A History of Duchesne County

Water-Lifeblood of the county

CHAPTER 9 WATER: LLFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY W n e of the most significant factors of Western history is the general aridity of the West and the struggle of westerners to make the dry lands productive and life-sustaining.1 As it has been in the twen­tieth century, water will likely prove to be the most contested Western resource of the twenty-first century In the West more court battles between regions and states, and even more fights between neighbors, have occurred over water than over any other issue. The effort expended to create the water system now in use in Duchesne County is beyond doubt the largest expenditure of time, work, and money that has gone into building up of the region. When one includes the construction of early canals and ditches, use of the high mountain lakes, the building of massive tunnels and reservoirs, the service roads built to these projects, and the construction of buildings to house those who came to the area as workers, only the highway system and the development of the oil fields can begin to rival the impact of water development in the county. Following the great model of California's Imperial Valley and its agricultural value with a reliable source of water, elsewhere in the 301 302 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY West economic development and agricultural growth grew increas­ingly dependent upon finding and developing reliable sources of water. National and regional political and economic forces began to coalesce over the development of water resources at the turn of the twentieth century. Annual irrigation conferences strongly supported by Utah and other western states urged national attention to the development of water in the West. In 1902 Congress responded with the passage of the Newlands Act, which created a revolving fund for the development of reclamation projects and the establishment of what soon became known as the Bureau of Reclamation. The unbridled Colorado River created problems for Imperial Valley farmers of southern California at the turn of the century. Farmers and land promoters began preparing plans and schemes to protect the fertile farmland of the Colorado River delta and at the same time divert more water to more undeveloped land. California water users pressed their claims of prior rights to nearly all of the Colorado River water. Others, including the Mexican government, also made claims to the river, however. The claims to the water were partially resolved in the courts, and federal court cases and further developments of the Colorado River brought the management and use of the river into the national political arena. In 1922 the Fall-Davis Report, considered by many as the "Bible of the Colorado River," prepared the agenda for later conferences and multistate and international water agreements.2 At a conference held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, representatives from the states of the Colorado River Basin-Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California-gathered to hammer out an agree­ment to water claims and management of the Colorado River. What emerged was the Colorado River Compact, an agreement among all of the states associated with the Colorado River to divide its waters between "upper" and "lower" basin states and Mexico. Utahns were quick to point out the state's need for upper Colorado River water. In 1925, at hearings before the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Governor George Dern emphasized the importance of the Uinta Basin in the larger programs of the development of the Colorado River and the eco­nomic development of Utah. "The most important part of the WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 303 Rock Creek below Upper Still-Water Reservoir. (lohn D. Barton) Colorado drainage in Utah is what we know as the Uintah Basin. This basin is a potential empire in itself," he stated.3 Governor Dern explained further that the Uinta Basin including Duchesne County contained untapped hydrocarbon resources, vast timber reserves, and vast tracts of agricultural land that were central to the economic development of the state. For more than 150 years, the development of the Uinta Basin had been neglected or overlooked. Catholic friars Dominguez and Escalante recognized the agricultural potential of large areas of the basin, but the Spanish failed to return to colonize the basin. Brigham Young overlooked the possibilities of the Uinta Basin in the 1860s fol­lowing an unfavorable report. He and Indian agents deemed the Uinta Basin a perfect location for an Indian reservation. However, by the turn of the twentieth century, the Uinta Basin (and future Duchesne County) was very much a desired region, largely because of its water resources. Settlement by whites in the county represented a planned and pragmatic effort to develop the water resources of the region. Homesteaders were determined to make the Uinta Basin "blossom as 304 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY a rose," similar to the earlier work of colonizers of the Great Basin. Today, an extensive network of 1,400 miles of canals, laterals, and ditches provides irrigation water to more than 117,000 acres of farm­land in Duchesne County.4 The earliest developer of the water resources in the county was the federal government through the United States Indian Irrigation Service with the Ute Indians. This was followed by the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, which was largely a tool of the Mormon colo­nizing effort. Two other very large water projects have impacted water development in the county: the Strawberry Valley Project, developed by the Strawberry River Water Users Association of Utah County (discussed in chapter 4), and the more recent and much larger mul-ticounty Central Utah Project. Uintah Indian Irrigation Project As early as the 1870s Indian agents assigned to the Uintah Indian Reservation recognized the need for irrigation canals if the land of the reservation was to be transformed into productive agricultural land. Little by little they and other Indian agents in the West secured small appropriations to construct irrigation canals on Indian reser­vations. By the 1890s more than a dozen small irrigation canals of various lengths and capacities had been built on the Uintah Indian Reservation. These canals included Number One, Bench, Henry Jim, Ouray School, Gray Mountain, U.S. Dry Gulch, Ouray Park, North Myton Bench, Lake Fork Ditch, Red Gap, and South Myton Bench canals. These canals watered about 3,000 acres of lands from Tabiona to Ouray, with the possibility of irrigating many hundreds of acres more.5 In 1891 Uintah-Ouray Indian Agent Robert Waugh urged that a more comprehensive and systematic approach be taken in the con­struction of Indian irrigation canals. In part because of his sugges­tions, the Uintah Indian Irrigation project was established and Congress agreed to appropriate $600,000 for the project. The federal government was to be reimbursed for the irrigation project from the sale of reservation land.6 The bulk of the work to construct the project was done by local farmers. By 1913 the Uintah Indian Irrigation project provided water WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 305 to 85,800 acres, of which 13,000 acres were irrigated. As a result, irri­gation on the Indian land reached new levels. Most of these projects took place in what is now Uintah County and therefore are not detailed.7 Non-Indian farmers also faced the difficult chore of building canals to deliver water to their farms. The Dry Gulch Irrigation Company was organized to build and manage an irrigation system for non-Indian farmers. It soon became clear that there was much duplication of the two irrigation networks. Out of necessity, the Ute farmers and the white farmers of the county agreed in theory that a cooperative approach be made to the use of existing canals and that further cooperation be promoted in the construction of future canals. As a result of this cooperative effort, much of the water used by Indians and white farmers alike is "mingled" and moved through both Indian and non-Indian canals. The mingling of "Indian water" and "white water" and the fair and equitable distribution of that water has caused no small amount of concern and some hard feelings between the Indian and non- Indian irrigators, and it has been a headache for the ditch riders and managers of the two irrigation systems.8 There is an additional water problem in Duchesne and Uintah counties-the conflicting claims and uses of water. For white farm­ers of the county and the state, the distribution and use of water in Utah is based on custom, law, and a philosophy centering on "bene­ficial use." Part of the legal basis for Utah and arid West water law is rooted in a Spanish concept of "Doctrine of Prior Appropriation." First users of water generally had first claim to the water as long as the well-being of other water users was not neglected.9 The Ute people claim simply that they have always used the water, so it is theirs by right of prior possession. Under Utah water law, water is dis­tributed to those who demonstrate a "beneficial use" of it over a given period of time. Once beneficial use has been demonstrated, the indi­vidual water applicant may be granted perpetual right to the water by the state engineer, acting on behalf of the collective societal inter­est. In the summer of 1905, Indian agent H.P. Myton, on behalf of hundreds of Indian allottees, filed on hundreds of second-feet of 306 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY Hundreds of high mountain lakes are found in the Uinta Mountains of Duchesne County. Many were dammed to store run-off water for irrigation later in the summer. Note the dam at the far end of this lake. (Utah State Historical Society) water with the state engineer. These water filings were then distrib­uted to the Indian allottees, who were responsible for demonstrating beneficial use. This b u r d e n to prove beneficial use was more than many Indian farmers could manage, and, as a result, many later faced the loss of water claims and the depreciation of the value of their land. To gain something from their allotments, some Indian allottees sold their land along with the water filings to their white neighbors for prices ranging u p to twenty dollars an acre. In other cases, Indian allottees and the tribe chose to lease their land to whites. In 1915 the Roosevelt Standard reminded white farmers of the opportunities in leasing Indian land: Under the laws of the State of Utah beneficial use must be made before summer of 1919 of water that irrigates 65,000 acres of land belonging to Uintah and Ouray Reservation. In order to develop WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 307 this land 1,000 white lessees will be offered excellent opportunities to lease the greater part of this land ranging from 40 to 540 acres for a term of 5 years.10 Between 1915 and 1919, the leasing or selling of Indian allot­ments was common. By 1920 more than 18,000 acres of Indian land had been sold to white homesteaders and thousands more acres were leased. The Roosevelt Standard of 19 May 1915 mentioned that the land sold for ten to forty-five dollars an acre depending on the qual­ity of the land. The leased and sold allotments carried the nearly priceless bonus of a water claim. Today, the fair and equitable distribution of water and the right to the water between Indian and non-Indian water users remains a problem. Each group of water users remains suspicious of the other. However, these suspicions and concerns are not unique to the county, and all water users of the county are continuously maintaining a watchful eye on water developments and needs of the Wasatch Front. Further, all Utahns remained concerned with the unquenchable thirst of downstream water users in other states. Dry Gulch Irrigation Company As mentioned, William Smart, president of the Wasatch LDS Stake in Heber City, formed the Wasatch Development Company several months before the opening of the Uintah Reservation in 1905." Smart recognized that the land on the reservation was of little value without water. To ensure that irrigation water was available to homesteaders, Smart and the Wasatch Stake presidency organized the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company in early August 1905. Four months later, on 1 December 1905, the company was incor­porated under the laws of the state and a board of directors elected. The Dry Gulch Irrigation Company became an important driving force for water development and its management in the county. For a number of years, the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company maintained an extraordinary close association with William Smart and other local Mormon church officials. Because of the close association of the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company with the Wasatch Development Company, non-Mormon homesteaders found it difficult to be a part of the Mormon con- 308 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY trolled irrigation company.12 Consequently, the Dry Gulch Homesteaders Irrigation and Improvement Association of Denver was organized along with several other land associations and water development organizations. Known locally as the "Denver Company," the Dry Gulch Homesteaders Irrigation and Improvement Association's objective was to ensure water for "every homesteader on equal terms. . . . [with] No Cliques, No Special Privileges." All of the smaller canal and land-promotion companies, including the Denver Company, were limited financially, and many either folded or were absorbed into the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company within a few years after the opening of the reservation. Some of the other irrigation companies that were formed soon after the opening of the reserva­tion included the Cedarview Irrigation Company, the Lake Fork Irrigation Company, the Uteland Ditch Company, the Lake Fork Western Irrigation Company, the Purdy Ditch Company, the New Hope Irrigation Company, the Anderson Ditch Company, the Good Luck Ditch Company, the Hartzell-O'Hagen Company, the Mines Ditch Company, the Knutson Company, the McPhee Company, the Uintah Independent Ditch Company, the Pioneer Canal Company, the T.N. Dodd Irrigation Company, the Blue Bench Irrigation Company, the Boneta Irrigation Company, the Myton Irrigation Company (later called the Uintah Irrigation Company), the Duchesne Irrigation Company, the Rhodes Ditch Company, and the Rocky-Point Ditch Company.13 To ensure the availability of water for its members, the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company undertook an extensive canal-building project, built mainly by assessed labor. The irrigation company also entered into agreements with the Indian Irrigation Service and the Department of the Interior to utilize some of the existing Indian canals to deliver "white" water to its members. In one of its first agreements with the Indians, the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company agreed to pay $10,000 for some of the unused Indian water rights and to maintain, repair, and enlarge sections of the Uintah Indian Irrigation Service canal system.14 This and later agreements between the Indian Irrigation Service and the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company proved to be very beneficial for white farmers. In addition to the initial appropriation of WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 309 $600,000, Congress later appropriated an additional $400,000 to the Uintah Indian Irrigation project to make canal improvements, and the Uintah Indian Irrigation project proved to be an indirect federal subsidy to the white farmers of the county. By 1992, over 117,000 acres of land in the county were being irri­gated, with a vast majority being served by canals of the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company or the United States Indian Irrigation Service. High Uinta Mountain Reservoirs Even though the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company was marshaling its resources to develop an impressive network of irrigation canals, local farmers still believed they needed more water, particularly later in the growing season. Farmers turned their attention to the Uinta Mountains and the many natural lakes, which were seen as an impor­tant source of water that was as yet untapped. The general plan of local irrigation companies was to secure approval from the United States Forest Service to transform many of the lakes into reservoirs for agricultural purposes.15 This philosophy also was in basic accord with policies of the U.S. Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot, the nation's first professional forester, reflected on the philosophy of full public use of natural resources. It is a fundamental principle of the forest service, Pinchot wrote, "to take every part of the land and its resources and put it to the use which will serve the most people."16 In July 1915 the Farnsworth Canal and Reservoir Company applied for permits to build several dams at Brown Duck, Island, and Kidney lakes in the Brown Duck Basin part of the Lake Fork River drainage. Work began with the hauling of construction material and supplies to the area during the winter of 1916-17 when packed snow made an easier passage for horse-drawn sleighs. The following spring the actual work of excavating, moving, and grading dirt was fully underway. All the heavy work was done using horse-drawn plows, rollers, graders, and scrapers. In addition to increasing the capacity of these and other Uinta lakes, outlet gates were installed to regulate the flow of water. After the drought of 1918-19, and with more land coming under the plow, farmers turned once again to the Uinta Mountains for more water. The Farnsworth Canal and Reservoir Company's stockholders 310 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY agreed that more storage was needed, and plans were formed to make a reservoir at Twin Potts, a large grassy bowl located a few miles south of Moon Lake. With much energy and determination, farmers set to work to build a dirt-and-rock dam at Twin Potts. The newly built dam was ready to store water by the spring of 1921. Twin Potts became one of a dozen or more lakes converted to storage reservoirs in the 1920s. Often, however, many of the reservoirs were built as cheaply as possible and without careful design or sound construction techniques. For several, the threat of disaster was real. For the next six summers water stored in the Twin Potts Reservoir provided much-needed water for area farmers. However, on Thanksgiving Day 1927 disaster struck the dam. Seepage had undermined the dam and it failed. The failure of the Twin Potts Dam has remained the most significant dam failure in the history of the county. In the fall of 1930 the reservoir company secured a loan to reconstruct the dam. This was completed in 1931 at a cost of $40,000. The dependency of many on the dam was significant; when it failed it forced many farmers in Mountain Home to sell out and leave the county17 Another company that filed for and was granted storage rights in the Uintas was the Farmers Irrigation Company. Its first project was at Water Lily Lake on the drainage of the Yellowstone River. In addi­tion, the Farmers Irrigation Company added Farmers Lake, Deer Lake, and White Miller Lake to its Uinta Mountains water-storage projects. The company later built additional dams at Bluebell Lake in 1928 and at Drift Lake in 1930. The company's most ambitious pro­jects were the dams constructed at Five Point and Superior Lakes, completed between 1927 and 1929. Superior Lake, the largest on the Yellowstone drainage, was doubled in size with the addition of a dam, making a reservoir of about eighty-two surface acres.18 Not wanting to be left out, the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company hurried to complete similar projects. Its first project, however, met with failure. The Dry Gulch Irrigation Company faced the drought of 1919 with more enthusiasm than wisdom. It decided to build a less than substantial dam at Moon Lake to store water for use later in the fall. Without consulting a professional engineer, about fifty men and teams went to work making an earth-and-log dam at the lake. A crit- WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 311 ical element in their design of the dam was their failure to include an overflow outlet. As a result, the hastily constructed dam failed. Before construction began company officials were warned of a possible disaster by their own hired engineer. William Woolf quickly recognized the faulty plans, the lack of an overflow outlet, the overall poor design, and the poor building material used at the dam when he was sent by the company to oversee and complete the project after it was well underway. It was felt that work on the dam had progressed too far to begin again. The dam was completed by late summer; within a few days of its completion it failed. According to Woolf, he was placed in an impossible situation. On the one hand he was employed full time by the company and was directed to finish the project. On the other hand, his professional evaluation of the dam indicated that a dam failure was likely. Woolf insisted that a letter he wrote expressing his concerns about the dam be placed in his file at the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company in Roosevelt. When the dam failed, members of the irrigation company looked to lay the blame on Woolf; however, the reading of his letter cleared Woolf of any responsibility for the dam's failure.19 Not to be deterred from the Moon Lake failure, the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company during the next several years constructed other irrigation dams on the Uinta River drainage, including dams at Chain Lakes, at Atwood Lake, and at Fox Lake. By 1931 there were twenty-four lakes located in the south drainages of the Uinta Mountains that had been dammed for water storage. Six were on the Uinta drainage and operated by Dry Gulch Company; four were on the Whiterocks drainage in Uintah County, and fourteen were on the Lake Fork drainage managed by the Farnsworth, Dry Gulch, and Farmers irrigation companies. Two of the lakes were transformed into regulated storage facilities by Brigham Timothy and Chester Hartman. The Knight Canal On 14 June 1909 a group of forty homesteaders who had taken up land on Blue Bench north of Duchesne met to develop an irriga­tion plan to divert water from Rock Creek. A month later they for­mally incorporated themselves into a mutual irrigation district and 312 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY elected Joseph S. Birch, George Hemphill, and B.V Barlow as the first trustees.20 In the weeks that followed, several plans were discussed to build a canal from Rock Creek onto the bench. The head of the canal had to be built three miles upstream in order to provide the neces­sary fall to freely lift the water onto the bench. The route of the canal hugged the northwest rim of the bench and crossed several small ravines and some rugged gullies and washes. The 100-second-feet-capacity canal presented a number of engi­neering and design problems far beyond the capabilities of any of the farmers of the Blue Bench District. The district hired Albert Halan, a licensed engineer, to design the diversion canal. Along several sections of the face of Blue Bench wooden flumes had to be built. At several locations wooden trestles were needed to span the dry gullies, and at one location Halan designed a special wooden siphon to carry the water across one of the wider ravines. Financing the project was equally difficult. A large sum of money was needed, more than the Blue Bench Irrigation District could raise by its annual fees. Several years earlier the state legislature had passed a law authorizing incorporated irrigation districts to raise money through the selling of bonds. The Blue Bench Irrigation District issued bonds to finance the project, and the Knight Trust and Savings Bank owned by mining entrepreneur Jesse Knight of Provo pur­chased over $100,000 of Blue Bench Canal bonds. Knight also owned the Provo Construction Company, which was awarded the contract to build the Blue Bench Canal. In March 1913 work on the canal began in earnest, and for two years construction crews worked feverishly on the canal. Douglas fir was cut from the nearby Uinta Mountains to provide the thousands of board feet for the miles of wooden flumes and siphons. After nearly three miles of fluming, the canal reached the top of Blue Bench, and an earthen canal was constructed to complete the water's journey. The canal was completed in time for the 1915 farming season. The wooden flumes and trestles were vulnerable to the vicissi­tudes of natural forces, however. Hopes ran high for the canal's suc­cess, but trouble soon followed. Within weeks, sections of the wooden flume began to leak. Falling rocks crashed into sections of the flume, calling for immediate repair. Elsewhere, the wooden slates of the WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 313 mmmm The Knight Canal carried water from Rock Creek to the Blue Bench by a wooden flume that was several miles in length. (lohn D. Barton) flume did not fit snugly, resulting in the loss of water and in some cases eroding the footing of the canal. When the water flow was halted to repair the flume, the hot summer sun dried and warped the lumber, which caused further leaks. Repair crews worked practically non-stop repairing sections of the canal. Spring runoffs caused serious damage to sections of the flume. At other locations, water that had leaked during the late growing sea­son froze and then thawed, creating serious instability of the flume. The disruption in the flow of water presented a serious hardship for farmers who depended on a steady flow of water. The expense of maintaining the newly constructed canal was exceedingly high and added to the large debt in the form of the irri­gation company bonds. Many of the Blue Bench farmers were forced to abandon their farms by the end of World War I; however, Jesse Knight, the financial backer and contractor of the scheme, remained hopeful.21 He had to be optimistic, his bank held many of the con­struction bonds; to abandon what became known as the Knight Canal would mean serious financial problems for Knight. 314 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY Jesse Knight, born in the Mormon community of Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1845, first came to Utah in 1850 at the age of five with his pioneer parents. He saw his talent for making money as a calling from the Lord to assist others in need. His personal thoughts on the subject coincided with those of LDS church president Lorenzo Snow, who in 1901 asked "men and women of wealth" to use their riches "to give employment to the laborer.... Unloose your purses, and embark in enterprises that will give work to the unemployed, and relieve the wretchedness that leads to . . . vice and crime."22 Knight had embarked on several projects to create jobs. In some he made money, in others he did not. Jesse Knight was affectionately called by many "Uncle" Jesse. In addition to his involvement in Duchesne County, Knight invested heavily in agricultural enterprises in western Juab County and in Canada. He made his fortune in the Tintic Mining District in Juab and Utah counties. There Knight established his own mining town, where it said that he forbade the establishment of any saloons, a rar­ity for any mining town in the West. Within a very short time, Knight became a major landowner on the Blue Bench. As farmers quit the bench, he bought many of the abandoned homesteads. It was his plan to develop a large farming operation utilizing dozens of hired farm workers to run the farm. He hoped it would become what in today's agriculture is termed a cor­porate farm. The land was fertile and there was plenty of irrigation water. The troublesome problem for Knight and the other farmers who remained was to make the canal work. In 1918 Knight hired engineer William Woolf to survey the mountains above Rock Creek for potential dam sites and to measure stream flows. On one of his visits Woolf commented: I found the Knight farm a beehive of activity. They had nearly a hun­dred men at work. There was a neatly kept tent city where the men slept. . . . The men worked at removing sagebrush from new land, plowing with gasoline driven engines, and leveling for irrigation.23 By 1920 Knight had hired a ten-man crew to patrol the canal for leaks and do the needed repairs to keep water flowing. When water flowed through the canal, Knight was successful in raising crops. As a WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 315 Upper Stillwater Reservoir was the last major CUP project completed in Duchesne County. (lohn D. Barton) young man, Ray Oman of Boneta recalled to Jack D. Barton working one summer in the alfalfa fields, where an excellent crop was raised. However, the few good crops did not offset the many problems of the canal. The success of Blue Bench as a significant agricultural area in the county rested on Jesse Knight and his commitment to the enter­prise. That commitment dwindled in 1921 when Knight died. The Knight Investment Company, still in control of the canal and owner of much of the benchland, continued to try and wrest a profit from Blue Bench. The odds against the reclamation and farm project mounted, however, with the Great Depression and World War II. Labor shortages, lack of finances, and continued canal problems moved the project from bad to worse, and in 1949 the company folded. It sold its water rights to the county for $621.30.24 Thus ended one of the most ambitious water projects of early Duchesne County. Difficult canal construction, marginal farming land, and national economic problems proved more than could be overcome by hard work and dreams. The Knight Canal project on Blue Bench was called the basin's "most spectacular [reclamation] failure."25 316 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY Moon Lake Dam Project and the Bureau of Reclamation The transformation of many of the lakes into regulated reservoirs troubled some Indian irrigators. Increasingly, they experienced diminished stream flows and availability of water to their own farms. In 1930 Uintah Irrigation Project Supervising Engineer L.M. Holt assigned assistant engineer WF. Gettleman to conduct an extensive and comprehensive investigation of the streams, lakes, and dams of the Uinta Mountains. Following a careful measurement of stream flow from the several new reservoirs during the summer and fall of 1930, Gettleman concluded that the dams built by white irrigators likely reduced stream flows, particularly during the summer irriga­tion season.26 The Gettleman survey touched off a water skirmish between white irrigation companies and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that lasted for the next several years. The BIA insisted that the water companies either release enough water to raise the rivers' levels to where they had been prior to construction of the dams or that they allow some of the stored water to be dedicated to Indian use. As a compensation to meet Indian concerns and to augment their existing storage projects, white irrigation companies along with the Bureau of Reclamation proposed to build Moon Lake Dam, the largest dam in the county to date. Moon Lake had been first consid­ered as a possible reservoir in 1905 when William Smart scouted the lands that were soon going to be opened for homesteading.27 But costs and other factors prohibited Smart from pursuing the lake's development as a storage reservoir. Moon Lake, located on the drainage of the Lake Fork River, is the largest natural lake at the south end of the Uinta Mountains. The lake is wedged between two steep mountains and is shaped like a crescent moon. By building a dam south of the lake's natural shoreline, the surface size of the lake would be nearly doubled. Years before the controversy over the shortage of water arose between white and Indian water users, the Roosevelt Standard had urged farmers of the Upper Country to consider transforming Moon Lake into a regulated irrigation reservoir. The Dry Gulch Irrigation Company and the Utah Water Storage Commission each put up WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 317 $2,500 to conduct a preliminary survey, which revealed that a reser­voir could be built but that it would take more capital than the indi­vidual irrigation companies could finance. The water shortage problem of the early 1930s and the contin­ued disputation over water revived interest in the Moon Lake project. Because of the involvement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, another federal agency under the administration of the Department of the Interior, the Moon Lake Project was proposed as a federal reclama­tion project. The non-Indian water users could hardly complain, however, since their continued farming success was largely connected to completion of a large-scale project such as the Moon Lake Dam, which was beyond their ability to complete with their horse-drawn machinery. The Bureau of Reclamation required all of the canal and irriga­tion companies to work collectively. This was accomplished by means of the organization of the Moon Lake Water Users Association, which included primarily the Dry Gulch Irrigation, Farnsworth Canal, Farmers Irrigation, and Lake Fork Irrigation companies. It was esti­mated that the project would cost $1,200,000; and, to make it cost-effective, the association had to subscribe to 44,880 acre-feet of stored water. With the support of the Bureau of Reclamation hopes for the project to be completed quickly ran high. A front-page article in the Roosevelt Standard summed up the feelings of the time for the whole county: Cheer Up, Basin Folks! We should consider ourselves among the more fortunate ones in the entire U.S., or in fact the whole world-and we'll tell you why! Last week was the breaking point of the depression in the Uintah Basin, when the news broke telling us that the state and government had decided to construct the Moon Lake Water Storage Project. . . . It will give hundreds of jobs, bring more land under cultivation, and create a chance for a sugar factory with plenty of water.28 As the weeks went by, hopes continued, and farmers were sure that they could protect themselves against future drought. Two more dry years passed, however, before funds were appropriated by 318 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY Congress, and yet another year passed before groundbreaking offi­cially started the project.29 State, federal, and local officials and dignitaries including Governor Henry H. Blood were present for the groundbreaking cer­emony. "Moon Lake Day Celebration" was a special day for the entire county. In addition to speeches, ball games, and other community activities, the day lifted the spirits of the farmers in the county. As discussed in an earlier chapter, the Civilian Conservation Corps provided a great deal of work clearing the land. The dam and spillway on the south side of the lake were completed in 1937. The lake's surface nearly doubled and its storage capacity reached nearly 30,000 acre-feet of water. In the twenty-five years following the completion of Moon Lake the Moon Lake Water Users Association consolidated its holdings in high mountain reservoirs. Located on the Lake Fork and Yellowstone drainages are the following reservoirs: Kidney Lake with 4,000 acre-feet capacity, Island Lake with 700 acre-feet, Brown Duck Lake with 300 acre-feet, Clement Lake with 700 acre-feet, Give Point Lake with 475 acre-feet, Drift Lake with 160 acre-feet, Bluebell Lake with 250 acre-feet, Superior Lake with 340 acre-feet, Miller Lake with 25 acre-feet, Deer Lake with 130 acre-feet, Farmers Lake with 120 acre-feet, Twin Potts Reservoir with 3,800 acre-feet, Midview Reservoir with 5,200 acre-feet, Big Sand Wash with 6,500 acre-feet, and Moon Lake with 30,000 acre-feet. This comes to a total of 52,700 acre-feet of water-storage capacity. Presently the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, with 32,800 shares, is the largest partic­ipant in the Moon Lake Water Users Association. Dry Gulch Irrigation Company bought out the Farmers Irrigation Company, complete with their high mountain lakes, on 18 May 1945.30 Others holding shares include the Farnsworth Irrigation Company, the Lake Fork Irrigation Company, the Lake Fork Western Irrigation Company, the Monarch Canal and Reservoir Company, the South Boneta Irrigation Company, the T.N. Dodd Ditch Company, and the Uteland Ditch Company. Water users faced other challenges in their efforts to use the Uinta Mountains lakes. Up to the end of World War II the primary concern of the U.S. Forest Service was the management of timber WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 319 lesse Knight. (Utah State Historical Society) reserves, watersheds, and grazing. However, beginning in the late 1940s the public began to demand more recreational use of the national forests. These new demands increasingly clashed with tradi­tional uses of the national forests. In the early 1960s the Forest Service adopted a broader multiple-use management scheme which included consideration of outdoor recreational enthusiasts as well as the protection of big-game habitat. In 1960 Congress passed the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, which was the first act to mandate a more environmentally responsible management system for the national forests. Among the outdoor recreational enthusiasts were a growing number of people concerned with the ecological protection of the national forests and other public lands. Their concerns were mar- 320 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY shaled in protecting wilderness areas from further intrusion by eco­nomic interests. In 1961 hearings were held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on a proposed bill to cre­ate wilderness areas in the United States. A central section of the Uinta Mountains was eyed for possible wilderness designation. The water users of the county understood this designation to mean no further development or maintenance of the important high Uinta Mountains lakes. Earlier, in 1931, approximately 250,000 acres in the Ashley and Wasatch national forests between Hayden and Kings peaks, roughly the same area as the proposed new wilderness designation, was des­ignated the High Uintas Primitive Area. There had been little oppo­sition to the High Uintas Primitive Area, especially when it was reported in the local newspapers that no water, timber, or forage resources were to be withdrawn from public use.31 The Uintah Basin Record did grumble about it, however. The newspaper and many county residents were already upset about the plan to divert water from the upper Duchesne River to the upper Provo River for use in Salt Lake City and Provo. Here in this Uintah Basin we should have something to say about this entire matter. If Salt Lake City is going to take our water, or the water naturally belonging to our lands yet unreclaimed while large tracts are "sewed up" in federal, "proposed" projects, we deserve something for it.32 Congress authorized the Provo River project in 1933, and two years later President Roosevelt approved the project. In 1938 work began on the Deer Creek Dam in Wasatch County; three years later, work commenced on the six-mile-long Duchesne Diversion Tunnel. It was completed in 1942. The purpose of the High Uintas Primitive Area designation was to provide an opportunity "to the public to observe the conditions which existed in the pioneer phases of the Nation's development, and to engage in the forms of outdoor recreation characteristic of that period."33 At the hearing for the new wilderness plan, Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett spoke out for most people of the county and many other Utahns regarding the wilderness bill: WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 321 I have been a consistent supporter of our Forest Service and Park Service wilderness programs, and I do not propose weakening them now. The real question, then, is not whether we shall have wilderness but how much wilderness shall we have, and where will it be, and who will create it?34 Bennett stated that only Congress should be authorized to create wilderness areas. "Surely wilderness areas should enjoy the same stature as national parks, which are created by act of Congress."35 The bill failed. Two years later, a second wilderness bill was introduced and hearings held in the U.S. Senate. This time Congress passed the bill known as the Wilderness Act of 1964. The draft of the bill also autho­rized the president of the United States to safeguard interests of var­ious natural resource users: The President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting (including but not limited to exploration for oil and gas), mining (including but not limited to the production of oil and gas), and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conserva­tion works, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest.36 Since the passage of the Wilderness Act, some environmentally conscious individuals have put increasing pressure on the Forest Service to stop the Moon Lake Water Users Association from repair­ing its dams, hoping the lakes could be restored to their original state. Many fishermen and hikers also want the reservoirs to remain in a pristine state. The draw down of water from the reservoirs each late summer leaves unsightly mudflats down to the water's edge at the lakes. Just what is the best balance between users of natural resources and recreationists and conservationists remains a heated issue. To provide additional storage of water and provide additional water for Indian water users, the 5,200-acre-feet Midview Reservoir (Lake Boreham) was constructed downriver and off stream from the Lake Fork River. The storage dam was completed in 1938. A later project that added storage in the Upalco region was Big Sand Wash. Located between Upalco and Mount Emmons, the reser- 322 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY voir added irrigation water for the areas of Upalco and Ioka. Ground was broken for this $650,000 project in June 1963, and it was com­pleted two years later.37 Central Utah Project From the time of the opening of the Uintah Indian Reservation, Duchesne County's history has been largely impacted by various con­gressional actions. Perhaps no other project has impacted the county more than the development of the Central Utah Project. Interest in Uinta Basin water increased soon after the completion of the Strawberry Valley project in 1913. Within a decade there was talk of enlarging it. This did not sit well with county residents, espe­cially when the Roosevelt Standard in 1928 published an erroneous news article in which the editor claimed that Salt Lake City had already diverted water from the upper Strawberry River and now wanted more water.38 The newspaper was only partially correct in its claim. Water from the Strawberry River was diverted to water users in the southern portion of Utah County. More than a decade earlier than the Strawberry Valley project, farmers from Heber Valley suc­cessfully constructed a 1,000-foot diversion tunnel through the Wasatch Mountains to divert water from the upper Strawberry River to a small tributary to Daniels Creek. Strawberry River water was used to augment irrigation needs for farmers at the south end of Heber Valley. Early in the century it was recognized that the Colorado River was of vital interest to the growth and development of the states of the southwest. As related earlier, in 1922 representatives from Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and California agreed to the Colorado River Compact which provides for a division of the water of the Colorado River. The compact divided the river into the upper (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico) and lower (California, Nevada, and Arizona) basins. Each basin was to receive 7.5 million acre-feet of water annually. The river compact also worked to prevent future contentions and expensive interstate legal wars over the water. California and Nevada moved quickly to develop their portion of water. In 1928 Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project to WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 323 construct the giant Boulder Dam-later renamed Hoover Dam- which was completed in 1935. The upper basin states were not as quick to the water tap. The Depression and World War II seriously interrupted their plans. However, during the interim, Utah officials began to formulate a massive reclamation project known as the Central Utah Project (CUP). Following the war, Utah was prepared to move ahead with its plan. However, before any development of Colorado River water could take place among the upper basin states, they had to agree among themselves to an equitable sharing of the river water. In 1948 representatives of the upper basin states met in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where they agreed to the Upper Colorado River Compact. Utah's share of the upper Colorado River water allotment was set at 23 percent of the 7.5 million acre-feet. That same year, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), which included the CUP.39 However, the project faced several delays. The most troublesome battle was over a proposed Echo Park Dam located just across the state line in Colorado. A nationwide debate ensued over the Echo Park Dam and the compan­ion Split Mountain Dam. Both the Echo Park and Split Mountain dams were located within or very near the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument. Early opposition to the dams was led by author, historian, and Ogden native Bernard De Voto. California water users, eastern interests, conservation groups, and others joined the debate. Lack of public support nationwide for the projects halted plans for the two dams and threatened the CRSP and the CUP. The Echo Park Dam was an important part of the overall CUP and, as a result, Utah congressmen fought long and hard for the dam. However, they and other upper-basin states congressmen and sena­tors failed to win enough support for the Echo Park Dam. They did, however, manage to maintain support for the CRSP; in April 1956 Congress passed a $760 million appropriations bill for the CRSP and its participating projects, including the CUP-the largest single par­ticipating project in the Colorado River Storage Project. With appro­priations now in hand, construction began in the fall of 1956 on dams at Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon. 324 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY The Central Utah Project was meant to organize and centrally develop Utah's water allotment of Colorado River water. A massive system of storage reservoirs and water transportation systems of canals and tunnels and an intricate arrangement of water transfers and substitutes was planned and agreed to by various water users, government entities, the state of Utah, and the Ute Tribe. The CUP's objective is to provide water for industrial and municipal uses along the Wasatch Front as well as irrigation water for 200,000 acres of new farmland and supplemental irrigation water for an additional 239,000 acres of farmland. The CUP was divided into seven units. The Bonneville, Upalco, and Uintah units directly impacted water development and use in Duchesne County. Out of a need for better centralized and coordi­nated management of the CUP, the Fourth District Judicial Court in 1964 organized the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, directed by a board of seven men from Duchesne, Uintah, Wasatch, Utah, Salt Lake, and Summit counties. Duchesne County was repre­sented by Leo Haveter for a one-year term, Leo Brady for a two-year term, and William J. Ostler for a three-year term. Later, Weber, Juab, Millard, Davis, Sanpete, Sevier, Garfield, and Piute counties were added as participants in the CUP. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District serves as the local organization that deals with and enters into contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. As part of the budgetary process, each pro­ject within the CUP required separate appropriations from Congress, which has extended the development of the project by many years. Repayment has been scheduled over several decades.40 As ideas of water use were expanded, the CUP also has included plans for fish and wildlife management and habitat enhancement and for recre­ational use. The Bonneville Unit The Bonneville Unit is the keystone as well as being the largest and most expensive unit of the Central Utah Project. Its objective is to transfer water from the south slope of the Uinta Mountains to the Wasatch Front, especially the Salt Lake Valley. The Bonneville Unit is designed to impound an additional 600,000 acre-feet of water in the WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 325 enlarged Strawberry Reservoir and the newly constructed Soldier Creek Dam nine miles downstream. Water is collected at the Upper Stillwater Reservoir on Rock Creek and on Current Creek collection reservoirs, and through a series of tunnels and canals water is diverted from the West Fork of the Duchesne River, Rock Creek, Wolf Creek, and Water Hollow to the enlarged Strawberry Reservoir. From there, water is carried through a new transmontane diversion and delivery system to water users in Juab, Salt Lake, Utah, Garfield, Millard, Piute, and Sevier counties. The Bonneville Unit also provides for the exchange of water for Duchesne, Wasatch, and Summit coun­ties. The diversion, storage, and trans-basin conveyance of Rock Creek and upper Duchesne River water to the Great Basin was the most ambitious portion of the Bonneville Project.41 In exchange for water being diverted from the watersheds in Duchesne County, water users in the county were promised additional storage units, canals, and additional water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir as well as water storage at Starvation Reservoir. As elements of the Bonneville Unit progressed, they exceeded both cost and time projections. When the Duchesne County portion of the Bonneville Unit was completed, the proposed Taskeetch Dam, located on the Lake Fork River downstream from Moon Lake, the Uinta Reservoir, located on the Uinta River, and other features of the Upalco Unit-primarily designed to serve the needs of Duchesne County-were dropped or drastically modified. In fact, the proposed Upalco Unit was abandoned, including the Whiterocks project in Uintah County. This has caused major frustration and created a feel­ing of betrayal by the CUP in many county water users. They believe that the completion of the Bonneville Unit satisfied the water needs of a great portion of the state's voters but has left them high and dry. Although not all of the elements of the Bonneville Unit have been completed, the significant number that have been completed have improved the water situation in the county. These elements include the Upper Stillwater Dam, Docs Diversion and Feeder Pipeline, Stillwater Tunnel, North Fork Siphon, Hades Diversion and Feeder Pipeline, Hades Tunnel, Rhodes Diversion and Feeder Pipeline, Win Diversion and Feeder Pipeline, Wolf Creek Siphon, 326 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY Rhodes Tunnel, West Fork Pipeline, Vat Diversion Dam and Feeder Pipeline, Vat Tunnel, Currant Creek Dam, Currant Tunnel, Water Hollow Diversion and Feeder Pipeline, Water Hollow Siphon, Water Hollow Tunnel, Open Channel No. 2, Soldier Creek Dam, Knight Diversion Dam and Starvation Conduit, and Starvation Dam. The Bonneville Unit serves a much larger geographical area than Salt Lake City alone; however, this distinction is rarely voiced-if under­stood- by county residents when water issues and the CUP are dis­cussed. The Bonneville Unit has been expanded as far south as Piute County42 With the CUP only partially completed as stated in its original plans, there remains thousands of acre-feet of water allotment not being utilized, and many Utahns fear that the water will be lost for­ever. Further, many residents of the county question if there is any difference between losing water to Salt Lake City or losing it to California. Starvation Reservoir The Starvation Reservoir and collection system is important to the diversion of water from the Strawberry River and Current and Rock creeks through the Strawberry Aqueduct. Both are vitally important to farmers in the Myton, Pleasant Valley, and Bridgeland areas of the county as well as to Indian farmers in the Midview area. Starvation Reservoir provides them with a dependable water supply which heretofore they have not had. Starvation Reservoir, the first feature of the Bonneville Unit, was begun in March 1967 and completed in November 1970. The pro­ject's construction, the largest such effort in Utah up to that point, was initiated with an old-fashioned public barbeque and a program of Ute tribal dances. The county had not witnessed such a gathering of dignitaries in its history; included on the list were Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado, chair of the important House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee; Governor Calvin L. Rampton; Senators Wallace F. Bennett and Frank E. Moss; Congressmen Laurence J. Burton and Sherman P. Lloyd; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Floyd E. Dominy; former U.S. Senator Arthur N. Watkins; and former governor George D. Clyde. WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 327 Located about three miles upstream from the town of Duchesne on the Strawberry River, the earth and rockfill dam is 155 feet high and has a crest length of 2,900 feet. The total capacity of the reservoir is over 165,000 acre-feet, of which 152,320 acre-feet is active. The Knight diversion tunnel diverts water into the Starvation feeder canal from the Duchesne River.43 The name "Starvation" came from early times of the area's his­tory. A.C. Murdock had wintered a herd of cattle in the area when a severe blizzard snowed-in the town, making it impossible for his men to check the cattle. The entire herd starved to death before they could be driven to feed. Residents of Duchesne City embrace the name with some humor, often wearing tee shirts or hats printed, "Duchesne- On the verge of Starvation." Upper Stillwater Dam The dam at Upper Stillwater on Rock Creek is one of the most impressive structures in the county. The concrete dam, wedged between a sharp-walled canyon, is 292 feet high and 2,650 feet wide. It has a total storage capacity of 35,253 acre-feet. Due to the narrow­ness of the canyon, the spillway is an uncontrolled ogee with a stepped chute and drowned hydraulic jump basin. When the dam is completely full, the water tumbling down the spillway makes an impressive sight. Construction began in 1983 and was completed in November 1987. The road from Mountain Home to Rock Creek was upgraded and paved for use by heavy construction equipment. A side benefit of the road improvement is that it provides improved access to some of the county's best camping and fishing areas.44 Some of the original features in the Uinta and Upalco units of the CUP have never been built. Other important features of the Uinta and Upalco units have been included as part of the Bonneville Unit. However, many of the irrigators in Duchesne and western Uintah counties have been left with unfulfilled dreams and promises. The Uinta Basin lacks the strong political voice and muscle to help force the completion of the two reclamation units for the basin. The farm­ers of the Tabiona, Utahn, Duchesne, Bridgeland, Myton, and Pleasant Valley areas are more fortunate; they now have sufficient water from the completed parts of the Bonneville Unit to carry them 328 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY through drought years. The overall results of the CUP for the county therefore are mixed. CUPCA and the UBRP Knowing that the original CUP was never going to be completed as planned, and also due to the increased concern of environmental problems caused by the CUP, Congress passed the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) in 1992. In the Uinta Basin the deployment arm of CUPCA is the Uinta Basin Replacement Projects (UBRP). There are a total of nine replacement projects under considera­tion as Central Utah Water Project alternatives. On the Upalco Unit, these considered projects include enlarging the Big Sand Wash Reservoir to nearly double is present size; building Cow Canyon Reservoir of 20,000 acre-feet in Yellowstone Canyon; building the Crystal Ranch Alternative, which would create a 30,000-acre-foot on-stream reservoir on the Yellowstone River; building the Twin Potts alternative, which calls for the completion of the above projects and repairing the earthen dam at Twin Potts; and constructing the South Clay Basin Reservoir. The Uintah Unit proposal includes the Lower Uintah alternative, which would consist of three new storage reservoirs. The first would be a 45,000-acre-foot on-stream reservoir on the Uinta River approx­imately one mile upstream from the Uintah Power Plant; the second reservoir would be of 20,000 acre-feet on the Whiterocks River some two miles north of the U.S. Forest boundary at Red Pine Canyon; and the third a 5,800-acre-foot reservoir at Merkley Drop, about 2.5 miles northeast of the town of Whiterocks. Also under consideration are reservoirs at Clover Creek on the Uinta River and at Coyote Basin.45 Other elements of CUPCA which affect the Uinta Basin are the settlement of water-rights disputes with Ute Indians, with a projected cost of $199 million, and the stabilization and rehabilitation of the High Uinta lakes for fish and wildlife habitat. Finally, the troubled administration of the CUP has been transferred from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Even after the passage of CUPCA several troublesome issues remain. One is the unkept promises of the CUP with the Ute Tribe. WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 329 Earlier the tribe had agreed to relinquish its claims to Rock Creek water of the Bonneville Unit in exchange for what would be more usable water from the promised Upalco and Uintah units to irri­gate 30,000 acres of additional land owned by the Ute Tribe. In 1994 the Ute Tribal Council presented a $33 million bill to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District for diverting water with­out authorization from the tribal council. Tribal leaders claimed that until the CUP meets its obligations to them it has no legal right to the Rock Creek water. The bill has yet to be paid by the conservancy district and will likely be a point of contention well into the next century. Soil Conservation Service and Salinity Control To state the obvious, the Colorado River system is critically important to millions of people in the American West and Mexico. In addition to its heretofore unpredictability, the Colorado River presents another serious problem-the quality of its water. Water quality problems of the river were recognized as early as 1903. However, due to the increased manipulation and use of the river, its water quality for irrigation, drinking, and industrial uses has been placed in serious jeopardy. High salinity concentrations in Colorado River water have adversely affected downstream irrigated crop yields, altered crop patterns, and increased culinary water-treatment costs. The Colorado River carries about 9 million tons of salt annually into Lake Mead and the lower Colorado River Basin. Upstream irri­gators are significant contributors to the water quality of the river. Areas being irrigated that have underlying saline formations add about half of the total salinity to the river, as the runoff picks up some of that salt as it returns to the river system. In an attempt to solve the problem, Mexico and the United States entered into a treaty in 1973 that commits the U.S. to maintain a basic salinity of water arriving at the Mexican border.46 Features of the CUP and CUPCA strive to reduce the salts car­ried from the various projects to the Colorado River. These features have also improved the quality of water in Duchesne County. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in the state and the county has 330 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY played a significant role as technical advisor to county farmers and water developers to reduce salinity outflow. The Soil Conservation Service estimates that as much as 111,000 tons of salt per year will be kept out of the Colorado River system due to its efforts.47 The Soil Conservation Service's salinity-reduction project is also having a significant impact in the county, creating more and better farmlands. It is estimated that more than 18,000 acres of land cur­rently in pasture, alfalfa, and grain will be improved in the county under the salinity-reduction project. This will be accomplished by means of increased irrigation efficiency, including deep percolation irrigation. Yield estimates for alfalfa are nearly double-from 2-3 tons per acre to 3-6 tons per acre. Some alfalfa farmers claim yields as high as ten tons to the acre. This creates an estimated $840,000 increase in dollar-value yield-$441,000 in direct farm benefits and $399,000 in downstream benefits saved in cleaner water to users on the lower Colorado River. Any farmer who wants to participate in the program can usually qualify for assistance in financing a high-efficiency sprinkling system through this program. The SCS funding pays for 70 percent of the system and the landowner's share is 30 percent. It is hoped that the increased efficiency and resulting yields will easily pay for the instal­lation of the systems and also show higher profits for the farmers.48 Wetlands Another water issue that faces Duchesne County residents is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and subsequent amend­ments which pertain to wetlands. Wetlands administration and wet­land determination is directed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Only a few years ago wetlands were regarded by some people as health haz­ards and a nuisance. Those who took the time and effort to drain them were applauded for improving the country. But more recently attitudes have changed, as wetlands have become recognized as important to the overall environmental health of a region. Still, there is the feeling of many nationwide, including many county residents, that the involvement of the federal government in overseeing wet­lands has become a burden. Wetlands can and do serve as habitat for some wildlife and help with erosion control. The passage of Executive WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 331 Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," during President George Bush's administration set the goal of "no net loss of wetlands." With this the government was seen by many to create problems for private property owners. Most of the natural wetlands in the Duchesne area are in the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. Another 2,295 acres of wetlands are located primarily along the Duchesne and Strawberry rivers, Currant Creek, and the oxbows of the Green River and other low-lying depressions. There also are some 5,030 acres of artificial wetlands in the county. These wetlands have been created due to irrigation and man-made changes in the water system of the region.49 Some of the wetland designations were made during wet years. Section 404 means a net loss of useable land for Duchesne County farmers who can no longer dig drainage ditches in swampy areas or convert marshlands into pasture land. If farmers attempt to do so they are in violation of the law and must restore the lands to a wetland status at their own expense. In other instances, during dry years county farmers are required to direct some of their irrigation water to designated wetlands to maintain the water levels of the wet­lands, some of which are created by irrigation. Many county residents deeply resent this preemptive use of their own lands. Conclusion Some people call the Uinta Basin and Duchesne County Utah's "last watering hole." More rivers flow through the Uinta Basin than through any other region in the state, and because of the county's abundance-when compared with the rest of the state-much of the county's history has been driven by water issues. The growth and sta­bility of the county are inseparably tied to the availability of water resources, and, because of the geological setting of the county, those resources involve people as distant as California and Mexico. The ever-increasing complications of water issues makes the voice of the county one that is heard. Water has shaped the history of the county and there is little doubt that it will continue to be an impor­tant element in shaping the county's future, as increased demands for water likely will continue in Utah and the American Southwest. 332 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY ENDNOTES 1. See Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985). 2. For an in depth study of the development of the Colorado River see Norris Hundley, Ir., Dividing the Waters: A Century of Controversy Between the United States and Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966). 3. George H. Dern, "Utah's Interest in the Colorado River," statement at the hearings before the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, U.S. Senate, 17 December 1925. 4. Harold T. Brown, "Early History of Water Development in the Uinta Basin," paper presented at the third annual Uinta Basin Water Conference, 12 February 1991, Vernal, Utah, 1; "Agricultural Census for Duchesne County, Utah" 18 August 1997, available on Internet at http://govinfo.kerr.orst.edu/cgi-bin/ag-list. 5. Gregory D. Kendrick, ed., Beyond the Wasatch: The History of Irrigation in the Uintah Basin and Upper Provo River Area of Utah (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service, 1986), 18. 6. Ibid., 22. 7. Ibid.; E.C. La Rue, The Colorado River and Its Utilization, United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 395, Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey, 1916), 130. For more information on the Indian Canals see Cyrus Cates Babb, The Water Supply of the Uintah Indian Reservation, Utah, Doc. 671, 57 Cong., 1st Sess., 1902; and lournal History of the Church of lesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 25-27 August 1861, LDS Church Archives. 8. William L. Woolf, The Autobiography of William L. Woolfe (n.p., 1979), 82-83. 9. See Michael C. Meyer, Water in the Hispanic Southwest (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1984), chapter eight. 10. Roosevelt Standard, 24 March 1915. 11. For additional information see William Smart, Diaries, vol. XVI, pp. 110-12, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. 12. The first board of directors of the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company included R.S. Collett, lohn Glenn, Ed Harmston, Hyrum Baird, George F. Merkley, N.J. Meagher, Herbert Tysack, John N. Davis, J. Garnett Holmes, Henry J. Harding, William G. Fell, and lohn W. Roseberry. Harmston was not a member of the LDS church but as founder of Roosevelt City was a major factor in all the early interests in the area. See Dry Gulch Irrigation WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 333 Company Minutes, 1 December 1905; and Dillman, Early History of Duchesne County, 22. 13. Kendrick, Beyond the Wasatch, 48; Dillman, Early History of Duchesne County, 17. 14. Record Book A, Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, Roosevelt, Utah, pp. 46-48. 15. The establishment of national forests in Utah and subsequent care­ful use of them was strongly advocated by U.S. Senator Reed Smoot and various LDS church leaders. See Thomas G. Alexander, Utah, The Right Place (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1995), 226. 16. Quoted in Kendrick, Beyond the Wasatch, 62. 17. Kendrick, Beyond the Wasatch, 72-76. 18. All the dams constructed by the Farmers Irrigation Company were on lakes on the Yellowstone/Swift Creek drainage. For more information, including acre-feet of storage of these lakes, see Kendrick, Beyond the Wasatch, 76-81. 19. Woolf, Autobiography, 87-89. 20. See "Records of Minutes of the Blue Bench Irrigation District No. 1," lesse Knight Papers, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 21. Ibid. 22. Quoted in Diane L. Mangum, "lesse Knight and the Riches of Life," Ensign: The Ensign of the Church of lesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 1993): 554-59. 23. Woolf, Autobiography, 72. This was the year before Woolf was hired by the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company. His hiring by Dry Gulch was at least partially due to his experience with Knight's company. Woolf was signifi­cant in the county's water development. He selected the sites and oversaw the construction of dams at the Chain Lakes, Atwood Lake, and Fox Lake. He also settled many of the early water disputes in the county. 24. See lesse Knight Papers. 25. Gary Fuller Reese, "Uncle Jesse: The Story of lesse Knight, Miner, Industrialist, Philanthropist" (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1961), 82, 83. 26. William F. Gettleman, "Report on the Lakes and Reservoir on the Headwaters of the Uintah, Whiterocks and Lakefork Rivers, Uintah Project, Utah: Feb. 1932," Uintah Irrigation Project, BIA Offices, Uintah and Ouray Agency, Fort Duchesne, Utah. 27. William Smart to Mildred Miles Dillman, cited in Dillman, Early Duchesne County History, 22. 334 HISTORY OF DUCHESNE COUNTY 28. Roosevelt Standard, 2 luly 1931. The hoped-for sugar factory was not built. It had been hoped that with more water for industry and farming a sugar beet industry, complete with a sugar factory, could be started in Duchesne County. 29. Roosevelt Standard, 23 November 1933, 15 November 1934, 27 lune 1935. 30. See Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, Minute Book, number 2, 1945, 53-54. 31. Duchesne Courier, 15 May 1931. 32. Uintah Basin Record, 18 September 1931. 33. Thomas G. Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management in the Intermountain West: A History of Region 4 of the Forest Service (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service, 1987), 113, quoting from Blaine Bettenson, "Report on Grandaddy Lakes Primitive Area," 18 December 1929, File 2320, High Uintas Primitive Area, Lands and Recreation Library, Ogden Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service. 34. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, "Hearings on S. 174, A Bill to Establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the Permanent Good of the Whole People, and for Other Purposes," 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, 34, Utah State Historical Society Library. 35. Ibid. 36. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Hearings on S.4, A Bill to Establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the Permanent Good of the Whole People, and for Other Purposes," 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 1963, 6, Utah State Historical Society Library. 37. Uintah Basin Standard, 27 lune 1963. Big Sand Wash Dam was a CUP project and the only finished reservoir on the Upalco Unit of the CUP. 38. Roosevelt Standard, 7 lune 1928. 39. For a concise outline of CUP and CRSP see Craig Fuller "Central Utah Project," Utah History Encyclopedia, 82-85; and Hundley, Dividing the Waters. 40. Repayment for the CUP is still a raging controversy throughout the state. In 1965 voters in seven counties approved of the repayment plan for the $325 million Bonneville Unit of the CUP. The ratio to approve the plan was 13 to 1. Duchesne County voters approved of the plan, 673 to 80 votes. However, Uintah County voted against the repayment plan, 351 approval to 804 negative votes. See Salt Lake Tribune, 15 December 1965. 41. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Brief Overview of The Central Utah WATER: LIFEBLOOD OF THE COUNTY 335 Water Conservancy District," (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1963), 4. 42. In 1993 preparations were made by Millard and Sevier counties to withdraw from the CUP and in 1995 both counties made it official. For a discussion of Sevier County's withdrawal see Guy M. Bishop, History of Sevier County, (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society/Sevier County Commission, 1997), 262-69. 43. Central Utah Project, "Fact Sheets," unnumbered information material issued by CUP, 25, in author's possession. Using Starvation Dam as an example, repayment schedules for construction costs include: $931,000 to be repaid by water users amortized over fifty years, $4,698,100 from ad valorem taxes levied by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District; and approximately $9,400,000 from power revenue. For more information see Bureau of Reclamation, Central Utah Water Project, "Benefits of the Bonneville Unit to Non-Indian Water Users on the Duchesne River," (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1963), point 6a. 44. Central Utah Project, "Fact Sheets," 1, in author's possession. 45. Uintah Basin Standard, 8 November 1994. 46. See Soil Conservation Service, "Salinity Update; Special Edition" (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994), I. 47. Soil Conservation Service, "Framework Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation of Colorado River Salinity Control Program," (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991), 66. 48. Vernal Express, 8 lune 1994. 49. Francis T. Holt to Wayne Urie, 18 September 1991, quoted in the Vernal Express, 16 February 1994.