| OCR Text |
Show the Bureau of the Budget interprets the Presidential Commission's report as recommending that costs not allocated to water supply, power, navigation, reclamation and (presumably) flood control "... would be divided by agreement among the basin commission and the interested States, in an allocation meant to indicate the share of State and Federal responsibility for amortization in the interest of general welfare." It must be conceded at the outset, that, so far as many of the 17 Western States are concerned, any provision for their direct participation in the amortization of costs of a water resources development project, would probably require amendment of their respective constitutions together with the enactment of legislation in aid thereof. Neither of these seems likely to be achieved. Nor does it appear to be either necessary or wise to insist upon them. For the States and their subdivisions participate already in the amortization of the costs of water resources development projects within their borders. They do this through their citizens who pay conservancy district and irrigation district taxes and assessments. They do it through their citizens who pay municipal taxes for water and water rent besides. They do it through their citizens who pay for electric power and energy. In so far as the costs of improvements for navigation, flood control and the general welfare are concerned, the States participate through the payment by their citizens of taxes levied by the Federal Government. The Bureau of the Budget interprets the Presidential Commission's report as recommending that "Vendible services should be fully paid for." This interpretation is open to serious question. The evidence of Bureau of the Budget officials, testifying some six months ago before the Irrigation Sub-Committee of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on the subject of the Presidential Commission's suggestions in this respect, added up, in the words of Chairman Engle, to "a more nebulous standard than we have at the present time." On the occasion of the same hearings, the question was raised as to the Presidential Commission's position with respect to the established policy of the application toward amortization of irrigation costs, of interest returned on the Federal Government's investments in the power features of projects. The following colloquy then occurred: Use of the Interest Component to Repay Irrigation Costs. Mr. Engle: What do they say about the interest component and the use of that for the purpose of defraying irrigation costs? Mr. Scheidt: In the recommendations the interest component is -19- |
