| OCR Text |
Show policy of free public access to public facilities would seem desirable, with reimbursement sought through devices such as increased concession fees, leases for appropriate private development, and the like. Two special circumstances may be noted about allocations to fish and wildlife and recreation: (1) Although recreational opportunities at multiple- purpose reservoirs in the Central Valley are of less than national significance, certain of the facilities can be built, and most of them operated, by State, county, or local interests. Reservoirs in or adja- cent to a national forest are exceptions, as the Forest Service would be the logical agency to man- age those facilities; (2) the benefits from fish and wildlife and recreation are difficult to estimate; consequently, it is important that the benefit evalu- ations and especially allocations of joint costs be realistic. In the third situation, establishment of recreation as a major project function, no proposals have been made to consider recreation for any Central Valley project. If such a situation should arise, it would probably be at the specific request of a locality and would be of particular benefit to that area, in which case the appropriate costs should be reimbursable. Summary (1) If fish and wildlife and recreational facili- ties are to be incorporated in plans for water pro- grams, an accepted method of financing should be adopted. (2) Despite certain current legislation permit- ting nonreimbursable allocations for costs incurred to prevent loss and damage to fish and wildlife, it would appear more logical and equitable to consider such costs as legitimate project costs, to be charged against the primary purposes for which the project was built. (3) Costs should be allocated to fish and wildlife and recreation for enhancement of those values, including as appropriate both special single-purpose costs and allocation of joint facilities. Reimburse- ment of such joint allocations should be on the same basis as reimbursement of other single-purpose costs. (4) States and local interests should assume their appropriate share of the responsibility for the facili- ties and management of fish and wildlife and recre- ation which are local in character. (5) If recreation is established as one of the major project functions at the request of local in- terests, the costs should be reimbursable. 8. Reimbursement to the Federal Government for Ground Water The Problem At present the Federal Government is fully or in part repaid by the water users for the cost of irriga- tion facilities, through contracts with irrigation districts. Present practice cannot apply to water obtained from replenishment of underground stor- age, where anyone can obtain it by pumping, and under State law, would have a right to it. The Situation No method of reimbursement for replenishing ground water supplies made possible by Federal projects has been developed. For example, in- dividual districts purchasing water from the Central Valley Project may find that after water enters the underground strata, it escapes from the district and benefits an adjacent area. The seriousness of this problem varies with local situations. Generally speaking, water moves very slowly underground. If the contracting district is of reasonable size and lies over a ground water basin that is reasonably confined, the chances are that only relatively small quantities of water will escape. The amount of escape can be partially con- trolled by installing wells near the district bound- aries, and this is presently practiced in a few areas. An individual district that is losing water on one side also may find that it is gaining water from another. Under California law, the use of ground water is subject to the doctrine of correlative rights, which recognizes equal rights on the part of owners of over- lying lands to the reasonable use of the water in the common underground basin. When the supply is insufficient for all, each is entitled to a fair and just proportion, which the court has the power to deter- mine. Thus a means of controlling the excessive use of ground water exists. However, such an apportionment of ground water has been made in only a limited number of cases in California, and in no known cases in the Central Valley. So far the proposed solution to overpumping in the Central Valley has been to import additional water for additional surface use and ground water replenishment, and in that way eliminate the overdraft. Present indications are that the ultimate water needs of the basin as a whole can be met by full development of the avail- 119 |
