|
<br />-7-
<br />
<br />Discussion of this project and procedure for its reauthorizatjon, which
<br />Mr. Bennett and the Director had with Congressman Aspinall, involved, runong
<br />other things, the question of whether or not it would be necessary to transmit
<br />copies of this report to the seven States of the Colorado River Basin, pursuant
<br />to Section I of the 1944 Flood Control Act. Mr. Bennett seemed to believe that,
<br />under present rulings, such transmittal would be necesse~y. The Director
<br />seriously questions the applicability of Section I of the 1944 Flood Control Act
<br />to this project report for these reasons:
<br />
<br />Such form of transmission did not take place in 1947 when reauthoriza-
<br />tion took place. This is a second reauthorization. The second reauthorization
<br />was a matter of public notice a~d no opposition to it appe,qred in the hearings
<br />in either the House or Senate from any of the eSfected States. As a matter of
<br />fact, even the State of Celifornia offered no objection. It is a project which
<br />was originally authorized before the 1944 Flood Control Act became effective.
<br />There is no change in the project plan which, by any stretch of the imagination,
<br />CM invoke adverse comments on the pn.rt of aay Colorado River Basin State.
<br />
<br />In the informal comments which were submitted to Region 4, Bureau of
<br />Reclamation, to the proposed report on the Colorado River Storage Project, ,the
<br />State of Colorado included as a "participating project" this Paonia Project.
<br />As stated above, the cost of the project, as authorized in 1947, was estimated
<br />approximately ~3,030,000. Of this approximate cost, $2,320,000 would be allo-
<br />cated to the water users who weuld be served by the Fire Mountain and Overland
<br />Canals; $600,000 would be allocated to the provisions of reservGir storage
<br />which could be sold or rented by the United States for use on lands not included
<br />in the proposed project; $78,000 would be allocated to fish nnd vrildlife; and
<br />$32,000 would be allocated to flood control. Under the recent "Definite Plan
<br />Report", including the Minnesota unit, the estimated total cost of the project
<br />would be $6,191,000. Of this amount $6,043,700 would be allocated to irrigation;
<br />$74,100 would be allocated to flood control; and $73,200 would be allocated to
<br />fish and wildlife. The amount estimated for repayment by the water users in
<br />the recent report was $2,415,200. This leaves$J,775,800 to be repaid from
<br />sources other than fro~ the irrigation water users. The amount paid by the
<br />irrigation water users, over a period of 68 years, is the estimate of the max-
<br />imum ability of such water USers to make such payment. It is proposed in the
<br />report that such costs allocated to irrigetion in exesss of the ability of the
<br />irrigators to repay would be paid from revenues from the sale of power generated
<br />by hydroelectric plants constructed as features of the Colorado River Storage
<br />Project.
<br />
<br />There is precedent for authorizing, or reauthorizing, a project, an-
<br />ticipating revenues from the Colorado River Storage Project. Under Public Law
<br />132, Blst Cong., approved June 28, 1949, the Eden Project, Wyoming, was re-
<br />authorized. This reauthorization act contained the following language:
<br />
<br />"PROVIDED FURTHER, That construction costs of the
<br />irrigation features of the project which are not hereby
<br />made reimbursable bw the water users shall be set aside in
<br />a special account against which net revenUeS derived from
<br />the sale of power generated at tre hydroelectric plants of
<br />the Colorado River storage project in the Upper Basin shall
<br />be charged when such plants 2re constructed."
<br />
<br />('. ~
<br />,
<br />~ "
<br />
<br />r, "r"'\
<br />1..>iO
<br />
|