OCR Text |
Show plan. If facilities are constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, repayment to the Government of about 60 percent of the construction costs will be required. Local interests, recognizing that the Corps of Engineers has been designated under flood- control law as responsible for constructing major drainage outlets and hoping that they would be able to get the drainage work accomplished at less cost to them, asked Congress to direct the Corps of Engineers to investigate their drainage problem. Congress has done so. This restudy will involve duplication of effort and increased costs to the tax- payers. This is an excellent example of how project beneficiaries play one Federal agency against an- other in their desire to obtain the greatest financial benefits to themselves at the expense of the general taxpayers of the Nation. The San Luis Valley Project presents an example of the hindrance and delays in initiating and con- structing a project through dissension and lack of unity among local interests created by differences in Federal policies. Potential project participators are divided into two groups. One group recognizes the authorization of the project for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation and has been en- deavoring earnestly to have construction started on the Wagon Wheel Gap Dam, the initial project unit. Tlie other group has materially delayed ac- tions prerequisite to construction through failure to cooperate in supporting the project. This delay has been inspired, it is alleged, by the hope of hav- ing the project constructed under flood control legislation which might relieve project beneficiaries from all or part of their financial repayment obli- gations. Conclusions Differences in Federal policies for reimbursement of the cost of water resources projects constructed by the Federal Government have been a source of some dissension among local project beneficiaries in the Rio Grande Basin. This has contributed to delays in project construction and attempts by local interests t:o have project construction undertaken by the Fedezral agency whose governing laws and poli- cies they feel would provide the most liberal and least limiting Federal participation. A solution would require modification of Federal water resources policy and legislation so that, re- gardless of the construction agency, Federal par- ticipation in the development of any one water resource Junction, such as irrigation, would impose uniform requirements on the project beneficiaries. A sound solution would involve modification of the entire Federal water resources policy to the end that local participation in all projects would be based on uniform principles. This is in accord with the principles recommended as reimbursement policy in volume 1 of this Commission's report. 5. Status of Plans and Programs for the Further Development and Rehabilitation of Resources in the Rio Grande Basin The Problem Present status of comprehensive plans and pro- grams for the further development and rehabilita- tion of water and related land resources. The Situation Local interests have constructed major water conservation and related works in the Rio Grande Basin. They provided the early structures and are continuing further improvements. Such local works include many miles of irrigation canals and laterals, numerous diversion dams, levees, headings, drainage ditches, and several small reservoirs. Many Federal agencies have responsibilities which relate in different degrees to water resources programs in the basin.8 Many projects, local, State, and Federal, are in operation. Other projects which have been planned cooperatively are under construction or are being initiated. Major Federal programs have been discussed in chapter 3 of this report. A Rio Grande Board was established jointly by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to co- * These include the following: the International Boundary and Water Commission; the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Geological Sur- vey, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service); the Department of Agriculture (Production and Market- ing Administration, Soil Conservation Service, Extension Service, Forest Service, Agricultural Research Adminis- tration, Farm Credit Administration, Farmers' Home Administration, Rural Electrification Administration, Bu- reau of Agricultural Economics); the Federal Power Com- mission; Department of the Army (Army Air Base, Vet- erans' Bureau, Corps of Engineers); Immigration Service; Federal Security Agency (Public Health Service); De- partment of Commerce (Weather Bureau, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Bureau of the Census, Bureau of For- eign and Domestic Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads); Atomic Energy Commission. 332 |