OCR Text |
Show 4 AQUEDUCT NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIF. pation to $2,900,000, instead of the $3,500,000, previously agreed.upon. Any further savings would be returned to the respective agencies on a pro rata basis. In reply to the specific'question in your letter of August 30, I consider it essential and proper that the Federal Works Agency participate in defraying part of the cost of the project. Since additional funds are required to award the remaining construction contracts, it will be appreciated if you will take the necessary steps to arrange for this allocation of funds in the amount of $2,900,000. Thereupon, by letter dated November 15, 1945, the Administrator, Federal Works Agency, advised the Secretary of the Navy as follows: When the negotiations with respect to this project were first undertaken the Federal Works Agency gave consideration to the allocation of $3,500,000 from Lanham Act funds, solely on the basis of the war-connected need for this facility. With the end of hostilities on August 14, 1945, I immediately took steps to cancel the allocations of all projects which had been allotted but on which construction contracts had not been awarded. This procedure has been followed without exception in the liquidation of the Lanham Act program. Shortly thereafter we were requested by the Bureau of the Budget, acting on directions from the Appropriations Committee, to report the status of our Lanham Act funds as of August 11, 1945. Such report was made and the first supplemental surplus appropriation rescission bill, 1946, which has been passed by the House, recovers into the Treasury all Lanham Act construction funds except $1,500,000 which the Appropriations Committee permitted us to keep in order that we might have funds to meet contingencies arising on something like 500 projects still under construction. As a result of this action, we are without funds with which to participate in the cost of the San Diego aqueduct project. I desire to point out to you that in connection with the appropriations made on December 22, 1944, April 25 and July 5, 1945, for the continuation of Lanham Act activities, the Congress inserted language signifying its desire that allocations not be made to projects costing in excess of $250,000. I feel very strongly that this language was inserted as the result of an impression on the part of Members of the Congress that we were planning to make a sizable allocation for the San Diego job. In view of the fact that the Navy Department has already completed negotiar tions with the city of San Diego for the repayment to the Government the cost of this project spread over a period of years, it would appear to me that it would be far more desirable to have the project financed in its entirety by Army and Navy funds rather than to bring the Federal Works Agency into the picture. I regret that my reply cannot be of a more favorable nature. The contract between the United States, represented by the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the city of San Diego, to which reference/is-made in the above-quoted correspondence, was executed under date of October 17, 1945 (Noy-13300). Briefly, it provides that the Federal Government, at its own expense, shall prosecute to completion the described aqueduct-the estimated cost of which is stated to be $14,500,000 and the estimated completion date May 1947; that, upon completion, the aqueduct will be turned over to the city of San Diego upon a lease basis; that, under such lease, the city will be required to repair, maintain, and operate the aqueduct but that title thereto will remain in the United States until its "true cost" has been paid to the United States by the city in rentals at the rate of $500,000 per annum; and that, during the term of the lease, the city shall have an option to purchase the aqueduct from the Federal Government upon either of two alternative sets of described terms, both of which contemplate payment of the "true cost" of the aqueduct. The maximum term of the lease is fixed therein at 32 years. And, finally, the contract recites that it is made pursuant to the provisions of the First War Powers Act, 1941 (55 Stat. 838), the Second War Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 177), and the act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 712). |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |