OCR Text |
Show TABLE 3.- -Repctyment record on selected irrigation projects, to 1947 1 Repayment for all divisions, years 1918-2000. * Out of total of $2,272,238. Percentage of repayment shown is based on balance of $1,362,019. ("Scheduled for year 1947 is an extensive economic study of project problems and the repayment ability of the water users with view to negotiation of an amendatory repayment contract and resumption of payment of construction charges.") * The district lias made no construction payments since 1931. « The Westland irrigation district is scheduled for an early economic analysis and renegotiation of the repayment contract in order to readjust annual charges to a rate that can be met by the water users. • Outof$l,483,748,leaving$425,887tobepaid. This is amount ($425,887) on which percentage of repayment shown is based. "This project is scheduled for early investigation and study to determine what remedial action should be taken to place the project water users again in a posi- tion to meet their annual contract charges." • "Repayment (of $17,845,605) will be made in 39 annual installments (about $4.50 pex- acre per year) under the provisions of the original contracts * • *. (Initial) contracts will apply for an interim period of 4 years during which time charges will be $2 per irrigable acre per annum * * •_ An amendatory contract is in process of negotiation to adjust repaynaent schedules to the ability of the water users to pay." From conversations had with regional director, it would appear that repayment period would be much longer than the 39-year period pro- vided in original, contracts. First water delivered in 1935. 1 About 100 percent charge-off. No payments made. "The amount of $1,987,854.04 has been charged off as a loss to the reclamation fund." Source: Bureau of Reclamation. In contrast with power and irrigation, past Fed- eral expenditures for navigation, flood control, and fish and wil<llife have been nonreimbursable. The 72 million dollars spent on navigation im- provements on the Columbia include about 27 mil- lion dollars allocated to navigation in the Bonneville Project. Since most navigation benefits are gen- eral in character, they have not been assessed against the commerce using the navigable water- ways and improvements, and no record is kept of their monetary value. Nevertheless, the Corps of Engineers reports that existing navigation improve- ments on the Columbia have returned or are re- turning benefits in excess of their costs. Associated with the Federal construction cost of 11.2 million dollars for existing single-purpose flood control improvements, have been local costs of about 8.6 million dollars. Local participation thus has been above 40 percent. There has been no repayment of any except these local costs, since the major benefits are considered to be in the na- tional interest. Three multiple-purpose projects, constructed at a Federal expenditure of $21,291,000, have included provisions for flood control, with 92 percent of the reservoir storage allocated to that purpose. The Fish and Wildlife Service has spent a total of 4.3 million dollars for construction and mainte- nance of all their projects completed to date. In addition, expenditures have been made under the Pittman-Robertson Act of which the Federal Treas- ury pays 75 percent and the States 25 percent. These projects have been considered justified with- out detailed economic analysis, and no provisions for repayment on them are stipulated. Present and Future Irrigation Developments The average cost of Federal developments already constructed on irrigated lands has been modest ($65 per acre), but such costs of providing water for new land now are much higher. Costs per acre of facil- ities for new land in projects presently being devel- oped in the Columbia Basin are slightly less than $550 per acre.1 Average costs of developing poten- tial projects for which data are available are esti- mated at approximately $700 per acre, but this figure also includes cost of some water development for the purpose of rehabilitating, or making the best use of existing projects. These costs, on the other hand, do not include on-the-farm develop- 1 Some upward revision of this estimate may be neces- sary because of the reservation of lands near the Hanford, Wash., atomic energy plant which originally were planned for irrigation. About 45,000 acres may be withdrawn permanently from irrigation development because of their location near the Hanford plant. See chapter 5. 28 Percent of repayment Years since rhormu. Project made repayments ^ through began year 1946 Boise Project, Idaho:» Arrowrock Division............. 48 28 $82,394 Emmet Division............... 38 20............ Notus Division................. 37 25............ Bitterroot Project, Montana...... 12 11 ............ Frenchtown Project, Montana.... 4 7 ............ Klamath Falls Project, Oregon: Langell Valley Division........ 15 20 ............ Main Division.................. 64 38 ............ Pumping Division.............. 33 28 ............ Minidoka Project: Gooding Division............... 23 18 ............ Gravity Division............... 96 39 ____....... South Side Pumping Station... 74 30 ............ Umatffla Project, Oregon: East Division ........... 23 39 a 863,621 West Division»................. 12 29 24,720 Westland Irrigation District«... 10 15............ Yakima Project, Washington: Katitas Division.............. 8 9 ........... Storage Division...............- 31 32............ Sunnyside Division.__........ 85 39............ Tieton Division..............- 99 36 -......---- Okanogan Project, Washington... 32 38 '997,862 Owyhee, Oregon-Idaho •..............................--............ King Hill Project, Idaho......................-........... '2,000,000 |