OCR Text |
Show in part of irrigation construction costs beyond the ability of water users to repay, has been considered as consistent with the Federal policy not to require payment by the beneficiaries of flood control and navigation projects. For the Colorado Basin as a whole the effect of such a practice on power rates has not been determined, but it is likely to be signifi- cant. It is known to be substantial in the case of the Central Arizona Project. In the interest of clarifying the issues, simplify- ing accounting procedure, and placing all forms of water development on a similar basis for planning, a change in Federal reimbursement policy is rec- ommended, as suggested by this Commission.22 It is recommended that for the Colorado Basin, as elsewhere: (1) For those goods and services directly subject to Federal control and disposition, such as power and water supply, payment should be required from beneficiaries as far as possible for benefits received. Such payments in the case of municipal and indus- trial water supply and power should at least cover costs, including amortization of investment with interest and payments in lieu of State and local taxes. In the case of reclamation of land, the pay- ments should be based on ability to pay without interest measured by the resulting increase in the land operator's net earnings. (2) For primary benefits, such as flood control, not susceptible of disposition to benefiiciaries, and for secondary benefits, such as profits to commer- cial interests resulting indirectly from projects, agreements should be worked out with the inter- ested States under which they would assume re- sponsibility for securing repayment through use of their powers of taxation or assessment. This might involve the setting up of such local agencies as conservancy districts. 6. Pollution Control Problems {Including Those Caused by Mining) and Adequacy of Laws for Control The Problem Pollution control difficulties encountered by State water pollution control agencies and ade- quacy of laws to effect control. The Situation Due to the extreme scarcity of water in this basin, pollution control provides a conservation measure " See vol. 1, pp. 85-86. 400 for extending the uses of the available water sup- ply through its various stages of storage, use, and reuse. The major pollutants of the waters of this basin are silt and mineral salts with domestic and industrial wastes creating localized problems of some concern. There are 178 sources of municipal or domestic waste pollution and 331 industrial sources of wastes known to be discharging into the streams of this basin. Treatment is provided for 144 of the munic- ipal sources of pollution while only 31 of the in- dustrial sources are known to receive treatment. The majority of the industrial wastes are from min- ing activities, agriculture, and related industries. Information on industrial pollution is generally lacking. Vegetable processing wastes have become of some concern at Yuma, Ariz. Standards for waste treatment in this basin are necessarily high, for in some instances the sewage or water flow in a river channel may be the only permanent flow that ex- ists. As an example, there was no flow at the mouth of the Gila River during the entire 5-year period from August 1941 to August 1946, although this tributary to the Colorado has a drainage area of 53,000 square miles and during this same period there were substantial flows in the upstream reaches of this drainage basin. Pollution control difficulties encountered by State water pollution control agencies in this basin evolve from any or all of the following five needs: (1) knowledge of the extent of the problem, (2) establishment of a plan of approach, (3) lack of personnel to be assigned to the function, (4) ade- quate State laws, and (5) limited financial resources. In the first place, pollution control has not, until recently, been given serious consideration by the several States in the Colorado Basin. The con- struction of sewage treatment facilities has been encouraged and at times demanded by the State health departments as a public health measure. Other specific assignments of authority have been given to control specific wastes; for example, the Colorado Game and Fish Department has been given control of mining wastes. However, it is only since passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Actw that the States have given attention to comprehensive programs of water pollution control. Since the passage of the act, with the 18 Act of June 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 1155, 33 U. S. C. 466 et seq. |