| OCR Text |
Show States of Arizona and Nevada in lieu of taxes and of $500,000 into the Colorado River Develop- ment Fund. While recognizing that regional differences exist, there does not appear to be adequate grounds for so much diversity in the rate-making and reimbursement provisions. An illustration of this diversity is the rate of interest on the power investment and the disposal of the proceeds. In one case there is no reference to the rate of in- terest or the disposition of the proceeds; in a second case, a rate equal to the average United States debt rate is required and the proceeds must be paid to the Treasury; and in a third case, a rate of 3 percent is required but no legislative direction is indicated for disposal of the revenue thus produced. In the case of Bureau of Recla- mation projects other than the Boulder Canyon Project, the interest component on power invest- ment is generally available to reduce irrigation payments. Flood Control.-Congress has delegated to the Army Engineers the major responsibility for Federal activity in the prevention and control of floods, but other agencies such as the Depart- ment of Agriculture, TVA, and the Bureau of Reclamation also share the responsibility. Under provisions of the 1936 Flood Control Act, as amended, it is the general policy of Con- gress that for all flood control projects except dam and reservoir projects, States or other local interests shall provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the projects. They shall also hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, and maintain and operate all works after com- pletion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Exceptions to this general policy are provided by law in the case of certain specific projects. Dam and reservoir projects are constructed, maintained, and operated by and at the expense of the United States, unless otherwise specifically prescribed by special provisions of law. The preponderant share of total expenditures in recent years has been for reservoir projects for which no flood control reimbursement is required. With respect to local flood control and related projects, TVA follows national policy as ex- pressed in the Flood Control Act of 1936, as amended. This policy, as applied by TVA, re- quires local contribution in the case of (a) local flood control projects involving construction of levees and flood walls, and channel improvement and rectification work, and (b) measures for runoff and waterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention resulting in benefits to privately owned lands. The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 relieved irrigation from the responsibility of repaying total project costs by authorizing nonreimbursable cost allocations for flood control and navigation. Under this authority, all cost allocations to flood control and navigation and, more recently, for fish and wildlife, are borne by the Federal Government. A careful consideration of the problem raises the fundamental question of why the owners of farm land, urban real estate, and commercial, industrial, utility, and transportation property should not pay fully for the capitalizable benefits accruing to them from flood control works con- structed by the Federal Government. Particu- larly is this question raised with respect to local projects, like those in the Central Valley of Cali- fornia. There is some doubt, however, as to the feasibility of the proposition as applied to basin- wide projects with reservoirs perhaps hundreds of miles upstream, e. g. Missouri or Columbia main- stem projects. But the almost complete divorce- ment of benefits and reimbursement can scarcely be justified on grounds of equity. Navigation.-The general legislative guides provide no definite criteria as to the extent of local participation in the cost of navigation proj- ects. So far as essentially local improvements are concerned, the Chief of Engineers is respon- sible for recommending to Congress what local contribution should be required, if any, on ac- count of special or local benefits. In general, non-Federal interests have been re- quired as a condition to Federal participation in such local navigation improvements, to do one or more of the following: (a) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way without cost to the 73 |
