OCR Text |
Show mittently in progress until 1940 when the Gaballo Dam for flood control and regulation and the Elephant Butte power system were completed. The need for drainage facilities, not incorporated in original plans, became evident during the first year of operation, and development of a drainage system was im- mediately initiated. No major change in original plans for structures has proved necessary and the design and construction based upon available data have proven suc- cessful. Conceived originally to serve purposes of irriga- tion and the fulfillment of the 1906 treaty obligation to deliver 60,000 acre-feet of water annually to Mexico, the project modifications have added power and flood-control functions, and the development has also created unantici- pated benefits to fish and wildlife and to recreation. Although benefits were not estimated in advance of con- struction, it seems extremely doubtful whether benefits of the order of $22 million being realized annually from irrigation and power alone, as opposed to costs of less than $2 million, would have been fully anticipated. The project provides water for 159,000 acres of project lands, the current value of crop production from which is cur- rently $40 million annually, and supplementing the sup- ply on an additional 16,000 to 18,000 acres, contributing measurably to development of the Rio Grande Valley. Of the total capital costs incurred to June 30, 1949, $14- 927,994 has been allocated to irrigation, and of this allo- cation $11,486,266 assigned for return by water users. The balance of the irrigation allocation is being returned through power revenues. The two irrigation districts of the project have returned about 60 percent of their obli- gation and will complete payment in 1967. 16. Boulder Canyon project, Arizona and Nevada.- The Boulder Canyon project was authorized in 1928, stor- age began in 1935, and power was first produced in 1936. Hoover Dam, twice as high as any dam then in existence, revolutionized high masonry dam design and construction in the United States and throughout the world. The carrying out of this bold concept for full control of the lower Colorado is one of the outstanding accomplishments of our time. Based upon many years of careful study, the project is an eminently successful example of a multiple-purpose development for irrigation, water supply, power, and flood control. Storage behind Hoover Dam and the All- American and Coachella Canals combine to provide water for 191,400 acres of new land and for large established areas in the Imperial Valley. That 400,000-acre irri- gated agricultural empire is thereby relieved of the alter- nating threat of floods and drought. Water made available for the Metropolitan Water Dis- trict of Southern California and the city of San Diego, and the great blocks of power from the Hoover plant (ultimate capacity, 1,332,300 kilowatts) transmitted to southern California, are major stabilizing factors in the continued growth of industry and population in that area. Recreational use of Lake Mead has proved to be an attrac- tion of national significance. The project not only is fully adapatable to the comprehensive development of the Colo- rado River Basin, but is the keystone of new projects in the lower basin. The only significant modification of the project which would have been made had additional data been available, is the reduction of the capacity of the All-American Canal. A recent and detailed land-classification study conducted jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the University of California has materially reduced the estimate of irriga- ble acreage, with the result that certain parts of the canal system have an unduly large carrying capacity. Repayment of the entire Federal cost of Hoover Dam and appurtenant works is payable with interest from power and water revenues, with the exception of a $25-million allocation to flood control, which is payable without in- terest after the remaining cost is returned. In contrast to most Federal power developments, but conforming with the Boulder Canyon Project Act, municipal and private power allottees are responsible for the generation and transmission of power to load centers. As of May 31, 1950, the total reimbursement from Hoover Dam to the Treasury was $60,456,302, of which $46,689,853 repre- sented interest and $13,766,449 represented payment on principal. The outstanding amount of the principal on May 31, 1950 (excluding $25 million allocated to flood control) was $108,283,492. Costs of the All-American Canal and associated works (excepting nonreimbursable costs, estimated at $4,500,000 and allocable to flood control) are to be repaid without interest by water users. Repayment has not yet been initiated because of complications resulting from the Mex- ican Water Treaty of 1944, requiring delivery of water to Mexico from the All-American Canal, and from the re- duction in irrigable new-land acreage. Notwithstanding, $1,050,000 has been returned to the Treasury from mis- cellaneous sources as of May 31, 1950. 17. Salt River project, Arizona.-Authorized in 1903, the original system for the Salt River project was com- pleted in 1911 and in 1917 was transferred to the Salt River Valley Water Users Association for operation and maintenance. That organization subsequently designed and constructed additional facilities, with Government re- view and approval of plans. Additional Government construction included the enlargement of spillways on several structures built by the association and the con- struction of Bartlett Dam. The project provides a water supply for 243,000 acres of land which have become a primary base for economic development in central Arizona and the seat of the State's largest city. It resolves a chaotic situation involving strife for unregulated low flows which were inadequate even for the 85,000 acres irrigated at the time of project authorization. Costs were slightly higher than what, in retrospect, might be considered the minimum essential cost as a result of certain difficulties. The originally planned spillway capacity of Roosevelt Dam had to be enlarged as relatively short-term runoff records were supplemented, and the design of some minor features involved unnecessary cost. A critical drainage problem was corrected by pumping^ ground water to supplement surface supplies, utilizing project power. These problems and difficulties, however, have in no way precluded the accomplishment of the proj- ect purpose, and if anticipated would not have involved significant modification of project plans, or resulted in a significantly greater measure of benefits over costs. The latter measure, though not estimated quantitatively in advance of development, has been far greater than an- ticipated. Taking into account (1) project revenues prior to trans- fer to the association, (2) an obligation assumed by the 393 |