OCR Text |
Show 509 also divergent.83 Similarly, the basin-wide plans of the Army Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the Columbia River Basin overlapped, and in the area of overlap, they pre- sented conflicts.84 Such duplication and conflict, under the present statutes, are not subject to solution solely through interagency coordina- tion. For the planning agencies have different primary statu- tory responsibilities to which they must accord precedence, Thus, program development by the Bureau of Reclamation must give precedence to irrigation, while program development by the Army Engineers must similarly give precedence to navi- gation and flood control.85 This is particularly illustrated by the different plans of the Army and the Bureau for the Folsom Dam in the American River in California. The Army's origi- nal plan contemplated a reservoir of a capacity of 355,000 acre- feet of storage, while the Bureau's plan contemplated a reser- voir of a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet of storage to serve its irrigation development.88 This difference in primary statutory responsibility is rein- forced by subsidiary differences in the basic statutory frame- work governing the activities of each agency. A notable exam- ple of this is the Kings River Project in California. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Engineers prepared plans for the development as a multiple-purpose project for both flood control and irrigation.87 The Bureau would condi- tion construction upon the conclusion of repayment contracts 83 See supra, pp. 472-473. See also 90 Cong. Rbc, 4119 (1944); Sen. Doc. No. 191, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 2 (1944). 84 Army Engineers: H. Doc. No. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. (1950). Bureau of Reclamation: H. Doc. No. 473, 81st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 83-86 italic (1950). 86 See supra, pp. 418-420, 402, 408-409. 86Army Engineers: H. Doc. No. 649, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 5 (1944). Bureau of Reclamation: Sen. Doc. No. 113, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 127 After conferences with the Bureau and the State of California, these dif- ferences were subsequently reconciled, and the Army Engineers now recom- mend 1,000,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. H. Doc. No. 367, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 40 (1949). 87Bureau of Reclamation: H. Doc. No. 631, 76th Cong., 3d sess. (1940). Army Engineers: H. Doc. No. 630, 76th Cong., 3d sess. (1940). |