OCR Text |
Show to the need for providing the maximum possible facilities to permit adequate recreational use, in- cluding fish and game, in connection with Federal water projects. Although the need is recognized, a generally accepted method for financing the re- quired improvements has not been devised. The Forest Service during the 1930's constructed small dams at the lower end of many alpine lakes in the high Sierras with fixed small outlets to assure a minimum continuous flow in the streams drain- ing the lakes and to prevent the drying of the streams during the late summer, as often happened. Sportsmen's organizations in the foothill communi- ties did the work at many lakes under Forest Service supervision. The question of financing fish and wildlife and recreational facilities in conjunction with Federal water proj ects involves three general situations: (a) Costs are sometimes incurred to prevent loss and damage to fish and wildlife resources and pos- sibly in some cases recreational values. An example of this is th.e Coleman Fisheries Station, constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation at a cost of 1.6 mil- lion dollars, one of the functions of which is to reduce salmon losses occasioned by construction of Shasta Darn. (b) Benefits are sometimes obtained from en- hancement of fish and wildlife and recreational values. In some instances such benefits will accrue incidentally from the construction of a project. An example is the case of Monticello Reservoir (Solano Project) in which the potential value of the fishery in the reservoir is greater than the fishery damage caused by the project. Another example is the improvement of upland game environment, as for pheasants, when an area is brought under irrigation. In other cases, however, it will be necessary to pro- vide additional facilities in order to realize the bene- fits, as at ^lillerton Lake, discussed above, or at Folsom Reservoir. Frequently, the total benefits will exceed the cost of the additional facilities, in which case it might be found that a portion of the benefits co«jld be considered attributable to the reservoir its elf. (c) Recr-eation in some instances may be estab- lished as one of the major project functions. There are no examples of Federal expenditures on this basis in th& Central Valley, but in the adjoining Russian River Basin, a project has been authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers which would be operated largely for recreation. Conclusions In the first situation, where costs are incurred in preventing losses to fish and wildlife, the Bureau of Reclamation under present law is able to consider them nonreimbursable. The Corps of Engineers has no legally defined responsibility in this regard, but its general practice has been to consider them regular project costs. If such costs are incurred on behalf of a flood control or navigation project, they would, in effect, be nonreimbursable, but if an allo- cation is made to irrigation or power, a portion of the fish and wildlife cost would become reim- bursable. There appears to be both logic and equity in considering the cost of preventing fish and wildlife losses as legitimate reimbursable project costs. Fish and wildlife might be considered an existing value or facility, similar to a farm or a road, for which compensation or replacement is necessary. However, in some cases it may not be physically possible to maintain fish and wildlife. In other cases the cost may far exceed the values that would be preserved. Judgment might be used in such instances in determining how far to go, and it may be necessary sometimes to consider the losses simply as a project detriment, to be subtracted from bene- fits in determining economic justification. In the second situation, where fish and wildlife and recreational values are enhanced, and the pro- spective benefits equal or exceed the cost of the special facilities, their addition to the project may be considered justifiable. Any excess in the total amount of such benefits over the costs of the special facilities would be reasonably allocable to the joint costs of the reservoir or other works on the same basis as allocations to irrigation, power, flood con- trol, and other purposes served by the joint facili- ties. The reimbursement of such allocations of cost for recreation and for fish and wildlife, with respect to both special and joint facilities, should be placed on the same basis as the reimbursement of costs allocated to comparable purposes. Inasmuch as the recreation and fish and wildlife benefits ac- crue to individuals within a wide segment of the population, it would be in accord with present practice to treat the entire allocation to such pur- poses as nonreimbursable. If present policies, however, were modified to bring about reasonable and practicable reimburse- ment from identifiable beneficiaries, then return of a reasonable portion of the recreation and fish and wildlife allocations likewise might be sought. A 118 |