We submit to you that this article is misleading, is contrary to the facts, and that it was written to support preconceived ideas which have no relationship to the necessary development of the West. The author of that article spent less than 2 days in the Gunnison River area. On the other hand, Mr. Barnard was born at Montrose, Colo., prior to the turn of the century and has spent many years in this part of the State and particularly in connection with the study of the development of the State of Colorado and of our water rights. As shown by Mr. Barnard's letter, the construction of the reservoirs on the Gunnison River will affect less than 12 percent of the 329.5 miles of stream fishing on the Gunnison and its tributaries, and at the same time, will multiply many times the recreation benefits derived from boating, water skiing, and other aquatic forms of recreation.

The National Park Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service, and the official agencies of the State of Colorado have all given years of careful study and consideration to the questions involved in the construction of these reservoirs and have kept in mind the desirability of increasing recreation as well as production of power, the making of water available to some 150,000 acres of land and the protection of the lower river valleys from repeated flood damage. Are these tremendous and essential benefits to the State and Nation to be sacrificed for the "1,050 cottontail rabbits," a small number of mule deer, and an unknown change in fish harvest mentioned in sections 61, et seq., of the Sport Fisheries and Wild Life report of 1957?

May we quote briefly from the 1960 Curecanti unit Colorado River storage project, House Document No. 201. The report of the National Park Service, at page 52, states:

"Numerous cold mountain streams will pour into the three proposed reservoirs. Most of these are perennial and not notable fishing streams. Some of the major tributary streams are the Steuben, East and West Elk, Soap, Curecanti, Cimarron, Crystal, Willow, Cebolla, Lake Fork of the Gunnison and Pine Creek."

Also see page 57 where the Park Service states:

"With due consideration for the many outdoor types of recreational opportunities existing in the Upper Gunnison Basin area, it is believed that there is a definite need for aquatic recreation of the type to be provided by the proposed Curecanti unit reservoirs."

And at page 58:

"It is estimated that approximately 500,000 man-days of general recreation use annually can be contributed to the Curecanti unit reservoirs when recreation developments and facilities adequate to that use have been provided. These 500,000 visitor-days are in addition to estimated present and future visitations to the area without the project."

As you have been advised, Colorado produces approximately 72 percent of the water delivered to the lower basin States at Lees Ferry. Curecanti unit is the only holdover storage project that will directly benefit the State of Colorado.

For these and other legitimate and valid reasons, we urge you to read Mr. Barnard's letter carefully and give it the weight that it deserves coming from one who has had years of actual experience with the Gunnison River, its uses and its problems.

Very respectfully yours,

THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, By /s/ A. ALLEN BROWN, President.

EDITOR, OUTDOOR LIFE,
New York, N.Y.

BARNARD AND BARNARD,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
Granby, Colo., March 10, 1960.

DEAR SIR: Perhaps if this letter were being written to our local weekly newspaper, it should be entitled "Letter to the Editor." It is prompted by an article by Ben East, which appears in your November 1959 issue, entitled, on the front page, "Doom of a Great Trout River." The heading at the start of the article reads: "The Gunnison, One of the Most Famous of U.S. Trout Streams. Is About To Die for Three Nonessential Dams." Herein, I propose to substitute

some specific and pertinent facts for the misinformation contained in this article. Your publication justifiably enjoys a wide circulation; and certainly you, as editor, should be deeply concerned with the factual background, or the lack thereof, for all of the material which you publish.

Does the author of this article actually believe that the Congress would have authorized the advancement of $82,311,000 of Federal funds to construct these dams if they are nonessential? Does he really believe that President Eisenhower, who has been insistent, to the extent of inviting criticism of his policies, that public funds be not expended for nonessential projects or those not essential at this time, would have signed the measure authorizing the construction of the Curecanti project, if the three dams were nonessential? Is he of the opinion that the President's Bureau of the Budget, economy-minded as it is, would have included an appropriation of the sum of $1,400,000 in its fiscal year 1961 recommendation to commence construction of these dams if they are nonessential? Does he believe that the Department of the Interior was completely in error when it ascribed and allotted $3,268,000 of these Federal funds to the recreation benefits which will flow from the three nonessential dams? Mr. Editor, answer these questions yourself. Appraise the facts your answers will disclose, and then determine, for yourself whether the wailing article to which I refer is based upon facts or upon misinformation, and the sensational fantasies and imaginings of the author, who, I understand, spent less than 2 days in the Gunnison area gathering his data.

I am not unfamiliar with this great trout stream. My first fishing experience on that part of the Gunnison River which is the subject of this article was in 1907, when, as a young lad, I fished with willow flies in a very attractive pool located just a few hundred yards upstream from the situs of the proposed Blue Mesa Dam which will form the largest of the three Curecanti reservoirs. My youthful wanderings then took me along the course of the river from Curecanti Needle upstream about 10 miles. I enjoyed it immensely, even though that stretch of the stream is a dangerous one to fish; and, in the many years which have passed since that early date, and as time would permit, I have returned to my favorite fishing spot to pursue one of my favorite outdoor sports. I have fished, also, on many of the miles of the Gunnison and its principal tributaries which will, in nowise, be affected by the construction of the Curecanti project; and every fishing expedition gave me a thrill. I might add that I also much prefer stream fishing to lake fishing.

The title and subtitle of the article to which I refer, and the text itself, are all designed to create the completely false impression that the inundation of that portion of the Gunnison River which will be flooded by the Curecanti reservoirs means the inevitable doom of a great trout river. This is based upon misinformation of the grossest sort; and I propose herein to tell you why I say that, and to give you the facts which both support my statement and refute those made by the author.

The principal tributaries of the Gunnison River are the East River, Taylor, Ohio Creek, Tomichi Creek, Cochetopa Creek, Cebolla Creek, Quartz Creek, and the Lake Fork. When sportsmen speak of the Gunnison as a great trout river, they mean not only the stream itself between the situs of the proposed Crystal Dam and Almont, a distance of 67.5 miles, but they also mean, and justifiably so, all of the above named and many minor tributaries. The principal tributaries are all comparatively large streams, and afford as good or better fishing than does the main stem of the Gunnison itself. Many prefer to fish them over the Gunnison. They are far less dangerous to fish than is the part of the main stream which will be affected by the Curecanti project. The combined length of the fishing stream of the Gunnison and the above named principal tributaries is 329.5 miles.

From the Crystal Dam, which will be located 5 miles upstream from the south boundary of the Black Canon National Monument, to the upstream limits of the nison, is a distance of 47.5 miles. Were all of this 47.5-mile stretch of stream available for fishing which it very definitely is not, then 15 percent of the great trout river, which is the Gunnison system, would be affected for stream fishermen by the Curecanti project. I really believe that Mr. East and the rest of us who prefer stream fishing to lake fishing could find a mile or two in the remaining 282 miles of the Gunnison River and its principal tributaries in which we could pursue our hobby.

Now, let's arrive at the facts as to the 47.5 miles of the Gunnison River proper which will be inundated by the Curecanti reservoirs. Let's take the Blue Mesa Reservoir first. Twenty-six miles of the Gunnison will be flooded by the Blue Mesa Reservoir. Of this 26 miles, 15.5 miles of it traverses posted areas. Stretches of the stream are posted with "No Trespassing" signs, primarily to keep ardent fishermen from tramping down hay crops, leaving pasture gates open, and committing other depradations to the disadvantage of ranchers; and it is not publicly open to stream or any other kind of fishermen. This leaves an 11 mile stretch which is, theoretically, available to stream fishermen. But is it? Look at the pictures of Don Benson, standing on a huge rock, on page 45 of your issue. You will note that the right bank of the river consists almost entirely of precipitous cliffs, down which only the most hardy soul will venture to pursue the wily rainbow or any other kind of game fish or animal. It is my estimate that, of the 11 miles of unposted stream above the Blue Mesa Dam, fully 40 percent is inaccessible to fishermen because of the presence of these cliffs. This leaves only 6.6 miles of open stream above Blue Mesa Dam for stream fishing, out of the above total of 329.5 miles of fishing stream in the Gunnison River and its principal tributaries. Do these facts paint for you a picture of the doom of a great trout river?

It is 15 miles from the situs of the proposed Morrow Point Dam to the Blue Mesa Dam. This portion of the stream will be inundated by the proposed Morrow Point Reservoir. Here the river traverses the Black Canyon. Only one bank of the stream through the Black Canyon is or ever can be accessible or available to stream fishermen ; the towering cliffs of the Black Canyon effectively keep them off the other bank. Here, except in low-water periods, the Gunnison is a raging, swift flowing, turbulent stream. One may fish only in a very few places along one side, where pools are formed, and the water becomes sufficiently quiet so that a fisherman can even keep his line in the water; and only hardy and skilled mountain men should even attempt to fish it.

It is 6 miles from the situs of the proposed Crystal Dam to the Morrow Point Dam. This stretch of the stream also will be flooded when the Crystal Reservoir is filled with water. No part of the stream here is now accessible to fishermen. The abandoned D. & R.G. Railroad emerges from the Black Canyon immediately below the situs of the Morrow Point Dam. From the point of such emergence to the Crystal Dam, the river flows through a portion of the Black Canyon which it is impossible for fishermen to enter or traverse. Parenthetically, when the Crystal Reservoir is filled, not only fisherman but gentle souls who prefer to observe scenic wonders the easy way may, by boat, traverse this presently inaccessible portion of the Black Canyon, and enjoy what I consider to be about the most spectacular and breathtaking scenic wonders on the face of the earth. They cannot see or enjoy them now.

It is my understanding that the regulation of the flow of the Colorado River by Hoover Dam and Lake Meade has made that portion of the stream below the dam an acceptable fishing area, whereas that was not true prior to the construction of that project. With the Gunnison River regulated by the Curecanti dams, and in view of the fact that present operation plans provide for the bypassing, at Crystal Dam, of a substantial and regulated flow of water, it is only logical to assume that the Gunnison River below Crystal Dam will become a "great trout stream." At present it is not, being populated almost entirely by "rough fish."

I again refer you to the pictures illustrating the author's article. Note the one at the lower left on page 46. Would you care to attempt to fish this stretch of the stream? The portion of the river immediately above Crystal Dam resembles that which is shown in the picture. However, the cliffs on each side of the stream in that stretch of the river tower probably 10 times as high as the hills shown on each side of the stream in this picture; they do not slope gently: they plunge almost perpendicularly for an up-and-down distance of close to onehalf mile. Would you care to fish that part of the Gunnison?

I am a confirmed and lifelong devotee to the sport of stream fishing as contrasted to lake fishing. When the three Curecanti reservoirs are filled. I plan only slightly to alter my previous fishing procedures when I go to the Gunnison River. I propose to find a mile or two of the 282 miles of the river which will not be affected by any of these reservoirs. And I will there pursue my fishing activities as ardently, and, I am sure, as successfully, as I did when I fished at Sapinero. At the close of my fishing day, I will return to one of the recrea tional areas which the Government plans to establish along the perimeter of

the Blue Mesa Reservoir; and there will be several of them upon its 95 miles of highwater line. There I will fry my fish in my trailer house which will be lighted with electricity generated at the Blue Mesa powerplant, and heated from the same source. If daylight hours remain, I will take my grandchildren and make a boat trip out over the vast expanse of the Blue Mesa Reservoir, which I think will be one of the most beautiful bodies of water in America. And I think my evening rest will be disturbed very little by the fact that I cannot any longer fish on 47.5 miles of the Gunnison River, most of which I couldn't fish anyway; and if I am at all disturbed by the fact, I will console myself by remembering that 282 miles of that stream still remain to me and all other fishermen, who, like me, prefer stream fishing to lake fishing.

Please bear in mind that not all people who come to Colorado for their vacations and the number is increasing tremendously year by year-come here to enjoy stream fishing. Many who visit Colorado like boating, swimming, water skiing, lake trolling, and other similar sports which now are denied them in the Gunnison Basin. Are we to sacrifice their pleasures and enjoyments for those of the very meager few who would like to see the Gunnison River remain as it is?

Let us look at the economy of the Gunnison Basin area. I live in Grand County immediately below Granby Reservoir, a manmade lake which is a part of the Colorado-Big Thompson project. The Colorado River was at one time equally as good a trout stream as the Gunnison. I know this from experience, having fished both streams for many years. Many miles of the Colorado are now inaccessible for stream fishing because of the presence of Granby Reservoir and the flow of water released therefrom. But I know that the portion of the economy of Grand County which is dependent upon tourists and visitors has tremendously increased since Granby Reservoir was filled, because those who come here find not only stream fishing but a system of lakes of great beauty which they may enjoy in a wide variety of activities. Based on our experience here in Grand County, I predict that for every fisherman who would visit the Gunnison area to fish in that portion of the Gunnison River which will be affected by the Curecanti project, hundreds will come to enjoy the remaining stream fishing, to pursue their piscatorial activities on the three reservoirs which will be created, to camp in comfort at the recreational areas to be established, to enjoy boating, yachting, water skiing, swimming, and other activities now denied them.

Another phase of the discussion by the author of this article has to do with the necessity for the construction of the Curecanti dams from the standpoint of the economy and welfare of the immediately affected areas and of the seven Colorado River Basin States. I do not propose to bore you with details of the Colorado River storage project, of which the Curecanti is one of the primary and necessary units. I shall only give you certain facts for your consideration, and suggest to you that a minimum amount of research on the part of your staff will tell you whether or not they are reasonably accurate.

The construction of the Curecanti reservoirs will make possible the irrigation, within the Gunnison Basin, of 83,550 acres of land which is now in sagebrush and, so far as production of crops is concerned, completely barren. It will provide supplemental water for 73,300 acres of lands which are presently but inadequately irrigated. The Gunnison Basin lands involved are devoted primarily to the raising of livestock. The phenomenal increase in the population of America forecasts that the time will soon be here when more beef cattle must be raised if the demands of that population for beef are to be met. In no other way can these lands ever be made productive. I invite you and the author of this article to investigate carefully the accuracy of this and my following statements of fact.

Second, revenue received from the electrical energy to be generated at Curecanti, Flaming Gorge, and Glen Canyon Reservoir will make possible the construction of more than 43 participating projects in western Colorado which, without this power revenue, cannot be constructed, at least within the foreseeable future. These projects are designed to irrigate thousands of acres of presently unirrigated lands and to provide supplemental water for more thousands of acres which are now inadequately irrigated. Again, forecasting the future, America in 25 or 50 years must depend heavily upon the production of these lands to feed its men, women, and children. Is a dam which creates a reservoir which serves these present and future purposes a "nonessential" dam?

54265-60-pt. 5 -2

Industry and municipalities throughout the seven States of the Colorado a River Basin, and beyond, are power hungry. The demand so greatly exceeds the supply that many communities cannot be assured of an adequate supply of power past the year 1962. These communities, industries, municipalities, and great cities of the Colorado River Basin are as much entitled to an ample supply of power as are similar entities in the East. Is a dam which includes a f powerplant, which, in turn, will greatly augment this inadequate power supply, a "nonessential" dam?

I shall not go further in discussing the benefits which will accrue to the Gunnison Basin, western Colorado, the State of Colorado, the seven States of the Colorado River Basin, and in fact, the United States of America, as the result of the construction of the Curecanti project. I merely invite you and those who oppose such construction, including the author of this article, to spend just a little time in further research on the subject.

The author of this article, on his muffled drums, beats a lugubrious requiem 20 presaging the "doom of a great trout river." I think it would be more proper to arrange for an orchestra to play a fanfare announcing the birth of a recreational area and era which men will never see save only for the Curecanti reservoirs.

Yours very truly,

JOHN B. BARNARD.

Governor NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am beginning to feel almost at home before this committee. Along with my fellow Governors of the upper basin States of the Colorado River, I have been privileged to appear here in past years in support of construction funds for the Colorado River storage project. The response of this committee has always been most gratifying to the States we collectively represent.

It is a particular pleasure to appear here this year in view of the President's favorable budget request for the Colorado River storage project. The people of Colorado were tremendously pleased to note the recommendation of construction funds for the Curecanti and Florida projects.

The members of this committee will recall that the Curecanti unit of the Colorado River storage project was authorized by the Congress in 1956, subject to a favorable economic justification report by the Secretary of the Interior. Such a report was submitted to the Congress last year. On the basis of that report the sum of $1,400,000 was included in the President's budget request to initiate construction of the Curecanti unit. Of the four mainstem units authorized by the Congress in Public Law 485, only Curecanti has not yet been started. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this project, not only to the State of Colorado, but to the entire Colorado River storage project. The Curecanti unit is a vital and initial feature of that project. The consuming mission with which the people of Colorado have entrusted me here today is to ask this committee for a favorable recommendation on construction funds for the Blue Mesa Dam of the Curecanti unit. One of the best informed persons from Colorado on the subject of Curecanti is our Congressman Wayne Aspinall, and I am sure that this committee will hear from him in greater detail on this matter.

In 1956 the Congress also authorized the construction of the Florida participating project in southwestern Colorado, subject to further economic feasibility investigation by the Secretary of the Interior. A favorable investigation has been concluded by the Secretary, and the recommended budget contains an item of $750,000 to initiate construction of this project. The Florida is a relatively small project in size, but large in importance to an arid section of our State. The