OCR Text |
Show Construction activities should be coordinated at the regional level. But the proper timing of con- struction or installation of the various elements of a program is determined to an important extent by the timing and amounts of appropriations. Greater attention should be given to coordination in this phase. Coordination in operating water control projects in the Central Valley is necessary if maximum bene- fits are to be realized. This coordination is re- quired not only among the various projects but also among the several purposes of a particular project. Coordination of operation will require close coop- eration among all agencies, including local inter- ests. Certain local services can be supplied best by independent operation, and where practicable, they should be so undertaken. In view of the complexity of the program in the Central Valley, the many agencies concerned, and the need for close coordination, a more formal and responsible coordinating procedure is indicated. A river basin, commission should be established. It should consist of representatives from each of the responsible Federal agencies, and provision should be made for full State and local participation in planning, construction, and operation. This is in accordance with the Commission's recommenda- tions in volume 1. D. Program Procedures 1. Irrigation Repayment Contract Principles The Problem The time of repayment contract negotiation for irrigation services provided by Central Valley reser- voirs in relation to construction of those reservoirs. The Situation The Coxps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have been authorized to construct a number of multiple-purpose reservoirs in the Cen- tral Valley. Some of these are in operation and others are under construction. The projects of the Bureau were authorized under reclamation law and the projects of the Corps were authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944.22 All of these projects require that local interests using irrigation water from the reservoirs repay a proportionate share of 22 Act of December 22, 1944, § 10, 58 Stat. 887, 891. the project cost, but problems have arisen in con- nection with the making of repayment arrange- ments for this irrigation service. These problems stem from the question as to whether existing reclamation law applies directly to projects constructed under flood control law, and from the broader question as to whether reclama- tion law should apply to any reservoir project in the Central Valley. Conflicting interpretations of these acts with respect to repayment policy have resulted in con- fusion. Should the repayment policy for use of irrigation water be the same whether the project is built by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers? The unsettled question of whether local irrigation interests are required to contract for conservation use of the reservoirs with the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Interior adds to the confusion. Cogent arguments can be presented for either side of the question as to whether or not reclamation law should apply to all projects in the Central Valley. Those favoring the application of reclamation law cite the need for consistency throughout the valley, as the Bureau of Reclamation has made and is making repayment arrangements for irrigation water provided at projects authorized under this law. Those opposing the application of this law claim that the provisions regarding acreage limi- tations are not applicable in an area where irriga- tion has been practiced locally for many years, where water rights are established by State law, and where most of the water to be provided by Federal projects is of a supplemental nature. They fur- ther cite the fact that the water from some projects will be used on lands already fully developed, and will be conveyed there by means of existing diversion dams and canals. There likewise are two points of view on the negotiation of contracts before construction. Many believe that irrigation repayment contracts should be negotiated prior to construction of a project on the grounds that otherwise it is very difficult to consummate any agreement for reim- bursing the Federal Government as required by law, particularly where no works are necessary to convey the stored water. However, in some instances such prior contracts would not be necessary, provided advance arrangements for acquiring water rights to the unappropriated waters are made with the State of California. Proponents of prior negotiation call attention to the fact that it is impossible to operate the reser- 144 |