Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. JENSEN. Estimated non-Federal cost is $72 million. This project must be in a category of its own. Will you explain just how a project like this has so much non-Federal contribution. If you want to furnish it for the record, you can.

General MACDONNELL. I can say very briefly, Mr. Jensen, this project provides the water supply for San Francisco, and there is some flood control involved here.

PROJECTS WITH WATER SUPPLY STORAGE

Mr. JENSEN. I think it would be well, Mr. Chairman, to have a listing of the projects under the jurisdiction of the Army Engineers where water is sold to municipalities and to irrigation projects and to state the price per acre-foot. Would that be an awfully lot of trouble?

General MACDONNELL. Not in my area, no, sir, it would not be.
Mr. JENSEN. I think this information would be very interesting.
Mr. RABAUT. Do you want it for the whole country?
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, I think we should have it.

In a few words, do you operate on the same basis for the sale of water as the Bureau of Reclamation?

General MACDONNELL. Those contracts are negotiated by the Department of the Interior and they are subject to Reclamation Laws in that particular part of the country, so even though it is a corpsbuilt project, the contract for irrigation water is consummated between the Bureau of Reclamation and the water users. If it is municipal and industrial water, we can consummate the contract under the Water Supply Act of 1958.

Mr. JENSEN. Generally, is the price to a municipality for water out of your projects double the price to the irrigator as is done by the Bureau of Reclamation?

General MACDONNELL. I do not believe it would fall into that category.

Mr. RABAUT. Let the General furnish you a list for his area, and we will have Colonel Tarbox furnish it for the whole country. The request of Mr. Jensen will be inserted in the record at this point. (The list referred to follows:)

Under the Water Supply Act of 1958, the corps enters into contracts with local interests for storage space in reservoir projects for municipal and industrial water supply but does not sell water on a per acre-foot basis. Local interests pay the allocated costs of the entire water supply storage, including operation, maintenance and replacement costs, usually on an annual basis, regardless of how much water is taken or how much water the storage will actually yield on a firm dependable basis.

The following tabulation of municipal and industrial water storage in Corps of Engineers' projects shows the total water supply storage and the estimated construction cost of storage per acre-foot. As noted above, the local interests do not pay for the water on a per acre-foot basis but for the entire water supply storage, usually on an annual basis.

Municipal and industrial water supply storage in Corps of Engineers' reservoirs

AUTHORITY OF WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 1958

[blocks in formation]

1 Does not include interest during construction nor annual operation, maintenance and replacen ent costs. 2 Effective charge per acre-foot exclusive of operation, maintenance, replacement and interest included in flat sum of $500 per year.

3 Charge for storage used jointly for water supply and flood control.

4 Not determinable until increase in net regulated yield has been measured following project completion. 5 Power regulation.

• Joint use power and water supply storage.

IRRIGATION STORAGE IN CORPS OF ENGINEERS' RESERVOIRS

The following tabulation lists completed Corps of Engineer's reservoirs for which charges are made for irrigation water. The Bureau of Reclamation contracts with local interests for the irrigation water or service provided by the storage in corps' reservoirs.

[blocks in formation]

1 Preliminary rate pending completion of final contracts by Bureau of Reclamation.

? Not determined. The irrigation service will be integrated with Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Missouri River Basin for repayment purposes and water charges to irrigators will vary from unit to unit depending upon repayment capacity yet to be determined.

NOTE.-Table excludes Folsom Reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers with 512,000 acre-feet of joint-use storage for irrigation purposes since project was turned over to Bureau of Reclamation for operation.

DATA FOR SELECTED BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECTS

The following tabulation furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation shows irrigation and municipal water rates for a few selected reclamation projects. The irrigation rates, in some cases, are averages for different land classes and varying quantities of water over a period of time. As such, the rates are approximations and not precise contractual commitments.

Irrigation and municipal and industrial water rates on selected Bureau of Reclamation projects

[blocks in formation]

1 Does not include operation and maintenance expense. 2 Under conditions of full development.

Mr. PILLION. With regard to that listing of rates, is there any way we could get a comparison of the rates or revenues coming into the Federal Government of the supply from municipal water of U.S. Army Engineers projects, and those of the reclamation projects? Is there any great differential between those revenues and rates? I would like to get a comparison of that. I do not mean a voluminous report. I would like to have just five or six projects which would indicate what the U.S. Army negotiated them for, what the Bureau of Reclamation negotiates for, and what the differences are. General MACDONNELL. We will do that.

TUOLUMNE RIVER RESERVOIR

This San Francisco water supply project will be built by them at a total estimated cost to them of $72 million. For the flood control storage space the Federal Government contributes the amount indicated. It is not a question of our building the project and selling the water to the city, but of their building the project and selling us flood control space behind the dam.

Mr. JENSEN. The part which the Federal Government is paying for is the part which you consider is for flood control.

General MACDONNELL. That is true.

Mr. PILLION. If this is already built, what are you going to build here, General?

General MACDONNELL. We would build nothing, sir. The brown area on the map is the increase in reservoir area resulting from the city providing flood control storage, the cost of which the Federal Government is presently estimating as $3 million.

Mr. PILLION. This is the planning money for the increase in height of the water storage reservoir?

Mr. MACDONNELL. Yes, sir.

WALNUT CREEK

Mr. RABAUT. Next is Walnut Creek, $90,000. Insert pages 34 and 35.

Please explain this new planning start and tell us why it is necessary at this time.

(The justification follows:)

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA (Initiation of Flaming)

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The project is located on Walnut Creek and on the lower reaches of its principal
tributaries, Pacheco, Grayson, San Ramon and Las Trampas Creek, in Contra Costa County, California. The
plan of improvement provides for extension of existing levees, construction of new levees, construction of
pumping plants for disposal of interior drainage, channel rectification and enlargement and utilization of
improvements constructed or planned by local interests.

[blocks in formation]

JUSTIFICATION: Urban and suburban areas of the cities of Walnut Creek and Concord and the town of Pacheco are
subject to sharp-crested floods characteristic of runoff from intense rainstorms. In conjunction with the flood-.
control plan being constructed by local interests and the U. S. Soil Conservation Service on tributary streams,
the project will provide continuous and adequate flood protection for the Walnut Creek Basin. The Corps project
will provide flood protection to about 6,100 acres in the flood plain at and below the city of Walnut Creek. Of
this area, about 2,900 acres lie within the urban and suburban areas of Walnut Creek (population 9,700), Concord
(population 34,940), and Pacheco (population 2,000). Land use is rapidly evolving from agricultural use to sub-
urban, because the area is within commuting distance of the San Francisco Bay area. The largest flood of record
(1958) caused damages estimated at $1,600,000 on the main stem, Under current conditions of development and
price levels, these damages would amount to $1,900,000 all of which would have been prevented had the Corps
project been completed at the time of flood, Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,470,000, consisting of
$1,178,000 for prevention of flood damage and $292,000 for land enhancement,

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »