BOARD00261

• Board Meeting Date: 5/13/1964
• Description: Table of Contents, Agenda, Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

than fifth place if we do couple Great
Northern wi th it."

MR. SPARKS:

"That ,is correct, Governor Johnson. What
we, in effect, recommended was that the
Juniper project be moved up to Priority #2
as a consolidation with the Great Northern.
It was our thinking that the project should
then be called the Juniper Project which would
include the Great Northern also, but we would
simply call it the Juniper Project.

I

Our problem with the Juniper Project,
as expressed in our memorandum, is that in
the first place we have had a rather sad
experience in trying to construct joint
projects with other states. utah has shown
no great interest in the Juniper project.
The project reconnaissance report reflects an
adverse direct benefit-cost ratio if the
ultimate phase is constructed in cooperation
with the State of utah. We felt that it would
be unwise to proceed with the planning on the
Juniper Project as a joint-state project
because we were certain that the State of
Utah would place the Juniper Project as its
lowest priority in that state.

We seriously doubt that there will ever
be either revenues or water available to the
State of Utah to construct its portion of the
project. So if anything is to be salvaged
from the Juniper, we feel that it must be the
initial phars only. We were faced with the
hard fact that the initial phase contained
only 9,000 acres of land to be included within
the project boundaries at a cost of something
in the neighborhood of $30,000,000.

I

In further explanation, we decided that
if we could double the irrigable land by the
inclusion of the Great Northern Project which,
in a reconnaissance report, shows about 10,600
acres of land available under that project at
a cost of $5,000,000, that with the addition
of $5,000,000 cost we could double the