OCR Text |
Show United States; (b) provide and maintain, at local expense, adequate public terminal and transfer facilities; (c) provide any necessary alterations in utility facilities, highways, and bridges; and (d) make contributions in cash where they are warranted by the proportion of local or special benefits to national or general benefits. As a result of the foregoing practice, the non- Federal investment in connection with Federal navigation projects varies in accordance with the circumstances pertaining to individual projects and ranges from zero to amounts equal to or greater than the Federal costs. The users of intracoastal and inland water- ways pay no Federal tolls and, under present cir- cumstances, the introduction of such charges would encounter serious difficulties. There is the problem of integrating the waterways into a national transportation system, which in turn depends upon the establishment of a national policy on freight rates. If the railroads may improperly compete with water carriers by re- ducing rates to meet water competition while maintaining higher rates elsewhere, the practical difficulties of instituting waterway tolls are great-in fact, insurmountable. Watershed Management.-The Department of Agriculture has the major responsibility in watershed protection and land use management involving non-Federal lands. The work is di- vided among a variety of programs, all of which require varying participation by individual or State and lo cal agencies. It is actually less a mat- ter of reimbursement than it is of non-Federal payment for specific parts of a cooperative un- dertaking, along the following lines: 1. The Soil Conservation Service cooperative program is designed to prevent wastage of soil and water resources. In the fiscal year 1949 the estimated distribution of cost was Federal, $48,- 000,000; State and local agencies, $7,000,000; and private individuals, $230,000,000. 2. The agriculture conservation program provides Federal assistance through cash pay- ments for special practices and contribution of conservation materials or services. Its fiscal 1949 costs were contributed to the estimated ex- tent of $237,000,000 by the Federal Govern- ment, $35,000,000 by local governments, and $422,000,000 by individual farmers. 3. Other watershed programs include Fed- eral assistance in forestry, with the Federal Gov- ernment contributing about one-third of the total cost; waterflow retardation and soil erosion pre- vention in aid of flood control, with the Federal Government carrying about 60 percent of the cost; a water facilities program, with Federal aid in the form of loans and technical assistance; and the joint Department of the Interior-Department of Agriculture water conservation and utiliza- tion projects, with the farmers expected to repay an estimated 3.2 million dollars of the 8.4 mil- lion dollars costs over a period of 40 years. There are several problems involved in con- nection with reimbursement in this field, affect- ing the success of the program. The amount of private contribution required can greatly affect the speed with which conservation goes forward, particularly as farmers operating small, poor farms can contribute little in the way of out-of- pocket costs, and farm tenancy leases are not con- ducive to voluntary conservation practices. Other Benefits.-The remaining benefits from Federal water resources programs involve less se- rious reimbursement issues. It is generally con- ceded that municipal and industrial water supply should compensate the Government in full for any benefit received from Federal programs, although under present legislation no fixed stand- ards have been established. Similarly, there is considerable variation in the participation of local interests in the costs of recreational uses of water, including recreational use of harbors and reservoirs, shore protection, and fish and wildlife preservation. There remains the pollution abatement pro- gram, which is one of cooperation with the States and involves, in general, small loans for treat- ment works. From a review of this situation it appears that, if a determined effort to clean up our rivers is to be made, the Federal Government may have to render more assistance in connection with the financing of works through loans or even grants-in-aid. On the basis of this brief review, it is reason- able to believe that a more systematic and con- 74 |