Mr. LEAVY. I think you are, but if you can make the distinction between these many work relief projects set up in recent years and this 35-year reclamation development, you will see that they are in an entirely different class. Mr. PAGE. Perhaps, Mr. Rich, you also lose sight of the fact that the investment in these projects is a part of the capital investment, and that they carry themselves from then on; that is, that there is no continual drain on the Government for their operation and maintenance. The project people themselves pay for operation and maintenance. Your conversation leads me to think that perhaps you feel that there would be a continuing need for money for each of these projects. That, of course, is not the case. These projects stand on their own feet, and, as well, repay construction costs. Mr. RICH. In the first place, on that point, all of the money that has been put in the Federal Treasury has been taken out, and you know that on money taken out of the Federal Treasury there is an interest rate being paid by the Federal Government, and on all of those projects there is nothing figured on the investment from that standpoint. Mr. PAGE. That is right; to the extent that no interest is charged, it is a Federal subsidy, but the fund itself was created of funds obtained from these same Western States where the projects are constructed. Mr. O'NEAL. You do not charge anything against a project for supervision by the Washington office, do you? Mr. PAGE. The Washington office expenses are not reimbursable since 1924, but all field supervision and engineering are charged directly to the projects, and almost the entire amount of this appropriation is reimbursable 100 percent. Mr. LEAVY. While the interest on the Federal money that is loaned for the development of these projects is in the nature of a Federal subsidy, those projects like Boulder Dam and Grand Coulee do not fall within that category, do they? Mr. PAGE. NO. Boulder Dam by legislative act must pay 4 percent interest on the total investment to the Federal Treasury. Mr. LEAVY. And Grand Coulee is calculated on the same basis? Mr. PAGE. Grand Coulee has not been required to do that under the law, but in our financial investment we have considered interest on the power development. Mr. LEAVY. I just wanted to make that clear as to those two projects. Are there any others in which the situation is the same? Mr. PAGE. We have planned rates for power on the power develop ments that will yield the principal, plus interest. Mr. RICH. Grand Coulee was a project started by the Secretary of the Interior and the President, without any authorization from Congress at all Mr LEAVY But authorized in 1935. Mr. RICH Only to the extent that they received an appropriation. Mr PAGE No; there is general congressional authorization for Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin project. Mr LEAVY. It was generally authorized in the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress. Mr RICH. Then I stand corrected on that. Mr PAGE. In regard to this authorization, I think that the record might show that the Emergency Relief Acts, I think of both 1933 and 5, included a specific provision that the money could be used for mation and reclamation, and under those acts it has always been nsidered that the projects started with that money were fully Authorized. AMOUNT CHARGED OFF OF PROJECTS BY CONGRESS Mr. RICH. There is one other point here that I would like to have vered in the table that you are going to submit, and that is how ch money has been lost, if any, in deficiency payments, foreclores or relinquishment of holdings of these people who have been on "e irrigation projects. Mr. PAGE. The only money which has been lost to the fund is that ch has been charged off by the Congress. The contracts for the repayments of the construction costs almost erally are with a public agency, like an irrigation district, which Zarantees the repayment of the cost as a whole. If one man defaults, district has the right to foreclose and to resell his land, but meande the district must make up the deficiency amongst its other landshers. The repayment contracts are almost universally lump-sum at liability contracts. Mr. RICH. When you say they were charged off by Congress, what you mean by that? Mr PAGE. Congress passed an act in 1926 which relieved the projs of some part of the cost of their works. Vr RICH. Could you tell me how much? Mr. PAGE. The total was approximately $17,000,000. PROJECTS STARTED FROM EMERGENCY FUNDS Mr. RICH. The other day I asked the secretary of the committee to pare a chart answering a number of questions which I will relate we go along, but in checking up the projects that he put on this with the projects that were listed in the report of the Interior tment, Bureau of Reclamation, dated March 1, 1937, the ency allotments, there is quite a great number that have not * placed on that chart. There is a great number that is in your of Federal Reclamation laws for last year that are not included he chart that are proposals for reclamation projects, and on some amounts differ. I presume that probably the reason the amounts is that one is dated up to December 31, and the other up to Mbl. Mr. PAGE. Partly that, and partly the fact that there have been ges in allocations, that is, some rescissions. M RICH. If you have made changes in allocations, that would e quite a difference. Mr PAGE. Yes; and this big chart which you have there includes the projects listed in the 1938 Appropriation Act. Mr Rich. So that we have now in our appropriation act for this Trar a great many of these projects that were emergency fund approon and public works projects, that you want us to approve in safe way, and by our placing them in the appropriation bill Year, has Congress authorized them? Mr PAGE. Yes, sir. Mr. RICH. So that the responsibility of this committee is quite great if we want to go ahead with projects where we only started with a survey, we will say, or approved a very small amount, when the ultimate cost of the project is going into millions of dollars? Mr. PAGE. I beg your pardon. There is only one project in the 1938 bill which has not heretofore received congressional appropria tions. Mr. RICH. If I checked over the list correctly, there is quite s number. You put into the record at this point those that are not. Mr. PAGE. There is only one on this list for 1938 which has not heretofore had congressional money, and that is the Ogden Rive project in Utah. Mr. RICH. Let us take the projects that you enumerated her awhile ago. There is the Upper Snake River project. How about that one? Mr. PAGE. There is no appropriation requested for that one for 1938. Mr. RICH. How about Frenchtown? Mr. PAGE. That is not included in the 1938 appropriation act. Mr. RICH. Chain Lakes storage? Mr. PAGE. There is no money in the 1938 budget for the Chain Lakes storage. Most of these projects which you are naming have received sufficient money by allotment to complete them. Mr. RICH. You mean, the complete project? Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir. Mr. RICH. And then you will not be back to Congress for any atthorization? Mr. PAGE. No, sir; not for those. Mr. RICH. For all of these projects that are on this list? Mr. RICH. Well, the ones that Congress has not authorized, tha were started by P. W. A. Mr. PAGE. In most instances we have enough P. W. A. or E. R. A money to entirely finish the project for which the allotment was made. Mr. RICH. In many cases, but will you make a record at this point of the projects that were started by P. W. A. or E. R. A. funds that you feel you have enough money to complete, and where you will not be back for an authorization of Congress in the future? Mr. PAGE. Yes, we will make that list. Mr. RICH. All right. Mr. PAGE. They are: Colorado: Uncompahgre project; Idaho, Boise drainage, Bois Arrowrock; Montana, Bitter Root project, Frenchtown project Nevada, Humboldt project; New Mexico, Caballo Dam; Oregon Birch Creek Canal, Burnt River project, Stamfield project, Vale project; Utah, Hyrum project, Moon Lake project; Washington. Yakima-Kittitas and Yakima storage projects. Allotments were made also for a large number of specific investig tions. These investigations will be completed with the funds avail able. If construction projects result from them, they will, of course, require additional funds. SALARIES AND EXPENSES, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER Mr. SCRUGHAM. We will now proceed with consideration of the bill, item by item. The first item is for salaries and other expenses for the Commissioner's office in the District of Columbia. Salaries and expenses: For the Commissioner of Reclamation and other personal services in the District of Columbia, $115,000; for travel and other necessary expenses, $35,000; including not to exceed $15,000 for printing and binding; in all, $150,000. Mr. PAGE. The justification in support of this item is as follows: This item is for that part of the personal services and other expenses of the Office of the Commissioner of Reclamation in the District of Columbia properly chargeable to administering the activities of the Bureau other than those related to the construction program to be carried on with appropriations from the Reclamation fund and appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury. The amount requested is the same as that appropriated for the fiscal year 1937. The construction program of the Bureau during the fiscal years 1934 to 1936, inclusive, has been carried on with allotments granted Interior-Reclamation by the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works and allotments from the Emergency Relief Appropriation of 1935. These allotments are available during 1937. In addition they are available for continuation of construction appropriations from the Reclamation fund and from the general funds of the Treasury. Additional amounts are made available in these items for administrative expenses. The 1938 estimates propose additional appropriations for continuation of construction from the Reclamation fund and the general fund of the Treasury. (See estimates under general Public Works program.) These estimates propose appropriations for administrative expenses related to the construction program. Because of the several funds available to the Bureau personal services and other expenses for 1936, 1937, and 1938 have been and will be allocated equitably to the several funds available. The allocations for personal services for 1936, and proposed for 1937 and 1938 are as follows: Other expenses of the Commissioner's office increased materially during the period 1934 to 1936. Additional office equipment and furniture had to be purchased, also additional travel expense had to be incurred. These increases were all financed with emergency funds. Equitable allocations to the several funds available were made. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF RESERVE WORKS Mr. SCRUGHAM. The next item is for Examinations and Inspection and Operation and Maintenance of Reserved Works, which reads as follows: Examination and inspection of projects and operation and maintenance of reserved works: For examination of accounts and inspection of the works of various projects and divisions of projects operated and maintained by irrigation districts or water users' associations, and bookkeeping, accounting, clerical, legal, and other expenses incurred in accordance with contract provisions for the repayment of such expenses by the districts or associations and for operation and maintenance of the reserved works of a project or division of a project when irrigation districts, water users' associations, or Warren Act contractors have contracted to pay in advance but have failed to pay their proportionate share of the cost of such operation and maintenance, $10,000. Mr. PAGE. I submit the following justification: Appropriation, 1936 (unexpended balance). Expended, 1936. Appropriation, 1937. Estimate of appropriation, 1938.. $89, 571 7,904 10, 000 EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED APPROPRIATION, 1938 10, 000 Examination and inspection of projects.—The care, operation and maintenance of various projects and divisions of projects have been transferred to water users' organizations. Contracts between these organizations and the United States provided for inspection of such transferred works by representatives of the Secretary of the Interior, the cost of which is payable by the water users' organizations in the year following the year in which such inspections are made. To perform such inspections as may be found necessary during the fiscal year 1938 an appropriation is necessary. Contracts also provided for the payment to the United States of the cost of general expense, bookkeeping, accounting, and legal work in connection with accounts and collections. This expense is also repayable after it is incurred, but an appropriation is necessary for the initial expense. Operation and maintenance of reserved works.--On some projects where the operation and maintenance of irrigation works has been assumed by the water users' organization, the Bureau of Reclamation has retained the operation and maintenance of the storage works and other irrigation facilities common to more than one district or division of the project. The water users are obligated to pay in advance their pro-rata share of the cost of operation and maintenance of such common facilities. In case a contracting organization should default, the Bureau is required to operate and maintain the common works to serve the organizations that have paid their obligations. An annual appropriation is necessary for this purpose. Only nominal amounts have been expended annually for the above purposes. During 1936, $7,904 was expended. An appropriation of $10,000 is available for 1937. An appropriation of $10,000 is requested for 1938. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS Mr. SCRUGHAM. The next item is as follows: Administrative provisions and limitations.-For all expenditures authorized by the Act of June 17, 1902, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all other Acts under which expenditures from said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 for personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the office of the Chief Engineer; $20,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other communication service; $5,000 for photographing and making photographic prints; $41,250 for personal services; and $7,500 for other expenses in the field legal offices; examination of estimates for appropriations in the field; refunds of over-collections and deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding; purchase of ice; purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees; maintanance and operation of horsedrawn and motor-propelled passenger vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for purchase and exchange of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; packing, crating, and transportation (including drayage) of personal effects of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; payment of damages caused to the owners of lands or other private property of any kind by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or employees, in the survey, construction, operation, or maintenance of irrigation works, and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant and the Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may designate; payment for official telphone service in the field hereafter incurred in |