OCR Text |
Show TABLE 7.-Repayment history of older -Bureau of Reclamation projects in th« Missouri Basin1 Project and location Year construction started Year first water delivered Cost Kepay-ment charge to water users Charge or cost per acre Percent repaid since repayment began Amounts charged off Belle Fourche, South Dakota.. __________ 1905 1908 $5,306,969 $5,320,632 $74 19 in first 37 years______ $379,032 J991 494 (Old) Buford-Trenton, North Dakota_____ 1908 1908 221,423 221,423 Abandoned_______ Huntley, Montana........______.......... 1905 1908 1,922,821 1,831,915 62 39 in first 39 years _ Kendrick, Wyoming_______............----- 1935 1946 12,958,000 2,800,000 76 No payments to date . Lower Yellowstone, North Dakota________ 1905 1909 4,475,910 4,097,429 71 25 in 30 years......___ «382, 254 596,100 41,166,869 1906 | 1919 1911 1,277,196 6,050,923 585,202 4,881, 513 45 17 in 10 years______ 5 hi 18 years........ ___ 1918 10,542,413 10,542,413 100 22 hi 26 years....... North Platte, Nebraska-Wyoming......... 1905 • 1908 9,490,793 9,490,793 85 39 in 37 years........ 1921 1,112,464 1,112,464 85 13 hi 22 years........ Riverto", Wyox"'"g 1920 1925 5,882,997 5,101,965 |No payments first 20 years after first ¦i delivery of water. [2 in 2 years_______ ( 2,953,686 1,724,365 6 hi 28 years______ . 1,228,876 Shoshone, Wyoming________.........------ 1904 1908 \ 4,177,014 3,843,231 37 hi 38 years...... l~........ 1,355,738 Water rental basis J 1906 I 1913 1909 1920 609,303 9,198,359 475,840 9,597,449 58 in 39 years....... 89,214 4 hi 10 years______ _ Wilfiston, North Dakota.................. 1908 1908 409,094 Abandoned, no payment Colorado-Big Thompson (supplemental water), Colorado_______________________ 1938 150,060,000 25,000,000 40 1 Includes all older projects with total area of about H million acres. Does not include WCU projects. * Probable reason for failure and abandonment indicated as follows: "The high cost of irrigation water due to pumping and the low value of the water, due to rainfall made the project unsuccessful. No water was used after 1911." » "Present indications (only) 20,000 acres irrigable. Charge to water users (reduced to) 1.6 million dollars power revenue (increased to) 11.9 million dollars. Application of interest component (on commercial power investment) to irrigation costs," is proposed. * $122,894 not contracted. * "The project never became fully settled and the land owners were not particularly interested hi irrigation after it became available." Source: Department of the Interior, How Reclamation Pays, 1947. investment, will be repaid by water users and by reclamation or conservancy districts. About 1.5 billion dollars would remain for repayment from other sources. Navigation Initially, efforts to improve the Missouri Channel were directed at locations of impor- tant concentrations of property values, in areas ad- jacent to the river, vulnerable to erosion. Local people participated in defraying the cost of some of this work and in addition some work was installed entirely at private costs. Until 1940, the Federal Government had spent a total of 150 million dollars on channel improve- ments on the Missouri River and 110 million dol- lars on Fort Peck Reservoir. Although the latter was built primarily for assistance to navigation, other major functions incorporated in the project were hydroelectric power development and flood control. Although 260 million dollars had been ex- pended by 1940, less than 500,000 tons of traf- fic in 1940 moved on the entire Missouri River, partly because of the partial and discontinuous development of the channel. By 1948 the cumulative expenditures for the nav- igation project were 173.5 million dollars for the channel works, plus a reasonable amount of the 123.9 million-dollar cost of Fort Peck Reservoir not allocable to other purposes. Under the authorized over-all plan of development of the Missouri Basin, Fort Peck has become one of the closely associated series of reservoirs on the main stem for multiple purposes of flood control, irrigation, navigation, power, and other services. Under this plan Fort Peck, besides providing flood control and the pro- duction of power, will regulate the flows for irriga- tion, navigation, and other downstream conserva- tion uses and also provide for fish and wildlife and recreation. A new allocation of costs by function for this reservoir therefore has been necessary. Although the project was authorized in river and harbor acts, and river and harbor funds have been used for development work shaping the river 190 |