Senator ANDERSON. On this one, you get into a favorable benefit ratio by a pretty slim whisker, do you not? It is 1.01 to 1. If it had been a closer horse race than that, it would have been tough, would it not? Mr. LARSON. You are correct, Senator Anderson, but I would like to make this comment, that some of the projects such as this one we feel confident that in preparing a definite plan report and by making more detailed studies for it, we should improve the benefit-cost ratio as it should not be that close. Many of these plans we can improve in the detailed preconstruction surveys. Senator ANDERSON. This is all supplemental water, is it? Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir. There are some new lands in that area that might be added after further study, but it will take a definite plan report to cover that. Senator ANDERSON. The assessment for supplemental water would be about $55 an acre, even taking into consideration the $8 million that would come from the power revenues of the dam. Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir; I would like to say, Senator Anderson, that the benefit-cost ratio for the Lyman was much more favorable when we submitted the report on it in 1950, and when we brought these costs up to date in 1953, our present-day costs, that change cut the benefit-cost ratio materially down. Senator WATKINS. Costs have increased since the time you first made your estimate. Mr. LARSON. Yes. The costs in general have increased from 12 to 14 percent over the estimates we made in the 1950 report, as shown in the reports I am submitting today. Senator ANDERSON. This is about a 7,000-foot elevation and this land will be used mostly for pasture? Mr. LARSON. That area now is used for hay and grain, with a short water supply. The dairying up there is one of the main industries. The farmers ship the milk out in refrigerated tank trucks to cities. They have a large number of dairy cows in that area. Senator WATKINS. That will be made a part of the record. Unless you have some special statement for the rest of them, we will put into the record the statements on the Eden project, Wyoming; a statement on the Silt project, Colorado; on Smith Fork project, Colorado; a statement on Paonia project, Colorado; Florida project, Colorado: Pine River extension, Colorado-New Mexico; Emery County project, Utah; central Utah project, Utah. That is a rather large one. Have you any comments you want to add to that one? As I understand, later there will be testimony given by a qualified engineer on this project specifically, when the Utah people present their statements. Mr. LARSON. We have a summary statement here for the central Utah which is about as brief as it can be written for such a large project. Senator WATKINS. I have one here. Is that a copy of the one you have? Mr. LARSON. Yes; that is it. Senator WATKINS. This is the one we are placing in the record. Inasmuch as George (Dean) Clyde is going to present that, we will not do anything more than just put that in evidence now. Hammond project, New Mexico; Navaho project, New Mexico; San Juan Chama project, Colorado and New Mexico; LaPlata project, Colorado-New Mexico; Gooseberry project, Utah. I think that covers them. (The above-referred to statements are as follows:) STATEMENT ON EDEN PROJECT, WYOMING When completed, the Eden project in southwestern Wyoming will divert water from the Big and Little Sandy Creeks in the upper Colorado River Basin to irrigate 10,660 acres of arable lands not now irrigated and will replace or otherwise rehabilitate the major features of the irrigation system that heretofore was utilized to irrigate 9,540 acres. Climatically adapted crops in the area such as alfalfa, pasture grasses, and small grains will be produced on the project lands largely in conjunction with livestock operations centered around dairy cows, beef, and farm flocks of sheep and of chickens. Construction of the Eden project was originally approved by the President on September 18, 1940, as a water-conservation and utilization project under the act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418). Work on the project was about 16 percent completed when stopped by order of the War Production Board in December 1942. Completion of the project was subsequently authorized by act of June 28, 1949 (Public Law 132, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). Construction of the project under the latter authorization is now well advanced, with two major features of the project already completed and work currently under way on some of the other project features. The latter act provided for "such modification in the physical features as the Secretary of the Interior may find will result in greater engineering and economic feasibility: Provided, That of the construction costs of the irrigation features of the project not less than $1,500,000 for the project of twenty thousand irrigable acres, or a proportionate part thereof based on the actual irrigable area as determined and announced by the Secretary of the Interior upon completion of the project, shall be reimbursed by the water users in not to exceed sixty years ***: Provided further, That construction costs of the irrigation features of the project which are not hereby made reimbursable by the water users shall be set aside in a special account against which net revenues derived from the sale of power generated at the hydroelectric plants of the Colorado River storage project in the upper basin shall be charged when such plants are constructed." The current plan of the project is covered in a definite plan report prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and dated May 1953. Construction features of the project include: Big Sandy Dam and dikes (now completed) on Big Sandy Creek to form Big Sandy Reservoir of 39,700 acre-feet total storage capacity. Means Canal (now completed) to convey water from Big Sandy Reservoir to the west side lateral and to the existing Eden Canal. West side lateral to serve lands on the west side of Big Sandy Creek. Eden Creek enlargement and relocation below the terminus of the Means Canal to serve lands east of Big Sandy Creek. Little Sandy Canal rehabilitation and extension to connect with the upper section of the Eden Canal. Enlargement of existing lateral system served by Eden Canal to serve both presently irrigated and new lands under that canal. Project drainage system. A detailed classification survey shows the lands of the project to be suitable for sustained-crop production under irrigation farming. Water-supply studies, based on records of streamflows as they have occurred in the past, indicate that an adequate irrigation supply would be available for the project area from direct flows and storage with permissible shortages in occasional drought years. Project construction costs based on January 1953 prices are currently estimated at $7,287,000. The project repayment was established by the project authorizing act of June 28, 1949, as $1,500,000, to be repaid over 60 years. This amount deducted from total project costs leaves $5,787,000 to be repaid from Colorado River storage project net power revenues under the general repayment plan of the latter project and in accordance with the Eden project authorizing act of 1949. Data on the project are summarized in the attached tabulation. Construction features include the Big Sandy Dam, dikes, and reservoir with 39,700 acre-feet total storage capacity (now completed), Means Canal (now completed) laterals and improvements in existing distribution system, along with drainage to serve the project area. CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND REPAYMENT Estimated cost___ Reimbursable cost allocated to irrigation_ Nonreimbursable cost-- Repayment by: Irrigation Power revenues from Colorado River storage project___ Total__ Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. $7,287, 000 7,287, 000 None 1,500,000 5,787, 000 7,287, 000 40, 400 1. 3-1 1 Based on 60-year repayment period as provided under Project Authorizing Act of 1949. STATEMENT ON SILT PROJECT, COLORADO The potential Silt project would provide for the full irrigation of 1,900 acres of new land and provide supplemental water to 5,400 acres of partially irrigated land, all in the vicinity of Rifle and Silt, communities in Garfield County of westcentral Colorado. The lands are situated in three compact blocks north of the Colorado River between Rifle and Elk Creeks, tributaries of the Colorado River. The project would also provide some enhancement in fish and wildlife values in the area. The basic type of agriculture in the area would remain unchanged with project development because of climatic and soil conditions. With late season water provided by the project, however, the plantings of row crops would be increased somewhat as would the yield of livestock feeds. Alfalfa, small grains, sugar beets, and potatoes would continue to be the principal crops grown. Principal livestock would be dairy cows, beef cattle, and sheep. Principal construction features include the Rifle Gap Dam and Reservoir of 10,000 acre-feet total capacity on Rifle Creek, a small hydraulic turbine and direct-connected pump at the dam, reconstruction of one presently abandoned ditch, rehabilitation of the existing Grass Valley Canal and construction of some laterals and drains. Except for minor drainage work, about 3 years would be required for construction of project features, including the completion of definite plan investigations. Preliminary land classification surveys indicate that the lands would be suitable for sustained crop production under irrigation farming. A detailed classification of the presently unirrigated lands would be required to confirm the degree of their suitability. Water supply studies based on records of streamflows as they have occurred in the past indicate that an adequate irrigation supply would be available for the project from direct flows and storage yield with permissible shortages in occasional drought years. A water right for the project can be obtained under Colorado State law. This statement is based on the physical plan of project development presented in the Bureau of Reclamation report on the "Silt project, Colorado,” dated January 1951-a supplement to the Colorado River storage project report dated December 1950. Results of current (1953) Bureau of Reclamation estimates for this project plan are summarized in the attached project summary tabulation. Summary data, silt project, Colo. IRRIGATED ACREAGE New lands_ Total. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Alfalfa, grain, sugarbeets, potatoes, dairy cows, beef cattle, and sheep. WATER SUPPLY Acres 1,900 5, 400 7, 300 Principal construction features include the Rifle Gap Dam and Reservoir with 10,000 acre-feet total capacity, a small hydraulic turbine and direct-connected pump, reconstruction of abandoned ditch, rehabilitation of an existing canal, and construction of some laterals and drains. Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.. 8, 400 1.71 to 1 STATEMENT ON SMITH FORK PROJECT, COLORADO The potential Smith Fork project in west central Colorado would regulate surplus flows of Iron Creek and the Smith Fork of the Gunnison River, a tributary of the upper Colorado River, to increase the irrigation supply for 8,160 acres of land now partially irrigated and provide a new supply for 2,270 acres now unirrigated. Although an improved irrigation supply would permit new lands to be cultivated and result in better crop yields on presently irrigated lands, the cropping program is largely controlled by climatic, soil, and topographic conditions. Most of the acreage would continue to be utilized for the production of livestock feeds with hay, small grains, and pasture predominating. Increased feed production in the area would result mostly in increased dairy cows, with some increase also in beef cattle, hogs, and poultry. Detailed land classification surveys show the project lands to be suitable for sustained production of crops under irrigation farming. Water-supply studies, based on records of stream flows as they have occurred in the past, indicate that an adequate irrigation supply would be available for the project from direct flows and storage water with permissible shortages in occasional drought years. A water right for the project can be obtained under Colorado State law. Construction features of the project include a storage dam and reservoir with 14,000 acre-feet total capacity at the Crawford site on Iron Creek, the Smith Fork diversion dam, the 2.7-mile long Smith Fork feeder canal of 100 second-feet, to divert from Smith Fork to Crawford Reservoir, the 6.6-mile Aspen Canal of 145 second-feet initial capacity to convey water from Crawford Reservoir to part of the project lands and feed existing ditches and 4 small lateral canals. Existing irrigation facilities in the area would be utilized as fully as practicable. A period of 3 to 4 years would be required to complete definite-plan investigations and construct the project works. This statement is based on the physical plan of project development presented in the Bureau of Reclamation report on the Smith Fork project, Coloradoa supplement to the Colorado River storage project report dated December 1950. Results of current (1953) Bureau of Reclamation estimates for this project plan are summarized in the attached project summary tabulation. Average annual increase from direct flow diversions and storage.. PROJECT WORKS Acre-feet 13, 650 7,500 The construction features include the Crawford dam and reservoir, with 14,000 acre-feet of total capacity, Smith Fork diversion dam, the 2.7-mile long Smith Fork feeder canal of 100 second-feet, 6.6-mile long Aspen Canal of 145 second-feet and 4 small lateral canals. Estimated cost__ CONSTRUCTION COST AND REPAYMENT Reimbursable cost allocated to irrigation_. Nonreimbursable cost allocated to recreation_. Repayment by: Irrigation water users_ Power revenues from Colorado River storage project___ Total___ Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs_. $3,367,000 3, 343, 000 24,000 1,045, 000 2,298, 000 3, 343, 000 8, 400 1.27 to 1 |