OCR Text |
Show formed by Imperial Dam are such that they can be con- trolled with reasonable expenditures since the movement of sediment from the bed of the stream is rapidly de- creasing and local contributions to the load of the stream are minor in character. Degradation of the stream channel while generally beneficial in improving drainage conditions, in reducing channel losses and in increasing power head, rendered ineffective the diversion works for the Palo Verde irrigation district until a temporary weir was installed across the river. A permanent solution of this diversion problem is now under study by the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs which may involve the replacement of the weir with a low-head pumping plant. The silt flowing in the Colorado River before the con- struction of Hoover Dam had certain beneficial and certain detrimental effects when carried through the canals for the irrigation of lands in the Imperial Valley. The silt rilled the ditches and required cleaning. Silt removal cost was in the order of one million dollars a year in the case of Imperial Valley alone. At the same time it carried high fertility to the lands and assured their continued fertility under heavy use. The silts also tended to seal the canals and prevent loss of water. Since the building of Hoover Dam, the removal of aquatic growth from the Imperial Canal requires continuous costly expenditures to enable the canals to carry their full supply. These are all problems the engineering profession is now cognizant of and will be able to design for in future structures where a stream heavily laden with silt is regulated. Are Any Projects Not Justifying Their Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs? An examination of a considerable number of water projects reveals that those which are functioning today are more than meeting their annual operation and maintenance costs. Projects which have failed for one reason or an- other have gone out of existence. Others are operated on a reduced scale (such as the King Hill, Idaho, project), serving only those lands readily irrigable and are able to meet current costs. A few minor exceptions can be found. These are, however, essentially small local projects of no great special or national significance. Examples can be found in the improperly located and developed small drainage works which individual farmers or drainage dis- tricts attempt to keep alive. That such works are con- tinued at all is due in considerable part to such factors as high prices for agricultural products or price support programs. Another example is in certain pump irrigation projects. In some localities ground water has been so exhausted by overpumping from the underground reservoir that water levels have fallen below the economic limit for pumping. When such cases occur, as in some areas in the San Joaquin Valley, the operation and maintenance costs mount until the operator can no longer stay in business. Federal Repayment Experience There is no uniform policy for the repayment of projects as between the several construction agencies of the Fed- eral Government. Each agency is working under special congressional directives. Under the 1936 Flood Control Act and amendments thereto, it is required as a condition precedent to the construction of local flood protection projects, that local agencies provide lands and rights-of- way, hold and save the Government free from damages due to the construction, pay for alterations to sewers, utilities, highway bridges, and contribute a portion of con- struction cost if drainage or land enhancement is involved. No repayment of the Federal portion of the cost is re- quired under the same act. As amended in 1938, the Federal Government bears the whole portion of the cost of reservoirs allocated to flood control. This is different from the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 which re- quires that the cost allocated to flood control in the Boulder Canyon project, amounting to $25 million, is to be repaid-without interest-by the power users after the power costs have been repaid. The land treatment pro- grams of the Department of Agriculture under flood control legislation are also generally nonreimbursable. Local contribution to the programs is provided by the landowners on their own land. Power is vendible and the power features of projects have indicated a definite return to the Treasury beyond the amounts estimated in the repayment schedules. For example, Bonneville has made repayment from power revenues of nearly $30 million of which some $18 million covered interest and operating expenses, and about $12 million was for amortization including some $4 million in advance payments. The project repayment that is most frequently discussed is that covering Federal irrigation projects. One of the reasons for this is that reclamation, unlike most other Fed- eral undertakings, requires that beneficiaries pay back directly a substantial part of the cost. This repayment has been a bothersome problem. There have been losses-more on the part of the settler than on the part of the Federal Government. In the early days the settler was intrigued with the promise of a home and with the assurance of adequate irrigation water at low cost and 10 years in which to pay. This seemed to be a wonderful opportunity, but when the project was built some found that the water would cost more than was originally esti- mated. This resulted, in many instances, in undue hard- ships on the part of the homesteader. It was years before many settlers had their places in full production. By that time they found that the water table was rising and their land needed drainage. Although the repayment period was extended, first to 20 years, then to 40, and now on many projects repayment is based on a percentage of the crop, they are still pioneering and are making their farms assets to the Nation. On the whole, the irrigation farmers are now paying their bills to the Government when due. One unit of the Yakima project has already paid out and several others have nearly paid out, although the Federal Reclamation program is only a little over 40 years old. The total investment in Federal Reclamation projects as of June 30, 1950, aggregates about $2 billion. Of this total about $20 million, or 1 percent, has been written off largely because of shortcomings of earlier irrigation developments. In addition, repayment obligations have been temporarily suspended on about 173,000 acres of irrigable land because of low productive capacity com- monly due to excessive alkali. These lands represent about 3 percent of the 5,678,500 irrigable acres in Fed- eral Reclamation undertakings. Of the 173,000 acres 911609-5( 407 |