| OCR Text |
Show ects subject to the following conditions: (1) For those goods and services directly subject to Federal control and disposition, such as power and water supply, payment should be required from bene- ficiaries as far as possible for benefits received. Such payments in the case of municipal and industrial water supply and power should at least cover costs, including amortization of investment with interest and payments in lieu of State and local taxes. In the case of reclamation of land, the payments should be based on ability to pay without interest. (2) For primary benefits, such as flood control, not susceptible of disposition to beneficiaries, and for secondary benefits, such as profits to commercial interests resulting indirectly from projects, agree- ments should be worked out with the interested States under which they would assume responsibility for securing repayment through use of their powers of taxation or assessment. This might involve the setting up of such local agencies as conservancy districts. 6. Resolution of Conflicting Theories Governing Marketing of Power The Problem Resolution of conflicting theories, proposed or in practice, governing the marketing of power from Federal projects. The Situation Federal hydroelectric power plants in the cate- gories of existing, under construction, authorized, and recommended or in contemplation in the basin, are almost completely parts of multiple-purpose water resources projects. These plants, with others that may be found feasible, will constitute the vast bulk of the hydroelectric potentialities in the basin. They have been and are being designed as integral units of the entire river system, are generally inter- dependent, and will be operated for the best system power within the limits of multiple-purpose opera- tion, rather than for the best power at the indi- vidual plants. Project design and site selection consider the significant physical factors and the importance of the project as a unit in the comprehensive river sys- tem. Political boundaries of counties and States properly play no part in these decisions. The acts which govern power marketing from Federal projects provide that the power shall be marketed so as to give preference in sales to public bodies and cooperatives and to encourage the most widespread use of the power at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. A conflict both in theory and potential practice has arisen in the Missouri River Basin, centering on the right of a State in which a Federal power plant is located to preference in the use of that power. For example, H. R. 5062 (81st Gong., 1st sess.) introduced by Representative Case of South Dakota, is a bill "To insure to consumers within a State a portion of the power and energy produced from Federal reservoir projects which flood lands of that State." It provides: That, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, whenever electric power and energy generated at reservoir projects under the con- trol of the War Department (Department of the Army) * * * is delivered to the Secretary of the Interior for transmission and disposition, the Secretary of the Interior shall make not less than 50 per centum of it, or as much of said 50 per centum as shall be re- quested, available to purchasers for use within the State where such dam and reservoir works are located: Provided, however, That in dis- posing of this reserved power and energy within such State, the Secretary shall proceed as required by existing law to give preference to public bodies and cooperatives and to dis- pose of such power and energy in such manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consum- ers consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. Studies in September 1949 disclosed applications for power from Nebraska (all public power) which totaled 367,000 kilowatts. Applications from South Dakota totaled 61,000 kilowatts, not neces- sarily for preference customers. Yet the initial in- stallation at Fort Randall, in South Dakota, is 160,- 000 kilowatts, with an ultimate of 320,000 kilo- watts. Present legislation gives preference to public bodies and cooperatives. So also would H. R. 5062 (81st Cong., 1st sess.) with respect to the share of power allocated to a particular State. However, in this case, allocation to South Dakota of up to 50 percent of the power might conflict with present 253 |
