OCR Text |
Show 102 DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH back $ 849 of the average $ 1,433 an acre from the irrigators themselves under the proposed payment plan, which is a tremendous contribution from the landowners and the agriculturalists themselves, and $ 317 per acre of the cost would come back from surplus revenues of power, municipal and industrial water, and $ 267 from conservancy district. Mr. ROGERS. That $ 317 includes interest. Mr. DOMIJSTY. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. If you are talking about $ 800, if that included interest it would be substantially more than that. Mr. DOMINY. Excuse me. The $ 17 I talk about here does not include interest. That is of the irrigation allocation. Power is repaid with interest, and then the M. & I. is repaid with interest. Mr. ROGERS. I see what you mean. Mr. DOMINT. The part of the irrigation allocation they are picking up is not charged interest. This is your proposal. Mr. ROGERS. If they were charged for both in the $ 400 it would be substantially more. Mr. DOMINY. In this case if you were to apply the theory you are discussing I would assume you would still have the $ 849 interest- free, that the farmer himself paid back. Mr. ROGERS. Not necessarily. Mr. DOMINY. You would go so far as to put all of it interest- bearing but let power revenues help pick up the burden of interest ? Mr. ROGERS. If you are going to let power revenues do it. There isn't any reason to reinvest money coming in from power revenues and other marginal projects when you have not paid interest on part of the projects that have already been completed. It may be a fallacy but I think it is something that ought to be gone into because there is a sizable argument arising. Mr. DOMXNY. I would hope if Congress decides to revise reclamation law along these lines, that you would always permit the part that is paid by the landowner himself to be interest- free. In other words, if the 20 percent of the project cost is paid by the farmer, and 80 percent by power, that 20 percent always should be interest- free. Mr. ROGERS. I cannot see what difference that makes to him. He is not going to pay it and neither are we. But there are changes going on all the time. I was reading some of the reapportionment cases this morning the Supreme Court just decided that they have been going along on for 65 or 75 years. Now they come out with members running at large. ( Discussion off the record.) Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Dominy, in the payout schedule, how much of the available water is allocated for use by municipal and industrial? Mr. DoMnsrY. 5,000 acre- feet of the yield, annual yield. Mr. ROGERS. What is the annual yield ? Mr. DOMINY. There is 105,000 acre- feet of annual yield and of this, 5,000 is dedicated to municipal industrial water. Mr. ROGERS. NOW the balance is allocated primarily to irrigation ? Mr. DOMINY. That is right. Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you this: Would it be possible, if industry built up in that area because they got cheaper water, that you could give them more water ? |