| OCR Text |
Show voirs without incidentally providing significant irrigation benefits, and that therefore local irri- gators are inclined to delay negotiations with the idea of receiving benefits without cost. Others believe that repayment contracts need not be made prior to construction. The principal argument in support of this stand is that the flood control to be provided by the projects is urgently needed and should not be delayed. They also contend that these projects are very much desired by local interests and that proper arrangements could be made for them to pay their equitable share of the project cost, as indicated by offers received, but that the difficulty stems from the larger question of the applicability of reclamation law rather than from evasive tactics. An excellent example of the difficulties encoun- tered because of the present situation is afforded by the Pine Flat Project on the Kings River. The 1944 Flood Control Act23 authorized this project for construction by the Corps of Engineers, and provided that the Secretary of the Army should make the necessary arrangements for compensation for conservation use of the reservoir. Subse- quently, the Secretary of the Interior was directed by the President to negotiate irrigation repayment contracts for the use of water from this reservoir. The project is under construction and will be operated initially for flood control only, until such time as contracts are obtained, although incidental and automatic irrigation benefits estimated at from 10 to 25 percent of the benefits under a multiple- purpose operation would result from flood control operation. The area which will use irrigation water stored in Pine Flat Reservoir comprises numerous irriga- tion districts and private irrigation companies. This area is intensively irrigated, and a relatively large portion of the total runoff of Kings River is now used by direct surface application and by pumping from the underground reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation, in accordance with the Presidential directive cited above, is currently attempting to obtain a repayment contract for the irrigation use of Pine Flat Reservoir, but is meeting with serious difficulty primarily because of the objection of local interests to application of reclamation law. Irrigation contract negotiations are especially dif- ficult on Kings River because irrigation canals are already constructed to use water from the reservoir. Similar difficulties may appear in other areas where "Ibid. canals already are available, such as on Kaweah, Kern, and Tule Rivers, and on Cache Creek. Problems may also arise elsewhere, but probably will not be so difficult because new canals will be required. They will give greater control over the use of water and therefore more opportunity to enforce the provisions of reclamation law. It is pertinent to note, in order to avoid the implication that the difficulty has been concerned entirely with projects of the Corps of Engineers, that the Bureau in the past has had some difficulties in making repayment arrangements with certain local irriga- tion districts for water from its own Central Valley Project. However, it is now thought that contracts will be completed for all Central Valley Project water in advance of completed construction. Conclusions The differences in basic laws under which Fed- eral reservoirs are constructed in the Central Valley lead to serious inconsistencies and difficulties in the negotiation of repayment contracts for water con- servation features. Two basic policy problems are involved: (1) Should land limitation and antispeculation provisions of reclamation law apply to all lands re- ceiving regulation and conservation benefits from federally constructed reservoirs whether such bene- fits are a primary objective of construction, or inci- dental to operation for other primary purposes and largely supplemental water supply for distribution facilities already available? (2) What means are there to enforce negotia- tion of repayment contracts? It is suggested that the following procedure be made obligatory, by legislation or other means needed to establish it: The same policy should apply to all projects hav- ing irrigation benefits, whatever the construction agency. Contracts should be negotiated prior to construc- tion where important irrigation benefits accrue from a project. However, this should not be so inter- preted as to preclude the construction of a project in which very minor irrigation benefits are inci- dental to construction for other purposes, and where contracts cannot be negotiated. Where there are important irrigation benefits every effort should be made to secure agreement or contracts with the State or local interests in which reimbursement for surface and ground water bene- fits will be considered together. 145 |
