| OCR Text |
Show DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH 83 Utah has agreed to finance the relocation of Highway U- 15 at the Virgin City Reservoir site, thus relieving the project of a cost of about $ 2 million. Present policies pertaining to fish and wildlife and recreation permit a moderate writeoff of project costs for these purposes. As a result, by adjusting power and municipal and industrial water rates within acceptable limits, repayment of all reimbursable costs within allowable repayment periods can now be demonstrated. The Department of the Interior has recently released its report on the Pacific Southwest water plan. We believe that the ultimate solution to the water resource problems of the Pacific Southwest must be found in a regional approach. The Dixie project was included as an integral part of the Pacific Southwest water plan. It was so included, first, because the water problems of the Dixie project area are part of the overall water problems facing the Pacific Southwest. Secondly, the Dixie project would benefit from participation in the development fund proposed as a key feature of the Pacific Southwest water plan. Because of the close interrelationship of all of the water problems of the Pacific Southwest, we would greatly prefer to see the Dixie project authorized as a part of a regional plan. With the assumption of added financial burdens by the State and the project water and power users, however, the project can be shown to be self- supporting financially, and, therefore, we would not object to authorization of the Dixie project as an independent undertaking. We do believe, however, that should the Dixie project be so authorized prior to authorization of a regional plan, provision should be made for its later incorporation in the Pacific Southwest water plan or any other regional plan that may be adopted in order that the project may receive the advantages that would result from its participation in a basin development fund. In our planning report submitted to the Congress on March 18,1963, the repayment analysis indicated that all of the $ 41,695,000 reimbursable project construction costs except $ 3.7 million could be repaid from project revenues within a 60- year repayment period, which included 50 years plus a 10- year development period. We note that financial assistance for repayment of irrigation costs could be obtained from Hoover Dam revenues after the year 1987 or from other sources. We noted also that without such financial assistance, the total reimbursable project costs could be repaid by the 65th year of project operation. Since that time, in accordance with the suggestion of the distinguished chairman of this committee, we reexamined the Dixie project repayment situation to determine if it would be possible to achieve full repayment of reimbursable costs from project sources. The decision of the State of Utah to finance the relocation of Highway U- 15 has been one factor in improving the project's financial outlook. By increasing the rate for municipal and industrial water supply from $ 22.12 per acre- foot to $ 22.21 per acre- foot and by increasing the rate for firm energy from 6.9 to 7.15 mills per kilowatt- hour, sufficient additional revenues would be realized to make the Dixie project financially self- sufficient. All reimbursable project costs could be returned from project revenues without financial assistance from sources outside the project. Project interests have indicated that they would accept this financial arrangement and would enter into the necessary water and power repayment contracts. Accordingly, we support authorization of the Dixie project on this basis, although, as I previously indicated, we would much prefer to see the project authorized as part of a unified regional development. Commissioner Dominy and members of his staff, togehtre with representatives of other Bureaus of the Department of the Interior, are here today to present more detailed information and to discuss other aspects of the proposed Dixie project. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Aspinall, any questions? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Secretary, there is no reason why, if later on the regional development program in the lower basin should become a reality, that this project, at least, could not be tied in in some practical way as far as operation and maintenance is concerned, with the lower basin regional plan, is that right ? Mr. HOLUM. I know of none, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. At the present time there is no possible way of tying it in with any plan unless we would follow the same procedure that was followed in regard to the Eden project? |
