| OCR Text |
Show Assuming complete amortization of the power in- vestment in 1991, and firm power sales amounting to about 2 billion kilowatt-hours per year, about 2.5 mills per kilowatt-hour, or roughly 50 percent of the 5.1-mill rate, would be required for an additional 20 years to meet the 125-million-dollar irrigation repayment. Presumably, therefore, the firm power rate after 1991 could be about 2.6 mills if no power revenues were used to repay irrigation work.7 Power consumers in the Columbia Basin, however, would be under no such obligation. It is to be noted further that a 5.1-mill firm energy rate, while much higher than rates possible in the Pacific Northwest, is not high for California. Sale of all energy producible from the Central Valley Project units, including the North Fork Kings River development,8 can be considered certain at about the 5.1-mill rate. Conclusions The component of the firm energy rate from authorized and proposed Central Valley Federal power plants, after the investment in power facilities has been completely amortized, necessary to repay the project costs allocated to irrigation facilities, would be a significant part of the rate including the interest component. This would have elements of inequity when compared with the requirements in basins better endowed with low-cost hydroelectric resources. However, in the interest of clarifying the issues, simplifying accounting procedure, and placing all forms of water development on a similar basis for planning, a change in Federal reimbursement policy is recommended, as suggested by the Commission.9 It is recommended that for the Central Valley, as elsewhere: (1) Payment should be required from direct beneficiaries of water projects, consonant with their ability to pay and in proportion to their share of benefits. For irrigation water users, as for power users, this might take the form of regular water rates. (2) Every effort should be made to identify all local beneficiaries of irrigation, as well as of other purposes. Responsible beneficiaries, from whom contributions may be sought, include: (a) Water users, or their legally recognized gov- ernmental unit, such as an irrigation district. 7 The above discussion assumes operation, maintenance, and replacement costs at approximately the same level used in the schedule mentioned above. 8 As noted in H. Doc. 537, 81st Gong., 2d sess. (1950). • See vol. 1, pp. 83-86. (b) The State and its subdivisions, including counties or municipalities in the project area; and commercial interests, either directly or through a legally recognized governmental unit, such as a conservancy district. 7. Reimbursability of Allocations for Fish and Wild- life and Recreation The Problem Under what circumstances, if any, should costs incurred to provide for fish, wildlife, and recreation be considered nonreimbursable? The Situation Each year agricultural and industrial expansion brings about a further alteration in the valley's fish and wildlife habitat. Concurrently, interest in hunt- ing and fishing is increasing. Hunting and fishing license sales in California have shown an unprece- dented increase in the past decade. If California's population continues to increase, and economic activity continues at a relatively high level, the demand for recreation will also increase. Hunting and fishing are among California's most popular forms of outdoor recreation. To meet the growing demands for these sports, fish and game resources must be increased. Similarly, participation in active recreational pur- suits such as swimming and boating is increasing, but available facilities fall far short of the demand. Whenever a new reservoir is created, therefore, the demand for its use by recreationists is immediate and insistent. This problem has become especially acute where bodies of water suitable for recreation are limited. The situation at Millerton Lake, behind Friant Dam, is illustrative. For 4 years the lake has been open to the public for boating, fishing, picnicking, and swimming. In spite of the unfortunate lack of facilities and the large drawdown, the lake attracts a yearly attendance of some 400,000 persons. Since 1945, only $40,000 has been spent on facilities. According to the National Park Service, which presently administers the area, about 1.2 million dollars of public funds for physical improvements and $176,000 of private funds for concessions are still needed to bring the area up to acceptable standards. A widespread recognition has grown recently as 117 |
