WSP08244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00174G Anmver - No. Reclamation law has not been static--it has changed with the timos and nth tha !Jeale. In its broadest sense, Reclamation law consists not only of the basic legislation but also specific author- ~ons for individual projects and purposes. Tho Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 3BB) provided for a ten-year repayment period. Because of difficulties experienced by many settlers on Reclamation projects, tile Extension Act of August 13, 1914 lengthened the repayment period to 20 years. On jiiay 25, 1926 the Omnibus Adjustment Act (44 Stat. 636) lengthened the repayment period from 20 to 40 years. The 40-year repayment period ~as reaffirmed in the Interior Appropriation Act, 1940, approved lday 10, 1939 and in the Act of August 11, 1939, both of which dealt ,dth Water Conservation and Utility Projects. The Reclamation Project hct of 1939, approved Au~ust 4, 1939, (53 Stat.lIS7) substantially modified earlier Recl~tion laws and made it possible to adjust many difficulties of the vrater users. iuneng other things it provided fer allocating the cest of multiple-purpose projects among various bencfiting functions. Section 9(d) provides for the re- payment of construction costs allocated to irrigation over a 40-ycar period exclusive of a maximun ten-year development period. This pro- vision closely follrnvs earlier Reclamation law. Section 9(e) provides for an alternative type of agreement knoym as a utility or ,mter sorvice contract. Under this section, the Secretary may ent= into either short.. tern or long-tern contracts to furnish irrigation viater for periods not exceeding 40 YBars. Thus, succeeding contracts may be laade, so that the ultimate full repayment period might extend to SO, 120, 160 years or even longer. Within prescribed limits, irrigation repayment centracts are specially drafted for the particular project to be constructed. On numerous eeeasions the Congress has emphasized that irrigation repayr.lent should be based on the ability-to-pay concept. In several cases the Congress has recognized the value and soundness of the Bureau's multi- purpose projects by specifically autherizing that payment of reimbursable costs allocated to irrigation could be made beyend the 40-year period, which is the limiatation in terms of time in vhich the Secretary ef the Interior is authorized to utilize the automatic authorizatien procedures. Examples are as follows: Oollbran Project, Colorado . . . . 50-year repayment period Paonia Preject, Colorado . . . . . 68-year repaym8nt period Hayden Lake Unit, Rathdrum Prairie Project, Idaho . . . . . 67-year repayment period Mancos Preject, Colorado . .. . 60-year repayment period Gila Project, Arizona. . . . . . . 60-year repayr;!Ont period L:misten Orchards Preject, Idaho . 50-year repayr.,cnt period Vernejo Project, How l.lex:i.co. . . . Ho set period - Based on repayment ability. - 11 -