairman; I th ink Idaho has given us a very i n t e r e s t i n g proposal

he re . They - q u i t e obviously n e i t h e r of t h e o t h e r two s t a t e s could respond i n a

d e f i n i t i v e way. Unless Floyd has o b j e c t i o n , I would suggest t h a t we move t o t h e

next Agenda i tem and make t h i s a m a t t e r of our next meeting f o r response by t h e

o t h e r s t a t e s . Now, we haven ' t heard from Wyoming; and s o maybe I am preempting -- MR. BISHOP: M r . Chairman; f o r a change we came t o t h i s meeting prepared t o make a

lengthy argument i n favor of our p o s i t i o n .

MR. LAWRENCE: Well, I would l i k e t o h e a r t h a t - - (Laughter)

MR. BISHOP: Ac tua l ly , t h e Idaho proposal -- MR. LAWRENCE: My motion was t o maybe n o t respond d i r e c t l y t o t h i s , Floyd -- MR. BISHOP: Well, t h e Idaho proposal does make i t somewhat of an e x e r c i s e f o r me t o

go through t h e arguments i n behal f of Wyoming's d e s i r e f o r a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e reser -

v o i r s upstream. E s s e n t i a l l y what we sa id was, we can show by t h e o p e r a t i o n s t u d i e s - and I th ink t h e Technical Sub-committee o p e r a t i o n s t u d i e s have shown - by cons t ruc t ing

a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e capac i ty above Bear Lake, even up t o t h e 70,000 ac re - foo t capac i ty

d iscussed , t h a t we w i l l have minimal e f f e c t s on downstream r i g h t s .

I n view of what Idaho has proposed, I t h i n k i t s maybe not necessary t o go

through t h a t e n t i r e d i scuss ion ; but i t s t i l l i s , I th ink , a v a l i d argument. I would

be glad t o present copies of t h e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l t o t h e o t h e r s t a t e s f o r t h e i r pe rusa l .

The main t h i n g t h a t occurs t o me i s t h a t i f , i n some of these meetings, we were fore-

warned wi th advance copies of new proposa ls , we would c e r t a i n l y be i n a much b e t t e r

p o s i t i o n t o d i s c u s s them a t t h e meeting. I f t h e r e i s any way t o do t h a t -- we've

got t h e same problem you have, F e r r i s - - we ' re always working r i g h t up t o t h e l a s t

minute t o t r y t o g e t something prepared f o r t h e meeting. Boy, i t s u r e would be

b e t t e r i f we could send i t t o t h e o t h e r s t a t e s i n advance; and then comment a t t h e

meeting more meaningful ly.

MR. KUNZ: I do have a suggest ion along t h i s l i n e i f you want it a t t h i s t ime, Mr.

Chairman; t h a t we f e e l would expedi te t h i s t h i n g -- i s t h a t , f o r i n s t a n c e , Idaho has

h i t Wyoming and Utah wi th something very cold h e r e . We c a n ' t expect you t o respond

t o it. What we are wondering - - i f maybe you shou ldn ' t t ake t h i s home; o r , i f you

come w i t h a proposal we t ake i t home - t h i s a p p l i e s t h e same t h i n g - - we meet two o r

t h r e e t imes a s a group i n between t h e s e meetings; what we a r e wondering i s i f t h i s

shouldn't go home now - Utah and Wyoming meet and d i scuss t h i s , and come back a t us

wi th a counter-proposal . And then a t t h e next meeting we a r e a l l prepared t o come

h e r e and s i t down, and w ~ h a v e some po in t s of d i f f e r e n c e , and s t a r t d i scuss ing .

I n o t h e r words, we wouldn ' t wa i t u n t i l next meeting t o do what we could do i n between.

MR. OLSEN: You mean i n w r i t i n g - and propose t o you our r e a c t i o n t o t h i s proposal

today, p r i o r t o t h e next meeting? So t h a t we can formal ize some f e e l i n g among t h e

group a t t h a t time? That sounds good.

MR. KUNZ: It sounds l i k e t o me it would j u s t about double our speed of a c t i o n .

CHAIRMAN PIYERS: Unless t h e r e i s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s t h a t i s p c r t i e n e n t , I

th ink i t i s time f o r doughnuts and co f fee . I d o n ' t t h i n k we want t o end t h e meeting

with t h i s t h ing ; but I b e l i e v e what F e r r i s sa id i s p r a c t i c a l l y t h e same a s Dan Lawrence

sa id - t h a t we s h o u l d n ' t go on with t h i s t h i n g f u r t h e r . We have a proposa l ; Idaho

h a s a proposal ; l e t ' s s e e t h a t everybody has them and d i s c u s s them and g e t them i n

l i n e be fo re t h e next program. It would be more meaningful.

So -- I d e c l a r e a r ecess f o r a few minutes.

BREAK

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: M r . Chairman, i f what you a r e going t o do from now on i s more o r

l e s s formal - t h i n g s of s e t t i n g f u t u r e meetings, e t c . , -- i s i t no t?

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Yes; we a r e going t o put t hese t h i n g s we have been d i s c u s s i n g i n t h e

Minutes and t a l k about procedure and t h a t type of t h i n g .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Governor Andrus has t o g e t back t o Boise; and he i s r i d i n g with

me a s f a r a s S a l t Lake. I d o n ' t want t o go a s long a s t h e r e i s any c o n t r i b u t i o n

you f e e l t h e Governors can make; but he does have a time schedule.

CHAIRMAN PIYERS: I ' m s u r e a s long a s you were h e r e you could make a c o n t r i b u t i o n ; b u t

we understand those th ings , Governor.

MR. LAWRENCE: Governor, I th ink maybe Wyoming wants t o make a t l e a s t a b r i e f response

t o Idaho ' s proposal . I would hope you could hea r i t .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Very good.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: The meeting w i l l p l ease come t o o r d e r . We want t o s t a r t e x a c t l y

where we l e f t o f f . We f e e l i t i s necessary t o a sk t h a t t h e Idaho sugges t ion and a l s o

t h a t t h e Wyoming sugges t ion be placed i n t h e Minutes of t h i s meeting. And I would

e n t e r t a i n a motion t o t h a t e f f e c t .

MR. OLSEN: Mr. Chairman; I s o move t h a t t h i s be done.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Do I have a second?

MR. DAYTON: Second.

MR. MYERS: A l l t hose i n f avor say ' a y e ' .

MR. LAWRENCE: M r . Chairman -- CHAIRMAN MYERS: M r . Lawrence.

MR. LAWRENCE: I wanted t o be s u r e t h a t Floyd has sa id a l l t h a t he intended t o .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: T h a t ' s r i g h t ; and we ' re not d e l e t i n g i t . The l a s t t h i n g we d i d

be fo re we recessed was t o say we were j u s t going t o put it i n and d i s c u s s i t next

t ime. Now, we a r e doing t h a t o f f i c i a l l y ; and then we a r e going t o have Floyd g ive

u s h i s opin ion of t h i s b r i e f l y and h i s v e r s i o n of h i s sugges t ions .

MR. OLSEN: One o t h e r comment: Do we understand, then, t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n of each of

t h e s t a t e s w i l l be mailed p r i o r t o our next meeting i n time so t h a t we can have a

d i s c u s s i o n on t h i s proposal from t h e s t a t e s ; so t h a t when we come h e r e we can make

some p o s i t i v e a c t i o n ?

MR. KUNZ: I thinlc i n our procedure -- excuse me, M r . Chairman -- d o n ' t l e t me g e t

o u t of o rde r -- CHAIRMAN MYERS: Well, t h a t was a ques t ion . Why d o n ' t you answer i t ?

MR. OLSEN: Well, I thought t h a t would be included i n t h e motion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Well, i f you a r e making t h a t t o inc lude it i n t h e motion we w i l l

a ccep t it t h a t way. Do you want t o make i t another motion? Withdraw t h e ques t ion on

t h i s motion, and r e se rve i t f o r t h e next one -- A l l t hose i n favor say ' a y e ' . Contrary - MOTION CARRIED.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Now, do you want t o make a motion, M r . Olsen, concerning t h i s

m a t t e r t h a t you j u s t mentioned of t h e in terchange between meetings?

MR. OLSEN: Yes; t h i s i s what I had i n mind -- interchange between meetings.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Would you l i k e t o make it now?

MR. OLSEN: Why d o n ' t we hold 'ti1 towards the end of t h e meeting? Then we can

inco rpora t e i t i n .

MR. LAWRENCE: Then maybe t h e Governors could l eave while we t a l k about t h a t .

CIIAIRMAN MYERS: The c h a i r recognizes Floyd Bishop f o r a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n on

Wyoming's paper .

MR. BISHOP: M r . Chainnan; gentlemen. I t h i n k i t might be h e l p f u l t o Idaho and perhaps

Utah a l s o t o g i v e you j u s t kind of a b r i e f i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n t o t h e Idaho proposal a s

I see i t .

Number 1 ; I a p p r e c i a t e t h e f a c t t h a t Idaho has done a l o t of work t o come up

with t h i s proposal and has been brave enough t o come forward wi th some f i g u r e s .

That i s h e l p f u l . C e r t a i n l y t h i s g i v e s u s something t o s t a r t from and t o , hope fu l ly ,

modify; a t l e a s t from Wyoming's viewpoint .

My i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n , and t h i s i s a common r e a c t i o n of the Wyoming n e g o t i a t o r s ;

i s t h a t t h e f i g u r e s presented by Idaho a r e not a s high a s we th ink they should be a s

f a r a s t h e increased s to rage capac i ty above Bear Lake. A s I understand i t , you a r e

saying 20,000 a c r e - f e e t , bu t then you f u r t h e r impose a l i m i t a t i o n of 5,000 a c r e - f e e t

per yea r d e p l e t i o n . Well, t h e 5,000 a c r e - f e e t pe r yea r d e p l e t i o n i s t h e important

f i g u r e ; and t o me t h i s i s j u s t not very much water , and you wouldn't con t ro l t h e

Bear River system.

And t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h e s t a t e of Wyoming i n t h e Upper Bear River makes t o t h e

Bear River i n Idaho, I th ink we deserve a much g r e a t e r cons ide ra t ion and a much g r e a t e r

capac i ty than t h e f i g u r e t h a t has been presented . I am s u r e t h a t w i l l be t h e j i s t

of our w r i t t e n response which we w i l l p lan t o provide t o t h e o t h e r s t a t e s a t a n

appropr i a t e t ime.

The o t h e r concern I have - primary concern; t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l , bu t -- I do f i n d

problems wi th t h i s t r i - s t a t e e n t i t y t h a t would have a v e t o power over g iven p r o j e c t s

i n given s t a t e s . It seems t o me l i k e t h a t i s a very d i f f i c u l t arrangement t o t r y

t o work from a p r a c t i c a l viewpoint . I s t i l l am of t h e opin ion t h a t t h e p r a c t i c a l way

t o approach t h i s i s t o agree upon d e f i n i t e numerical a l l o c a t i o n s of water t o ind iv idua l

s t a t e s . I shou ldn ' t probably extend t h a t t o Utah and Idaho; but a s f a r a s t h e Upper

River system i s concerned, I t h i n k i n Wyoming and i n upper Utah, t h a t o u r concern

r e l a t e s t o a d d i t i o n a l s to rage capac i ty . That i s our primary concern; and I see no

way i n t h e world why we cannot , and s h o u l d n ' t , a r r i v e a t s p e c i f i c f i g u r e s t o impose

a s a l i m i t a t i o n and t o al low a s expanded s t o r a g e c a p a b i l i t i e s o r capac i ty above

Bear Lake. To t r y t o have t h i s t h r e e - s t a t e e n t i t y wi th a v e t o power f o r any p r o j e c t

i n any s t a t e could present very d i f f i c u l t problems f o r u s because we a r e an upstream

s t a t e , t y p i c a l l y developing more slowly than t h e downstream s t a t e s . I t h i n k t h e r e

a r e immediate demands f o r l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of water i n lower Utah and i n Idaho. I

would expect t h a t a l a r g e p ro jec t might develop i n t h e lower p a r t of t h e River almost

immediately upon our being a b l e t o agree on Compact modif ica t ion .

- 27 -

I n t h a t event , a s s u r i n g t h a t t h e t h r e e s t a t e s went along wi th a l a r g e p r o j e c t

i n t h e lower River , whi le a t t h e same time a e i n Wyoming and upper Utah a r e t r y i n g

t o come up wi th a n economically f e a s i b l e p ro jec t t o develop a d d i t i o n a l water , we

might be l e f t wi th a s i t u a t i o n where i t would be ve ry d i f f i c u l t t o ge t t h e concurrence

of t h e lower s t a t e s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t - s i z e p r o j e c t s and r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e upper s t a t e s

because of t h e f a c t t h a t unquest ionably a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e i n t h e upper a rea w i l l

d e p l e t e t h e supply i n t h e lower a r e a . So i t seems t o me t h a t a t l e a s t f o r the

upper a r e a , we should t r y t o ag ree on s p e c i f i c a l l o c a t i o n s of water - a t l e a s t f o r

t h e s t a t e of Wyoming. I would hope t h a t t h a t would be t h e way we decide t o go.

Those a r e my two primary concerns r e l a t i v e t o t h e Idaho proposa l .

I would say t h a t maybe you can go both ways: Maybe you can provide a s p e c i f i c

a l l o c a t i o n of s to rage capac i ty i n t h e upper po r t ion of t h e River , and a g r e e o n a

p r o j e c t by p r o j e c t approach i n t h e lower River . And I d o n ' t t h i n k Wyoming would

n e c e s s a r i l y want t o main ta in a v e t o power on p r o j e c t s i n t h e lower River, assuming

t h a t we g e t a f a i r a l l o c a t i o n of t h e a v a i l a b l e water supply i n t h e Upper Basin.

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: Could I ask a ques t ion? Obviously, t h e r e i s going t o have t o be

some method of d iv id ing any a d d i t i o n a l s to rage a l l o c a t i o n above t h e dam between t h e

s t a t e s involved. How would you suggest t h a t t h a t be determined i f not by t h i s t h r e e -

s t a t e group o r two-s ta te group?

MR. BISHOP: Well, t h e formula t h a t was used i n t h e former Compact was a 50:50

d i v i s i o n between Utah and Wyoming. I would, f r ank ly , t h i n k Wyoming deserves a l i t t l e > , more than t h a t i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e capac i ty ; but a s Don Watkins

, s ays , I am a l i t t l e pre judiced .

(Laughter)

MR. BISHOP: But t h a t i s a b a s i s f o r a t l e a s t s t a r t i n g t o t a l k .

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: You would want t h e a l l o c a t i o n between t h e s t a t e s t o be agreed upon

simultaneously with t h e a l l o c a t i o n t o t h e -- MR. BISHOP: I th ink t h a t would be -- GOVERNOR HATHAWAY: You would have t o have t h a t i f you a r e going t o g e t t h e Compact

approved aga in anyway, wouldn't you?

MR. LAWRENCE: N r . Chairman; I asked t h e Governors t o s t a y t o hea r Floyd. I t h i n k

maybe t h e r e s t of t h e meeting w i l l dwell on some o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ma t t e r s . I know they

a r e anxious t o go and maybe we could excuse them a t t h i s t ime.

GOVERNOR RAMPTON: I a p p r g c i a t e t h e i n v i t a t i o n . I am v e r y e n l i g h t e n e d on what h a s

happened h e r e ; and I a p p r e c i a t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s seems t o be moving a g a i n - -

n e g o t i a t i o n s seem t o be go ing .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: We hope you keep u s moving.

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: I e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o o ; now I know why t h e l a s t s i x o r

seven y e a r s some o f t h e s e f e l l o w s o v e r h e r e have b e e n s t u f f i n g and s t u f f i n g my

head. (Laugh te r )

MR. OLSEN: Come a g a i n , g o v e r n o r s .

GOVERNOR ANDRUS: Thanks v e r y much f o r t h e i n v i t a t i o n .

A t t h i s p o i n t Governors Rampton and Andrus l e f t t h e m e e t i n g .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: L e t ' s s e e - - l e t ' s g e t back t o t h e - - w e ' r e down t o t h e p a r t o f t h e

mee t ing t h a t i s a d i s c u s s i o n of new p r o p o s a l s . We have s e v e r a l f rom Idaho maybe

some from Utah and Wyoming. F e r r i s , would you t a k e up t h e permanent s e c r e t a r y d e a l ?

MR. KUNZ: Yes , M r . Chairman. Idaho v e r y much a p p r e c i a t e s t h e good s e t o f m i n u t e s

t h a t we g e t from Connie. And we a r e wonder ing o u t loud i f we s h o u l d n ' t have a

permanent S e c r e t a r y of t h i s group. I have ment ioned t h i s t o t h e Utah group and

s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f Connie were a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n s h e cou ld s u r e do us a

good j o b ; and t h a t Idaho would b e v e r y w i l l i n g t o p i c k up t h e t a b t o pay h e r f o r

t h i s . I would e n v i s i o n on this t h a t t h e s e v e r b a t i m m i n u t e s a r e v e r y good. I

t h i n k i f t h e y cou ld be c i r c u l a t e d t o u s , and t h e n maybe a one o r two page v e r y

b r i e f summary f o r t h e n e x t mee t ing , would be a l l t h a t would b e n e c e s s a r y , I would

t h i n k . These v e r b a t i m minu tes a r e w o n d e r f u l f o r o u r group d i s c u s s i o n i n between.

So I would presume t h a t what I shou ld do i s make a mot ion t h a t Connie Borromnan

be permanent s e c r e t a r y f o r t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . Then i f Dan h a s an o b j e c t i q n he can

come fo rward i n d i s c u s s i o n .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Is t h e r e a second t o t h e mot ion?

MR. BISHOP: Second.

MR. FUNK: D i s c u s s i o n on t h e mot ion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Mr. Funk.

MR. FUNK: Perhaps M r . Lawrence would b e p r e p a r e d t o make some s t i p u l a t i o n a s t o

d o l l a r amount h e r e f o r t h e s e s e r v i c e s s o t h a t we c a n p a s s judgment on t h a t a l s o

NR. KUNZ: T h i s i s what I expec ted t o have i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n .

MR. LAWRENCE: Wel l , I'm t e l l i n g you, y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o g e t my g a l l (Laugh te r )

MR. OLSEN: Permanently, anyway.

MR. LAWRENCE: R igh t . A s f a r as we a r e concerned, Connie does serve a s t h e Execu-

t i v e S e c r e t a r y t o our department; and we have used h e r i n our Utah committee meet-

ings so t h a t she can keep t h e c o n t i n u i t y . And I f e e l q u i t e s u r e t h a t we can somehow

provide h e r w i t h some suppor t ing h e l p so t h a t she can be d ive r t ed a l i t t l e b i t f u r t h e r

as a s t a f f member i n our department t o do t h i s job; and I b e l i e v e t h a t we would be

w i l l i n g t o coopera te on much t h e same b a s i s a s we have wi th t h e Bear River Cornmission.

I would l i k e t o not s p e c i f y a d o l l a r amount. I th ink i f we could j u s t each pay 113

of the c o s t and we could f i g u r e t h a t o u t , I th ink you could t r u s t us . S a l t Lake

C i t y i s c l o s e r t o our meeting p laces than e i t h e r Boise o r Cheyenne, so probably the

c o s t of having a s e c r e t a r y from our o f f i c e would be l e s s than any o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e .

I would j u s t say t h a t I th ink t h a t l e t ' s each pay 113 of t h e c o s t and we w i l l make

h e r a v a i l a b l e .

MR. OLSEN: L e t ' s g e t h e r concurrence, should we? (Laughter)

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Don't you have a s ta tement?

MRS. BORROTJPIAN: I have no s ta tement . I do what M r . Lawrence t e l l s me t o do.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: T h a t ' s g r e a t . (Laughter)

MR. BISHOP: M r . Chairman, I would l i k e t o say t h a t we have apprec ia ted very much

Connie's t ak ing these minutes. She ' s go t t o know a l l the people involved h e r e ; she

does i t so e f f i c i e n t l y ; I c e r t a i n l y suppor t t h e Idaho proposa l t h a t she be r e t a i n e d .

I thought I heard F e r r i s say t h a t they 'd pay t h e t o t a l b i l l . (Laughter)

MR. OLSEN: L e t ' s not hold him t o i t even though we d i d hea r him say t h a t .

MR. KUNZ: I s a i d Idaho would be w i l l i n g t o c o n t r i b u t e .

MRS. BORROWMAN: I ' m going to put a l l t h e kind th ings you a r e saying about me i n

these minutes .

MR. OLSEN: You'd b e t t e r ; we want verbat im minutes ,

CHAIRMAN kNERS: A l l i n favor of t h e proposa l say, aye. Opposed?

Motion c a r r i e d .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Now, t h e r e was another sugges t ion f o r a permanent chairman on an

annual b a s i s . Is t h a t c o r r e c t ? Will you take t h a t up, s i r ?

MR. KUNZ: A l l r i g h t . M r . Chairman, the Idaho de lega t ion f e l t t h a t we had been

moving along he re to the po in t where we should have a l i t t l e b e t t e r c o n t i n u i t y of

these meetings--someone t o fol low up i n between t h e meetings--we thought probably

we should have a chairman-from one of t h e s t a t e s f o r a yea r ; and my group has not

heard t h i s , bu t i t comes t o my mind t h a t probably we ought t o have an a s s i s t a n t

chairman from one o t h e r s t a t e - - a d i f f e r e n t s t a t e - - t h a t could fol low up t h e next

y e a r ; and we can keep t h e c o n t i n u i t y of these meetings moving. So I would move

t h a t a t t h i s t ime we have a permanent chairman of t h i s group on a y e a r l y b a s i s .

MR. OLSEN: M r . Chairman, I approve t h i s sugges t ion and would l i k e to make a motion

t h a t we ask F e r r i s Kunz, and appoint him as our chairman f o r the next yea r cornmenc-

ing wi th our next o f f i c i a l n e g o t i a t i n g meeting. He would be i n charge then and t h a t

would be h i s term, commencing a t t h a t t ime.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: You made a motion?

MR. OLSEN: I made a motion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: We now have a motion on top of a motion. L e t ' s c l e a r t h e motion

a s t o whether we want t o do i t o r not .

MR. DAYTON: I would hope t h a t t h i s wouldn' t run i n t o another 20-year s e s s i o n . I

would hope t h a t we wouldn't have t o appoint--speaking of yea r s , I would hope t h a t

we could be a l i t t l e more o p t i m i s t i c and g e t t h e job done a l o t quicker than the

20 yea r s previous ly . With t h a t thought i n mind, we might f i g u r e - -

MR. LAWRENCE: M r . Chairman, I was reading e a r l y t h i s morning, and I not iced t h a t

M r . Dayton i s t h e only member of t h i s body who signed h i s name t o t h e o r i g i n a l

compact i n 1955. I th ink maybe t h a t g ives you a l i t t l e b e t t e r i n s i g h t i n t o what

he i s t a l k i n g about .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Yes, I b e l i e v e they were 14 y e a r s on t h e o r i g i n a l one; and then

we were a number of yea r s a f t e r t h a t before i t go t o t h e Congress. We c e r t a i n l y

d o n ' t need t o be t h a t long, i f we j u s t g e t w i t h i t .

Now do we have a second to t h i s motion?

MR. FUNK: Second.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Those i n favor say aye.


Now--if you want t o suggest t h a t we go a l p h a b e t i c a l l y , I th ink t h a t ' s

e x c e l l e n t .

MR. OLSEN: Alphabet ica l ly? I d i d n ' t read i t t h a t way; I d i d n ' t make t h a t motion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Well, t h a t ' s the way we do t h e Commission, you know. Idaho has

t h e f i r s t c a l l ; then Utah; then Wyoming. That i s n ' t e x a c t l y what you s a i d , b u t

MR. OLSEN: No, I d i d n ' t Say anything about Utah. 1'11 move then, i n l i e u of the

motion t h a t has j u s t passed t h a t we appoint F e r r i s Kunz a s Chairman f o r a y e a r ' s

time of our T r i - S t a t e Negot ia t ing group.

CIIAIW1AN MYERS: I b e l i e v e the motion included a second i n conmand, d i d n ' t i t ?

MR. OLSEN: No, i t d i d no t .

MR. KUNZ: That was a sugges t ion; but i t was not i n t h e motion.

MR. FUNK: I would l i k e t o sugges t , i n l i n e wi th F e r r i s ' s th inking , even though

i t not be included i n t h e motion, t h a t Marion Olsen be t h e a s s i s t a n t chairman and

would be the vice-chairman and would be t h e follow-up under ensuing yea r . So

F e r r i s would be the Chairman and Marion would be t h e Vice-Chairman. This f i t s

i n a l p h a b e t i c a l l y a l s o .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Well, t h a t ' s f i n e ; bu t we a r e i n a t e c h n i c a l s i t u a t i o n h e r e where

we have d iv id ing motions. We have t o c l e a r t h e f i r s t motion. Do we have a second?

MR. FUNIi: I second t h e motion.

CHAIRE1AN MYERS: A l l i n f avor say aye.


CHAIRMAN MYERS: Now, l e t ' s have the second motion on Marion Olsen. ,

MR. FUNK: Well, I suppose we have t o make a motion f i r s t t h a t we have a Vice-

Chairman. I move t h a t we have a vice-chairman of t h i s group; and t h a t t h a t person

be Marion Olsen.

MR. KUNZ: I w i l l second.

MR. BISHOP: M r . Chairman, i s i t understood t h a t t hese a r e f o r one-year terms?

CHAIRMAN MYERS: One-year terms. A l l those i n f avor say aye.


MR. LAWRENCE: M r . Chairman would i t be appropr i a t e t o f i x t h e beginning of the

year--

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Yes, i t seems l i k e a r a t h e r awkward time--the next meeting--

gene ra l ly , you have t h e f i r s t p a r t of January o r something--I d o n ' t know.

MR, PEART: M r . Chairman, through t h i s w i l l we be meeting i n d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s now

l i k e we were?

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Yes--we'll no t change the s t y l e of our meetings.

MR. LAWRENCE: I t seems t o me t h a t t h e d a t e of t h e next meet ing-- the annual--I

th ink we ought t o f i x t h e 1 s t of J u l y , or - -

Could we amend t h a t and have Connie show t h a t F e r r i s s e rves ti1 June 30th?

O r the December 30 th fo l lowing?

(Discussion)

MR. FUNK: 1 t ' s j u s t a m a t t e r of convenient understanding.

CHAIRYAN MYERS: That t h e new o f f i c e r s s t a r t s e rv ing a t t h e f i r s t meeting a f t e r

June 30 th next yea r?

MR. LAWRENCE: Well, o r we could move i t up t o November i f you want.

MR. FUMZ: The Commission yea r i s s i x months apart--November and s i x months l a t e r

but t h a t i s a l i t t l e b i t awkward. We might t i e i n to t h a t because most of t h i s

group meets w i th the Commission group i n one of our meetings. But I would l i k e

t o suggest i f we have enough new items t o t a l k about maybe we could have our

s e p a r a t e s t a t e meetings and a j o i n t meeting again i n t h e month of September. Would

t h i s sound reasonable? Can we be prepared f o r a t h r e e - s t a t e meeting i n September?

We could do t h i s - - i t might be w e l l t o have t h e year of t h i s o rgan iza t ion t h e same

a s the f i s c a l year .

MR. HEDIN: B e t t e r make i t October.

MR. KUNZ: I th ink we'd b e t t e r run i n t o October. That would only be two months.

MR. FUNK: This was j u s t a sugges t ion .

MR. KUNZ: Maybe say t h e middle of October?

CHAIRMAN MYERS: A l l we have t o do gentlemen, i s s e t a d a t e when t h e new o f f i c e r s

go i n .

MR. FUNK: Well, October i s p r a c t i c a l l y November. Do you want t o make i t wi th t h e

Commission meeting?

MR. LAWRENCE: I th ink C a l ' s sugges t ion i s good. Maybe we should have F e r r i s s e rve

u n t i l November meeting of t h e Compact Commission, 1973.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Would you move t h a t ?

MR. LAWRENCE: Yes

CI%AIRMAN MYERS : Tha t ' s a motion.

MR. JENKINS: I ' l l second i t .

CHAIRIIAN M Y E R S : A l l i n f avor say aye. Contrary?


MR. F U N K : Does t h a t f i x our next meeting then, a s the same da te- - the day before--

o r af t e r ?

CHAIRMAN M Y E R S : I d o n ' t thinlc i t f i x e s t h e meeting a t a l l , a s I understood i t .

A l l i t does i s f i x the changes i n o f f i c e r s .

Discuss ion of when t o meet among t h e group

CHAIRMAN M Y E R S : Are you down t o d i scuss ing a meeting da te?

MR. K U N Z : Yes, M r . Chairman, t h a t i s wha t ' s be ing kicked around

CHAIWAN M Y E R S : We' l l g e t back t o t h a t i n j u s t another minute. We want a formal

motion f o r t h e assignment of s t u d i e s s o t h a t everybody knows e x a c t l y what t h e s tudy

is . Is t h a t c o r r e c t ?

MR. K U N Z : That i s c o r r e c t , M r . Chairman. It seems t o e s p e c i a l l y our s t a f f , and

I suspec t t h a t t h e o t h e r s t a f f s have t h e same problem, we sugges t t h a t we have a

t e c h n i c a l subconunittee s tudy of something, and then we ge t on a d i scuss ion he re and

a d i scuss ion t h e r e and i t s awfully hard t o come up--Now we s t a r t e d out on these

meetings where we decided we would be very informal , and I would hope t h a t we d i d n ' t

g e t too fornlal y e t . But I th ink some of these th ings should be formal ized; and one

of them i s t h a t when we make an assignment i t should be i n a s p e c i f i c r e s o l u t i o n by

motion form; so t h a t i t i s spe l l ed o u t e x a c t l y what we expect them t o come back wi th .

CHAIRMAN M Y E R S : Do you make a motion t o t h a t e f f e c t ?

MR. K U N Z : Yes.

MR. O L S E N : I ' l l second t h a t motion.

CHAIRMAN M Y E R S : You have a l l heard t h e motion. It has been seconded. A l l i n

f avor say aye. Contrary no. Motion c a r r i e d . That takes c a r e of t h a t .

Now I would l i k e t o have somebody make a motion on these minutes so t h a t

we have o f f i c i a l minutes r a t h e r than n o n - o f f i c i a l minutes. I f you want t o inc lude

i n i t t h a t M r . J i b son s u m a r i z e these l i k e he does our compact meet ings , why inc lude

t h a t ; bu t l e t ' s put these minutes on t h e books so t h a t they have some s t a t u s , so

t h a t they c a r r y some weight and a r e accepted as t o what t h e i r subs tance i s .

MR. K U N Z : I t was my suggest ion t h e r e , Mr. Chairman--it wasn ' t included i n my

motion, but i t was my sugges t ion , and now I w i l l malce i t i n t h e forni of a motion--

t h a t t h e permanent s e c r e t a r y p resen t us wi th a verbat im s e t of minu tes - - tha t ' s t o

t h e s ta tes - -and g i v e a two o r t h r e e page, a ve ry b r i e f , summary of the minutes

a t t h e meeting f o r adopt ion r a t h e r than have t h e verbat im minutes read i n t o t h e

record. I th ink i f she would summarize i t i n two o r t h r e e pages--so I would

move t h a t she p r e s e n t t h e s t a t e s , t h e va r ious s t a t e s , w i th t h e verbat im minutes

and prepare a two-page summary of those minutes f o r t h e fo l lowing meeting

f o r approval .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Then a t t h e meeting anybody t h a t had t h e f i r s t s e t of minutes

could amend of change a s they saw f i t .

MR. KUNZ: Right .

MR. OLSEN: I n t h i s case t h e verbat im minutes would go t o each of t h e s t a t e s and

they could review i n t h e i r caucus wi th t h e s t a t e s t h e th ings t h a t pe r t a ined t o

them. I ' l l second t h a t .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: A l l i n f avor say aye. Contrary? Motion c a r r i e d .

I would l i k e t o remind you a t t h i s time t h a t t h e annual r e p o r t s a r e a v a i l -

a b l e out i n t h e h a l l , and d o n ' t f o r g e t them--of t h e Rear River Cormnission.

Now we a r e down t o t h e l a s t t h ing on t h e Agenda u n l e s s we have some o t h e r

new bus iness . So I ' l l c a l l f o r o t h e r new bus iness .

M r . Kunz--

MR. KUNZ: M r . Chairman, we were d i scuss ing , p r i o r t o our r e c e s s , t h i s bus iness of

g e t t i n g toge the r w i t h each o t h e r on these w r i t t e n s ta tements by a corresponding

w r i t t e n s ta tement o r response from the o t h e r s t a t e s so t h a t we could have a l i t t l e

b e t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n . I don ' t t h ink t h i s t h i n g was ever put i n a motion--I th ink we

were d i scuss ing i t . So I would l i k e t o move t h a t we have response from t h e v a r i o u s

s t a t e s i n regard t o any proposals t h a t comes b e f o r e our meetings, i n between t h e

next scheduled meeting so t h a t t h e r e can be some meaningful response and d i s c u s s i o n

a t t h e r egu la r scheduled meeting.

MR. OLSEN; P r i o r t o t h e o t h e r meeting?

MR. KUNZ: Following t h e meeting. L e t ' s say a month fo l lowing t h e meeting. I n

o t h e r words, on t h e 20th of August Idaho can expect from Utah and Wyoming a w r i t t e n

response t o what we gave h e r e today, and t h e o t h e r states--Wyoming w i l l expect Utah 's

response and Utah w i l l expect Wyoming's response--so t h a t we have something meaning-

f u l . The month fo l lowing a r e g u l a r meeting.

bE7. FUNK: Is t h a t p a r t of your motion?

MR. KUNZ: I would inc lude t h a t i n my motion.

MR. FUNK: I ' l l second t h a t motion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Those i n f a v o r say aye. Cont rary , no. (Motion c a r r i e d )

MR. BISBOP: M r . Chairman, one f u r t h e r thought. It seems t o me any new proposals--

a s I understood your motion i t included on ly p roposa l s , i f they could be presented

30 days i n advance of any given meeting d a t e we could c e r t a i n l y have a much more

meaningful d i scuss ion .

MR. LAWRENCE: I would second F loyd ' s motion.

MR. KUNZ: I ' l l go wi th t h a t .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: A l l those i n favor say aye. Contrary, no. Motion passed.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Any f u r t h e r new bus iness?

Now our meeting da te . Any sugges t ions .

MR. FUNK: M r . Chainnan, i n view of the d i s c u s s i o n t h a t was had around t h e t a b l e

I would move t h a t we meet i n about t h e middle of October, t h e d e f i n i t e d a t e t o

be decided by our Chairman.

CHAIRMAN NYERS: Do you know when t h e Bear River Commission meeting i s ?

MR. JIBSON: The 27th of November.

MR. KUNZ: M r . Chairman; t h e r e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y i f we could have one t h e middle

of October we could have another meeting i n connect ion w i t h t h e Bear River Compact

meeting i n November.

MR. KUNZ: What's your schedule, t he re , i n October, Floyd?

MR. BISHOP: Outside of going hunt ing a few t imes, i t ' s not too crowded. (Laughter)

The f i r s t p a r t of October I could meet.

MR. FUNK: The f i r s t week; o r t h e f i r s t t e n days?

MR. BISHOP: Uh-huh.

MR. FUNK: Would youpick o u t a d a t e ?

MR. BISHOP: What day of t h e week do you p r e f e r ?

MR. OLSED: The 12th?

MR. FUM: Back i t up a week-- let ' s make i t about the 4 t h of October. I move

t h a t we have our next meeting on Wednesday, t h e 4 t h of October. The p l a c e t o

be decided by Idaho.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Do we have a second?

: Second - t h e motion.

CHAIRMAN MYERS: Those i n f a v o r ?

MR. LAWRENCE: M r . Chairman--you have j u s t appointed a new s e c r e t a r y ; and on

Thursday and F r iday fo l lowing t h a t day she i s going t o be busy tak ing minutes

of t h e Board of Water Resources meeting. She j u s t pleaded t o me wi th a l l t h a t

she had not t o use t h a t day i f we could. Could we accommodate? The Monday

fol lowing the 6 t h would be b e t t e r f o r us.

MR. OLSEN: On t h e 9 t h - - t h a t ' s Columbus Day.

MR. FUNK: Marion has commissioners meeting on t h e 10th. Could i t be t h e l l t h ?

MR. BISROP: Western S t a t e s Water Council meets t h e l l t h and 12th. What about

t h e 27th of September? Back up a notch? 28th? 29th?

MR. KUNZ: September 29th , Floyd? Tha t ' s a Fr iday .

MR. HOLMGREN: M r . Chairman, i t i s my understanding t h a t we a r e having t h i s meeting

i n October and a l s o one i n November?

CHAIRMAN MYERS: There poss ib ly might be one i n November--it was suggested; we

a r e not s e t t i n g one i n November.

MR. HOLMGREN: EIaven't w e always had i t i n November? I s n ' t t h a t t h e usua l?

MR. KUNZ: The Comnission meeting meets i n November.

MR. HOLMGREN: Cou ldn ' twe have these toge the r?

MR. KUNZ: We might could have another meeting then, Paul .

MR. HOLMGREN: Well, t h a t i s what I was meaning. I f 'you d i d n ' t th ink i t was

necessary t o have two meetings you might hold these meetings two days apar t - - I

mean one day a p a r t l i k e we have done sometimes.

MR. FUNK: Did we c l e a r t h i s September 29th d a t e f o r a meeting? Then my motion

would be t h a t we meet September 29, the p l ace t o be determined by Idaho.

MR. BISHOP: Second.

MR. KUNZ AND OlTIERS: Third

CHAI&\IAN MYERS: Those i n f avor? Contrary? Carr ied .

CHAIRWN MYERS: I s t h e r e any f u r t h e r d i scuss ion? Business?

MR. LAWRENCE: M r , Chairman; I would l i k e you gentlemen t o convey t o Governor

Hathaway our apprec ia t ion f o r Wyoming being h o s t he re . It was very f i n e ; we

- 37 -

enjoyed t h e tou r . I th ink t h e meeting has been a success. We have rai.sed some

ques t ions h e r e t h a t we can chew on; and i f y o u ' l l pass t h a t word w e ' l l a p p r e c i a t e

i t .

MR. OLSEN; May I amend t h a t motion, t h a t a l e t t e r go t o a l l t h r e e of t h e govern-

o r s and s t a t e our a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r e f f o r t i n a t t end ing t h i s meeting, and

inc lude i n t h a t what M r . Lawrence j u s t s t a t ed - -a copy be s e n t t o each of t h e

governors .

CHAIRMAN MYERS: I th ink t h a t i s an e x c e l l e n t idea .

: Yes, now t h a t we have a s e c r e t a r y . (Laughter)

Meeting adjourned a t 4 :45 p.m.

IDAIIO- WAII-IWOEILNG TRI-STATE BEAR RIVER NCGOTIATIXG CO>DIITTEE

A t t h e Apr i l meet ing, t h e Technical Subcommittee c7as g iven t h e assignment

of making a " repor t of t h e f a c t s above Bear Lake." Because t h e r e was c o n s i ~ l e r a b l e

d i s c u s s i o n of water a v a i l a b i l i t y , t h e Subcommittee has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e assignment

t o involve a n assessment of how much water upstream from t h e Lake remains unconnnitted.

Therc a r e a t l e a s t t h r e e bases upon which t h e wa te r supply of Bear River can

be analyzed: by use of h i s t o r i c records ; by use of h i s t o r i c r eco rds ad jus t ed t o a

p re sen t l e v e l of development; and by use of flows computed by t h e Utah S t a t e Univer-

s i t y model of Bear River . Each o f t h e s e metI!ods have c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s , and

t h e r e f o r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s a r e r equ i red .

For t h e purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n ( i n t h i s r e p o r t only) and t o s impl i fy t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e Technical Subcommittee agreed t o g i v e r e s u l t s of only one of t h e s e

t h r e e approaches, t h a t u s ing h i s t o r i c florzc ad jus t ed t o p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s . C l t a

f o r t h i s s tudy were der ived by t h e Bureau of Reclamation, and t h e s e d a t a form t h e

b a s i s of Bear River s t u d i e s by t h e Idaho s t a f f . Resu l t s presented h e r e i n should

be considered t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y more conserva t ive regard ing wa te r a v a i l a b i l i t y

t h a n those which would r e s u l t from use of h i s t o r i c d a t a o r USU modeled d a t a .

Water supply above ~ e a r ' ~ a k e i s q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l . The average inf low t o

t h e Lake i s about 350,000 a c r e - f e e t per year. '~he minimum y e a r flow under present

c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e 1927-65 s tudy per iod would be 16,400 a c r e - f e e t i n 1934, and t h e

maximum would be 845,000, a c r e - f e e t i n 1950.

Because t h e r e a r e seve ra l t ypes of u s e s of t h i s w a t e r , i t has been c l a s s i -

f i e d f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes i n t o c a t e g o r i e s r e l a t i n g t o i t s present u ses . The

manner of ope ra t ion of Bear Lake a l s o a f f e c t s t h e water a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r new uses .

Water a v a i l a b i l i t y i s summarized by f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of e x i s t i n g uses f o r two modes

of Bear Lake ope ra t ion i n Exhib i t 1.@1n t h e f i r s t mode, t h e f u l l range of Bear

Lake c a p a c i t y , 1 ,421,000 a c r e - f e e t i s used (Elev. 5902.00 t o 5923.65) . I n t h e

second mode, maximum con ten t s a r e l i m i t e d t o 1,340,000 a c r e - f e e t (Elev. 5902.00

t o 5922.5), t h e approxi~nate l i m i t of f i l l i n g under t h e p r e s e n t o p e r a t i o n .

. Category A wa te r i s inf low t o Bear Lake which i s uncon t ro l l ed t o such a n

ex ten t t h a t none of t h e dor,rnstream power p l a n t s can u s e i t f o r power genera t ion .

The Category A c o n d i t i o n occur s only x~hen Bear Lake i s f u l l t o t h e l i m i t s def ined

i n Exhib i t 1.

. , Category B water i s t h a t water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake which i s used f o r

power product ion but not d i v e r t e d f o r i r r i g a t i o n and does not f a l l w i t h i n t h e

def ined needs of t h e Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Also i t occurs only vhen

Bear Lake i s f u l l t o t h e l i m i t def ined i n t h e e x h i b i t . E x h i b i t s 2 and 3 show t h e

monthly and annual d i s t r i b u t i o n of occurrence of Bear Lake s p i l l s used only f o r

power product ion under t h e two assumed Lake s to rage l i m i t s . I n both cases , an

' average ' q u a n t i t y i s h i g h l y mis leading i n t h a t t h e ' ave rage ' r e s u l t s from a

small number of occurrences of ve ry l a r g e s p i l l s and many y e a r s of no s p i l l .

0 Under p resen t c o n d i t i o n s of use and Bear Lake management, t h e Lake would

meet a l l downstream i r r i g a t i o n requirements and r e t a i n some wa te r i n s to rage a t

i t s lowest p o i n t . Addi t ional u ses upstream could be imposed without i n j u r i n g t h e s e

downstream i r r i g a t i o n uses i n a runoff sequence l i k e t h e 1927-65 per iod . These

uses would, of course , d e p l e t e Lake inf lows and r e s u l t i n lowered Lake l e v e l s .

Category C wa te r i s t h a t amount of a d d i t i o n a l annual upstream d e p l e t i o n which

would r e s u l t i n Bear Lake be ing drawn t o t h e bottom of t h e pump withdrawal l e v e l

(5902.00) a t t h e minimum p o i n t . @ T h i s drawdown is i l l u s t r a t e d i n Exh ib i t s 4 and 5

us ing t h e two assumed upper l i m i t s of Bear Lake.@Klse of Category C water upstream

from Bear Lake would r e s u l t i n lowered Lake l e v e l s i n n e a r l y a l l y e a r s . The maxi-

mum lowering would be about 7 . 5 f e e t (520,000 a c r e - f e e t ) i f Bear Lake were operated

f u l l range o r about 2 . 5 f e e t (180,000 a c r e - f e e t ) i f it were r e s t r i c t e d t o maximums

a s i n t h e p resen t Lake o p e r a t i o n .

Category D water which could be used upstream and replaced by s to rage

downstream, cannot be q u a n t i f i e d without a p lan f o r t h e lower b a s i n . A s e r i e s

of s t u d i e s of a l t e r n a t e lower b a s i n s t o r a g e increments and uses could be run.

These would provide informat ion on t h e t r a d e - o f f s involved . So many poss ib l e

combinations of dovnstream s to rage , u s e s , Bear Lalce o p e r a t i n g ranges , and

replacement commitments a r e poss ib l e t h a t i t was not f e a s i b l e t o undertake such

a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s p r i o r t o t h e J u l y 20, 1972 meeting.

@

- AVAILABILITI OF WATER'+

FOR

ADD.1TIONAL DEPLETION UPSTWAN FRO>I STEWART DAM

BY CATEGORIES OF EXISTING USES

Average Water Ava i l ab le

Mode 1 Mode 2

Bear Lake Used To Bear Lake Level Maxi~nuni Content Limited To

Elev . 5902 t o 5923.35 Elev . 5922.5 E x i s t i n g Use Category 1,421,000 a c r e - f c c t 1 ,340,000 acre- f e e t

A . Water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake V i r t u a l l y none. V i r t u a l l y none. i n excess of a l l power and o t h e r u s e s .

B. Water used only f o r power 61,200 a c . f t . / y r . 70,300 a c . f t . / y r . production.**

C . Water remaining i n Bear Lake 30,000 a c . f t . / y r . 10,000 a ~ . f t . / ~ r . under present c o n d i t i o n s , which i f deple ted by a d d i t i o n a l upstream u s e s , would r e s u l t i n lowcring of Bear Lake t o zero a c t i v e c o n t e n t s at minimum."""

D. Water vhich could be rep laced Unknown. Would depend upon l o c a t i o n and s i z e by s to rage downstream. of downstream s t o r a g e , amount dedica ted t o

replacement, and s i z e of o t h e r new uses of r e s e r v o i r .

* A l l d a t a based on "Modified H i s t o r i c Flow" hydrology--1927 t o 1965

**See Exh ib i t s 2 and 3 f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of monthly s p i l l s

***See Exh ib i t s 4 and 5 f o r hydrographs of Lake l e v e l s

Report of Technical Subcommittee Bear River T r i - S t a t e Pleeting

Evanston, Wyoming--July 20, 1972

BEAR LAKE SPILLS* MODE 1

(1000 A c . F t . ) Lake Allowed t o F l u c t u a t e F u l l Range

E lev . 5902.0 t o 5923.65

Oct . Nov. Dec.. J a n . Feb. Mnr. & Mny June Ju ly Aug. Sep t . ---- Year -

1927 0 28 0 29 19 .7 1 9 . 7

1930 55.6 37 .0 92.6 3 1 0 3 2 0 33 0 . 3 4 0 3 5 0 36 ,O 37 0 38 0 3 9 0

1940 0 4 1 0 42 0 43 0 44 0 4 5 0 4 6 0 47 40 .1 40.1 48 1 6 . 5 .80.8 119.0 57.1 273.4 49 1 . 6 3 9 . 7 41.3

1950 8 . 8 9 6 . 5 181.9 168 .5 34 .2 4.2 494.1 51 1 6 . 3 28.7 25 .6 16 .2 42.2 3 9 . 0 1 1 1 . 1 1 5 0 . 6 68 .5 498.2 52 2 5 . 5 3 1 . 0 33 .9 87.3 230 .1 80.3 488.1 53 4 .3 31.2 32 .4 29 .4 50 .6 147.9 54 0 55 0 56 0 57 47 .4 47.4 58 40.8 83.9 4 . 5 129.2 59 0

1960 0 61 0 62 0 63 0 64 0 6 5 42 .6 40.0 33.9 1 1 6 . 5 Avg . 61.2

* S p i l l s which would have occurred i n per iod of s tudy Based on rnodificd h i s t o r i c f l o v s , 1965 c o n d i t i o n s

Report of Technical Subcommittee Bear River T r i - S t a t e Fleeting

- 4 - Evanston, Wyoming--July 20 , 1972

- BEAR LAKE SPILLS*

MODE 2

Lake F luc tua t io i l Limited from Elev. 5902.0 t o 5922.5 Holding Maxirnum Water Surface Approxin~atcly 1 Foot Below Spil lway

(1000 Ac.Ft . )

52 66.1 31 .2 83.7 85.6 51.0 23.9 137.8 53 55.1 8 .4 76.9 86 .0 45.8 21.2 54 55 56 57 58 11.2 80.2 42.7 25.7 59 16 .5 7.7

19GO 61 62 63 64 6 5 Avg . " S p i l l s which ~?oulcl have occurred i n period of s tudy

Based on modified h i s t o r i c f lows, 1965 cond i t ions

June July Aug. Sept. Ycar

0 56.5

134.0 202.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

253.5 125.6

68.7 26.3 44.3 45.8 452.9 464.4

6.4 485.7 293.4

0 0 0 0

Report of Technical Subcommittee Bear River Tri.-State >Icet ins

Evanstofi, Wyoming--July 20, 1972

EXI I IDIT 4. ?iAR LbZi C O f , : i T d T 5 i/i:?3Uf h k b WITH EFFECTS OF ADDlT/O/!d L :'iST?t+AM DIIPL£ TIOM

M A f l ! . f i l M O i 'E /ZAJ lON

I n summary, i t has been i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t sooie a d d i t i o n a l water can be

developed f o r use upstream from Stewart Dam, and t h e manner of Bear Lake opera-

t i o n i s a major f a c t o r i n t h e q u a n t i t i e s a v a i l a b l e : f o r example, t h e lowering

of Bear Lake "spi l lway l e v e l " only one f o o t reduces t h e p o s s i b l e added upstream

d e p l e t i o n by 20,000 a c r e - f e e t .

Daniel F. Lawrence -- Utah Robert R . Lee -- Idaho Floyd A . Bishop -- Wyoming

TECHNICAL SUBCOi.O.1ITTEE STAFF

Norman E . S t a u f f e r , J r . -- Utah Alan C . Robertson -- Idaho Thomas L . Barker -- Wyoming

BEAR RIVER \ I

I n i t i a l s t e p s t o u s e Bear Lake a s a s t o r a g e

r e s e r v o i r and f o r t h e r i g h t t o c o n s t r u c t c a n a l s from

Bear River t o Bear Lake were commenced i n 1907. A l l

o f t h e r i g h t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e p r o j e c t became t h e p r o p e r t y

o f Utah Power & L i g h t Company on May 1 8 , 1912, by t r a n s -

fer from T e l l u r i d e Power Company.

The conveyance and agreement between t h e Utah-

Idaho Sugar Company and Utah Power & L i g h t Company was

executed on December 30, 1912. By t h a t document t h e \

Sugar Company conveyed t o t h e Power Company a l l o f i t s

r i g h t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e C u t l e r P l a n t and R e s e r v o i r

( r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e agreement a s t h e Wheelon P l a n t )

and a l s o a l l o f i t s r i g h t s o f any k i n d "whether f u l l y

v e s t e d o r i nchoa te" t o t h e use o f t h e w a t e r of Bear

R ive r . I n r e t u r n t h e Power Company ag reed t o make

a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Sugar Company f o r i t s c a n a l s t h a t

d i v e r t a t C u t l e r Dam a flow o f 900 second f e e t between ./

May 1 and October 3 1 o f each y e a r and a f low o f

150 second f e e t between November 1 o f one y e a r and A p r i l 30 o f

t h e f o l l o r ~ i n g y e a r . T h i s i s a p e r p e t u a l o b l i g a t i o n , and when

the re ' i s n o t enough w a t e r f l owing i n Bear R ive r t o s a t i s f y t h i s

r i g h t , i t must be augmented by pumping w a t e r from Bear Lake.

The agreement between Utah Power & Ligh t Company and

West Cache I r r i g a t i o n Company i s d a t e d June 19 , 1919; and i t

was n e g o t i a t e d and s i g n e d w h i l e t h e Bear River P r i o r i t y S u i t

was pending. It was t h i s p roceed ing tha t ' r e s u l t e d i n t h e e n t r y

-.D£ t h e D i e t r i c h Decree on J u l y 14, 1920. By t h i s agreement

t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e p a r t i e s were s e t t l e d s o t h a t t h e Decree

c o u l d be e n t e r e d , and t h e I r r i g a t i o n Company i s g u a r a n t e e d a

minimum f low a t low-water p e r i o d s a l t hough l i m i t e d t o a n annua l

maximum i n a c r e - f e e t . The agreement c o n t a i n s a fo rmula by which

t h e amounts a r e computed, .and a g a i n Bear Lake .wa te r may be needed

t o augment r i v e r f lows d u r i n g low-water p e r i o d s .

- The agreement between Utah Power & L i g h t Company and

Lewiston-Bear Lake I r r i g a t i o n Company da t ed A p r i l 3 , 1916, i s

commonly r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e agreement concern ing t h e Cub R ive r

Pumps. By t h i s agreement t h e I r r i g a t i o n Company i s g i v e n pe rmis s ion

a n n u a l l y t o d i v e r t s o much o f t h e Power Company's r e l e a s e d wa te r

/ f lowing p a s t t h e I r r i g a t i o n s Company's pumping s t a t i o n "not

a l r e a d y s o l d o r d i sposed o f o r by law d e d i c a t e d t o o t h e r u ses

and n o t exceeding 20,000 a c r e - f e e t i n any i r r i g a t i o n season"

as s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y t o meet t h e I r r i g a t i o n s Company's r equ i r emen t s .

An annua l agreement has been e n t e r e d i n t o between Utah

Power & L i g h t Company and L a s t Chance Canal Company f o r e v e r y

yea r s i n c e a t l e a s t t h e d a t e o f t h e Bear R ive r Compact. These

- c o n t r a c t s c o n t a i n a c r e - f e e t l i m i t a t i o n s and a r e des igned t o

f u r n i s h supp lemen ta l w a t e r d u r i n g t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n

s e a s o n .

The main d e c r e e under which Bear Lake and Bear R i v e r

a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d i s t h e one commonly r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e D i e t r i c h

Decree, and it was e n t e r e d by t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court f o r

t h e D i s t r i c t o f Idaho, E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n , on J u l y 14, 1920. T h i s

Decree a d j u d i c a t e s t h e major w a t e r r i g h t s on Bear R ive r and

.-some o f i t s t r i b u t a r i e s between S t e w a r t Dam'and t h e Utah-Idaho

s t a t e l i n e , and i t does i n c l u d e and r e c o g n i z e s Utah Power & L i g h t

~ o m 6 a n ~ ' s C u t l e r Dam and R e s e r v o i r and t h e ~ t a h - 1 d a h o s u g a r

.- - - . . .- - . .. Tompany ' s c a n a l X i v e r s i o E cii: t h e ~ s a m e p o i n t . The Decree awards

t h e Power Company t h e r i g h t t o d i v e r t f o r s t o r a g e i n Bear Lake

a maximum o f 5500 second f e e t from Bear R ive r and it r e c o g n i z e s

c e r t a i n d i r e c t f low r i g h t s f o r t h e Power Company's Grace-Cove,

Oneida and C u t l e r P l a n t s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Decree makes c e r t a i n ./

awards t o t h e L a s t Chance Canal Company and t h e West Cache .

I r r i g a t i o n Company, a s w e l l a s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e

Utah-Idaho Sugar Company.

T h e o t h e r Decree i s r e f e r r e d t o as t h e Kimball Decree,

and i t w a s e n t e r e d on February 21, 1922 by t h e D i s t r i c t Court

of Cache County, Utah. T h i s Decree r e c o g n i z e s t h e Power Company's

r i g h t s t o s t o r e i n Bear Lake t h e same f lows a s a r e s e t o u t i n

- - - the D i e t r i c h Decree and c o n t a i n s t h e same awards t o t h e Power

Company and t o t h e Utah-Idaho Sugar Company a t t h e C u t l e r Dam

and R e s e r v o i r . T h i s Decree a l s o g r a n t s a wa te r r i g h t t o t h e

Lewiston-Bear Lake I r r i g a t i o n Company and r e f e r s t o i t s agreement

w i t h t h e Power Company.

S i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e s e d e c r e e s , t h e r e have been many

a p p l i c a t i o n s f i l e d t o a p p r o p r i a t e w a t e r from t h e Bear R ive r o r

i t s t r i b u t a r i e s i n Idaho , Utah and Wyoming. Utah Power & L i g h t

Company has p r o t e s t e d many o f t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s s eek ing t o

c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t p r o p e r w a t e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n dould

l i m i t t h e use from t h e s e new a p p l i c a t i o n s t o l e s s e r amounts o r

. - .- - l e s s e r p e r i o d s o f t ime t h a n provided f o r i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s .

It would be a s u b s t a n t i a l t a s k and we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t i t

would s e r v e any u s e f u l purpose t o l i s t a l l o f t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s ,

and it would be a lmost imposs ib l e t o compile a complete l i s t .

The f i n a l document t o complete t h e above c h a i n i s t h e /

Bear River Compact which, a l t hough execu ted on b e h a l f of t h e s t a t e s - of Idaho , Utah and Wyoming on February 4 , 1955, was n o t r a t i f i e d

by t h e Un i t ed S t a t e s Congress u n t i l March 1 7 , 1958. T h i s

p robab ly needs no f u r t h e r comiient b e f o r e t h i s group.

Utah Power & L i g h t Company has f i v e power p r o j e c t s on

t h e Bear R i v e r and t r i b u t a r i e s i n Idaho and Utah. Commencing

at t h e head o f t h e s t r e a m the P a r i s P r o j e c t i s t h e f i r s t p l a n t ,

and i t had a F e d e r a l Power Commission l i c e n s e t h a t e x p i r e d on

June 30, 1970. An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a renewal l i c e n s e was f i l e d

some t i n e ago , b u t no a c t i o n has been t a k e n w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t

o t h e r t h a n t h a t t h e Commission has been i s s u i n g au tomat ic

annua l renewal l i c e n s e s u n t i l formal a c t i o n i s t aken .

The n e x t p l a n t downstream i s t h e Soda P r o j e c t , and i t s

F e d e r a l Power Commission l i c e n s e does n o t e x p i r e u n t i l J u l y 5 ,

1973. An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a new l i c e n s e f o r t h i s p r o j e c t was

f i l e d a few y e a r s ago and i s now pending b e f o r e t h e Commission.

T h e next: i n s e r i e s a r e t h e Grace and %ove p l a n t s , and

.-.----they have been combined i n t o one p r o j e c t ; and an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

a l i c e n s e f o r t h e s e p l a n t s a s a c o n s t r u c t e d p r o j e c t was f i l e d

some e i g h t o r n i n e y e a r s ago. We have f u l f i l l e d a l l o f t h e

r e q u e s t s made o f u s by t h e F e d e r a l Power Commission, and we t %I

b e l i e v e t h a t t h e . i s s u a n c e o f a l i c e n s e ~ i m m i n e n t . I f and when /'

i s s u e d , t h i s l i c e n s e should have an e x p i r a t i o n d a t e o f ~ e c e m b e r . 3 1 ,

1993. .

The Oneida Plant is only a short distance downstream,

and this project's Federal Power Commission license had an

expiration 'date oE June 30, 1970. An application for a new

license was filed in 1969, and automatic annual renewals have

been issued since June 30, 1970. We have no way of knowing at

this time when final action may be taken with respect to this

application.

All of the above plants are located in Idaho, and the

final plant on the River is designated as the Cutler Project;

and it is in Utah. This has recently been licensed by the Federal

Power Commission, and the license has an expiration date of

December 31, 1993.

TRI-STATE NEGOTIATING COMNITTEE BEAR RIVER

**;k

IDAHO CONNENT Ah'D PROPOSAL ON INCREASE OF I,JATEK USE ALLOWANCE AEOVE BEAR LAKE

EVANSTON, WYOMING J u l y 2 0 , 1972

The A p r i l 1 7 , 1972, T r i - S t a t e N e g o t i a t i n g Mee t ing a t Logan, Utah, d e a l t

a t l e n g t h w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f removing t h e s t o r a g e l i m i t above Bear Lake.

The p o s i t i o n o f e a c h s t a t e a s we u n d e r s t a n d i t i s a s f o l l o w s :

Wyoming a p p e a r s t o want t h e s t o r a g e l i m i t i n c r e a s e d 71,050 a c r e - f e e t

beyond t h e p r e s e n t compact l i m i t f o r t h a t s t a t e . ' The Wyoming N e g o t i a t i n g

Committee d o e s n o t b e l i e v e t h e y c a n r & l i s t i c a l l y f o r e c a s t where t h e s t o r a g e m i g h t

be b u i l t o r how i t migh t be used a n d , t h e r e f o r e , a r e r e l u c t a n t t o have a n y . .

c o n s t r a i n t s imposed w i t h r e g a r d t o new s t o r a g e .

The Utah N e g o t i a t i n g Co~mnit tee wan t s t h e p r e s e n t s t o r a g e ] . i m i t a t i o n above

Bear Lake l i f t e d b u t s u g g e s t s t h a t c o n t r o l o f a l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n o l s t o r a g e above

Bear Lake b e v e s t e d i n a t r i - s t a t e g r o u p and t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e l anguage c o v e r i n g

t h i s be i n c l u d e d i n a r e v i s e d compact.2 Upper b a s i n u s e r s i n Utah e n v i s i o n

b e i n g p e r m i t t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e amount s i m i l a r t o t h a t g r a n t e d t o Wyoming.

The Idaho N e g o t i a t i n g Committee h a s g i v e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e

s t o r a g e a l l o w a n c e above Bear Lake c o n s i d e r a b l e s t u d y s i n c e A p r i l 17 . The

p r i m a r y c o n c e r n o f t h e Idaho N e g o t i a t i n g Comn~i t t ee r e v o l v e s a round p r o t e c t i o n o f

e x i s t i n g w a t e r r i g h t s and u s e s w i t h i n t h e B a s i n . These p r e s e n t u s e s and

c o m i t m e n t s f a l l i n t o s i x g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d i n g :

1 "Wyoming's Water S u p p l i e s and Needs i n t h e Bear R i v e r B a s i n , " p. IV-37, J. T. Banner and A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , 1368.

2 "Utah ' s Response t o I d a h o ' s February 3 rd P r o p o s a l , " A p r i l 1 7 , 1972 .

(1) C e n t r a l D i v i s i o n f l o w s d i v e r t e d by Idaho c a n a l s d u r i n g t h e i r r i g a t i o n

s e a s o n .

(2) Water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake t h a t is u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y f o r power

g e n e r a t i o n .

(3) Bear Lake i n f l o w s which a r e immedia te ly r e l e a s e d t o s a t i s f y n a t u r a l

f l o w r i g h t s be low t h e l a k e .

(4) Water d i v e r t e d f o r s t o r a g e i n Bear Lake u n d e r t h e Utah Power and

L i g h t Company s t o r a g e r i g h t f o r l a t e r i r r i g a t i o n u s e i n Idaho and

Utah.

( 5 ) Water which i s h e l d f o r l o n g p e r i o d s o f t i m e i n t h e I r r i g a t i o n Rese rve

t o s a t i s f y t h e Compact i n t e n t o f i n s u r i n g a g a i n s t f u t u r e i r r i g a t i o n .:.

s h o r t a g e s .

(6) R e c r e a t i o n and f i s h i n g u s e s o f Bear Lake which c o u l d b e d a m a g e d b y

i n c r e a s e d d e p l e t i o n ups t ream.

Any i n c r e a s e i n u p s t r e a m d e p l e t i o n (above S t e w a r t Dam) w i l l a f f e c t some o r

a l l o f t h c s e u s e s . It i s r e c o g n i z e d , however, t h a t d e p l e t i o n s above Bear Lake

w i l l c o n t i n u e t o i n c r e a s e w i t h no change i n t h e e x i s t i n g compact. Groundwater

deve lopment , which i s n o t e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l l e d by t h e compact , w i l l c o n t i n u e

t o d e c r e a s e r i v e r f lows. Recogn iz ing t h i s , t h e Idaho Committee i s w i l l i n g t o

c o n s i d e r a n a l l o w a n c e f o r a nominal i n c r e a s e i n s t o r a g e a n d d e p l e t i o n above

Bear Lake p rov ided c e r t a i n o t h e r c o n t r o l s a r e added. T h i s p a p e r c o n t a i n s a ? r o p o s a l

r e g a r d i n g s u c h a n i n c r e a s e .

Idaho a l s o r e c o g n i z e s t h a t most o f t h e impac t s on downstream u s e r s c a n

l a r g e l y be a v o i d e d i f d e p l e t e d i n f l o w s a r e r e p l a c e d by a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e

downstream from Bear Lake. The Idaho Committee i s , t h e r e f o r e , a l s o w i l l i n g t o

c o n s i d e r a conlpact r e v i s i o n which would pe rmi t a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e above Bear

Lake , c o n d j t i o n e d upon c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r ep lacement s t o r a g e below t h e l a k e .

T h i s amount would depend on many u n r e s o l v e d f a c t o r s and c a n n o t be i d e n t i f i e d

u n t i l d i s c u s s i o n s r e g a r d i n g downstream d i v i s i o n have p roceeded f u r t h e r . Mag-

n i t u d e s o f s t o r a g e and d e p l e t i o n s u g g e s t e d i n t h i s paper d o n o t i n c l u d e

s t o r a g e f o r which r e p l a c e m e n t would have t o be p r o v i d e d .

The c o n c e p t proposed by Utah o f p l a c i n g c o n t r o l o f t h e s t o r a g e a l l o w a n c e

above Bear Lake i n t h e hands o f a t r i - s t a t e e n t i t y i s a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e Idaho

N e g o t i a t i n g Committee upon t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t a p p r o v a l be by unanimous v o t e . Idaho

d o e s n o t wish t o l e a v e "open-ended" t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e and

d e p l e t i o n above Bear Lake.

The Idaho Committee, t h e r e f o r e , p r o p o s e s :

A r t i c l e V be m o d i f i e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e l i m i t o f s t o r a g e above S t e w a r t

Dam i n a n y y e a r t o 56 ,500 a c r e - f e e t f rom t h e p r e s e n t limit o f 36,500

a c r e - f e e t . F u r t h e r m o r e , a n a d d i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n o f n o t more t h a n 5 , 0 0 0

a c r e - f e e t p e r y e a r o f d e p l e t i o n beyond t h a t r e s u l t i n g f rom development o f

t h e p r e s e n t compact s t o r a g e a l l o w a n c e and p r e s e n t w a t e r u s e s i s proposed.

Approval of i n c r e m e n t s o f s t o r a g e and d e p l e t i o n r e s u l t i n g f rom t h e s t o r a g e would

b e made by unanimous v o t e o f t h e Bear R i v e r Compact Commission.

We p r o p o s e t h e r e be no s p e c i f i c a t i o n a s t o a n a l l o c a t i o n o f t h i s new

s t o r a g e . Excluded from t h i s p r o v i s i o n would be r e s e r v o i r s o f less t h a n

20 a c r e - f e e t .

D i v e r s i o n s from e i t h e r s u r f a c e o r g roundwate r f o r i n d i v i d u a l d o m e s t i c

u s e s o f l e s s t h a n g a l . p e r day would be e x c l u d e d from t h e

d e p l e t i o n l i m i t . A l l o t h e r new w a t e r d i v e r s i o n s . . a n d u s e s f rom b o t h s u r f a c e

and g roundwate r would be r e p o r t e d by e a c h s t a t e and be i n c l u d e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g

i f t h e maximum a d d i t i o n a l d e p l e t i o n o f 5 , 0 0 0 a c r e - f e e t a n n u a l l y had been r e a c h e d .

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a p p r o v a l o f d e p l e t i o n s r e s u l t i n g f rom new w a t e r u s e s

o t h e r t h a n s t o r a g e would remain w i t h t h e s t a t e s . The s t a t e s would r e p o r t

t o t h e Bcar R i v e r Compact Commission on e x t e n t o f t h e d e p l e t i o n p e r m i t t e d

d u r i n g t h e y e a r . %

-3-

A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , t h e Conlpact imposes a n a b s o l u t e r e s t r i c t i o n on a l l o w i n g

a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e above Bear Lake ( S t e w a r t Dam). A s a r e s u l t , no new p r o j e c t

above S t e w a r t Dam c a n be c o n s i d e r e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s m e r i t s . T h i s c o n d i t i o n

does n o t e x i s t f o r p r o j e c t s below Bear Lake. I d a h o ' s c o n c e s s i o n t o removing,

w i t h i n d e f i n e d l i m i t s , t h e p r e s e n t Compact r e s t r i c t i o n would be c o n t i n g e n t

upon a s s u r a n c e s from Wyoming and Utah o f t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r p r o j e c t p r o p o s a l s

f o r t h e lower D i v i s i o n which conform w i t h a p l a n f o r t h e b a s i n a g r e e d upon by

t h e t h r e e s t a t e s , and t h a t t h e f o l l o r ? i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e Compact would a l s o

be made:

M o d i f i c a t i o n o £ A r t i c l e I V , S e c t i o n 3 , p a r a g r a p h A s u c h t h a t d e l i v e r y

o f w a t e r i n t h e Lower D i v i s i o n "wi thou t r e g a r d t o t h e boundary l i n e " s h a l l

a p p l y t o o n l y t h o s e r i g h t s , b o t h s u r f a c e w a t e r and g r o u n d w a t e r , i n e x i s t e n c e

a t t h e d a t e o f r a t i f i c a t i o n o f a r e v i s e d compact. F u t u r e r i g h t s would be . .

p e r m i t t e d on t h e b a s i s o f a d i v i s i o n a g r e e d upon between Utah and Idaho , t o

be c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e v i s e d compact.

~ ~ o m i n g ' s Rcponse t o I d a h o ' s Feb rua ry 3, 1.972, P roposa l

The t,?yorili.ng Com~rit t e e concurs t h a t t h e r e i.s a need for:

ag reeme l~ t on a fran~cworl; f o r devel.opnrent and usct of t h e Bear R i v e r .

I I Although we a g r e e t h a t agreeinent on d iv i s io11 of r<rciter al.one may

n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o permi t t h e new u s e s f o r which t h e d i v i s i o n

was in tended1 ' , we t l e v e r t h e l e s s f e e l t h a t d iv id i .ng t h e wa te r i s a

n e c e s s a r y f i r s t s t e p . Such a d i v i s i o n of t h e unconsumed wa te r must

be f l e x i b l e enough t o perini t t h e development o f each p r o j e c t a s

i t g a i n s p u b l i c accep t ance and i s de te rmined t o be f e a s i b l e i n

acorclnnce w i t h t h e e x a c t i l ~ g c r i t e r i a of modern procedures .

The f o l l o w i n g paragraphs c o r r e s p o r ~ d nurncrj.cal1.y t o t h e

f o u r nu&rical . pa ragraphs l i s t e d i n i t i a l l y i n t h e Idaho p roposa l .

I I 1. Wyoming a g r e e s t h a t There i s a need t o d e f i n e f u t u r e . '. p r o j e c t s and t h e manner i n which t hey may be ope ra t ed" . However,

t o a t t e m p t t o i c l e ~ ~ t i f y i n d e t a i l t h e t o t a l dcveloprnent b e f o r e a

n e g o t i a t e d conpac t m o d i f i c a t i o n i s r eached , a p p e a r s t o u s t o be a

w a s t e f u l ext:ravagance o f t ime and e f f o r t .

2. We a g r e e t h a t t h e g e n e r a l u s e s of a d d i t i o n a l u p s t r e a n

s t o r a g e should be d e f i n e d , b u t t h e planned l o c a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e

s t o r a g e p r o j e c t s should remain f l e x i b l e t o a l l o w dcvc1.opment

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e econo~nic r e a l i t i e s . T h i s f l e s i b i l . i t y w i t h r e s p e c t

t o l o c a t i o n o f s t o r a g e p r o j e c t s w i l l n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t downstream

consumptive u s e s .

3 . Bear Lakc f1 .uctuat ion must c o n t i n u e , when n e c e s s a r y ,

t o s u p p l y e x i s t i n g consumpti.ve u s e s do-i.7nstrei1111 i n a c c o r d a t ~ c e w i t h

e x i s t i n g wa te r r i g h t s and t h e Compact. Concess ions t o r e c r e a t i o n

i n t e r e s t s who have no w a t e r r i g h t s and no l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e

ope ra t< -ng procedures f o r Bear Lake could b e c o n s i d e r e d , however,

i f p roper compensation by t h e s e r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s can be con-

t r i b u t e d towards t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f rep lacement s t o r 2 g e c a p a c i t y .

The impact o f any conces s ions should f a l l on t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s ,

r a t h e r t h a n on t h e wa te r u s e r s who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n deve lop ing

upstrealn s t o r a g e . k

4. The Wyoming Committee a g r e e s t h a t t h e r ea sonab le , and

we s t r e s s t h e word r e a s o n a b l e , wa te r r equ i r emen t s o f t h e Bear

R ive r Migra tory B i rd Refuge should be determined a s soon a s i s

p r a c t i c a b l e .

Wyoining j o i n s w i t h Idaho and Utah i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e .

Bear ~ i v e r Compact w i l l have t o b e modif ied t o permi t i n c r e a s e d

u s e s o f Bear River w a t e r s . Such m o d i f i c a t i o n should be framed i n

te rms s u f f i c i e n t l y b road t o p roy ide f o r t h e development o f a b a s i n

p l a n t h a t i s a d a p t a b l e t o changing p u b l i c needs and economic

c o n d i t i o n s . Basin p l ann ing i s a c o n t i n u i n g p r o c e s s a s opposed t o

t h e r i g i d permanence o f a compact, and p lanning w i l l i n e v i t a b l y

c o n t i n u e a f t e r t h e Compact i s modif ied. For t h i s r e a s o n , i t i s

n e c e s s a r y and d e s i r a b l e t o make t h e proper changes i n t h e Compact

b e f o r e a t t e m p t i n g t o a g r e e on a l l o f t h e d e t a i l s o f a b a s i n p l a n .

A r e v i s e d Compact can t h e n provide f i r m g u i d e l i n e s t o f a c i l i t a t e

t h e e v e n t u a l c r e a t i o n o f an a g r e e a b l e o v e r a l l p l an . We conclude,

t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t l ~ c prin~ai-y o l > j e c t i v e o f t h e nego t i a t i . ons shoulcl

be t o f o r m u l a t e Coijipact p r o v i s i o n s which w i l l riiake p o s s i b l e t h e

o r d e r l y clevelopneni o f p r o j e c t s i n a l l a r e a s .

MEMORANDUM

RE: S t a t u s of Negotiat ions t o Apportion t h e Bear River Among Idaho, Utah and Kyoming.

1. INTRODUCTION AND PRESENT STATUS OF N E G O T I A T I O N S

while t h e r e has been some progress on t h e p a r t of t h e

negot ia to rs f x ~ m t h e t h r e e s t a t e s ko a r r i v e a t a forrnula f o r

equ i tab ly apport ioning of waters of t h e Bear River system t h e r e

r : t i l l e x i s t s a number of obs tac les t o reaching an accord o n t h i s

mat ter . The purpose of t h i s memo i s t o b r i e f l y o u t l i n e t h e a reas

where t h e major concern e x i s t s an6 i r ! son~e i.?n',ances o f f e r sugqes-

t i o n s a s t o how c e r t a i n of t he se problens m~:y be ;.dvanced toward a

so lu t ion . The negot ia to rs from the; t.ti:>:i.(.: stst-s ha.~;e expiored a

number of ways c.f reaching an e ~ c i t a 3 l : . appurtio,>ment of t h e

waters of t h i s bas in . The i n i t i ~ : ! . a p p r ~ a c h , which ;;. sti l l . undzr ....

considera t ion was t o a r r i v e at: a ddrcl?:mii;akion of t h e y i e l d of

t h e r i v e r system, make an evalua4:ion of :.he e x i s t i n 2 r j g h t s , sn2

from t h i s determine ?:ld appc:r.ilic!> the ::~:rfiaining water anonq tno

t h r e e s t a t e s which would i n t u r n ~-..S.i.c.,t-iati-: t.he v a t e r t a the il~2i.v!..-

dual users under the e x i s t i n g st?t:l:i.;r*!ry procleduze provide6 5:c.r

i n each s t a t e . A s wi.:;.i. be discu::.:,eS i . . i g r e a t e r rlet.ail i n !:I.,?

sec t ions below, t h e promise of t.hi r : ::.i ri';>:.i.t'i eu apy~:i:oacl.~ ha:. l,nt

y e t bezn r ea l i zed because nf prol;l.ems i t , Zetermininc; iyt:! : ? : ~ < 2 : ogy

of the r i v e r and i n making an i n i t i a l detel~nj.ua'ii,on u f t ts

e x i s t i n g r i g h t s . Wyoming has throughout these s s s? . i c~n : ; a+:l~ert?<l

- - - . . - . . . - . . . . . fo thd p o s i t i o n t h a t it d e s i r e s t o be a i l o c a t e d a block of water

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . upper po r t i on d f t h e Bear River system Stid once t h i s i s

- . - .* . . . . . . S p e e d upon 1daho and Utah &an apport i6n t h e r i v e r beldw Bear Lake

i n any manner they wish. However, what i s not c l e a r i s t h e amount

of water which Wyoming would s e t t l e for-the q u a n t i t y requested

has ranged a l l the way from 100,000 ac re f e e t t o 30,000 ac re f e e t .

. . . . &ile t h e Utah negot ia to rs a r e not genera l ly opposed t d such an

-.. ... . . . . . Spproach they a r e r e l u c t a n t t o agree t o any f i g u r e s u n t i l the re is

. . . . . . . . genera l agreement on t h e y i e l d and t h e e x i s t i n g demands

. .

on the r i v e r .

&reher , t h e Utah nego t i a to r s , up t o t h i s p o i n t , have

f e l t t h a t Utah should receive an add i t i ona l a l l o c a t i o n f o r use op

t h e Utah lands above Bear Lake i f the e x i s t i n g s to r age l i m i t a t i o n

placed on a l l s t a t e s by the p r i o r Bear River Compact i s t o be

l i f t e d . It is not bel ieved t h a t Wyoming w i l l oppose t h i $ concept

even though q u a n t i t i e s of water have not been agreed upon. As.

- an a l t e r n a t i v e , Idaho and Utah have been, and a r e now consider ing,

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of developing t h e r i v e r on a p r o j e c t by p r o j e c t

basis. This would have the advantage of not r equ i r i ng a complete

r e so lu t i on of t h e hydrologic problems on the r i v e r because t h e

. . . . . . - . -. - i n i t i a l p r o j e c t s being considered would be wel l within the range

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . , . .... - .- <£ the most conservat ive f i g u r e s i s f a r 5s ~ v a i i i b l e watkr supply

Ls concerned. However, i t now appears t h a t t h e f i r s t p r o j e c t s

which would l i k e l y be ready t o bc const ructed a r e i n Idaho and Utah.

, - 2 -

*

11. HYDROLOGY OF THE BEAR RIVER SYSTEM

S u p e r f i c i a l l y a t l e a s t , it almost always appears t h a t making

a determination of what a r i v e r system y i e l d s and an eva lua t ion of

t h e e x i s t i n g demands on t h e r i v e r i s e a s i e r than it t u r n s out t o

be. This i s s o f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons. The y i e l d of a r i v e r ,

of course , v a r i e s from year t o year and t h e h i s t o r i c a l measure-

ments a r e not always t o t a l l y complete o r t o t a l l y accura te . Fur ther ,

t h e use of averages can be misleading because t h e average i s never

r e l i a b l y a v a i l a b l e and t h i s i s no assurance t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l

flow p a t t e r n w i l l r epea t i t s e l f . But never the less , a determina-

t i o n of t h e y i e l d of the r i v e r can be achieved wi th in a c e r t a i n

percentage of accuracy. Such an evaluat ion has been made f o r the

Bear River system, and t h e s t a t e s have reached genera l agreement

on it. But what i s even more d i f f i c u l t t o determine i s the man-

made dep le t ions on t h e r i v e r system. This i s s o because t h e r e

a r e l i t e r a l l y hundreds of e s t ab l i shed uses with new ones being ,

Q added a s new development t akes p lace . Fur ther t he se d ivers ions

a r e not usua l ly accura te ly measured and a l l of t h e water d ive r t ed ,

a t l e a s t f o r such uses as a g r i c u l t u r e , i s not consumed and a po r t i on

o f t en r e tu rns t o t h e stream and again forms a po r t i on of t h e a v a i l -

a b l e water supply f o r downstream users . However, t h e methods of

evaluat ing t h e deple t ion t o t h e stream by t h e var ious use rs a r e

not uniform and d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s y i e l d varying es t imates . This

i s one of the problems now fac ing t h e negot ia to rs .

undoubtedly be h e l p f h l t o t h e negot ia to rs from each s t a t e t o

have such information ava i l ab l e . This may be a mat te r which the

governors would wish t o d iscuss .

IV. BEAR LAKE

The problems surrounding Bear Lake a r e not l im i t ed t o water

r i g h t mat ters bu t t h e water r i g h t problems w i l l be noted f i r s t .

Bear Lake water se rves a dual funct ion. Utah Power & Light Company

has t h e r i g h t , within c e r t a i n l i m i t s t o r egu l a t e and s t o r e water

i n t h e Lake f o r power genera t ing purposes. These power r e l ea se s

a l s o form the b a s i s f o r c e r t a i n downstream i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s i n

t h e summer. It i s gene ra l l y be l i eved , although t h e r e i s not

complete agreement, t h a t i n order t o al low any s u b s t a n t i a l use

of water above Bear Lake would requ i re Utah Power & Light Company

t o agree t o modify t h e i r e x i s t i n g r i g h t s on t h e Lake t o some degree.

O f course, under t h e e x i s t i n g Bear River Compact t h e amount of

e x i s t i n g s to rage and use i s l im i t ed by t h e terms of t h e compact

and any new s to rage would r equ i r e t h e modif ica t ion of t h i s compact.

The i r r i g a t o r s i n Rich County a r e now contemplating t h e enlarge-

ment of the e x i s t i n g woodruff Narrows Dam b u t they a n t i c i p a t e

accomplishing t h i s by changing some of t h e i r e x i s t i n g d i r e c t flow

r i g h t s t o s torage . Since e s t ab l i shed r i g h t s a r e involved, i t i s

f e l t t h a t such a program would not v i o l a t e the terms of the

e x i s t i n g compact. However, be fore any agreements a re reached

t h e Rich County users d e s i r e t o have a pre l iminary evaluat ion

- 8 -

made of t h e i r proposed change t o determine i f i t w i l l provide the

necessary supplemental water f o r t h e i r lands. This evaluat ion i s

now underway. I f t h i s proposal i s not s u f f i c i e n t then the Rich

County i n t e r e s t s a r e des i rous of secur ing an a d d i t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n

of water f o r use i n t h i s area . The governors may wish t o request

some expression from t h e Power Company with regard t o add i t i ona l

development above Bear Lake.

The o the r problem assoc ia ted with Bear Lake involves t h e

summer home development surrounding t h e Lake and t h e r ec rea t i ona l

uses being made of t h e Lake i t s e l f . These i n t e r e s t s a r e genera l ly

opposed t o a program which would r e s u l t i n excess ive f l u c t u a t i o n s

of t h e Lake l eve l . While most observers b e l i e v e these use rs have

no l e g a l r i g h t t o have t h e Lake maintained a t a s p e c i f i c l e v e l f o r

t h e i r b e n e f i t , they never theless represen t an important group which

has t o be d e a l t with. The Utah nego t i a to r s , which is made up

pr imar i ly of i r r i g a t i o n and o ther water u se r s , gene ra l l y favor

a pos i t i on which would r e s u l t i n the increased u t i l i z a t i o n of the

waters of Bear Lake. Of course, downstream i r r i g a t o r s i n Utah

who depend on t h e Power Company's opera t ion of Bear Lake f o r t h e i r

water supply i n Box Elder County would oppose any modificat ion

of t h e Power Company's program which would impair t h e i r water r i g h t s .

Thus, it appears t h a t t h e r e may be competit ion between various

i n t e r e s t s i n Utah on t h e reso lu t ion of t h e f u t u r e use of Bear Lake.

SUMMARY

1. The states should complete the necessary studies and

review of existing studies in an attempt to reach a general agree-

/

* / ment on the present man-made depletions in the Bear River system.

It is believed that this objective is now within reach and can be

achieved within a reasonable time.

2. AS a related matter, each state should determine the

extent to which it feels a need to evaluate its prior existing

rights and come up with some general time frame to accomplish this

program and advise the other states. Wyoming has already done this

3. In order to determine the extent to which it w~uld be

useful to pursue the possibility of additional storage and use of

the Bear Lake, inquiry should be made to Utah Power & Light Company

to determine what it considers its future operation to entail with

respect the operation of Bear Lake. It would also appear to be

necessary to have some expression from each state as to how it

considers that Bear Lake should be operated in terms of recrea-

tional and summer home development surrounding the Lake.

4. Idaho has introduced, for consideration by the other

two states, the concept for attempting to arrive at a basin-wide

plan which if agreed upon could serve as the basis for future

development along the Bear River. while there are a number of

aspects about the Idaho proposal which are not clear and others

which Utah does not believe it would agree to, nevertheless, it

appears t h a t t h i s proposal mer i t s a more d e t a i l e d d iscuss ion.

This i s s o because t h e p r i n c i p l e f e a t u r e of t h e bas in p lan concept

would be t h e development of t h e r i v e r system on a p r o j e c t by

p r o j e c t b a s i s and it now appears t h a t t h e r e w i l l be a need f o r

ad.ditiona1 p r o j e c t s i n Utah i n t h e not t o o d i s t a n t fu tu re . m i l e

Utah ind ica ted a t t h e l a s t meeting it was genera l ly agreeable t o

consider such an approach, Wyoming has not formally responded t o

LP t h i s proposal b u t it@ an t i c ipa t ed t h a t they w i l l do so a t t h e

Evanston meeting.

WYOMING RESPONSE TO THE I D A H O PROPOSAL

Evanston, Wyoming J u l y 20, 1972

I n i t i a l l y , b e f o r e responding t o I d a h o ' s February 3

p r o p o s a l , I would l i k e t o d i s c u s s some t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s

r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s amounts of

a d d i t i o n a l ups t ream s t o r a g e .

T h i s s l i d e shows t h e p r e s e n t l y i r r i g a t e d l ands i n

Wyoming i n g reen , and about 12,000 a c r e s of p o t e n t i a l l y

i r r i g a b l e l a n d s i n ye l low t h a t may b e t h e f i r s t l a n d s t o b e

developed i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e . A d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e

c o n s t r u c t e d above Bear Lake t o s h p p l y l a t e - s e a s o n supplemental

wa te r t o t h e l a n d s i n g r e e n , and an o r i g i n a l w a t e r supply f o r

t h e l a n d s i n ye l low, would have a s a l u t a r y e f f e c t on t h e

a g r i c u l t u r a l economies o f L inco ln and Uin ta Coun t i e s i n

Wyoming. The West Fork o f t h e Bear River now s u f f e r s an

annua l s h o r t a g e i n exces s o f 20%. T h i s would b e reduced t o

about 8% i f t h e 4700 a c r e - f o o t Whitney R e s e r v o i r were e n l a r g e d

t o 32,000 a c r e - f e e t . I n a d d i t i o n , such an en la rgement would .

r e l i e v e t h e demands on t h e Sulphur Creek R e s e r v o i r and r educe

t h e annual s h o r t a g e on Sulphur Creek t o a lmost z e r o

But t h e most impor t an t inipact of a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e

would b e f e l t i n t h e Yellow Creek a r e a . The annual wa te r

s h o r t a g e i s t e r r i - f i c here. The Utah Water Resources D i v i s i o n of

t h e Department o f Natura l Resources made a computer s t u d y o f

e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n Wyoming and then s i ~ i i u l a t e d t h e e f f e c t of

new s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y . T h i s s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i f t h e Yellow

Creek R e s e r v o i r were c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h 70,000 a c r e - f e e t c a p a c i t y ,

t h e p r e s e n t annua l 72% s h o r t a g e s u f f e r e d by peop le i n t h e

Yellow Creek b a s i n would b e reduced t o a s h o r t a g e of l e s s than

2%.

The b l a c k d o t s on t h e map a r e gag ing s t a t i o n s . They

have g iven us a r e l i a b l e r e c o r d of s t r e a m f lows th roughout t h e

r i v e r sys tem. From t h e s e r e c o r d s , we f e e l t h a t wate r u s e i n

Wyoming h a s n o t changed g r e a t l y over t h e l a s t 30 o r 40 y e a r s ,

s o t h a t h i s t o r i c f lows are a f a i r i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e wa te r t h a t

i s a v a i l a b l e f o r new u s e s . Mr. Wallace J i b s o n , A s s i s t a n t

S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Bear R ive r Commission, has . concluded , t h a t t h e r e

i s s t i l l approximate ly 97,000 a c r e - f e e t unconsumed above t h e

which Lakea;xl-could be used f o r new u s e s w i t h l i t t l e i n f r ingemen t

\..

on d i r e c t - f l o w i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s above o r below Bear Lake.

During t h e 20-year p e r i o d from 1949 t o 1968, t h e r e would have

been an e x c e s s of s t o r a b l e wa te r over i r r i g a t i o n needs of

128,000 a c r e - f e e t a n n u a l l y . W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t d u r i n g a l ong ,

s e v e r e drought such a s t h a t of t h e 1930 ' s and 1 9 4 0 T s , t h e r e

would b e no s u r p l u s wa te r and we do n o t e x p e c t any wate r t o

b e a v a i l a b l e f o r new u s e s , under t h e s e c i r cums tances . However,

we f e e l t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h a t r e c u r r i n g i s s u f f i c i e n t l y

s m a l l t o w a r r a n t a ~ n o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e Compact t o a l low t h e u s e

of t h i s s u r p l u s wate r d u r i n g good water y e a r s .

T h i s s l i d e g i v e s you an i d e a o f t h e d e p l e t i o n s

cor responding t o v a r i o u s ~ u s e p a t t e r n s . Above Woodruff Narrows

R e s e r v o i r , t h e a l l e v i a t i o n of a l l p r e s e n t s h o r t a g e s on 31,000

i r r i g a t e d a c r e s o n l y d e p l e t e s t h e system abou t 11,000 a c r e - f e e t

p e r yea r . In good y e a r s , no d e p l e t i o n would occu r . The p r e s e n t

a v e r a i e s h o r t a g e of 26,000 a c r e - f e e t would b e reduced t o an

annual aver age of 6400 a c r e - f e e t . P o s s i b l e f u t u r e munic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l u s e s , w h i l e

need ing around 25,000 a c r e - f e e t of s t o r a g e , would d e p l e t e l e s s

than 4 ,000 ac re - f e e t . A t o t a l development above Woodruff

Narrows t o a l l e v i a t e a l l s h o r t a g e s and p r o v i d e a f u l l supply f o r

10,000 a c r e s o f new l a n d s and a l l f o r e s e e a b l e M & I needs , would

on ly d e p l e t e t h e r i v e r sys tem by 30,000 a c r e - f e e t , i n c l u d i n g

r e s e r v o i r e v a p o r a t i o n .

I n Wyoming's lower p o r t i o n of t h e Bear R i v e r , t h e - p r e s e n t wate r s h o r t a g e i s n o t a s s e v e r e , and i t s s a t i s f a c t i o n

wou1.d d e p l e t e very- s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s of w a t e r . A d d i t i o n a l

s t o r a g e on S m i t h ' s Fork would a l s o s a t i s f y t h e need f o r f l o o d

c o n t r o l and r e c r e a t i o n , i n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a supply f o r

t h e i r r i g a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y i r r i g a b l e l a n d s .

We f e e l t h a t t h e arguments i n f a v o r of modifying t h e

Compact t o a l low more s t o r a g e i.n Wyoming a r e ve ry compel l ing.

A mod i f i ed Compact would f a c i l i t a t e e f f o r t s by Idaho and Utah

t o d i v i d e t h e bu lk of t h e unconsumed water i n t h e lower Bear

R i v e r .

Moreover, t h e 17,750 a c r e - f e e t of Compact-a l located

s t o r a g e f o r Wyoming i s e n t i r e l y i nadequa te . The s t o r a g e needed

t o s a t i s f y supplementa l needs a l o n e was e s t i m a t e d i n t h e Banner

Repor t t o b e 59,000 a c r e - f e e t . I f Wyoming i s t o i r r i g a t e from

10 ,000 - 30,000 a c r e s of new i r r i g a b l e l a n d s , more s t o r a g e would

be needed, and a r e a s o n a b l e i n d u s t r i a l development would need

abou t 25,000 a c r e - f e e t o f a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e . I n January o f

t h i s y e a r , t h e Utah Water Resources D iv i s ion programmed such

a t a b u l a t i o n through t h e i r computer and found t h a t a t o t a l

s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y of 130,000 a c r e - f e e t above t h e Lake reduced , . ...

Bear Lake in f lows from 275,000 a c r e - f e e t t o 221,000 a c r e - f e e t ,

f o r an average d e p l e t i o n of 54,000 a c r e - f e e t . T h i s d e p l e t i o n

would a l l e v i a t e a l l p r e s e n t s h o r t a g e s , supply a 4 ,000 a c r e - f o o t

d e p l e t i o n from M & I u s e s , and a f f o r d a f u l l supp ly of 29,000

acres of ne-w i r r i g a t e d lands . I f a l l of t h i s contemplated

development i s accomplished, t h e r e would s t i l l be an annual

average of 43,000 ac re - f ee t i n excess of i r r i g a t i o n needs,

according t o t h e Banner Report, or 7,000 a c r e - f e e t , i f one uses

t h e 61,000 ac re - foo t f i g u r e calculatecl by the Idaho Water

Resource Board. I f t h e new i r r i g a t e d lands were l im i t ed t o

10,000 - 12,000 ac res , as shoxgn on the map, t h e t o t a l deplet ion ::

would be reduced t o about 25,000 ac re - f ee t . The Wyoming port ion

of t h e Bear River Basin may never develop t o t h i s ex t en t because

of &conornic l i m i t a t i o n s , bu t t h i s su rp r i s ing ly small deple t ion

i n d i c i t e s t h a t a modif icat ion of t h e compact t o allow add i t iona l

*s to rage i s needed and i s a reasonab1.e reques t .

M r . J ibson , i n 1968, found t h a t i f t h e Con~pact s to rage ..

a l loca t i on above Bear Lake were increased t o 70,000 a c r e - f e e t ,

r a t h e r than 130,000 a c r e - f e e t , wi th the use of t h i s s t o r age water

f o r supplemental supply f o r e x i s t i n g lands , t h e r e s u l t i n g

deple t ion of Bear Lake s t o r a b l e water would be only 9,000 acre-

f e e t of t h e o r i g i n a l 97,000 ac re - f ee t of s t o r a b l e water .

. The f a c t t h a t t h e Wyoming por t ion of t h e Basin con-

t r i b u t e s about 260,000 ac re - f ee t of water per year and uses

70,000, or about 27%, i s another v a l i d argument f o r allowing

an i nc rea se i n CJyomi.ng's Compact s to rage a l l o c a t i o n .

Over 500,000 a c r e - f e e t a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r new u s e s i n

Idaho and Utah below Bear Lake. P r o j e c t s t h a t might u s e t h i s

l a r g e q u a n t i t y of wate r i n c l u d e i r r i g a t i n g over 40,000 a c r e s of

new l.ands and supplement ing t h e e x i s t i n g supply on 60,000 a c r e s ,

p l u s f u r n i s h i n g 43,000 a c r e - f e e t f o r munic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l

u s e s . I n view of t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t development, it. seems on ly

l o g i c a l t h a t Wyoming shou ld be a l lowed a t l e a s t enough a d d i t i o n a l

s t o r a g e t o a l l e v i a t e p r e s e n t s h o r t a g e s . I n f a c t , g i v i n g a l l

e x i s t i n g i r r i g a t e d l ands i n b o t h Wyoming and Utah above S t e w a r t

Darn a f u l l supply vjould depl .e te on ly 35,000 a c r e - f e e t a n n u a l l y .

I f t h e t h r e e s t a t e s c o u l d a g r e e on t h e hydrology of

t h e Bear' R i v e r , devi.se a s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangement w i t h Utah

Power and L i g h t and f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h t h e o p e r a t i o n of Bear Lake,

t h e r e i s a good chance t h a t an agreement cou ld b e r eached on

t h e b a s i c e lements of a b a s i n p l an and on Compact m o d i f i c a t i o n s

i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t t ime . The re does seem t o be a way t o

accomplish t h i s . Some of t h e i r r i g a t i o n demands cou ld b e

r e p l a c e d by c o n s t r u c t i n g a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e downstream. I n

r e t u r k f o r more s t a b i l i z e d f l u c t u a t i o n s of Bear Lalte, t h e

r e c r e a t i o n i s t s cou ld c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o s t s of c o n s t r u c t i n g

t h e rep lacement s t o r a g e . Bes ides r educ ing t h e need t o f l u c t u a t e

Bear Lake, t h i s r e s e r v o i r would c r e a t e more r e c r e a t i o n a l

o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Utah Power and L i g h t Company might s t i l l l o s e

power r evenues , b u t t h e i r hydropower p l a n t s p roduce on ly 8% t o

15% of t h e i r t o t a l power revenues and t h i s p e r c e n t a g e i s de-

c r e a s i n g each y e a r . I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t power can b e

produced from o t h e r s o u r c e s and the reby i s r e p l a c e a b l e , b u t

wate r f o r consumptive u s e s i s n o t a v a i l a b l e from o t h e r s o u r c e s

(except perhaps i n Limited amounts from ground water development:,

weather m o d i f i c a t i o n , e t c . ) , i t would seem t o b e i n t h e b e s t

i n t e r e s t s o f t h e r e g i o n t o a l l o c a t e t h e wa te r t o t h o s e develop-

ments which canno t b e r e a l i z e d wi thou t w a t e r . I f Utah and

Idaho c o u l d i n c l u d e Bear Lake replacement s t o r a g e i n a new

~ l y m o u t h R e s e r v o i r , and some way were found t o e n a b l e Bear Lake

r e c r e a t i o n i s t s t o c o n t r i b u t e , many of t h e s e r i o u s o b s t a c l e s t o \.

conc lud ing t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s would most l i k e l y d i s a p p e a r .

IDAIIO- UTAH-IJYOi*S%NG TRI- STATE BEAR RTVEK NISGOTIA1'KG CONMITTEE

ICEPORT OF TCCIINTCAL SilRCOb$lTTTEE AT

MXETING I N EVANSTON, 6NOMING J U L Y 20, 1972

A t t h e Apr i l meeting, t h e Technical Subconnnittee was g iven t h e assignment

of making a " repor t of t h e f a c t s above Bear Lake.'' Because t h e r e was cons iderable

discussiori of water a v a i l a b i l i t y , t h o Subcolmnittee has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e assignment

t o involve a n assessment of how much rvater upstream from t h e Lake remains uncomnitted.

There a re a t l e a s t t h r e e bases upon which t h e water supply of Bear River can

be analyzed: by use of h i s t o r i c records ; by use of h i s t o r i c records ad jus ted t o a

present l e v e l of development; and by use of flor?s computed by t h e Utah S t a t e Univer-,

s i t y model of Eear RLver. Each of t h e s e methods have c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s , and

t h e r e f o r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s a r e requi red .

For t h e purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n ( i n t h i s r e p o r t only) and t o s i inpl ify t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e Technical Subconunittee agreed t o g i v e r e s u l t s of only one of t hese

t h r e e approaches, :hat us ing h i s t o r i c flows ad jus t ed t o p resen t cond i t ions . Data

f o r t h i s s tudy were deri.ved by t h e Bureau of Reclamation, and t h e s e d a t a form t h e

b a s i s of Bear River s t u d i e s by t h e Idaho s t a f f . Resul t s presented h e r e i n should

be considered t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y more conserva t ive regarding water a v a i l a b i l i t y

t h a & t h o s e rvhich would r e s u l t from use of h i s t o r i c d a t a o r USU modeled d a t a .

Water supply above Bear Lake i s q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l . The average inflow t o

t h e Lake i s about 350,000 a c r e - f e e t per yea r . The minimum yea r flow under present

cond i t ions i n t h e 1927-65 study per iod would be 16,400 a c r e - f e e t i n 1934, snd t h e

maximum would be 845,000 a c r e - f e e t in. 1950.

Because t h e r e a r e seve ra l t ypes of u s e s of t h i s water , it has been c l a s s i -

f i e d f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes i n t o c a t e g o r i e s r e l a t i n g t o i t s present u ses . The

manner of operatLon of Bear Lake a l s o a f f e c t s t h e water a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r new uses .

Water a v a i l a b i l i t y i s summarized by f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of e x i s t i n g uses f o r two modes

of Bear Lake opera t ion i n Exhibi t 1. I n t h e f i r s t mode, t h e f u l l range of Bear

Lakc c a p a c i t y , 1 ,421,000 a c r e - f e e t i s used (Elev. 5902.00 t o 5923.65). I n t h e

second mode, n~axi~num contents a r e l i m i t e d t o 1,340,000 a c r e - f e e t (Elev. 5902.00

t o 5922.5) , t h e approximate l i m i t of f i l l i n g under t h e present ope ra t ion .

Category A wa te r i s inf low t o Bear Lake which i s uncont ro l led t o such an

ex ten t t h a t none of t h e downstream power p l a n t s can use i t f o r power genera t ion .

The Category A cond i t ion occurs only when Bear Lakc i s f u l l t o t h e l i m i t s defined

i n Exhib i t 1.

Category B water i s t h a t water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake which i s used f o r

power product ion but not d ive r t ed f o r i r r i g a t i o n and does not f a l l w i t h i n t h e

defined needs o f . t h e Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Also i t occurs only when

Rear Lake i s f u l l t o t h e l i m i t def ined i.n tiie exhi.11i.t. Exh ib i t s 2 and 3 show t h e

monthly and annual d i s t r i b u t i o n of occurrence of Bear Lake s p i l l s used only f o r

power product ion under t h e two assumed Lake s to rage l i m i t s . I n both cases , a n

' average ' q u a n t i t y i s h igh ly misleading i n t h a t t h e ' average ' r e s u l t s from a

small number of occurrences of very l a r g e s p i l l s and many yea r s of no s p i l l .

Under present condi t ions of use and Bear Lake management, t h e Lake would

meet a l l downstream i r r i g a t i o n requirements and r e t a i n some water i n s to rage a t

i t s lowest po in t . Addi t ional uses upstream could be imposed without i n j u r i n g these

downstream i r r i g a t i o n uses i n a runoff sequence l i k e t h e 1927-65 per iod . These

uses would, of course, d e p l e t e Lake inE:ogs and r e s u l t i n lowered Lake l e v e l s .

Category C water i s t h a t amount of a d d i t i o n a l annual upstream d e p l e t i o n which

would r e s u l t i n Bear Lake being drawn t o t h e bottom of t h e pump withdrawal l e v e l

(5902.00) a t t h e minimum po in t . This drawdown i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Exh ib i t s 4 and 5

using t h e two assumed upper l i m i t s of Bear Lake. Use of Category C wa te r upstream

from Bear Lake would r e s u l t i n lowered Lake l e v e l s i n nea r ly a l l y e a r s . The maxi-

mum lowering would be about 7 . 5 f e e t (520,000 a c r e - f e e t ) i f Bear Lake were operated

f u l l range o r about 2 . 5 f e e t (180,000 a c r e - f e e t ) i f i t were r e s t r i c t e d t o maximums

a s i n t h e present Lake opera t ion .

Category D water which could be used upstream and replaced by s t o r a g e

downstream, cannot be quan t i f i ed without a p lan f o r t h e lower b a s i n . A s e r i e s

of s t u d i e s of a l t e r n a t e lower bas in s to rage increments and uses could be run.

These would provide information on the t r a d e - o f f s involved. So Inany poss ib l e

combinations of downstream s to rage , u ses , Bear Lake opera t ing ranges, and

replacement commitments a r e poss ib le t h a t it was not f e a s i b l e t o undertake such

a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s p r i o r t o t h e J u l y 20, 1972 meeting.

EXHIBIT 1

AVAILABILITY OF WATER*

FOR

ADDITIOKAL DET'LETION UPSTEAII FROM STEWART DAM

BY CATEGORIES OF EXISTING USES

Average Water Avai lab le

Mode 1 Mode 2

Bear Lake Used To Bear Lake Level Maximum Content Limited To

Elev. 5902 t o 5923.35 Elev. 5922.5 Ex i s t ing Use Category 1,421,000 a c r e - f e e t 1,340,000 a c r e - f e e t

A. Water s p i l l e d from Bear Lake V i r t u a l l y none. V i r t u a l l y none. i n excess of a l l power and o t h e r uses .

B . Water used only f o r power 61,200 a c . f t . / y r . 70;300 a c . f t . / y r . product ion. ** C . Water remaining i n Bear Lake 30,000 a ~ . f t . / ~ r . 10,000 a c . f t . / y r . under present cond i t ions , which i f deple ted by a d d i t i o n a l upstream uses , would r e s u l t i n lowering of Bear Lake t o zero a c t i v e con ten t s at mini"1um. "3:"

D. Water which could be replaced Unknown. Would depend upon l o c a t i o n and s i z e by s to rage downstream. of downstream s t o r a g e , amount dedicated t o

replacement, and s i z e of o t h e r new uses of r e s e r v o i r .

* A l l d a t a based on "Modified H i s t o r i c Flow" hydrology--1927 t o 1965

9b~See Exhib i t s 2 and 3 f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of monthly s p i l l s

***See Exhib i t s 4 and 5 f o r hydrographs of Lake l e v e l s

Report of Technical Subcommittee Bear River T r i - S t a t e Meeting

Evanston, Wyoming--July 20, 1972

BEAR LAKE SPILLS* MODE 1

(1000 hc . F t . ) Lake Al-lowed t o F l u c t u a t e F u l l Range

Elev . 5902.0 t o 5923.65

Oct. Nov. Dec. J an . Feb. Mar. Apr. June J u l y Aug. Sep t . - - - - - - -- ---- Year - 1927 0

28 0 2 9 19.7 1 9 . 7

1930 55.6 37 .0 9 2 . 6 31 0 3 2 0 33 0 34 0 3 5 0 36 0 37 0 3 8 0 39 0

1940 0 41 0 42 0 43 0 44 0 4.5 0 4 6 0 47 40.1 40 .1 48 1 6 . 5 80 .8 119.0 57.1 273.4 4 9 1 . 6 39.7 41.3

1950 8 . 8 9 6 . 5 181.9 168 .5 34 .2 4.2 494.1 51 1 6 . 3 28.7 25 .6 16.2 42.2 3 9 . 0 1 1 1 . 1 1 5 0 . 6 68 .5 498.2 52 2 5 . 5 3 1 . 0 33 .9 87.3 230 .1 80.3 488.1 53 4 . 3 31.2 3 2 . 4 29 .4 50.6 147 .9 54 0 55 0 56 0 57 47 .4 47 .4 58 40.8 83.9 4 . 5 129.2 59 0

1960 0 61 0 62 0 63 0 64 0 6 5 42 .6 40.0 33.9 '116.5 Avg . 61.2

" S p i l l s which would have occur red i n per iod of s tudy Based on modifLed h i s t o r i c f lows , 1965 cond i t i ons

Report of Technical Subconimittee Bear River T r i - S t a t e I lee t ing

- 4 - Evanston, Wyoming--July 20 , 1972

BEAR LAKE SPILLS'; MODE 2

Lake F l u c t u a t i o n Limited from Elev. 5902.0 t o 5922.5 Holding $Iaximum Water Sur face Approximately 1 Foot Below Spi l lway

(1000 Ac.Ft . )

o c t . N o v . pec, Jan. Feb. Mar. A p r . M June July A u g . %t, - 1927

28 56.5 29 64.2 43 .4 26 .4

1930 34 .8 78 .6 46 .2 42 .8 31 32 3 3 34 3 5 36 37 38 3 9

1940 41 42 43 44 4 5 4 6 47 4 8 4 . 8 1 5 . 8 71.6 79 .8 4.1.6 19.7 20.2 49 81.5 2 8 . 1 16 .0 .

1950 68.6 43 .1 57.2 98.9 68.7 51 90 .6 38.7 85 .6 76.2 62.2 29.0 82 .1 52 66.1 31 .2 83.7 85 .6 51.0 23.9 137 .8 53 55 .1 8 . 4 76.9 86 .0 45.8 21;2 54 55 56 57 58 59

1960 61 62 63 64 6 5 Avg . " S p i l l s which would have occurred i n per iod of s tudy

Based on modified h i s t o r i c f lows , 1965 cond i t i ons

Ycnr

Report of Technical Subcoi~imittee Bear River T r i - S t a t e Neeting

Evanston, Wyoiiiing--July 20, 1972

I n summary, i t has been i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t some a d d i t i o n a l water can be

developed f o r use upstream from Stewart Dam, and t h e manner of Bear Lake opera-

t i o n i s a major f a c t o r i n t h e q u a n t i t i e s a v a i l a b l e : f o r example, t h e lowering

of Rear Lake "spillway l e v e l " only onc foo t reduces t h e poss ib l e added upstream

d e p l e t i o n by 20,000 a c r e - f e e t .

Daniel F. Lawrence -- Utah Robert R. Lee -- Idaho Floyd A . Bishop -- Wyoming

TECHNICAL SUBCOMt"f1TTEE STAFF

Norman E . S t a u f f e r , J r . -- Utah Alan C . Robertson -- Idaho Thomas L . Barker - - Wyoming

notice of meeting agenda gomeiittee · 20/07/1972 · notice of meeting and agenda , \ ./ bear...

Documents