OCR Text |
Show 213 to complete the project, exceed the aggregate of the amount allocable to irrigation within the water-users' repayment ability and the amount derivable from other sources including power revenues assigned for return of irrigation cost beyond the water-users' repayment ability.865 If the view be taken that there must be a full return of all reimbursable costs, then the only course open is for the Bureau to present the problem to Congress for solution.368 For the situation is not covered by existing law.367 Or it might be argued that the Act's repayment provisions require reimbursement of only the amounts allo- cated in the feasibility findings.368 But this would mark such a wide departure from the statutory requirements as to reim- bursement prior to the 1939 Act that such a view is not ac- ceptable.369 Where the entire project cost is allocated to irrigation, the legal requirement respecting the amount of the water-users' obligations under the 1939 Act does not differ substantially from that under earlier statutes.370 As to multiple-purpose projects, the 1939 Act requires a contract assuring repayment by water users before delivery of water on the land, or in lieu thereof a water-service contract.371 However, if a majority of the land to be irrigated is owned by the United States, no repayment contract is required until close of the development period. But it has been the policy of the Bureau to require a repayment contract in advance of or concurrently with the be- ginning of construction.872 In this situation, where irrigation- water users and users for power and other purposes repay costs, a water-service contract may be made and it need not assure full return at the outset, but only that the rates for water rental be adequate to accomplish the return within the maxi- mum period permitted by law.878 The situation as to manner ™Id. p. 885. 8(16 IUd. mIMd. 888 Id. pp. 885-886. mId. p. 886. *nIbid. *nId. pp. 886-887. m7(f. p. 887. mId. pp. 886-887. |