WSP05149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 j O~ 00 ~:. ~ ~ """'" ~ .~ . :11 . the Congress whether the conclusions reached by the Bureau of Reclamation with regard to the agricultural and economic feasi- bility of the proposed plan are concurred in by the Department of Agriculture. While I consider this to be a serious deficiency, I am more concerned about the fact that there are included in the $1,170.920, proposed to be charged off against nonreimbursable benefits, classes of such benefits not now permitted under federally constructed irrigation projec'ts. Neither sediment control nor recreation is currently authorized as a benefit against which nonreimbursable allocations of costs may be made. It seems to me highly questionable to approve the inclusion of such benefits with respect to this one project before the Congress has reviewed the desirability of making charges to such benefits generally possible under basic reclamation law. Furthermore, it is proposed to allocate $718,S90 for fish and wildlife. While such nonreimbursable allocations are permitted in water resources development projects, they are usually restricted in scope to the prevention of loss of and damage to wildlife. In this project, about one-half of the allocation is proposed as a benefit from the creation of a wildlife management and development area of 5,200 acres not required for operation of the irrigation project or for protection of existing wild- life resources of this specific area. There are instances where water fowl eventually discover and use some of the backwater areas of federally owned reservoirs where no allocation of cost is assigned for wildlife benefits. If such use develops into substantial proportions, an appropriate area may later be es- tablished as a refuge for such water fowl without in any manner affecting cost allocations. Such areas are then operated and maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The creation of wildlife areas is normally a part of the regular program of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In this instance, because the area is made up of low-lying land in the district and since it is located along an important fly-way, the establishment of rest- ing and nesting areas for water fowl has been included in the project. It seems to me this establishes a dangerous precedent for charging off an appreclable amount of the actual project costs. The costs allocated to flood control are relatively small and permitted under reclamation law. However, they have been dif- ferentlY computed by the Secretary of the Army. His letter of May 19, 19~9, to the Sscretary of the Interlor points out that assuming a SO-year useful project life and a 3 per cent inter- est rate, the arillual flood control benefits are considered to justify flood control costs of onlY $72,800 as compared with $9S,450 figure computed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The re- lationship between this allocation and that for sediment con- trol, which was inserted by the Congress, is not apparent. (S)