OCR Text |
Show 537 Three factors seem to narrow the impact of the foregoing differences. First, as a sequel of the general rule for requiring individualized legislative approval of navigation and flood- control projects, Congress has enacted a number of statutes in the nature of continuing authorizations for specified types of work in the interests of navigation and flood control. Sec- ondly, Congress in 1944 established a procedure for authoriza- tion of the undertaking of irrigation works at Army dam and reservoir projects. Finally, in a number of individual cases, Congress has relaxed the pay-out standard for Reclamation projects by lengthening the repayment period,239 and in several cases it has individually authorized Reclamation projects.240 Certain features of the bases for project selection under the other statutes should be noted. In each, legislative control is less direct, none requiring individualized project approval by Congress. As to project selection in the cases of the TV A and International Boundary and Water Commission, significance may attach to two facts. In both instances, the geographic area involved is relatively small, and available information in both cases made it possible to foresee the probable effect of blanket authorizations.241 Similarly limited is the range of project selection under the Water Conservation and Utiliza- tion Act and under the Water Facilities Act. Both are restricted to arid and semiarid regions, and both impose ceil- ings on project expenditures. Annual Review by Appropriation Committees.-In addi- tion to whatever legislative review of individual project pro- posals may be provided under the procedures already outlined, each federal agency must submit to Congress its annual budget program and summary of project activities for review by the appropriation committees of Congress.242 239 See supra, n. 333, p. 208 240 See, e. g., supra, n. 144, p. 519. U1 See, e. g., H. Doc. No. 328, 71st Cong., 2d., sess. (1930) ; H. Doc. No. 359, 71st Cong., 2d sess. (1930). See also H. Rep. No. 422, 74th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2-3 (1935). In the case of the Rio Grande, surveys had been continuing for some time. Act of May 13,1924, 43 Stat. 118, as amended, 22 U. S. G. 277. 242 See supra, p. 525. |