Page Peterson, Thomas M., manager, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation Rowntree, H. E., manager, Walker River Irrigation District, Yering- Sorensen, James F., National Water Resources Association, Wash- Stoddard, Howard, president, Stoddard & Associates, Los Banos, Young, Roy, of Roy Young & Associates, Thatcher, Ariz., to Hon. Additional information: Allocation of $166 million of Federal funds for project purposes Authorized projects-Small Reclamation Projects Act (table) - Repayment of loan obligations 1971 to 1975 (table) H.R. 7854-TO AMEND THE SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956, AS AMENDED H.R. 8052-TO AMEND THE SMALL RECLAMATION MONDAY, JULY 12, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in room Mr. JOHNSON. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation Each of these measures amend the Small Reclamations Project H.R. 7854 basically provides that any multiple-purpose water re- The Johnson bill also provides for an authorization of an addi- At this point, unless there's objection, I would like to ask unani- Do I hear objection? Hearing none, so ordered. (1) (The documents referred to follows:) [H.R. 7854, 92d Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, as amended Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044), as amended, is amended as follows: (1) Subsection (d) of section 2 of such Act is amended to read as follows: "(d) The term 'project' shall mean (i) any complete water development or features thereof, as could be authorized for construction under Federal reclamation laws and (ii) any similar undertaking proposed to be constructed by an organization. The term 'project' shall not include any such undertaking, unit, or program the estimated cost of which exceeds $10,000,100 (January 1956 prices) plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be required by reason of changes in the cost of construction work of the type involved as shown by engineering cost indices. No loan, grant, or combination thereof for any project shall be in excess of 65 per centum of the maximum allowable estimated project cost. Nothing contained in this Act shall preclude the making of more than one loan or grant, or combined loan or grant, to an organization so long as no two such loans or grants, or combinations thereof, are for the same project, as herein defined." (2) The first sentence f section 4(e) of such Act is amended by deleting 66 whether the proposal involves furnishing supplemental irrigation water for an existing irrigation project, whether the proposal involves rehabilitation of existing irrigation project works, and whether the proposed project is primarily for irrigation". (2) The first sentence of section 4(e) of such Act is amended by deleting or" and inserting in lieu thereof "65 per centum of the project cost or". (4) Section 10 of such Act is amended by deleting "$200,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$300,000,000." [H.R. 8052, 92d Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, as amended (43 U.S.C. 422a-422k), is hereby amended as follows: 1(a) In section 2(d) delete "any similar undertaking" and insert in lieu thereof "any similar irrigation undertaking or any undertaking for the drainage of irrigated or irrigable lands". (b) In section 4(e) after "whether the proposed project is primarily for irrigation" insert "or for the drainage of irrigated or irrigable lands". (c) In section 5, paragraph (3), after the word "irrigation" insert "or drainage". Mr. JOHNSON. At this point, I would also like to include in the record the report from the Department of the Interior dated July 9, 1971, signed by Mr. Pecora, Under Secretary of the Department. It is generally in support of the legislation that is suggested. The Office of Management and Budget has no objections to the report being filed. Do I hear objection? Mr. HALEY. I have a right to object, Mr. Chairman. I will not object, I just want to take this opportunity to welcome my distinguished and able young man from the great State of California before the committee. He's done a splendid job here in the position which he occupies, and now we are glad to have you here this morning. Mr. McFALL. Thank you, Mr. Haley. I thank you for your statement," especially that part about the young man. That makes me feel very good on a Monday morning. Mr. JOHNSON. Do I hear objection? Mr. HALEY. Well, may I say this, Mr. Chairman, he certainly has a lot of black hair, and I have got more frost on top than he does. Mr. JOHNSON. Do I hear further objection? Hearing none, so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 7854, a bill, "To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, as amended" and on H.R. 8052, a bill, "To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1967." We recommend that both H.R. 7854 and H.R. 8052 be enacted, if they are amended as set forth herein. H.R. 7854 would redefine the term "project" under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (the Act so as to permit assistance for nonirrigation projects which could otherwise be authorized under Federal reclamation laws. Assistance under the Act is presently restricted to projects primarily for irrigation. The bill would also allow adjustments in the present $10,000,000 maximum cost of such projects based on the difference between current construction costs and 1956 price levels as shown by engineering cost indices. The current maximum allowable estimated project cost under this formula would be approximately $15,600,000 based on January 1, 1971 construction costs. The limit on the maximum loan and grant assistance for any project would be changed to 65 percent of the maximum allowable estimated project cost: the present limit on maximum assistance is $6,500,000 (65 percent of the present $10,000,000 maximum cost). The bill would also delete the Act's present requirement that the Secretary consider whether a proposed project is primarily for irrigation when he makes a determination whether to provide assistance. The amount of authorized appropriation for carrying out the Act's provisions would be increased from $200,000,000 to $300,000,000. H.R. 8052 would extend the Act's provisions to include project proposals which would be primarily for the drainage of irrigated or irrigable lands. In permitting assistance for nonirrigation projects, H.R. 7854 would be consistent with the present trend from rural to urban development. This Department has recognized this trend by adopting a policy of permitting acceptance of loan applications under the Act if the proposed projects are predominantly for irrigation at the time of execution of the repayment contract notwithstanding the possible conversion of project water or land to municipal or industrial purposes. The policy has been broadly accepted and under it western community growth has been assisted as municipal interests experience economic growth associated with irrigation developments. We believe there is merit in amending the Act to broaden present policy so as to permit assistance for projects where irrigation is one, but not necessarily the predominant, purpose of the project. To accomplish this we recommend that the amendment of section 2(d)(i) of the Act made in lines 7 through 9 on page 1 of H.R. 7854 be changed to read: "(d) The term 'project' shall mean (i) any complete water development having irrigation as a purpose, including features thereof, authorized to be constructed pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws and . . ." This would preserve the Act's basic purpose of assisting small irrigation projects, while giving the Secretary flexibility for approval of projects having environmental, recreational and other public benefits and avoiding possible duplication of other Federal programs for municipal, industrial and other primary purposes. The language suggested above also makes clear that assistance is to be available for projects which have been authorized under the reclamation laws. Projects which could be, but have not been, authorized under such laws would normally fall within the Act's definition of "project" under item (ii) of section 2(d). (Beginning line 9, page 1 of the bill through the word "organization" in line 11.) We believe, in addition, that the language quoted above defining the term "project" is sufficiently broad to permit the making of a loan for a drainage 65-751-71-2 |