| OCR Text |
Show which have been irrigated in the Salt and Gila Valleys in the past. The Bureau of Reclamation analysis of repay- ment ability shows that the irrigators could meet all operation and maintenance costs allocable to irrigation, including that part of the costs of opera- tion, maintenance, and reserve for replacement of the power systems allocable to irrigation pumping, and in addition a small amount of the capital cost allocated to irrigation. The total allocated to irri- gation is about 400 million dollars. A high per- centage (97.5) of the capital costs allocable to irri- gation would have to be paid from other sources than the water users. However, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates that benefits exceed costs, as shown in their calculated ratio of 1.59 to 1. There are at least three major elements of un- resolved broad water resources development policy in this example. They are: (1) The dedication of approximately one-third (1.4 billion kilowatt-hours annually) of the energy to be generated at the Bridge Canyon Project to re- lief of the central Arizona area, as against an alter- native use in industry in Arizona, California, or else- where. It is possible that this problem could be resolved by the use of a different project design. In addition to plans for the proposed pumping proj- ect here discussed, the Bureau of Reclamation has alternative plans which included diversion of water from above Bridge Canyon Dam through a tunnel to central Arizona. Although having a larger in- itial capital investment than the pumping project, annual operation costs would be significantly less than for the proposed pumping project. It also would consume much less power than the pumping project. Both routes originally were proposed for authorization. Satisfactory information is not available at this time to permit a sound judgment as to the use of power for pumping and the alternative projects. (2) Alternative use of water which would be imported into the Central Arizona Project, perhaps on new lands, is a further question. Because of basin agreements the field within which alterna- tives may be explored is narrow. As an example, Colorado River water to which Arizona establishes title cannot, except in the most unlikely event of Arizona's consent, be used alternatively in another State. Arizona has definitely committed the bal- ance of its Colorado River water expectancy to the Central Arizona Project. In the judgment of the Bureau of Reclamation, there is probably no more economical alternative use within Arizona. How- ever, Arizona's right to the water needed still is not accepted by California. (3) The degree to which public contributions should be made to the development or rehabilita- tion of private irrigated lands. Similar considerations apply to the Central Utah Project, and to the San Juan-Chama Project. Conclusions The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that with- out imported water, the irrigation enterprise in the central Arizona area will, by attrition, be reduced by one-third. Dependent upon agriculture in large measure are the service institutions-packing plants, stores, banks-similarly subject to attrition. The governmental services dependent upon tax revenues from the area will be adversely affected. In short, a partial bankruptcy, with its attendant distress, is in prospect. In such a situation there are compel- ling and appealing social reasons for providing supplemental water supplies at any reasonable cost, if water is available. If Arizona's right to water is not upheld, the answer will be given without further judgment. On the other hand, if Arizona's claim to water is upheld, the project appears to be the State's choice for use of the claimed water. Further impartial study of this issue is needed, including a complete analysis of the Bridge Canyon diversion, on the same basis as the pumping project, taking into account the best use of the underground storage capacity of the basin, the elimination of water-consuming vegetation, and provision for maintaining the salt balance. For the basin as a whole, the choice between sup- plemental and new irrigation can be determined relatively easily, for it must be done within a frame- work of water allocations. Such choices can be made on determinable, technical, and economic information. As the Central Arizona case illus- trates, however, care should be taken to consider the water resource in its multiple-purpose aspect, weighing all alternative benefits fairly and ac- curately. In the case of presently unallocated waters a somewhat more complex background must be ana- lyzed. However, from a national point of view it is to be hoped that judgment on water allocations for the unappropriated waters will also be made with regard for the fullest benefits from multiple- purpose use of the whole basin and closely related adjacent areas. In doing this, the relation of irri- gated areas to range land use particularly should be 413 |
