| OCR Text |
Show related to minimum annual water requirements and payment capacity, and at least sufficient to cover operation and maintenance charges, that would cover the delivery of a fixed quantity of water each year. The demand charge would be col- lectible even though the actual delivery of water in some years would be less than the total amount provided for under the demand charge. (2) Service charges per acre-foot for water delivered in excess of the minimum provided for under the demand charge. These charges should be much fciigher than the demand charge. (3) Periodic renewal of contracts which would involve review of service charges, water require- ments, and repayment ability measured by the resulting increase in the irrigator's net earnings. Charges would thus be kept consistent with agri- cultural prices and production. 4. The Place of the Basin Account in Power Plan- ning and Administration The Problem Pooling of costs and revenues of Federal power developments in a basin account for planning and administration purposes. The Situation The 1944 Flood Control Act provides that the coordinated plans for the Missouri River Basin as set forth in House Document 475 and Senate Docu- ments 191 and 247, all from the Seventy-eighth Congress, 'c* * * are hereby approved and the initial stages recommended are hereby authorized and shall h>e prosecuted by the War Department and the Department of the Interior as speedily as may be consistent with budgetary requirements." The act provides further that the plans which are related to flood control and other purposes be undertaken by the War Department (now the De- partment of the Army); and that, "Subject to the basin-wide findings and recommendations regard- ing the benefits, the allocations of costs and the repayments by water users, made in said House and Senate documents, the reclamation and power de- velopments to be undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior* under said plans shall be governed by the Federal reclamation laws.39 •Act of December 22, 1944, § 9, 59 Stat. 887, 891. These provisions have been interpreted as com- bining all of the elements of the adopted plan into the single Missouri Basin Project. For purposes of power planning and administration, therefore, the costs and revenues of all units with power in them, including units of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, are to be combined into a single project account.40 This will facilitate rate- making processes as well as other phases of power planning and administration, such as the scheduling of new plants to supply load growth, budgeting funds for operation and maintenance, and provid- ing for modification or extension of facilities. Federal power projects in the basin, such as the Shoshone, Fort Peck, Kendrick, North Platte, and Colorado-Big Thompson Projects, have generally been undertaken on the basis of individual project authorization. These systems are not intercon- nected to permit the maximum firm power pro- duction. Each project must sell its power at rates sufficient to cover its costs, but its rates must be consistent with those charged by other projects in the area. As a result, accounts must be kept for each project of the purchase, sale, and interchange of power-a wasteful procedure. The Federal hydroelectric projects in the Mis- souri Basin, including those existing, under con- struction, and authorized, are clustered in the upper basin States, within a logical power supply area. It is expected that the power supply will eventally be integrated in a single system. In the lower basin States the hydroelectric power potentialities, except for possible main stem devel- opment in conjunction with slack-water navigation, are relatively small. The only Federal power de- velopments in this area presently recommended or contemplated on lower river tributaries aggregate less than 100,000 kilowatts of installed capacity. It is doubtful, therefore, that projects in this area of the basin will be as completely integrated with those of the upper basin as with other lower basin power sources, both hydroelectric and fuel, including hy- droelectric plants in the White or Arkansas River Basin. Conclusions For Federal hydroelectric projects in the upper Missouri River Basin, power costs and revenues at both existing and contemplated Federal projects should be combined into a single account. In the lower basin area, where relatively little hydroelec- 40 As proposed by the Department of the Interior. 250 |
