PAGENO="0001" KENNE WICK EXTENSION AND TOUCHET DIVISION, WASHINGTON HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION A BILL TO AMEND THE ACT OF ~rTL~NE 12, 1948 (62 STAT. 382), IN ORDER TO ?1~OVI~E I~OE T~E OONS VCTTON, OPERA- TION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE KENNRWWK DIVISION EXTENSION, YAKIMA PROJECT, WASHINGTO1~, AND FOR OTBRR PURPOSES S.743 A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN THE TOUCHET DIVISION, WALLA WALLA PROJECT, OREGON~1 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MARCH 4, 1969 0 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs ~ 113 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 2645 WASHINGTON: 1969 T:~D PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chafrn~an CLINTO~N P. ANDERSON, New ~e~tc~ GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho FRANK CHURCH, Idaho PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK ~E. Mc~SL Utah CL~IFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyomlag QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon GEORGIi McGOVERN, South t~a~ota TED $~EVE~S, Alaska GAYLORD NELSON~ Wisconsin H13~NRY BELLMON, Oklahoma LEE METCALF, Montana MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska JERRY T., ~E1~HLER, staff ,D~rector STEwART FRENCH, OMef Counsei CHARLES CooE, M~aority Counsel DANIEL DRETFuS, Pr esaig'nai staff Menvber ~VBQQMMJT~EE ON W&TFI~ ~ND POW1!~R RE~OTTh~CES C~fl~TON I~.AND~RSON, New M~lc~ Cha~rtnan HENR~1a. JA~SONWtt~hhi~Cafl GOl~bONALLOTT, COlorado FRANK CHURCH, Idaho LEN~ ~O1tDAN, Idaho FRANK B. MOSS, Utah 1?AUL J. FANNIN, Arizona QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota ~IiFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin ~IAI~K 0. HATFIELD, Oregon ~` ~ 1 ~ ~:r~ PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS ?age 8. 742 Departmental reports: Department of the Interior 2 Executive communication 4 8. 743 Departmental reports: Department of the Interior Executive communication STATEMENTS Magnuson, Hon. Warren G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington: Kennewick division 11 Touchet division 11 Mar11, Vernon, director, Touchet Valley Irrigation District and county commissioner of Columbia County, Wash 15 May, Hon. Catherine, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington: Kennewick Division 13 Touchet Division 14 Stamm, Gilbert G., Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, ac- companied by Jim Casey, Assistant Chief, Project Development Divi- sion, Washington, D.C.; Rupert Spearman, area engineer, Spokane, Wash.; and William White, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 24 COMMUNICATIONS Balcome & Moe, Inc., Pasco, Wash.: Telegram to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated March 3, 1969. 19 Barnes, Howard; Kelly, Eugene V.; Stonecipher, James A.; Board of County Commissioners, Walla Walla, Wash.; letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated Feb- ruary 3, 1969 Cadman, Roy, chairman, and Hugh Jackson, Board of County Commis- misioners, Colubmia County, Dayton, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,dated Feb. ruary28, 1969 21 Calkins, Col. Wesley E., president, Kiwonis Club, Dayton, Wash., Tele- gram to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 28, 1969 22 Evans, Hon. Daniel J., Governor, State of Washington: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 26, 1969 Graves, Dayl, president, Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Com- mittee, dated February 24, 1969 22 bier, Glen, Waitsburg, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chair- man, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 28, 1969. 23 Keve, Ivan K., secretary, Waitsburg Commercial Club, Inc., Waitsburg, Wash.: Letter to Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 25, 1969 21 Land, Hon. Albert, mayor, Waitsburg, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 28, 1969 20 Liebel, Calvin R., secretary-manager, Kennewick Irrigation District, Kennewick, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Into-. nor and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 28, 1969 19 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Literal, Kei~nard, president, Dayton Lions Club, Dayton, Wash.: Letter Page to Hon. ~ienry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior aiid Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 28, 1969 22 McBride, Jerry R., legislative chairman, Richiand Rod & Gun Club, Kennewick, Wash.: Telegram to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior ~nd Insular Affairs Committee, dated March 4, 1969 18 Montgomery, A. P., Jr., president, and C. A. Sharpe, Jr., secretary, Cham- ber of Commerce, Dayton, W~tsb.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 26, 1969 23 Nelson, Hon. Paul G., mayor, Dayton, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated Feb- ruary~ 28, 1'969_ 19 White, Richard M., general manager, Port of Walla Walla, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, tnterio~ and Insular Affairs Committ9e, dated F~bruary 26, 1969 20 Zier G. C., secreTtary, Colliflibla Courit~ Sportsmen's Association, Dayton, V~ash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, Q~airpaan, Interior and Insular Affairs C itilt1~e~, dated February 27, 1969. 21 PAGENO="0005" KENNEWICK EXTENSION AND TOUCHET DIVISION, WASHINGTON TUESDAY, ~LARCR 4, 1969 U.S. SENATE, SuBcoMMrrrs~E ON WATER AND POWER REsoURCES, C0MMITrEE ON INmiuoR AND INsULAR ARFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 3110 New Senate Office Building, Senator Henry K Jackson (chair.. man of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Henry M. Jackson (Washington), Quentin N, Burdick (North Dakota), Gordon Allott (Colorado), Len B. Jordan (Idaho), Clifford P. Hansen (Wyoming), and Mark 0. Hatfield (Oregon). Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart French, chief counsel; Charles Cook, minority counsel; and Daniel A. Dreyfus, pro- fessional staff member. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The purpose of this hearing before the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee this morning is to take testimony on 5. 742 and 5. 743, cosponsored by Senator Magnuson and myself. S. 742 is a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,. operate, and maintain the Kennewick Extension of the Yakima ree.~ lamation project. S. 743 is a bill to authorize the Touchet division of the Walia Walla project. Both proposals are multipurpose water resource develop- ments located in the State of Washington. The Senate has previously passed measures to authorize the Ken~. newick Extension in the 88th, 89th, and 90th Congresses and measures to authorize the Toutthet division in the 89th and 90th Congresses Action has not been completed in the House. The text of S. 742 and S. 743 and the reports of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget will be included in the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow:) [S. 742, 91st Cong., first sess.i A BILL To amend the Act of June 12, 1948 (~2 Stat. 882), in order to provide for the construction operation and maintenance of the Kennewick division extension Yakiina project, Washington, and for other purposes 13e it enacted by the ~enzte e~tnd House of Representatives of the Tjnited States of Amerwa sn. ConUre8$ assembled That the Act of June 12 1948 (62 Stat `382) is hereby amended as follows: (a) Insert the words "and Kennewick division extension", after the words "Kennewick division" In sectIon 1 and acid the following items to the principal units listed lii said section: "Itiona siphon" and "Relift pumping plants". (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 (b) Inseift at the end of section 3 the following: "Costs of the Kennewick `division extension allocated to irrigation which are determined by the Secretary to be in excess of the water users' ability to repay within a fifty-six-year repay- ment period following a ten-year development period, shall be charged to and returned to the reclamation fund in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the Act of June 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 200), as amended by section 6 of the Act of September 7, 1966 (80 Stat. 707) : Pro'vkied, That section 5 of this Act shall not be applicable to the revenues derived from the Federal Columbia River power system. Power and energy require for irrigation water pumping for the Kennewick extension shall be made available by the Secretary from the Federal Columbia River power system at charges determined by him." SEC. 2. No water shall be delivered to any water user on the Kennewick division extension for a period of ten years from the date of enactment of this authorizing Act for the production on newly irrigated lands of any basic agri- cultural commodity, as deflned in the Agricultural Act of 1949, or any amend- ment thereOf, if the total supply of such commodity for the marketing year in which the bulk of the ~crop would normally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply as defined in section 301(b) (10) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, ~s amended, unless `the Secretary Qf Agriculture calls for an increase in production of such commodity in the interest of national security. SEC. 3. There are authorized to be appropriated for the new works associated with the K~nnewick division extension $5,S52,000 (October 1966 prices) plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be required by reason of changes in the cost of construction work of the types involved therein, as shown by engineering cost indexes, and, in addition, such sums as may be required to operate and maintain the extensioti. U.S. DEPARTMENT OT THE INTERIOR, OflFCE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1969. Hon. HENRI M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Tnt erior and Insi~lar Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR ML CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of this Department on S. 742, a bill "To `amend the Act of June 12, 1948 (62 Stat. 382), in order t~ provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Kennewick division extension, Yakima project, Washington, and for other pur- poses." TMs bill is identical to S. 370, 90th Congress, as passed by the Senate on March 6~ 1967. We recofnmend enactment of the bill with the amendment set forth herein. S. 742 would authorize th~ Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain a 6,300-acre extension of the irrigation development of the Kennewick division, Yakima project, Washingto~n. This would be accomplished through appropriate amendments. to the Act of June 12, 1948 (62 Stat. 382), which authorized the Kennewick division. The bill provides that financial assistance from Federal Columbia River Power System (F.C.R.P.S.) revenues shall be available to repay costs allocated to irrigation which are beyond the ability of the water users to repay. The existing Kennewick division serves about 19,000 acres of land. Section 6 of the Act ~f June 12, 1948, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to construct extra capaicity in ~the division's main canal to provide for the future irrigation of approxhuately 7,000 acres of land in addition to the then proposed develop- ment, and to recognize the cost of proylding such capacity as a deferred obliga- tion to be paid at such time as the additional area was brought into the project. The main eanal was constructed with extra capacity at a cost of $341,400, which has since been carried as a deferred obligation. The Ketinewick division extension would utilize the extra capacity thus provided, together with additional works which would be constructed, to deliver an irrigation water supply to the 6,300 acres of extension lands. Specific new works required are a hydraulic pump at the Chandler pumping plant to lift additional water into the piain canal, through which the water would flow for 6.7 miles.. There it would be diverted into the Kiona siphon, which would carry the water 5,800 feet across Badger Draw to the extension lands. The plan described in the feasibility report (H.R. Doe. No. 296, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)) Mas been modified to encompass a closed-pipe system of mains and laterals to distribute water to the lands. An agricultural drainage system, relift pump plaMs, and electrical transmission facilities to serve `the pumping in- PAGENO="0007" 3 stallations are the remaining new facilities reqtiired. Power and energy for irrigation water pumping for the extension will be made available from the F.C.R.P,S, at charges determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Most of the lands of the Kennewick division extension are presently dry. About 100 acres of the best lands have been planted to dry land wheat. The balance supports only sage brush and native grasses used for livestock grazing. Under project development the primary land use expected would be for growing feed and general row crops. Lesser acreages of fruit and specialty crops--grapes, sweet cherries, prunes, peaches, apricots, mint, and asparagus--would also probably be produced. The soil and climate are well suited to all the foregoing crops. The Kennewick Irrigation District has long been interested in full develop- ment of the irrigable lands in the area. The district supported development of the entire area when the Kennewick division lands were brought under irriga- tion. Nearly `all the lands in the extension have been in the district for many years. The Kennewick division extension is basically an irrigation development, but benefits to wildlife resources will also be realized. The Fish and Wildlife Service reports that irrigation Of these lands will be beneficial to upland game birds. Opportunities to develop significant benefits to recreation, flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, or other purposes are not available. The total investment in the Kennewick division extension would be $7,554,700, reflecting an updating of the cost estimate in the feasibility report cited above which was $5,250,400 (January 1962 prices). This current estimate is made up of $6,735,000 in construction costs (January 1969 prices) ; $341,400 in de- ferred costs of the Kennewjck division attributable to enlarged main canal capacity and assignable to the division extension; $189,000 for the exten- sion's pro rata share of storage costs of the Yakima project; $30,000 for settlers' assistance, and a $259,300 suballocation of the commercial power allocation of the F.C.R.P.S. costs to irrigation. On the basis of the current analysis, the benefit-cost ratio would be 2.8 to 1 for all benefits and 1.6 for direct benefits only. Of the foregoing costs, $7,421,900 is allocated to irrigation and $132,800 to fish and wildlife enhancement. The irrigation of extension lands will enhance upland game `habitat. Since there will be no separable costs incurred for this purpose, under provisions of the Federal Water Proj~ct Recreation Act, the costs al- located to fish and wildlife enhancement would be n'onreim'bursabl!e. Oosts allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable without interest. The total costs allocated to irrigation include $259,300 as the pumping power s'u'b- allocation which will (be repaid `by the pumping power charge. The remaining reimbursable irrigation costs amount to $7,162,600, of which Irrigators could repay $1,688,400 or about 24 percent. Financial assistance in the amount of $5,474,200 ne~eded to achieve repayment of the remaining reimbursable irriga- tion costs would `be obtained from n'et power revenues from the F.O.R.P.S. in accordance with section 2 of the Act of June 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 200), as amended by `section 6 of the Act of September 7, 1966 (80 Stat, 707), The conditions prescribed by this legislation for the use of net power revenues from the F.C.R.P.S. for irrigation assistance would he met by the Kennewick division extension. Policies in effect at the time the Kennewick division was authorized required that all reimbursable project costs be repaid from revenue's derived from the project. This required an overall repayment period of 66 years for the facilities built under the 1948 Act. S. 742 would authorize the Kennewick division exten- sion by adding it t~ the authorization of the 1948 Act, and make the same repayment period applicable to the extension. We believe that this is an appro- priate exception to current congressional policy that reimbursable reclamation project costs shall be returned in full within 50 years. The extension water users will be using some joint facilities of the Kennewlek Irrigation District, and will bear a prorated share of the district operation, maintenance, and re- placement costs. It is equitable that their repayment obligation should run for the same number of years `as other division water users. Irrigati'ofi water users make annual payments toWard retiring irrigation cost allocations in accordance with their ability to pay. Thus, the effect of a longer repayment period is that the water users bear more of the irrigation costs. Section 5 of the Act of June 12, 1948, provides that one-fifth of the revenues de- rived from the interest component for power rates of the Kennewick division, Yakima project, may be applied toward repayment of Kennewick division irri- PAGENO="0008" 4 gatlon costs assigned for return from power revenues. Under S. 742 this ar- raugement would not extend to the Kennewick diVision extension. The pro- viso at the end of section 1 of the bill assures that revenues derived from the in- terest component of power rates of the F.O.R.P.S. shall not be available for financial assistance to the extension. To reftect the escalation of construction costs and the effect of the improve- ment of the distribution system, we recommend that line 5, page 3 of S. 742 be amended to read: "$6,735,000 (January 1969 prices) plus or minus such." A statement of personnel arid other reQuirements that enactment of this legis- Intion wpuld entail is enclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of July 25, 1956, Public Law No. 84-801,70 Stat. 652. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presen~ tation o± this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, RUssELL B. TRAIN, Under secretary of the Interior. [Enclosurel KENNEWICK DIVISION EXTENSION, YAKIMA PROJECT, WASHINGTON Estimated additional personnel and funds for construction (in compliance with Public Law No. 84-801, 70 Stat 652) lstyear 2dyear 3d year 4th year 5th year Executive di~ection: Admini$trative services and support: Clerical and stenographic (2) Subtotal-Administrative (2) Substantive (program): Engineering aids and technicians (2) Subtotal-Substantive (2) Total positions (2) Total estimated additional man-years3 (2) Expenditurefor additional man-years3 Total estimated man-years of civilian employment Total estimated expenditures: Project personal services All other Total~estimated expenditures (110, 000 2 2 2 2 4 4 $23, 100 19. 0 $160,350 $539,650 $700, 000 2 2 2 2 4 4 $23,100 25. 4 $218,550 $3,411,450 $3, 630,000 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 3.1 .4 $17,900 $2,300 20. 0 1.0 $176,800 $10,000 $1,638,200 $71,000 $1, 825,000 $81, 000 iSalary levels are those which become effective July 1, 1968. 2 1st yeah activity will use general investigations personnel and details from other offices. Data shown for additional man-years, and expenditures for additional man-years are estimated for recruitment outside the Bureau of Reclamation within the regional area. Experience indicates that such recruitment is necessary only for the low-grade e~igineering and clerical positions (ES-3 and GS-4). The Bureau of Reclanlation does not have available ex- perience rmiords on the net effect to recruitment requirements from outside the Bureau which may resultfrom the transfer of career personnel between regions tq fill tray positions. BXEIJUTIVE OFTICE or TIrE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., March 5, 196iL Hon. HENRY M. JACItSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, tT.~. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1969, request~ng the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 742, a bill "To amend the Act of June 12, 1948 (62 Stat, 382), in order to provide for the construction, operati~rn, and maintenance of the Kennewick division extension, Yakima proj- ect, Wc~sbington, and for other purposes." The purpose of the bill is stated in its title. The Department of the Interior, in a report submitted to your committee, ~~ecommends an amendment to reflect an Increase in construction costs, The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to enactment of S. 742 ii! amended as recommended by the Department of the Interior. No commitment, however, can be made as to when any estimate of appropriation would be sub- mitted for construction of the Kennewick division extension, if authorized by the Co~igress, since this would be governed by the President's budgetary objec- tives a~ determined by the then prevtUllng fiscal situation. $incerely yours, WILFRED H. ROMMEL, 4ssistant Director for J~egislative Reference. PAGENO="0009" 5 jS. 748, 91st Cong., first sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Touchet division, Walla Walls, project, Oregon-Washington, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the ~S~enate and HoEse of Representatives of the United ~Sttates of America in Congress assembled, That (a) for purposes of supplying irrigation water initially for approximately ten thousand acres of land, providing municipal and industrial water, flood control, the enhancement of fish and wildlife re- sources, and the enhancement of recreation `opportunities, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the Touchet division of the Walla Walla project, Oregon- Washington, In accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 82 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto). The principal works of the division (hereinafter referred to as the project) shall consist of the Dayton Dam and Reservoir, fish passage facilities, a diversion dam, and associated drainage facilities. (b) The Secretary is authorized to construct `the Dayton Dam and Reservoir to the physical limitations of the site and to recognize the cost of providing such additional capacity as a deferred obligation to be paid, in accordance with sec- tion 2 of this Act, `at `such time as the additional storage capacity IS contracted for: Provided, That until `such `additional `storage capacity is `contracted for, operation and maintenance costis `attributable to the excess capacity `shall be funded `and `added to the construction costs allocated to `deferred capacity. (c) In order to `assure a re'al'iz'ati'on `of the fish `and wildlife enhancement benefits contemplated by this Act, the Secretary shall adopt appropriate measures to insure the maintenance of a streamfiow between Dayton Dam and the mouth df the Walla Walla River that Is not less than 30 cubic feet per second unless he determines that a water shortage or other emergencies exist or that lesser flows would be adequate for the maintenance of fish life. SEC. 2. Irrigation `repayment contracts `shall provide for repayment of the obli- gation assumed thereunder with respect to any contract unit over a period of not more than fifty years, exclusive of any development period authorized by law. Construction costs `allocated `to irrigation beyond the ability of the irrig'ato;rs to repay `shall be charged to `and returned to the `reclamation fund in `accordance with the provisions of section 2 `of the Act of June 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 200), `a's amended by section 6 `of the Act of `September 7, 1966 (80 Stat. 707). SEC. 3. The conservation `and development of the fish and wildlife `resources and the enhancement of `recreation `opportunities in connection with the Pouchet division `shall be in accordance with the provision's `of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213). All costs allocated to the enhancement of anadro~ mous fish species shall be nonrelmbur's'able. Szc. 4. The interest `rate used for put~oses of computing interest during con.~ struction and, where appropriate, interest on the unpaid balance `of the `rehn- ~mursa'ble obligation's assumed by non-Federal entitie,s shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, `a's `of the beginning `of the fiscal year in Which con- s,truefii'on is initiated, `on the basis of the computed `ave'rage interest rate pay- able by `the Treasury upon its `outstanding marketable public obligations which are neither `due nor callable for redemption from fifteen year's from date of i's'sue, adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum. SEC. ~. For a period `of ten years from the date `of enactment of this Act, no water from the project authorized by this Act shall be delivered to any water user for the production on newly irrigated lands of any basic agricultural corn- inodi'ty, a's defined in the Agricultural Act `of 1949, or any amendment thereof, if the total supply of `such commodity for `the ~i'arketlng ye'a.r in which the bulk of the crop would normally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply as dedned in `section 301(b) (10) `of `the Agricultural Adjustment Act `of 1938, as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture calls for an increase in production of ~uch commodity in the interest of national security. SEC. 6. There are hereby `authorized to be appropriated for construction of the new works involved in the P'ouchet division, $16,630,000 (January 1965 price's) plus or minus such amounts, if any, `as may be required by reason `of changes in the cost `of construction wo'rk of .the types involved therein `as `shown by engineer- ing cost indexes and, In addition thereto, such sums as may be required to operate `and maintain `said project. 26-935-~9-----,2 PAGENO="0010" 6 TLS. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., Maroh 4,1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington,, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of this Department on S. 743, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Touchet division, Walla Walla project, Oregon-Washington, and for other purposes." The bill is identical to S. 485, 90th Congress, as passed by the Senate. We recommend that the bill be enacted with the amendment set forth herein. The Touchet division of the Walla Walla project would be located in south- eastern Washington. The principal facility of the division would be the Dayton Dam which would Impound a reservoir of 52,600 acre-feet of water, the maxi- mum feasible at the site. The dam and reservoir would be operated to provide irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife e~ihancement, flood control, and water quality control. * Irrigatjon water would be supplied initially to approximately 9,960 acres of land, A 1~ull supply would be provided to 3,520 acres, and a supplemental supply to 6,440 acres that are now irrigated from diversion works on the Touchet River downstream from the damsite, but suffer from seasonal deficiencies In water supply. ~he lands proposed to be irrigated are of high quality and very well suited to sprinkler irrigation. Assurance of a full irrigation water supply may be expected to produce a shift in irrigable land use from forage crops to row crops, such as vegetable~s, for canning and freezing. Water for irrigation will be diverted from the river below the dam into existing distribution systems owned by the irrigators. No distribution facilities are proposed to be constructed in connection with the project. The Touchet division plan of development does n~t provide any facilities or storage capacity In Dayton Reservoir specifically f~r water quality control pur- poses. The reservoir operating regulations would provide water releases from the reseiPvoir for irrigation and fish and wildlife enhancement sufficient to as- sure adequate control of water quality during the months of May through Sep.. tember. ~taintenance of 30 c.f.s. for fi~bery purposes during other months is expected to be adequate in quantity to assure a resultant quality within the criteria for all project purposes. There is, therefore, no basis for an allocation of costs to water quality control, and the financial analyses and economic jus- tificatiou presented in the feasibility report (H.R, Doc. No. 155, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)) have been modified accordingly. The plan described in the feasibility report cited above has been modified to the extent of increasing the design capacity of the spillway at the proposed Dayton Pam in recognition of new hydrologic data and modern practices. The cost estl~nates have been adjusted to reflect the new splllway design and updated to cover construction cost increases since 1962. This has resulted in changes in the economic and financial analyses of the division. At Jatiuary 1969 costs for these facilities the construction cost is estimated at $22,774,000, allocated among functions as follows: Irrigation $9, 014, 000 Flood coptrol 1, 004,000 Municipal and industrial 150,000 Fish and wildlife enhancement 12,261,000 Recreation 195,000 Highway improvement 150,000 22,774,000 The economic justification for the Touchet division is demonstrated by a com- parison of total benefits to total costs (for 100 years at 31/4% interest) of 1.72 to 1. Tbe ratio based on direct benefits only is 1.47 to 1. The bill would authorize construction of Dayton Reservoir to the maximum practical capacity of the site as proposed in our project report. This would result in an annual water yield in excess of immediate demands. This additional water supply can serve future irrigation or municipal water requirements. The poten- PAGENO="0011" 7 tial irrigable lands in the valley i~ar exceed the area which could be irrigated with this water. Based upon the supposition that the water will ultimately be used for irrigation, the deferred cgsts for unassigned space in the reservoir, amounting to $4,741,000 exclusive of funded operation and maintenance costs, have been allocated to irrigation, and are included in the $9,014,000 figure In the table of ~tllocations above. Costs associated with immediate irrigation uses would total $4,273,000. All costs allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable. Paying In accordance with their ability, the water users would return $1,214,500 of the $4,273,000 of immediate-use irrigation costs over the 50-year repayment period established by the bill. The remainder of the immediate-use irrigation allocation would be repaid from net revenues from the municipal and industriaj repayment ($226,000) and revenues derived from the sale of power marketed by the Federal Columbia Power System ($2,832,500). Flood control operation will be based on snow forecast and joint use of 15,000 acre-feet of Dayton Reservoir storage capacity on a seasonal basis. The urgent need for such an operation plan was demonstrated in the December 1964 floods In the Pacific Northwest and those which occurred In January 1969. Joint opera- tion of the reservoir for flood control and conservation will require the es- tablishment and operation of a bydrometeorologic network of snow courses, gages, and forecasting equipment. This network Is Included In the costs of the division allocated to flood control. Pursuant to reclamation law, the flood control allocation is a nonreimbursiable cost. The city of Dayton, Washington, has indicated its intent to purchase 1,000 acre-feet of water annually from Dayton Reservoir for municipal and industrial purposes. Five hunderd acre-feet would be used during the first 10 years of project operations, and the full 1,000 acre-feet thereafter. Costs allocated to municipal and industrial water supply would be repaid within 50 years with interest at the rate specified in section 4 of the bill, subject to the deferral provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Revenues from this source in excess of the repayment obligation would be applied to reduction of the irrigation repay- ment obligation. As the only sizable lake in the area, Dayton Reservoir is expected to be a popular recreation attraction, Recreation uses of the division land and water areas will include boating, swimming, water skiing, camping, picnicking and hunting. Costs allocated to recreation have been treated in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public Law 89-72). Potentially significant benefits to anadromous fish species exist at the Touchet division. The project plan of development seeks to capitalize upon the opportuni- ties presented. The Dayton Reservoir will store enough water to enable releases to be made to re-establish anadromous fish runs in the Touchet River. Temperature control over these releases, which is essential, would be maintained by building Dayton Dam with outlet works at several levels. Among the special facilities proposed to be built for anadromous fishery enhancement are a trap, hopper, and tramway to carry upstream migrants over the dam and a collector system for downstream migrants. In the way of local benefits the reservoir would create a lake sports fishery; also, waterfowl hunting Opportunities are expected to materialize on project lands. The recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs of the Touebet division would be assigned to the reimbursable or nonreimbursable category as follows: Recreation: Reimbursable (50 percent of separable costs) $913, 000 Nonreimbursable (joint costs, plus 50 percent of separable costs) - 99, 000 Total 195,000 Fish and wildlife enhancement: Reimbursable (50 percent of separable costs attributable to benefits realized at the project) 952, 000 Nonreimbursable (joint costs, separable costs attributable to enhancement of anadromous fish, and 50 percent of separable costs attributable to benefits realized at the project) 11, 309,000 Total 12,261,000 PAGENO="0012" 8 A letter has been received fron~ the Port of Columbia County (Columbia County Port Distric~) expressing its willingness to assume the responsibility for admin- istering the ~and ~nd water areas for recreatlo~i and fish and wildlife enhancement and to assume the non-1~ederal costs in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation act. Since the tDepartment's f~asibllity report was completed, the State of Washing- ton has upgraded its highway design standards. The road which must be relocated around Dayton Reservoir, therefore, will be of a higher standard than the existing road. The iticremental cost of that improvement, estimated at $128,000, would be nonreimbursable under provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1962. To reflect the escalation of construction costs and the design changes described herein, we recomme~td that line 17, page 4 of S. 743 be amended to read: "division, $22,774,000 (January 1969 prices), plus or minus". A statement of personRel and other requirements that enactment of this legis- lation would entail is enclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Act ol! July 25, 195d, Public Law No. 84-801, 70 Stat. 652. Time has not permitted secttring advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relatior~ship of this report to the program of the President. Sincc~re1y yours, T~ossRLL B. TRAIN, Under Secretci'ry of the Interior. [Enclosure] TOUCHET DIVISION, WALLA WALLA PROJ ECT, WASHINGTON-OREGON Estimated Additional Man-Years of Civilian Employment and Expenditures for the 1st 5 Fiscal Years (As required by Public Law 84-801, 70 Stat. 652)~ lstyear2 2dyear 3d year 4th year 5th year Estimated additik~nal man-years of civilian employ- ment: Executive direction Administrative services and support: AdminiStrative officer Clerical and stenographic 3. 0 3. 0 2 1.0 Total, administrative 3 3 2 1.0 Substantive (program): Engineering aids and technicians 6. 0 6.0 6 2.0 Engineers Inspectors Other personnel - Total, substantive - 6. 0 6. 0 6 2.0 Total, positions 9. 0 9. 0 8 3. 0 Total estimated additional man-years 4.8 8. 2 6 1. 5 Estimated additional expenditures: Personal services 3$200 000 $193 550 $31Q, 900 $331, 700 $120, 500 All other 1,106,450 9,689,100 8,916,100 1,418,500 Total, estimated expenditures 200,000 1,300,000 10, 000,000 9,250,000 1, 539, 000 1 Salaries based on scales effective July 1, 1968. 2 1st-year activity will utilize general Investigation personnel and details from other offices. a Advance planning. U.S. DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR, OrrIcu or THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 18~ 1969. Hon. HEN~Y M. JACKSON, CJva4rman~ Committee on Interior and Insxclar Affairs, U.S. Senate, Wash4ngtøn, D.C, DEAR 1\~tB. CHAIRMAN: This supplements our legislative report of March 4, 1969, on 5. 743, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the ~ouchet division, Walla Walla project, Oregon-Wash- ington, and for other purposes" in which we indicated that time had not permitted securing c~earance from the Bureau of the Budget. PAGENO="0013" 9 In that report we roe irnonded that all costs assIgned to anadromous fisheries `enhancement be nonreimbursable. We want to point out, however, that the Department does not consider this approach to be a continuing policy tobe ap~ plied to all future propects because further consideration needs to be given to this matter. The Bureau of the Budget now advises that there would be no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's prograhi to the report of March 4, 1969, and the recommendations contained therein. Sincerely yours, Russnnn El. TRAIn,. Under S'ecretajry of the Interior. EXECUTIVE OFFICE or TuE PRESIDENT, BUREAU or ruts BUDGET, Washington, D.C., March 7, 1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and InsuZar Affairs, U.s. senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR~ GRAmMAr: This Is In response to your letter of February 18, 1909, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on 5. 743, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Touchet division, Walla Walla project, Oregon-Washington, and for other purposes" The purpose of the bill is stated in its title. The Department of the Interior, in a report being submitted to your committee, recommends an amendment to reflect an increase In construction costs. The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to enactment of 5. 743 if amended as recommended by the Department of the Interior. No commitment, however, can be made as to when any estimate of appropriation would be sub- mitted for construction of the Thuehet division, If authorized by the Congress, since this would be governed by the President's budgetary objectives as deter- mined by the then prevailing fiscal situation. Sincerely yours, WILFRED II. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for LegisZati've Reference. The CHAIRMAN. We are privileged this morning to have two Con- gressional `witnesses, one from the House and one from the Senate. Senator Magnuson, who is a cosponsor of both bills and my senior colleague, will appear now, then be followed by Congresswoman Catherine May. Senator Magnuson. STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE WARREN ~. MAGNUSON, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP WASHINGTON Senator MAGNIJSON. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I appreciate this opportunity, and as you pointed out, S. 742 is a bill to amend the June 12, 1948 act, which would provide for the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the Kennewick division. This bill has been introduced by the distinguished chairman and myself in three or four C~ngresses now, and it was approved by the, Interior committee in the 90th Congress, and passed by the Senate. The purpose of the Kennewick division's extenslon is to provide wa~ ter for irrigation for approximately 6,300 acres of land in Benton County, Wash. This land is located in the Columbia River Valley, in the southeastern part of the State. Most of the land now lying within the Kennewick extension is dry sagebrush land, and has been useful only for livestock grazing. PAGENO="0014" 10 With the advent of irrigation of this land, we will be able to produce what we 4~all row crops, and the specialty crop of grapes. This has long been known as a grape country and such soft fruits as cherries, peaches, prunes, and apricots. The surrounding area presently pro- duces some of the finest juice grapes in the country. But more important than that, the Kennewick extension land is quite near the developing tn-city area of Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, and while this population center has a very good future growth potential, it is now undergoing severe strains of shifting from a nu- clear weapons economic base at the Hanford Atomic Plant to a more diversifie4 economy. This is part of the program to rehabilitate the area, due to the change in the nuclear weapons policy. Until the full potential of nuclear diversification has been developed, and the planned fast flux test facility has been developed-a nuclear breeder reactor-this area is going to be facing a number of economic prob- lems. Especially is this true in the phasing out of this matter. So, for the maximum economic benefit to the local communities, immediate authorization and construction of the Kennewick extension is needed. Delay wo~ild probably result in an economic benefit when it would be lessneeded. The economic slack needs to be taken up now. The Touchet project is a multi-purpose project east of this area. It is a dhiision of the Walla Walla project, it is an important addition to the area's reclamation-and I underline reclamation-and conserva- tion activities within the State in this area. The Touchet River, now uncontrolled, will, through this project, assume a significant role in the economy of the entire region. The proposed Dayton dam will curb destructive floods, control water pollu- tion, and provide full irrigation for at least 10,000 acres, making fruit and vegetable production possible in an area now devoted mainly to wheat. The reservoir will also provide municipal and industrial water for the city of Dayton and will create the only sizeable lake in the area for swimming,boating,~and sport fishing. Salmon facilities included in the project will produce approximately 40,000 salmon for harvest in the Pacific Ocean and lower Columbia River annually. Thus fishermen from the entire northwestern seaboard will shar~ in the benefits of this project. Each portion of the proposal has a favorite benefit-cost ratio, the overall ratio being 2.77 to 1 over a 100-year period. The long term advantages that the Touchet project will bring to the region, coupled with its favorable economic stance and approval by departments and agencies involved, make it a proposal I am pleased to support. I would hope that Congress can act expeditiously to make this project a reality. I than~k you for the privilege of appearing. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Magnuson. Senator MAGNUSON. I will put my statements in the record in full. The CHAIRMAN. The entire statement will appear in the record, if you will leave a copy for the reporter. (The statement referred to follows:) PAGENO="0015" 11 STATEMENT or HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OT WASHINGTON KENNEWIOK DIVISION EXTENSION Mr. Chairman, I appreclate this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. I am here today to request early Committee approval of Senator Jackson's S. 742, a bill to amend the act of June 12, 1948 (62 Stat. 382), in order to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Kennewick division ex- tension, Yakima project, Washington, and for other purposes. This legislation is identical to bills introduced by Senator Jackson and co-sponsored by inc in the 88th, 89th and 90th Congress and which were approved by the Interior Committee and passed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of the Kennewick division extension is to provide water for the irrigation of 6,300 acres of land in Benton County, Washington. This land is located in the Columbia River Valley in the southern part of the State of Wash- ington. Most of the land now lying within the Kennewick extension area is dry sage~ brush land, useful only for livestock grazing. With the advent of irrigation this land will be able to produce row crops of beans and potatoes and specialty crops of grapes, sweet cherries, prunes, peaches, and aprii ots. The surrounding area presently produces some of the finest juice grapes in the eountry~ The Kennewick extension land is quite near the developing Tn-City area o~ Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco. While this population center has a very good future growth potential, it is now undergoing the severe strains of shifting from a nuclear weapons economic base at the Hanford Atomic Plant to a more diver- sified economy. Until the full potential of nuclear diversification has been de~ veloped and the planned Fast Flux Test Facility (a nuclear breeder rëactOl±) has been developed, this area is gOing to be facing a number of Oconomic prob- lems. For maximum economic benefit to the local communities immediate authoriza- tion and construction of the Kennewick extension is needed. Delay would prob- ably result in an economic benefit when it would be less needed. The economic slack needs to be taken up now. I would like to close my statement with the note that this project has an extremely high benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.5 to 1. It i~ a financially sound project of exceptional merit. TOtTOHET DIVISION The multipurpose project for the Tonchet Division of the Walla Walla project is an important addition to the irrigation, recreation, and conservation activities within the State of Washington. The Touchet River, ROW uncontrolled, will through this project assume a significant role in the economy of the entire region. The proposed Dayton Dan~i will curb destructive floods, control water pollution, and provide full irrigation for at least 10,000 acres, making fruit and vegetable production possible in an area now devoted mainly to wheat. Backwaters will also provide municipal and industrial water for the city of Dayton and will create the only sizable lake in the area for swimming, boat- ing and sport fishing. Salmon facilities included in the project will produce annually approximately 40,000 salmon for harvest in the PRcific Ocean and lower Columbia River. Thus, fishermen from the entire northwestern seaboard will share in the benefits of this project. Each portion of the proposal has a favorite benefit-cost ratio, the overall ratio being 2.77 to 1 over a 100-year period. The long-term advantages that the Touchet project will bring to the region, coupled with Its favorable economic stance and approval by departments and agencies involved, make it a proposal I am pleased to support. I would hope. that Congress can act expeditiously to make this project a reality. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. May, we are delighted to welcome you to the committee. As both of these projects are in Congresswoman Catherine May's district, we welcome her testimony. PAGENO="0016" 12 STATEMENT OP HON. `CATHERINE MAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN OONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WASHINGTON Mrs. M~tr. Thank you, Senator Jackson. I would like to submit both of my statements in their entirety for the record. Of coi~rse, I do appear today as a Representative for the congres- sional district in which both of these projects are located, and I will be brief, `because Senator Magnuson has already stated the details, important details concerning these two projects, and subsequent wit- nesses, of course, will put in more of the details that the committee might desire. I might just say that the status of both of these projects should be probably part of the consideration here. There has been a new formula, I understand, on benefit-cost ratio. I have corrected my own original statements under the new formula, and that is all now updated. The project I am now speaking of is the Ken*'ewick, .and it has an outstanding benefit-cost ratio of about 2.8 to 1, and as the Senator has said, the total investment would be approxir~iately $6.14 million. Now legislation similar to that before the subcommittee today has several times passed the Senate, but it was not until just prior to the adjournment of the 90th Congress that subcommittee hearings were held in the House. Action at that time was then deferred to the 91st COngress, but with assurance that this Kennewick project would be among the first to' receive committee consideration this year, and I am hopeful that full congressional authorization will not be delayed any further, and that of cours~ the required departmental reports `on the House `bill, my two companion bills, will be forthcoming shortly, and as soon as we have cleared lhhe way finally for House committee full hearings. We have, as you can imagine, a great deal of `backing throughout the State, as well as from the Washington reclamation associations for this particular project. Now on the Touchet division, and here, again I have corrected my statOment from the report that has come up. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.7 to 1 for all benefits and 1.47 to 1 for direct benefits only. And I would like to just say that recently events out in this area of my district have pointed up the tremendous need for this project, mainly i~ight now because of its potential protection against the kind of severe flood damage that occurred in this area in December of 1964, in January of 1965, and in January and February of this year. It also as has been indicated, is urgently needed for domestic and industrial water supply for the city of Dayton, and the lower Touchet Valley. Now yo'u are going to hear in just a moment from the Honorable Vernon Mar11, Commissioner of Columbia Co'unty, in which the project is located, and also, president o'f the Touchet Valley Irrigation Dis- trict. I don't think anyone has worked more diligently or longer for this project, and the people that it will serve, than has Mr. Mar11, and I would like the committee to know that Mr. Mar11 certainly has good PAGENO="0017" 13 reason to believe that the Touchet project, once coristhicted, will solve a great many problems in this area, particularly those concerned with the seasonal flood damage. Mr. Mar11 has devoted countless hours, working with all our agen- cies out there, as well as local citizens, in coordinating emergency ef- forts that have been required to combat these floods. He has done a remarkable job, but I ima~'ine, like e1re~yone else~ he is growing weary of it, especially since it is estimated that over $350,000 in tangible flood damage in just the past 2 months alone has occurred out there, and $300,000 of the damage out in this area these last 2 months could have been prevented, had the Dayton Dam he~u constructed. Now here I would like to just finally touch on the status of the pending legislation in the House of Representatives. After several years of delay in committee consideration, a subcommittee hearing was scheduled and held, again just prior to the adjournment of the 90th Congress. Full hearings, early in the 91st Congress, have been pledged by the chairman of the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee as well as the chairman of the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the way will be paved for these hearings on the House side as soon as the required departmental reports on the House bill are received. And hopefully, assuming favorable action on the Senate side, then it looks like this might be the session in which we get the full green light for these two important projects. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. May, for your very fine statement. Any questions? Senator Au4orr. Mrs. May, it is nice to see you. I have no questions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. May, and we are de- lighted to have you with us this morning. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. CATIIE&INE MAY, A 13.5. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS Fno~t TIlE STATE OF WASEINGTON KENNEWICK DIVISION EXTENSION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Catherine May, Repre- sentative in Congress for the Fourth Congressional District of the State ~f Washington. As the sponsor of H.R. 1215, a bill similar to S. 742, I am here to support the Kennewick division extension, Yakima project. It is my purpose to be very brief, Mr. Chairman. The Kennewick division of the Yakima project was authorized by the Act of June 12, 1948~ and the existing Kennewick division today serves about 19,000 acres of land. The proposed Kennewick division extension would utilize the extra capacity that was built into the main canal at the time of construction, to provide for the irrigation of about 7,000 acres of land in addition to that presently Irri. gated. This will be accomplished through the construction of additional new works. When irrigation water is available to these additional acres, crops will be converted from dry land wheat, sagebrush and grasses for livestock grazing to the growing of feed and general row crops, plus some fruit and specialty crops. This project has an outstanding benefit-to~cost ratio of about 2.8 to 1. The total investment would be approximately $6.7 million. Legislation similar to that before the Subcommittee today have several times passed the Senate, but it was not until just prior to the adjournment of the 90th Congress that subcommittee hearings were held in the House. Action was deferred 26-O35--(i39----3 PAGENO="0018" 14 to the 91st Congress, but with assurance that this project would be among the first to receive Committee eou~iderattou this year. Thus full congressional au~ thorization should not be delayed further. I am hopeful the required Departmen- tal reports on the House bill will be forthcoming shortly to clear the way for House committee hearings. Authorization ~f the Kennewick division extension of the Yakima project has been urged by the Gqvernor of the State of Washington, the State. ~ Legislature, the Washtpgton State Reclamation Association, and other organizations and individual~ ip addition to those of us in Congress interested in beneficial use of our water resources. Thank you. TOUCRDT DIVISION Mr. Ohairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Catherine gay, Rep- ~resentatIve in Congress for the Fourth Congressional District of the State of Washington, and sponsor of H.R. 1216, to authorize the Touchet division of the Walla Walla project in my District liE 1216 is similar to S 743 and I am here ~to support this proposed project. The Tounhet dhrision is an excellent project with a benefit-to-cost ratio of about 1.72 ~o 1 for all benefits and 1.47 to 1 for direct benefits only. The Dayton Dam and Reservoir on the Thuebet River, about sIx miles upstream from the city of Dayton, will regulate the undependable flows of the river. irrigation water for about 10,000 acres of farmland will be provided, the area will be protected from the kind of severe flood damage that occurred in Decem- ber of 1964, in January of 1965, and in January and February of this year, and a needed domestic and industrial water supply will be available for the Oity of Dayton and the lower Touchet Valley. I am pleased to note that standing by to testify today is the honorable Vernon Mar11, CommissionOr of Columbia County and President of the Touchet Valley irrigation District. No one has worked more diligently or longer for this project and the people it will serve than has Mr. Mar11. And I would like the Committee to know thlat Mr. Mar11 has good reason to believe that the Touchet project, once constructed, will solve a great many problems in the area, not the least of which is the repeated seasonal flood damage that I have already touched upon. Mr. Mar11 has devoted cou~tless hours and days in working with numerous local citizens, groups organizations and State and Federal agencies m coordinating emergency efforts to combat these floods. He has done a remarkable job. But like everyone else in the Touchet Valley, I imagine he is growing weary of it, especially since it is estimated that of the over $350,000 in tangible flood damages in just the past two months alone, $300,000 of this damage would have been prevented had the Dayton Dam been constructed. Now for just a moment I would like to discuss the status of the pending legis- lation in the House of Representatives. ~After several years of delay in committee consideration of this project in the House, a subcommittee hearing was scheduled and held just prior to the adjourn- ment of tbb 90th Congress. Full hearings early in the 91st Congress were pledged by the Chairman of the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee and the Chairman Of the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The way will be paved ~or early hearings on the House side as soon as the required Depart- mental reports on the House hills are received. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Out of order, `before calling on Mr. Starnm, I thought to follow Mrs. May with the representative here from the Touchet Valley Irrigation District. Mr. Vernon Mar11 is the presi- dent of the Touchet Irrigation District, and is also a county commis- sioner for Colunthia County, where the darn will be located. He has, as Mrs May mentioned, long been active in behalf of this project, and we are d~lighted, Mr. Mar11, to welcome you before the subcommittee. You have a prepared statement. Why don't you just go right ahead and read that statement, please ~ PAGENO="0019" 15 ~STATEMENT OP VERNON MARLL, DIRECTOR, TOUO~ET VAIJIEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND COUNTY COMMiSSIONP~B. OP COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASH. Mr. MARLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Vernon Mar11. I am a farmer at Dayton, Wash., president of the Touchet Valley Irrigation District and county corn- ~missioner for Columbia County, Wash. I appreciate this opporti~nity to be here and voice support for Senate bill `743, which wouM e~nthorize construction of the Touchet division. I had the privilege of presenting a similar statement before this committee in August of 196't in favor of Senate bill 485, and your favorable `action on that bill was most appreciated by those of us liv.. `lug in the Touchet Valley. Just a week ago, I chaired a rneetin~ of local interests in the valley to discuss the urgent need for authorization of the Touchet division. Official representatives of the cities of Dayton and Waitsburg, Colum- ~bia and Walla Walla Counties, the Port of Walla Walla and other organizations were present at that meeting. I am representing these interests today, as well as those of the irrigation district. I want to mention, too, that various F~deral and State agencies have given us valuable technical assistance. When last I was here, I mentioned the' `longstanding need for `and widespread interest in obtaining irrigation water to help make fuller use of our land and to diversify our cropping patterns. I also discussed the urgent need for valleywide flood control and a reliable municipal water supply for the city of Dayton and plants processing agricultural products in the area. I expressed the desire of those of us living in the valley to see needed recreational facilities provided and the salmon run in the Touchet `and Columbia Rivers protected and developed as a part of the project. Gentlemen, the need for this project becomes more urgent each year. The seriOus problems that have created the need for improved man- agement of water and land resources in the valley are more apparent now than ever before. These problems have come full circle in the past 4 years. We witnessed the disastrous floods of December 1964 and January 1965 during which our personal safety was' imperiled and millions of dollars of damage done to our farmlands, roads, bridges, and other improvements. We know that Dayton Dam could have reduced damages caused by these floods by more than $1 million. `Then just this January we were again hard hit by flood. For 3 days Touchet River flood waters cut away at our farm lands, roads, bridges, and for the second time destroyed the diversion structure which sup- plies the city of Dayton with a large part of its water supply. As of this date, the residents of Dayton must rely solely for water on a deep well that was constructed to provide an auxiliary water ~supply `only. PAGENO="0020" 16 The tangible damages that resulted from~~ the flood this year totaled well ovei~ $850,000 and set us ba~k once again in our efforts to improve the valley. Dayton Dam, had it been in operation, would have prevented some $300,000 of this damage, according to.ithe Corps of Engineers. Intangible losses occurred too, for the flood scarred the terrain and destroyed fish and wildlife habitat. These io~ses can't'be evaluated in terms of dollars at present. In the years between these floods we have had critical shortages of water for our crops. We have, seen the Touchet River vary from flood levels to practically a trickle in summer. During the 1968 growing season for example, we had a disastrous crop drought. Estimates are that at least 50 percent of our pea crop was lost and the quality of all the crops in the' area that we did harvest was below normal. We lost most of the production `from our pastures.. We would prefer to shift our production to crops for which there is a ready market. With our present, unrugulated water supply, we see no possibility of further diversifying our ci~pping program. In 1964 we took a step forward toward impoving `this situation by the formation of our irrigation district. The vote establishing the dis- trict was an overwhelming 97 percent. We feel that the events of the past 4 years demonstrate better than our words the vital need for de-~ velopment of the Touchet District. The proposed Dayton Dam and Reservoir will effectively regulate the Touciiet River to benefit the residents of the Touchet Valley, the State of Washington, and the Nation. The Touchet Valley is our home; we want to improve it, and by so doing increase our contribution to the economy. The means by which these improvements can be made are beyond our private assets and it is our hope that, with your kind consideration, development of the Touchet Division will be authorized by this Congress so that its bene- fits can be realized in the near future. Thank you for your `time and attention. Mr. Chitirman, I would like to refer to a set of pictures each member of your committee has before you These signs depict the scene of some of the flooded areas in January. 1 would also like to introduce this let- ter from .the Corps of Engineers supporting the statements I have given you today. (The data referred to follows:) FEBRUARY 27, 1969. Mr. VERNON MARLL, Dayton, Wa81v. DEAR Mn. MARLL: The following information regarding the Touchet Division of the Walla Walla project was developed as requested by Mr. Spearman. I believe our estimates will closely approximate those developed at your meeting' in Waitsburg, if allowance is made for some double counting and items, such as,. reduced property values which cannot be used in our evaluation. The esti~nate of damage caused by the January 1969 flood on the Touchet River Is $350,000. This includes approximately $110,000 in emergency expendi- tures by Federal, State and local agencies. If the Dayton Dam and Reservoir pro)ect b~ad been in operation approximately $300,000 In damages would have been preve~ited, including savings of Federal expenditures of $18,000 for emergency flood light and $51,000 for emergency clearing and snagging. If the proposed Waitsburg channel improvement project had also been completed, practically all damages could have been prevented except for a minor amo,.mt In the rural areas along the lower reaches. PAGENO="0021" 17 These estimates were made on short notice from in~ormatton readily available and are subject to ebauge. Sincerely yours, HOWARD A. PRESTON, Chief, Planning Branch. Mr. [Am~ii.' Thank you very much. The OHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mar11. That is avery~ helpful ~thate~ ment and we appreciate the fine work that you have, done for the Touchet Valley Irrigation District as its president, and your long- time interest in this project. The Chair would like to place in the record at the conclusion of Mr. Marli's remarks various letters from governmental, civic, business, and other groups who have indicated their support of the project, also a letter from the Kennewick L~rigation District and a letter from the Governor of the State of Washington, the Honorable Dan Evans, in support of both projects. The C~EIAIRMAN I don't believe there is any need on my part to ask any questions. Mr. Mar11, because this project has been gone over previously and the record is q~uite clear, and we will incorporate by reference all the previous testimony. I think the significant point is that the floods keep reoccurring, and they are becoming more disas- trous as time goes on. Is that a fair summary? Mr. MAIa4L. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. The flood part of the problem, of course, would be `alleviated by the building of the dam. The project covers the supple- mental water for additional irrigation as well as provide a very Out- standing recreatioiial opportunity in that area. Any questions of Mr. Mar11? Senator ALLOPT. No, I have none., Senator JORDAN. Just one question. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Mr. Mar11, is there any* change in the watershed? It seems to me these floOds in the Touchet River are getting more `fre- quent, especially in the last few years. I have been over there, and I have seen the devastation that this flood brought in 1964. What changes, if any, are there in the watershed that make these floods more frequent than they were 20, 30, or 40 years, ago? Mr. MARIJL. Senator, I believe perhaps they have come to our at- tention more, is one reason. As far as the condition of the watershed1 there is a great area that the Touchet drains. It is a 1ar~e part of the National Forest, many private farmlands, timberlands, and there has been some logging, it is true. But as far as the actual cause, it is perhaps beyond definite decision `at the present time. There have been many conservation efforts made back in the mountains. We have encouraged, through the Soil Conservation Service, the con- servation of soils of different types, the logging practices, and so forth. We have tried to encourage private and Government logging activities to conform to the best practices, so as to conserve the soil. As to the causes of the different floods, I just could not say exactly. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Jordan. Thank you~ Mr. Mar11. We want to express our appreciation ,for your coming such a great distance to be here. You have been very helpful to the committee this morning. PAGENO="0022" 18 Mr. M~t. Thitnk you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The x*minunications previously referred to fGllow:) STAmi or WA5HINoT0N, OFFICE OF PRE GOVERNOR, Olympia, February 26, 1969~ Hon. UENi?~r M. JA~sozc, U.S. Senate, Ohainnan, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON It is with great pleasure that T leariled of the intro duction of 5. 748; and further that your committee has s~heduled a hearing on March 4 1960 for authorization of the Touchet Division, Walla Walla Pro~e~t, WashIngton, This offi~e has been aware of the multiple benefits that would accrue to the area and the region from this project and is keenly liltérested In its appro~Vai and early c~nstrnetion, Both storage and regulated releases are vitally necessary to the optimum de- velopment of the Touchet Valley for municipal and irrigation supplies Such supplies are currently limited to uncontrolled stream flows, which, most fre~ quently, do not coincide time-wise with existing water-use requirements. The elt3r of Dayton, which has historically depended on the Touchet RIver for Its main supply, has bad to `rely on supplemental water from two wells during the period ~f high demand, With the destruction of the city diversion dam by the Janu~ ary, 1969 flood, the need for the project to provide a firm supply to satisfy both current and future added municipal and Industrial water demands becomes even more eritical. Further flood control and recreation are highly important factors to the continued ~ocia1 and economic progress in this southeastern portion of the State of Washington. Interregional considerations of significant magnitude are also associated with this project and should be emphasized. These relate to the utilization of the rivers and streams of Washington State as major suppliers of salmon stock to the Pacific Ocean fishery, and I concur that it is appropriate to allocate a calculable nonr~imbursable benefit for fish and wildlife purposes where t'hese extend beyond the project area. With a minimum flow of 30 c.f.s. made possible through `the project's principal feature at `Dayton Dam, ofir biologists advise that the 1~ouehet River watershed is capable of providing spawning areas to a potential escapement of 5000 spring Chinook and 5000 Cobo salmon annually. The commercial and sports catch ~f salmon incubated and reared in the Touchet sy~tem could contribute to the fishery resource for a distance of at least 400 miles dbwnstream from the Dayton Dam site to the mouth of the Columbia River In addition project benefits would extend off the Washington coast and adjacent areas, providing a harvest value In Touchet River salmon resources of' $14,750,000 over a 50-year project life. We also recognize that this project could provide substantial benefits in the steelhead fishery of the Columbia River system, as well as an additional and much needed fishing lake and game fish envir~nment in the seuth*ast Washing ton arek. In view of these broad benefits, I sincerely hope the committee will report favorable on this measure, Sincerely, DANIEL J. EvAns, Governor. KENNEWICK, WAsn., March 4, 1969. Sen~ator IIE~RY M. JAo~sox, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Kennewick extension and Touchet projects bills that you Introduced are of particular interest to the Rlchland Rod and Gun Club we oppose thO Kenne- wick ex'tension project on the `basis that the Yakima River Is in no condition to have additional water withdrawn from it until adequate stream flow in the lower Yakims is provided through the Bumping Lake project we are opposed tO anything which would aggrevate an already disgraceful situation we See the PAGENO="0023" 19 Tonchet project as ben~ficia1 to all interests and we tbere~ere supper~ it it is important to point out that benefits to wildlife and in particular to anadrozeolls fish in on maintaining a higher minimum stream flow that the present a letter further ela~borating on these subjects will be forthcoming. Yours truly, JEImY R. MCBRIDE, Legislative Chairman, Richiand Rod ~ Gun Club. KENNEWIOK IRRIGATION Disnuor, Kennewlok, Wash., February 28,1969. Hon. HENRY M. JAC~CSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SEEATOR JACKSON: On behalf of the Directors of the Kennewick Irriga- tion District, I wish to reaffirm their support for the passage of S 742 and to thank you for sour many efforts in c~btaining authorization for the Kennewick Division Extension. The addition of the 6,300 acres will certainly provide many economic advan- tages to our District. Very truly yours, CALvIN R. LIRERL, Secretary-Manager. PAsco, WASH., March 3, 1969. Senator HENRY JACKSON, Washiniyton, D.C.: We wish to reconfirm our stand on the Kennewlek division extension. Hopefully bill in the House will be approved this time. Thanks for your colitinued lnterest~ BALCOME & Men, INC. BOARD ON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Wafla Walla, Wash., February 24,1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Board of Walla Walla County Commissioners pledges its full support to the testimony of Commissioner Vernon Mar11 of our neighboring Columbia County. He will be testifying on behalf of the Touchet Valley Dam in Southeastern Washington. The recurring history of disastrous floods alone should be sound reason for its construction. The economic benefits derived from the Irrigation of many more thousands of acrOs and the impertancO of water supply for existing irrigated farms are endless. For these and many other reasons we urge the approval of the IJnited StatES Senate for this project. Respectfully, HOw~.BD BARNES. SAMZS £ STONECIPIIER. EUGENE V. KI~iLLL CITT OF DAYTON, Dayton, Wash~., February 28,1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Interior Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAi~ SENATOR JTACKSON The City of Dayton gives its full support to the Day- ton Dam Project on the Touchet River. In four years the City of Dayton has experienced two floods, one being 1964-1965 and the recent one of 1968-1969 neither of which would have occurred had we had the dam. Each of these floods has caused thousands of dollars of damage to municipal property and property of the residents Of our city. Additionally, the dam would provide our City with an adequate water su~piy and the plan for the dam includes a certain amount of water storage for Dayton's municipal purposes. PAGENO="0024" 20 We urge~ your and your committee's favorable consideration of the Dayton Dam Projek Respectfully yours, PAUL G. NELSON, Mayor. Cirr or WAITSBURG, Tt~a4t~bury, Wash., Februa'ry 28, 1969. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Interior and Insular Affaitrs Committee, Wa~hington(, D.C. DEAR SIR: We are writing at this time to thank you for your continuing support of the Touchet Division of the Walla Walla Project and to let you know the City of Waitsbutg is solidly behind you in your effort to get the project under way. Our city is still cleaning up from the third flood in the last five years. The money that has beep provided by Federal, State and Local governments; by pri- vate land and home owners, for temporary measures to control this damage, would go a long way toward the cost of the flood control phase of the Tbuchet Division. We realize the dam itself will not avert all of the flood potential but will minimize the damages to be expected from any future floods: The frequency of these floods have had a very depressing effect on property values in this area. In some instances as much as 15 to 20 percent. We are aiso looking forward to the economic benefits to be derived from this project, particularly from the irrigation phase. We have large canneries at Waits- burg and at Dayton, 10 miles distant. At the present time these plants operate only about t9() days out of the year. With additional water for irrigation, it is hoped row crops will be developed that will double the operating time of the can- neries, thus providing a much better economy for the two cities. Also, with the wheat surplus and declining market, this would be quite a boost for a number of dry land wheat farms. We would also benefit considerably from the recreation and fisheries phase of the project, as well as better water quantity and quality. During the last two rather dry summers the flow of the Touchet in the late summer and fall has been very lOw, causing the water to become warm and stagnant almost to the point of posing a health problem. On the lower reaches of the Touchet the channel is nearly dry in the late summer, curtailing irrigation and making it very difficult for the downstream migration of young steelbead. We will b~ looking forward with great interest the results of the hearing before your committee. Slnce~ely, ALBERT LAND, Mayor. Pony or WALLA WALLA, Walla Walla, Wash., February 26,1969. lion. HENRYM. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D,C. DEAR SRNATOa JACKSON: I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the Commissio~~rs of the Walla Walla Port District In regard to the forthcoming Touchet River Project Hearings. We would like this letter introduced in the hearings of ~tyour ~Qmrnittee as showing complete support of this project by the Port Of Wallâ `%~Tálla. For many years this project has b~n studied thoroughl~r and the many benefits are obvious. However, we feel several l~eins are of ~pHme importance to this area and are essential to the growth of southeastern Washington. These are, of course, domestic water for the cities of Dayton and Walla WkEla; flood control to eliminate the. many millions of dollars of damage that has occured in past rears; and, of course, the additional irrigated land this project would offer. As an added bonus, there are the untold benefits of recreation that would come with the comI~let1on of this program. We respectfully and sincerely urge that all necessary steps be taken to bring about the aUthorization and construction ~f this project at the earliest possible date. S1ncer~ly, RICHARD M. WHITE, General Manager. PAGENO="0025" 21 COLUMBIA COUNTY, OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Dayton, Wash., February 28, 1969. Hon. SENATOR HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Sin: During the hearing On March 4 before the Senate subcommittee on water and power, Mr. Vernon Mar11 will appear to testify on the need for a dam on the Touchet river. Mr. Mar11 is a Director in the Touchet Valley Irrigation District and a County Commissioner of Columbia County. As a county government, we wish to express ourselves concerning the benefitS to be derived by the construction of the Touchet River Dam. The reservoir created could supply a controlled flow of water for irrigation of sonic 10,000 acres of land in Walla Walla and Columbia counties. Due to disastrous floods in December 1964, January 1965, then again in January 1969, we foresee good flood control by having a minimum of stored water in early December of each year. This would handle the excess flow. The well that supplements the city water supply coming from the Touchet river normally produces 850 gallons per minute. The dry year of 1968 reduced pro- duction to 625 gallons per minute. This well was deepened and yet the water level dropped 90 feet. The Green Giant Company requires 1% million gallons of water per day during their canning season. A great percentage of the volume needed is secured from the city water supply. The point we wish to make here is that impoundment of water behind a dam would create a subterranean action, thereby keeping the ground water level higher throughout the territory. The lake so formed would, also, benefit a large area as a recreational site. Very truly yours, ROY CADMAN, Chairman. HUGH JACKSON, Board of County Commissioners. WAITSBUEG COMMERCIAL CLUB. INC., Waitsburg, Wash., February 25,1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: The Waitsburg Commercial Club, representing busi- ness and civic interests of our farming community, is highly encouraged by the word that hearings have been scheduled for March 4 on the bill to authorize construction of the Touchet division of the Walla Walla project. This project is of vital interest and importance to our area. The flood control capacity of such a project would remove the threat of floods which have, with discouraging frequency, devastated the entire valley. From the point of irriga- tion we all visualize the growing of new row crops which will enable our local Green Giant Cannery to process new food items. Other benefits which would accrue with the realization of this project would be the development of recrea- tional facilities centering on the reservoir and the re-emergence of the Touchet- Walla Walla River system as a salmon-spawning ground. We are certain you will continue to work diligently on behalf of this legis- lation. Should there be any way we can assist, at any time, please let us know. Sincerely, IVAN K. KEvE, Secretary. COLUMBIA COUNTY SPORTSMEN'S AsSOcIATION, Dayton, Wash., February 27, 1969. Sen. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Interior and Ivsular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: The members of Columbia County Sportmen's As- sociation have, at numerous meetings, voted in full support of this Project. The Touchet River supported a natural migration and spawning cycle of Chinook salmon in the early 1900's, This was destroyed by excessive use of 26-935---~69----4 PAGENO="0026" 22 irrigation water which prevented the returning salmon to reach their spawning beds. One important phase of the T'ouchet Dam is to provide an adequate flow of water on a year-round basis. This not only will supply adequate irrigation water, but will make it possible to restore Chinook salmon into the Pouchet River. Re-establishment of this natural resource will benefit the commercial salmon industry as well as the recreational facilities and related businesses. The Totichet River has been subjected to devastating floods in three instances within the past four years. Damage to farm lands has been very substantial. Bulldozer work has been necessary to return the river to it's original channeL The river bed for many miles has been changed to a sluice with resulting loss of good stream texture necessary to supply food and protection to trout and anadromo~s steelhead. Another important phase of the Touchet Dam is to pro- vide flood control. This protection would provide a controlled stream flow at normal volume to prevent flooding. We urge your continued support of the Touchet Division of the Walla Walla project. G. C. ZIER, E~ecretary. KIWANIS CLUB, Dayton, Wash., February 28,1969. Hon. HENB~Y M. JACKSON, Interior ar&Z Insular Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SEITATOR JACKSON: The Dayton Kiwanis Club will appreciate any effort made by you to expedite an early approval of the Touchet Valley project. Continued delay will only result in extended loss in valuable land, homes, and property; and of course, the Irrigation Project. With kindest regards for your personal effort, we remain, Very truly yours, Col. WESLEY E. CALKINS, President. DAYTON LIONS CLUB, Dayton, Wash., Febrvary 28, 1969. Senator HEk~RY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.s. senate, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: We the members of the Dayton Lions Club, an active Service club in the town of Dayton, Columbia County, Washington, wish to avouch our full support towards the passing of the Dayton Dam Project on the Touchet River. It has become most evident that our local area needs this dam, not only as an agriculture improvement, but most imminently we wish to avow the need of this project to avert future floods of the nature and frequency we have had in the past foni years, most recently this past January 4-5-6, 1969. We would sincerely appreciate your help, consideration and Support as it pertains to the successful implementation of this project. Sincerely yours, KENNARD LITERAL, President. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Walla Walla, Wash., February 24, 1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior a%d Insular Affairs, U.t~. senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: We are gratified that the bill to authorize the Touchet River (Dayton) Project as proposed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has again been introduced in the Senate, and that similar action is being undertaken in the Houec of Representatives by Mrs. Catherine May. It is our desire that this letter be included in the hearing record of your Committee as evidence of the wholehearted and continuing support of the Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce. The people of. Touchet River Valley have actively sought this project for many years, as the appropriate means to control the repeated damaging floods and conserve the annual flood waters that now run unused into the ocean. The project will provide much needed irrigation water throughout the valley, bringing a firm Supply to lands now inadequately supplied as well as a substantial PAGENO="0027" 23 additional acreage; provide urgently needed security against floods at Dayton, Waitsburg, Prescott and Touchet as well as farm lands adjoining the river. The project will also insure an adequate municipal water supply to the city of Dayton; improve quality of the flowing waters the full length of the river; provide good water-based recreational opportunity, now absent in the locality; and assist in the re-establishment of the migratory fish now tributary to the Columbia River. There will be other benefits, both local and far reaching, in terms of resource development, employment and community growth. We are sure this project, the first in this area, will yield continuing benefits over the years and will mark the beginning of much needed water storage development in this section of South- eastern Washington. The recent floods experienced, as well as those of 1964-65 have again reinforced the obvious need for protection against repeated floods, which the project can provide, together with local channel works. The Agriculture and the Economic Development Committees in particular, as well as the Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce as a whole, have encouraged and supported this proposal actively since investigations were initiated in the 1950's. We offer our continued support in any way possible, and do respectfully urge that all necessary action be taken to authorize the Touchet River Project, looking to early construction of this worthy development. Sincerely yours, DAm GRAVES, President. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Dayton, Wash., February 26, 1969. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Comnvtttee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: First, permit us to extend our thanks to you for your perseverance and continued support of the Touchet Division of the Walla Walla Project for these many years. We of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce, speaking directly for the business community and indirectly for the entire citizenry, ask sincerely that the Touchet Division of the Walla Walla Project receive prompt and favorable action. The need is now . . . the need was never greater. Dayton and the Touchet Valley suffered heavily in 1964-OS from floods. Just four years later, not 20 years later as was the prediction, a Similar flood has raised havoc in the community and in the valley. The past year of 1968 saw semi-drought conditions strike the area. Crops asparagus, apples, wheat and green peas . . . were heavy hit. The City of Dayton and the city's prime industry, the Green Giant Company, felt the drought as water supplies became critical. These are just two reasons why the entire community would like to see this long-standing project reach culmination. With the favorable benefit-to-cost ratio declared for the Touchet Division and the many other related benefits, this project is highly justified. We again ask your personal support and the support of the sub-committee and the full committee in advancing this legislation to authorization and construction. Thank you forboth your time and your assistance. Sincerely, A. P. MONTGOMERY, Jr., President. C. A. SHARPE, Jr., Secretary. WAITSBTJRG, WASH., February 28, 1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Convm,ittee, U.S. Senate, Washing- ton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: My name is Glen Hofer, and I am a home and crop- land owner within the boundaries of the Touchet Valley Irrigation District in southeastern Washington. My property is located near the City of Waitsburg, and I wish to represent to your committee the popular support prevalent throughout the entire community for the water storage project proposed in S. 743. Our section of the Touchet Valley, already the site of a vegetable canning and freezing industry, would benefit substantially from the considerable expansion PAGENO="0028" 24 in row crop and fruit production that an adequate, consistent water supply would make possible, In addition, the flood control capacity of such a project would remove the threat of floods which have, with discouraging frequency, devastated the entire valley. Three floods since 1964 have been particularly destructive to my fields, completely washing away more than eight acres of irrigated bottom land bordeting the Touchet River, and depositing gravel bars and debris on sev- eral more acres making them non-productive. Developn~ient of recreational facilities centering on the reservoir created by such a project and the re-emergence of the Touchet-Walla Walla River system as a salmon-spawning ground are further benefits which would accrue with the realization of such a project. With such positive factors in mind, it is readily apparent that the impact of a Touchet Valley Dam would revitalize the economy of the entire area and help it stand firm against the trend toward centralization of industry and population in urban areas, My friends and neighbors join me in urging favorable consideration of .S. 743. Sincerely, GLEN Hornu. EASTSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRIOT No. 6, Touchet, IT~ash,, February 27, 1969. VERNON MARLL, Dayton, Wash. DEAR MR. MARLL: Will you please pass on to the Senate subcommittee our continued support of the Touchet River project. This project would give our water users the needed summer water supply that is essential to the full development of this area. It would also help solve our ditch maintenance problem of removing debris from the ditch washed in by flood waters. Sincerely yours, Louis E. RILEY, ~S'eoretary. CARL L. HARRIS, DUANE DODD, LARS DUNKIN, Directors. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness, and the last witness, is Mr. Gil- bert G. Stamm, the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Rec- lamation. Mr. Starnm, we are glad to welcome you and your associ- ates this year to the committee. STATEME1~T OP GILBERT G. STAMM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM CASEY, AS- SISTANT CHIEF, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHING- TON, D.C.; RUPERT SPEARMAN, AREA ENGINEER, SPOKANE, WASH.; AND WILLIAM WHITE, BUREAU OF SPORTS FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Mr. STAMM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, if I may, that Mr. Jim Casey and Rupert Spearman sit at the table with me. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. I wonder~ before you start your formal statement, if someone would go up to the map and just give a recapitulation of the project. I think this would be helpful. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; we will be happy to do that. The Touchet division map is already up, so we will start with that PAGENO="0029" one. The Touchet River flows across the northern part of that map, and then drops down into the Walla Walla River. At the present time, there is no control on the Touchet River. The ChAIRMAN. Please explain where the Walla Walia River goes. Mr. STAMM. The Walla Walla River flows into the Columbia. The small key map shows the relationship of the Walla Walla River, the Snake River just above it, and the Touchet River. Senator ALLOTT. The Snake would be north of this map * Mr. STAMM. Yes. The confluence of the Snake with the Columbia is upstream from the mouth of the Walla Walla River. The Touchet River comes into the Walla Walla, and then the two together flow into the Columbia downstream from the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The proposal is to construct Dayton Dam and Reservoir on the Touchet River about 4 miles above the town of Dayton, Wash. The CHAIRMAN. Those floods cover quite an area of the valley. Mr. STAMM. The reservoir capacity is only about 53,000 acre~feet. It would trap the inflow from several streams, the upstream tributaries, Robinson Creek, Wolf Creek, and the East Fork of the Touchet River. It would, in fact, trap virtually everything except the South Fork, which comes in between the dam and the town of Dayton. This dam would provide for regulation of the flows in Touchet River, would protect the city of Dayton, the communities downstream of Waitsburg and Prescott, and all of those lands which are in a com- paratively narrow band along the river, all the way to the town of Touchet. The town of Touchet is where the Touchet River meets the Waila Walla. The CHAIRMAN. Would you point out the area that would be irrigated? Mr. STAMM. The green lands on the map are lands that are presently irrigated, and will receive a supplemental water supply. The yellow lands are irrigabie lands within the division that will receive a full water supply. They will have a greater requirement for water per acre of land than will the green lands. The brown lands are irrigable lands which are not now included within the district, but which may well come in the comparatively near future. There has been considerable interest indicated by owners of those lands. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to discuss at this point, too, the salmon rehabilitation program, Mr. Stamm? Mr. STAMM. Yes, I will be happy to do that. It is all included in my statement, but I will be happy to do that, if you wish. The opportunity is here to restore the salmon runs in the Touchet River. At the moment, the only anadromous fish which can survive in the river are steelhead whose spawning habits are compatible with the natural flow patterns. The problem with salmon is due in part to the low flows as well as some water quality problems, both of which will be corrected. There will be outlets placed at several elevations in the dam, so that the temperature of the water can be regulated in the stream. The reser- voir will be operated to maintain adequate flows in the stream to pro- PAGENO="0030" 26 vide for the anadromous fish. There will be fish facilities, a ladder in- stalled at the diversion dam downstream, and facilities installed at the dam in order to collect the fish going upstream to carry them over the dam and into the reservoir above, so that they can get to the spawn- ing areas. There will also be collection facilities to get the fingerlings and carry them downstream. A substantial part of the cost is allocated to fish benefits because of the major benefits this project will have on the anadromous fish runs. Mr. Chairman, do you want to review the map of the Kennewick extension now, or do you want to proceed? *Senator ALLOTT (presiding). Why don't you go ahead with the Touchet fitst, and the Dayton Dam, and then take the other one? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. The departmental report on this bill has been hand carried to the committee this morning. We realize this is very late. The report has been made available to the committee without the benefit of approval by the Bureau of the Budget. This is certainly a policy that I know the committee frowns on, and we do, also, but the Department is considering a number of policies with regard to irrigation projects, and there just was not time in this case to clearly consider and clarify its many policies. Nevertheless, I feel sure that in this case, that this particular project is not involved in any major way in any policies under consideration and, therefore, the Department does recommend enactment of the bill. The Walla Walla project will encompass ultimately several divi- sions, which together will conserve and utilize the water resources of the entire Walla Walla River Basin, which straddles the boundary be- tween the States of Oregon and Washington. Today, however, we are concerned only with the Touchet division, which is entirely in the State of `Washington. It will put the waters of the Touchet River to beneficial use for irrigation, municipal and industrial water, fish and wildlife enhancement, recreation, and also will provide much needed flood `control. The Tbu~het River now has no reservoir regulation. Every year, in the pattern of all tributary streams, in the Pacific Northwest, it floods its valleys in the spring, and by late summer the flow is drastically diminished. Although some lands were irrigated a century ago, only 5,000 to 6,000 acres have been developed to date, and much of this land does not have a full water supply. Irrigatio~i from the river has been primarily by simple gravity diver- sion, but in recent years the acreage served by pumping has increased. Water rights on the river have been adjudicated and a complex sys- tem of priorities has been' established. It is proposed to build Dayton Dam and Reservoir on Touchet River about 4 miles upstream from Dayton, Wash. The dam would be a rolled earthfill structure about 200 feet high. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 52,600 acre-feet, of which 4,400 acre-feet is inactive capacity and will provide a minimum pool for fish; 33,200 acre-feet would be used for conservation storage, for irrigation, municipal water, and fish and wildlife purposes; and PAGENO="0031" 27 15,000 acre-feet for joint storage to be used seasonally for flood control and conservation. Reservoir right-of-way required for all project purposes totals 1,473 acres, all now in private ownership. Of this total, two 20-acre tracts would be acquired specifically for recreation use. Water would be released from Dayton Reservoir into the Touchet River channel, from which it would be diverted by the irrigators and the city of Dayton through their own facilities. Irrigation water would be served initially to some 9,960 acres of land, 3,520 acres requiring a full water supply and 6,440 acres requiring supplemental water. These lands are located in a narrow band along the Touchet River. About 2,000 acres are in two established irrigation districts down- stream, near the confluence of the Walla Walla River, and the re- mainder is in the newly formed Touchet Valley Irrigation District. The lands are admirably suited to sprinkler irrigation, being about 61 percent class I. Ownerships are generally in small tracts, and no dif- ficulty is anticipated in complying with the excess land provisions of reclamation law. The dry land proposed to be irrigated is now used mainly for for- age crops. Under project conditions row crops would become impor- tant, dry farm wheat acreage would be replaced by other crops, and the acreage of specialty crops mainly vegetables for canning and freez- ing, would increase. rfl~e production of livestock also would increase. Dayton Reservoir would support a substantial resident sport fishery and provide waterfowl and wildlife habitat. Water would be released from the reservoir as needed to maintain anadromous fish runs in Touchet River. Facilities for fish enhance- ment would consist of a trap below the dam, a hopper and tramway to carry upstream migrants over the dam, multilevel outlets in the dam for temperature control, and a fish collector system for down- stream migrants. Recreation facilities would include boat ramps and docks, sanitary facilities, access roads and parking areas, and overnight camp units. The reservoir and wildlife areas would be fenced to protect wildlife cover from livestock trespass and to aid in regulating hunter use. The city of Dayton, Wash., has indicated its interest in participat- ing in the project by purchasing 1,000 acre-feet of water annually from Dayton Reservoir. The estimated use for this purpose is 500 acre-feet for the first 10 years, and the full 1,000 acre-feet thereafter. Flood control is an important purpose of the Touchet Division. The reservoir operation plan is based on runoff forecast and joint use of a portion of the storage space for flood control and conservation on a seasonal basis. A hydrometeorological network of snow courses, gages, and fore- casting equipment would be operated in conjunction with the division. Unpredictable rain floods having high peak and low volume runoff frequently occur in the basin. These could generally be controlled in Dayton Reservoir. The December 1964 and January 1965 floods in the Touchet River PAGENO="0032" 28 Basin were especially destructive, and the floods of this past January 1969, inflicted additional widespread damages. The estimated peak flow at the Dayton damsite in January 1965 was approximately 31/2 times the previous record. Many homes, ir- rigation ~tnd municipal water diversion facilities, highways and bridges, and a section of the Northern Pacific Railroad were exten- sively damaged in the narrow river valley. Silt and debris deposition in urban and rural areas was widespread. The entire river basin was declared an emergency flood disaster area. Damages of $1,290,000 would have been prevented had Dayton Res- ervoir been in operation during those floods. In recognition of this new hydrologic data and in conformance with modern engineering practice we have redesigned the spillway at the dam at some increase in estimated cost. Dayton Reservoir would be a popular recreation attraction, as it would be in the oniy sizable lake in the general area. The National Park Service prepared a recreation plan for the reservoir including facilities for boating, swimming. water skiing, camping, picnicking, and huntit~g. Dayton Reservoir is designed to the maximum economic capacity of the site and will provide the practical limit of control of the water resource. The average annual water yield through storage regulation will exceed the initial water requirements by about 23,700 acre-feet annually. Potential irrigable land in the valley however far exceed the area which could be irrigated with that amount of water and there are indications that the deferred yield will be subscribed shortly. Future i~ieeds of the city of Dayton and other municipalities may also require some of this water. Based upon its experience working with the provisions of the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961, the Depart- ment of the Interior has considered possible changes in the role of water quality in the evaluation of Federal projects. The Department has proposed to the Water Resources Council and the Bureau of the Budget a revised analytical procedure and cost- sharing arrangement. While our recommendation has not been adopted for general use within the qxecutive branch its precepts have been reflected in our anal- yses of the Touchet Division. We submit that an adequate quantity alone of water may not be suf- ficient to produce benefits to irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife, or recreation unless the water is also of suit- able quality. It therefore follows that measures to provide suitable quality for one or more of these purposes creates benefits for that purpose. Accordingly, we would ascribe all benefits to the purpose requiring quality enhancement and seldom would it be necessary and economic to ascribe benefits to water quality as such. Costs would be allocated in the customary manner, and there being no benefits ascribed to water quality there would not be any cost so allocated. Since there are well established statutory principles for all PAGENO="0033" 2L9 water resource uses in which qualityis a parameter our polièy assuffies that existing provisions of law and policy would govern reimburse- ment. During the vegetable processing season from May to September of each year, cannery wastes escaping to the Touchet Rwer cause a rechic- tion of dissolved oxygen in the stream that is critical on anadromous fish passage and spawning. The irrigation releases from Dayton Dam would be sufficient in quality and quantity to correct this seasonal situation and thereby result in an improved fish environment leading to fish and wildlife enhancement benefits. This being the only economic detriment of adverse water quality in the Touchet River ~n the preproject condition, the benefits should be expressed as fish and wildlife enhancement benefits. The net ef1~ect on the Toucliet River division is t~ eliminate the previously claimed water quality benefits, to reduce the benefit-cost ratio, and to shift the cost previously allocated to water quality to the other purposes. Senator ALLOTT. Could I ask you a question there, Mr. Stamm? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. Do I understand the situation to be that these peo- ple are now dumping cannery wastes into the river? Mr. STAMM. They have been; yes, sir, Senator ALLOTT. I don't mean right now at this minute, but during the canning season? Mr. SPAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTr. Well, Mr. Mar11 is shaking his head the other way. What about that, Mr. Mar11? `Mr. MARLL. Mr. Chairman, I have very close contact with the Dayton sewage disposal plant; in fact, my brother operates the city ~e~vage disposal plant, and it has won the highest recommendations of the State of Washmgton in sewage disposal. I think you will find that there has been a lot of work done on this very matter of water pollution. I don't like to cause any dissension, I am very close to each one of you fellows and with the Bureau of Reclamation, but I do lwow that they are working very hard on this matter, and we have studied this very much. (Subsequent to the `hearing, the following additional information was i'eceived:) PATTON, WAsh., March 4, L969. Mr. Vmiwo~ MAIiLL, Dayton, Wask. Dis~n VuliNoN: Regard to your telephone call concerning the waste water at our Dayton and Waltsburg Plants. The plant waste passes `over a link `belt shaker which is equipped with a fine screen, at least 30 mesh per square inch, which separates the Solids frQnl the liquid. The solids are then transported to a disposal area for storage thou can be used for livestock feed or if not used for feed the waste is put Into a, pit which is covered with soil at the end of the processing season. `The liquid waste is disposed of by pumping to a field located outside the City Limits where it is used for Irrigation. The water IS applied to the soil by an over- head sprinkler system PAGENO="0034" 30 It by ch~nee, our pumping system Should fail, the waste water Is disposed of by going through the City sewer system, this would be for only a very short period of time. This waste disposal system was put into operation at our Dayton plant many years ago with the aid and assistance of personnel from the State Pollution Oontro1 Copirnission. This has been an excellent means of waste disposal, we have had no problems with contamination of local streams in our area, and also no loss of plant produc- tion. R. R. Rxcrrma, PIa'at Superintona~ent. WATRE POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISsION, spokane, Wash., March 7, 1969. Mr. VERNO~T MAIiLL, Chairman,, ToRchet Valley Irrigation District, Dayton, Wash. DEAR MR~ MARLL: The following comments are offered as a status report on Water quality conditions in the Dayton-Waits.burg area with particular regard to the industrial waste situation. We have also taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of our recent letter to the Spokane office of the Bureau of Reclamation in which we have briefly outlined the industrial waste sections of the Washington Water Pol- lution Control Law. The two industries of primary concern to water quality conditions are the Green Giant Company vegetable processing plants in Dayton and in Waitsburg. The Daytonplant utilizes a maximum of 2,500,000 gallons of water per day, when operating, and. process asparagus and peas. Normally, their season runs from the middle of April through the middle of July. The Waitsburg plant utilizes a maxi- mum of 2,5~O,000 gallons of water per day and processes aspar&gus, peas, lima beans and cauliflower. Their season usually runs from June through the middle of October with limit beans and cauliflower being the later product. We might also point out that lima beans and cauliflower are somewhat minor compared to the asparagus and pea runs and, therefore, use considerably less water. For several years now, both of these plants have disposed of theIr waste water by sprinkler irrigation. This method of disposal is now gaining wide acceptance and has proven to be quite adequate throughout Eastern Washington. Briefly, the sprinkler operation consists of applying the waste water to agricultural land where seepage and evaporation consume the water. Application rates are con- trolled so that runoff to nearby water courses does not occur. These same a~pplica. tion rates control seepage and we have not been able to detoct any interference with undergl,ound waters as a result of this type of waste water disposaL We necessarily ~hould point out that the operations in Dayton and Waitsburg have an excellent record of operation and we are not aware of any problems connected with these facilities. Prior to the installation of the sprinkler facilities, water quality problems did exist in this area. We now believe that these problems have been corrected and adequate facilities are now being utilized to control and prevent such recurrences. Both the towns of Dayton and Waitsburg have adequate domestic sewerage systems and provide secondary treatment prior to discharging to the Touchet River drainage system. This is an adequate degree of treatment, and we do not anticipate the necessity of requiring further treatment or changes to the existing system to enhance water quality conditions in the receiving streams. The above'mentioued entitles are the primary potential sources for water pollution problems in tbe Touchet River valley. As pointed out, they all ade- qitately control their wastes and the primary water quality problem in the river at this time is siltation from erosion and flooding. This would seem to be the extent of oi~r comments at this time however we would be most happy to discuss any of these situations in further detail should you so desire. Yours very truly, JAMES P. BEHLKE, Director, THOMAS G. HAOGARTY, Regional Engineer. PAGENO="0035" 31 Senator ALwrr. What I am really trying to find out is if the water enhancement is going to depend entirely upon the additional amounts of water dumped in the river ~ Mr. SmMM. Well, I mention this in particular, Mr. Chairman, be- cause initially, the feasibility report for this project did recognize some water quality benefits, and some costs allocated to it. We found on more careful analysis, that the need to improve water quality normally serves some other purpose than just water quality itself. Either water is not suitable for irrigation, or it is not suitable for municipal purposes, or it is not suitable for fish. Therefore, if you need to improve quality, the cost of improving that quality and the benefit should go to the end use, rather than to quality as of itself. I was talking about the cannery, not th~ sewage disposal plant- Senator ALLoTT. That is what I was asking about. Mr. STAMM. The cannery, during the canning season discharges some partially treated wastes in the river which reduce the quality to a point that the quality is adverse to anadromous fish. Now because of the emphasis on water quality control, there will be, in all future installations, very rigid control of the quality of the effluent from any expansion of the plants. Also there has been a concerted effort to improve the treatment at the existing facilities, so that the effluent from any existing facilities also will be cleaned up. The primary purpose of my explanation was to explain why, in the feasibility report, which was printed, we had costs allocated to water quality, and now we do not. Even if the quality deterioration, based on past practice from the cannery, continued to prevail during the season when the effluent goes into the river, water releases for irrigation will be sufficient to dilute it, so that it would be satisfactory for the anadromous fish runs. Senator ALLorr. Well, this still does not get at the basic question I am concerned with. In the South Platte in Colorado, canneries, sugar beet factories, have had to go to some considerable expense to get away from. dump- ing their wastes into the river. I think this is the first approach, rather than just getting more flow. The point is to clean up the water and make is acceptable. Mr. STAMM. We agree with you. Senator ALLOTT. As a matter of fact, the pressure from the Federal Government as well as the State Government upon these various facil- ities has been so great that they have had to do considerable extra work the last few years. Mr. STAMM. We agree with you completely. The estimated cost of constructing the Touchet division is $22,774,- 000 at January 1969 prices The language in section 6 of S 748 should be amended to provide for the appropriation of that amount. The effect of the current costs, benefits, and policy decisions discussed above compared with the feasibility reports is demonstrated in the tabula- tion attached to this statement. The ChAIRMAN. I think it would be well to put the tabulation at this point in the record and follow with your explanation of the figures (The data referred to follows:) PAGENO="0036" 32 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, TOUCHET DIVISION Feasibility Current analy- report (April sis (January 1962 cQsts) 1969 costs) Construction cost allocation: Irrigation $5, 347,000 $9, 0141000 Flood control 738, 000 1, 004,000 Municipal and industrial 114, 000 150, 000 Fish and wildlife enhancement 7,972,000 12,261,000 Recreation 187,000 195,000 Water quality control 1,351,000 0 Highway improvemeqt - 0 150,000 15709,000 22,774,000 Annual equivalent costs: Construction costs 528,600 818,600 Operation and maintenance 72,300 - 78,700 Total 600,900 897,300 Annual equivalent beCefits: Irrigation 806,500 816, 500 Flood control 42,200 49, 500 Municipal and industrial 11,400 11,400 Fish and wildlife 657, 000 656,900 Recreation - 19,400 19,400 Water quality control 135, 200 0 Adjustment -7,800 -7,800 Total 1,663,900 1,545,9 Benefit-cost ratios: Total. benefits.~. 12.77:1 21.72 Direct benefits only `2.34:1 2 1. 47 Mr. STAMM. In accordance with reclamation law, the costs allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable without interest. The water users in the initial development would pay a total of $1,~14,500 in 50 years or about 28 percent of the cost allocated to the initial development of the irrigati~n. This amount of repayment is based on three levels of charges; $5.40 per acre for those lands having no present irrigation supply; $3~80 per acre for those having a partial but seriously de- ficient supply and $1 per acre for those having a reasonably good supply with ~hortages only in mid and late season. A development period of 10 years is recommended for the lands which have no ` ~ for L~~ew1 ~1 1 Reimbursement: rrigatmn allocation Deferred capacity Initial irrigation -- - By water risers ... Net M. & I. revenues Federal Colqmbia River revenues Municipal and industrial allocation By M. & I. water users Fish and wildlife allocation - Federal shire Non-Federgl share Recreation alloclation - ___________ Federal share 109, 000 Non-Federal share 78, 000 1100 years, 3 percent 51 percent, 212 percent. 37 jeiceat. 2 100 years, 3~4 percent. 4 28 percent. 6 percent. `66 pwcent $5,347,000 $9,014,000 2,813,000 4,741,000 2,534,000 4,273,000 ° 1,298, 500 1,214, 500 300, 000 226, 000 7935,500 82,832,500 114,000 150,000 114,000 150,000 7,972,000 12, 261, 000 7,340,000 11, 309, 000 632. 000 952,000 187,000 195,000 99, 000 96,000 edera ower rn~. ~ipai a industrial water. PAGENO="0037" 33 The allocated costs for deferred use reservoir storage capacity amount to $4,741,000 all of which is tentatively allocated to irrigation. If the deferred use storage capacity is not contracted for within the repayment period, that cost would be repaid from power revenues. Costs allocated to municipal aud industrial water supply would be repaid with interest as provided by the Water Supply Act of 1958. The muub~ipal and industrial water rate is expected to be $10 per acre-foot plus annual operation and maiutenance costs. The city of Dayton will divert directly from the river, using its own facilities. This division contemplates establishing new populations of salmon in the Touchet River, where steelhead are now the only anadromous species which can survive. To this end the plan includes year around releases of water from the reservoir specifically to maintain an adequate flow of water of suitable temperature from the proposed dam to the mouth of the river, mechan- ical means of permitting adult salmon to pass the dam on their way to upstream spawning areas, and specially designed outlet facilities to permit young fry to swim safely past the dam on their way to the sea. These releases would also maintain the quality of water in Toucliet River during the nonirrigation season. The costs associated with con- servation and enhancement of anadromous fish total $9,082,000, of which $6,243,000 is associated with separable facilities and $2,839,000 with joint facilities. Total costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement total $12,261,- 000. We find that $11,309,000 would be nonreimbursable and the re- mainder of the allocation, $952,00& plus $~2,000 interest during con- struction, would be reimbursable with interest. Costs allocated to recreation total $195,000 of which $96,000 plus $7,000 interest during construction would be reimbursable with interest. The Port of Columbia County has informed us that it is willing to assume the responsibility of administering and cost sharing the land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at the Dayton Dam and Reservoir in conformance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Since the feasibility report was completed, the State of Washington has upgraded its highway design standards. The road which must be relocated around Dayton Reservoir therefore will be to a higher standard than the existing road, and the incremental cost of that improvement, estimated at $150,000 would be nonreimbursable under provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1962. The Touchet division is a thoroughly justified and feasible multiple purpose reclamation development. Its economic justification is dem- onstrated by the favorable total benefit-cost ratio of 1.72 to 1. The direct benefit-cost ratio would be 1.47 to 1. The potential water users are completely in accord with the plan of development and are prepared to contract for water service. I recommend that the committee act favorably on S. 743 with the amendment that has been proposed. Now as I mentioned in the statement, there is attached a tabulation which gives the detail on the economic and financial analysis for the project. Senator Buiuicx (presiding). Mr. Stamm, you say that the water user's cost would be, on page 7, $1,214,000, initial development. Are the PAGENO="0038" 34 costs for water users under this bill in your projection the same as it wasinl965? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; this is based on ability to pay analyses, and the water user reimbursable cost remains the same. Senator Btrmuc,K. Well now this project has increased from $16,~30,00O, as of 1965 prices, and now is over $22 million. Mr. SmMM. Yes, sir. Senator BU1WIOK. But "cost to water users," you mean is the same now, as thEs rest of the costs incurred? Mr. ~ The additional reithhursable cost would be charged to the basin account, and would be repaid from power revenues. Senator BuiwioK. In other words, the project today has more non- reimbursables in it than the project in 1965. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator BuunIcK. What percentage of the total project is nonre- imbursable? Mr. STAMM. It appears that- Senator tBtrrnxtc~. Would you say that 60 percent nonreimbursable would be about right? Mr. STA~M. Well, because of the large allocation to anadromous fish and wildlife benefits, the percentage of nonreimbursable costs is quite high. Of the total cost, f~r example, the nonreimbursable cost to fish and wildlife alone is $11,309,000 and to recreation is $99,000 so that ov~r $11 million of the $22 million is nonreimbursable to those two functions. It is more than 50 percent nonreimbursable. Senator BtnrnlcK. I said 60 percent. Mr. Smi~M. That is probably getting pretty close. Senator ALLcvrr. The relationship of $12,261,000 to $22,774,000, is itnot? Mr. STAM~I.. Sir? Senator ALL0TT. Isn't the relationship of $12,261,000 to $22,774,000? Which comes pretty close to SenatOr Burdick's statement? Mr. CASi*. The nonreimbursable construction cost is slightly less than 50 percent nonreimbursable. Senator BtmtDIoK. Less than 50 percent? Your fish ~nd wildlife is 50 percent. It is over 50 percent. Well, at least before the record is closed, will you supply the per- centage of it which is nonreimbursabie? Mr. STAMM. We surely will. We have all the figures here. We just don't have them added up properly. I am surprised we don't have them at our fingertips, but we certainly will put into the record the total percentage of this which is reimbursable and nonreimbursable. (The data k'eferred to follows:) REIMBURSABLE AND NONREIMBURSABLE COSTS OF THE TOUCHET DIVISION, WALLA WALLA PROJECT Non. Function Reimbursable reimbursable Total Irrigation (initial) $4, 273, 000 Irrigation (deterred) 4, 741, 000 Munic~paI and industrial 150, 000 Flood control 0 Fish and wildlif ~... 952,000 Recreation 96, 000 Highway improvement 0 - 0 0 0 $1, 004, 000 11,309,000 99. 000 150, 000 $4, 273, 000 4, 741,000 150, 000 1, 004, 000 12,261,000 195, 000 150. 000 Total 10,212, 000 12, 562, 000 22, 774, 000 Per entages 45 55 100 PAGENO="0039" 35 Senator ALLOTT. We are at somewhat of a disadvantage too, be- cause the figures that we had to go on were only roughly the same figures that you have presented to us this morning. Mr. STAMM. I realize that, and I can give you a breakdo~wn of the increases. The total project cost estimate at the last hearing before this committee was $18,230,000. There have been increases since then. One million five hundred and ten thousand of the increase is due to indexing up construction costs from 1967 to 1969; $158,000 of it is due to increases in the estimated cost of right-of-way acquisition; all of the right of way is in private ownership today, and all must be acquired. One million six hundred and forty thousand is due to the modif1ea~ tion of the spillway, at the dam, to provide the capacity necessary to pass the maximum probable flood, based on our latest hydrological data. Other cost increases relate to adjustments in contingency items, pay increases, administrative items, and .a variety of lesser matters. We find on many projects the construction costs continue to go up year by year, and right-of-way costs have skyrocketed in many areas. These are things we can't avoid. Senator BuitnIcK (presiding). Do you have many projects that have this high a ratio of nonreimbursable costs? Mr. STAMM. Not very many. This is due to the anadromous fish aspect. A very large part of the nonreimbursable cost is due to ana- dromous fish. Senator BURDICK. Any questions from the members of the committee? Senator Ara4orr. Yes, I have quite a few. You have a storage reservoir of approximately 53,000 acre-feet? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator AI1LoTT. I believe the 1,473 acres is the maximum area that this would cover, which is a little over 2 sections of land. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. What is the discharge of the Touchet River at the point it goes into the Walla Walla, the annual discharge? Mr. STAMM. This is quite erratic. I would like for Mr. Spearman to answer that. Mr. SPEARMAN. We have had peaks, and they were speaking of these floods here earlier. The 1964 flood wa's 9,300 cubic feet per second, and the January 1965 flood was 7,000 `cubic feet per second, and this year's flood was 6,300 cubic feet per second. These were the peak discharges during those floods. Now I might add that this December 1964 flood, the high one, was about three and a half times the maximum record up to that date, which set a new record in flood. All three of these floods have ex- ceeded the previous flood of record. The flow gets down, in the summertime, practically dries up, or does dry up in some sections, because of diversions from the river. Senator ALLOTT. Well it i's n'ot necessary for my question. I will ask it another way What is the discharge of the various tributaries on the Touchet River at the site `of the dam, or at Dayton? Mr. SPE~RMAN. These records I was giving you were at the site of the dam. Senator ALLOTT. Now again what is the annual total discharge of the river in acre-feet? PAGENO="0040" Mr. SPEARMAN. The average annual runoff there is 89,770 acre- feet. Senator ALLo~rr. How much of that is consumed in direct irriga- tion today? Mr. ST~MM, During the irrigation season virtually all of it. The stream is ~adjudicated, and the water is diverted by present irriga- tors Those with the poorer rights are without water in the middle of the latter part of the irrigation season, so virtually all of the flow is taken from the river during the irrigation season. Senator Ai.r~o~vr. All right, you have 6,000 irrigated acres at the ~pr~sent time, someone said. Mr. :SPE4RMAN. Probably between 10 and 15,000 acre-feet might be the consumptive use. We don't have exact diversion records, but it is a rather small amount because so much of the annual flow comes off in these floods, and. goes tO waste. Senator Au4orr. Well let's keep . on with this thought. You have 6,000 acrestof irrigated land. What is the annual application in acre- feet per acre? Mr. SPEARMAN. Under our project it would be three and a half acre-feet. Senator ALLOTT. What is it now? Mr. SPEARMAN. Up to whatever they can get in their system. I think their rights probably are based on approximately 31/2 to 5 acre- feet duty. There are some lands in the valley that do get a full water supply, that are not included in the project. Senator ALLorr. Well, what is the full water supply, per acre? Mr. SPEARMAN. Per acre, three and a half acre-feet. Senator ALLOTT. Three and a half acre-feet not 5. Mr. SPEARMAN. Five acre-feet would be our diversion requirement for the farm delivery of three and a half acre-feet. Mr. SPAMM. It would be three .and a half acre-feet at the farmer's headgate. Senator ALLom All right. Apparently you only have 89,000 acre- feet discharge at Dayton in a year. You have a reservoir that will hold 53,000 acre-feet. You have an annual use at the present time of ~1,000 feet. Mr. SPEARMAN. May I add, Senator, that we would not control the South Fork With this dam, and there is quite a runoff through it. I gave you the runoff of the whole system, and not just the North Fork. So we would develop all of the waters that can be developed on the North Fork with this reservoir. Senator ALr~oTT. Well, I am trying to get at this simple point. You have 4,400 acre-feet of inactive capacity, which is a mere puddle, and I can't see where you get the huge recreation value that is `ascribed to this out of a puddle of 4,400 acre feet of water Mr. STAMM. Of the total cost of the reservoir, the recreation is compar'Ltively small It is in the range of at as I recall.' The reservoir, of course, would be operated in order for servation pool to be full at the beginning of `the in' which' is also generally the beginning of the recreation reservoir level would be pulled down during the irrigation PAGENO="0041" `37 of course, and it might well be at the end of the recreation season, which would correspond pretty much with the end of the irrigation season, that there would be mud flats around the reservoir and there would be some complaints among the recreationists, because of the small size of the pool. Senator Au~orr. Would the `anadromous fish go through `the pool and on up the rivers to spawn? `Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; spawning areas would be upstream from the reservoir. Senator ALLorr. Some 40,000 fish a year was mentioned here. I presume that it is just a guesstimate, but you are `spending $12 million to develop a theoretical fishrun which does not exist. Mr. STAMM. We have in the room, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bill White from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. These figures and these estimates of fish benefits are all provided by that Bureau, as you know. With your permission, perhaps he should come to the table and answer your questions. Senator ALLo~r'r. Certainly. Mr. WHITE. Senator Allott, we studied this very carefully with bi- ologists of Washington State. Based on historical knowledge of the runs which had been there, before they were destroyed years ago and based on the availability of spawning area, in the main stream, and the tributaries above the dam, it is the consensus of the fishery experts concerned that the project will produce 40,000 anadromous fish a year, coho and Chinook salmon. It is their further consensus, on the basis of present catches in relation to the production in the Columbia River system, that about 30,000 of these fish will be caught each year by commercial and sport fisheries. We believe it is more than a guess, Senator. Senator ALLOTT. You don't get anything out of the commercial fish- ermen for the fish. We are putting up $12 million here to provide the fish. Mr. WHITE. That is right, sir. It would be impossible to distinguish these fish from other fish in the Columbia River system, and we esti- mate that about 75 percent of the fish would be caught in the open ocean. They would be caught by residents of California, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as by residents of Washington. They would also be caught to some extent by C'anadians, so it would be rather hard to assess a commercial fisherman for these particular fish. Senator ALLOTT. Well, it would be nice if we could get the Govern- ment to supply the raw products for other industries in this country free, such as we are doing for the commercial fishermen here. Do you know of any other instance where this is done? Mr. WHITE. There is a somewhat comparable situation with respect to migratory waterfowl, which may be produced in one State, but taken in a number of other States. The Federal Government does finance the cost of waterfowl enhancement in this same way. Senator ALLOTT. Is anyone shooting waterfowl commercially in this country, that you know of? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; but as far as recreational use is concerned, the situation is quite comparable to the recreational use of anadromous fish. PAGENO="0042" 38 Senator AuAorr. Well it is hard for me to divide these fish into $12 million and see where you get the value. I see you have a contract, Mr. Stamm, with the city of Dayton. I want to go~ to that statement here. As I Understand it, first, to get back along the line of questions, the crop year is May to September. Mr. STAMM. Approximately. Maybe a little longer than that. Senator ALLOTT. Well, roughly. Mr. STAMM. Yes. Senator ALLOTT. That area. Now at the present time, at the present moment, when does the water supply in the river go down to the place where there is not a sufficient supply in the river to fulfill the normal demands on the river? Mr. STA±~tM. I would assume that in many years as early as June there is instifficient water in the river to meet all of the irrigation re- quirements~ As I mentioned, the stream has been adjudicated, and some rights hold up longer than others, but those with the poorest rights would very likely in some years be out of water in June, but usually in July. Senator ALLOTT. So you essentially have a flood river here, in which the main supply of the river is diminished or depleted by the first of June, then. Mr. STAMM. Yes, those with poorer water rights would be out of water. Those with better water rights would have rights that would hold up thrcaighout June, and into July, and some years, into August. You are exaôtly right, in that~ it is a river that floods in the flood season, and the flow diminishes in the summer, and the flow does not hold up long enough to meet the needs for irrigation. Senator AILo~rr. Well, what, for example, would be the discharge at Dayton in an average month of July? Mr. STAMM. To meet irrigation requirements? Senator Aii4orr. To meet irrigation requirements. That is all there is below Dayton? Mr. STAMM. Well, the flow necessary for irrigation requirements would also meet all other requirements in July. Mr. Spearman, what is your proposed discharge in July? Mr. SPEAR~EAN. The minimum annual of record at the dam site was 151/2 cubic feet per second. Mr. STAMM. Does the question assume discharges with the dam? Senator ALLOTT. No, without the dam. Mr. SPEARMAN. This was without the dam. Senator ALLOTT. So you get down to a minimum of 15~ per second at the dam. Mr. SPEARMAN. And at points bel irrigation div~ersions, why it goes to 1 Senator ALto~ru. So you have a U serve 6,000 acres, 6,000 irrigated a priority in various grades and dates of ~ Is that right? Mr. STAM~i. Yes, sir; in minimum years. Mr. SPEARMAN. That is right, sir. Senator ALLOTT. Now referring to page 7 of your statement, you have a charge of $5.40 per acre for lands having no present PAGENO="0043" (3;91 tion supply, $3.80 per acre for those having a partially but seriously deficient supply. Upon what basis can you distinguish or justify a difference in the charge for irrigation water as a supplementary supply and as primary supply, a new supply? Mr. STAMM. Well, in average years the land with no water supply would require about 31/2 acre-feet per year delivered, and those in the second category would require perhaps not more than 2 acre-feet, and those with a nearly adequate supply would need to be supple- mented perhaps by only a half acre-foot per year. So these rates recognize the differences in the requirements of the user for water on a quantity basis. Senator ALLOTT. And the man who has a reasonably good supply gets up to the amount that is needed by him for $1 an acre-foot. Mr. STAMM. Yes, $1 an acre. He has very little dependence on the project. He only needs a little supplemental water in the fall. Senator ALLOTT. Why should he pay less than the man in either of the other two categories you classified here? I have been in irrigation all my life, and I can't see the justifica- tion for selling water to a man who has a relatively senior priority, no matter what system it is based on in Washington-and I am not sure what the law is there-but I can't see any sense or any justifi- cation for making this discrimination between the man who has a good supply, a man who has a moderately good supply, and a man who is getting a totally new supply. Mr. STAMM. Well, this, Mr. Chairman, has been done in many cases in the West. There are cases where a man with almost a fully adequate supply would perhaps be unwilling to paith~ipate in the project, if he were going to have to pay the same rate per acre for water as the man that had no water right whatsoever. In water service contracts, of which the Bureau has many, the water is marketed on the basis of an acre-foot charge. In many other areas it is marketed on a per acre basis. The older lands and the folks that were there and had established preproject natural flow rights are given recognition of their water right in establishing the rates per acre. This prevails in many, many projects in the West. Senator ALLo~r. Where? Mr. STAM1~. Well, the Kennewick, to which we will direct our atten- tion soon, is in this situation. The Kennewick highlands existed before the Federal project was ever authorized, and their rate of payment is different from the lands that came in under the 1948 Kennewick sense generous, I think, with our ii s They do not pay interest, and we perhaps never would have de- veloped the West if we had had reclamation on any other basis. But why do you sell this water upon the basis of per acre, rather than an acre-foot? PAGENO="0044" 40 It takes ~½ acre-feet, it has been testified here, to grow a crop on. this land. So a man who has no present water supply and who develops some of that land colored in yellow on the map-it takes 3½ acre-feet- and you charge him only $5.40 an acre, he is going to irrigate his land for $1.60 per acre-foot. I don't think you can show me anywhere where any reclamation project has given a man water at that cost. Mr. STAMM. Well, I realize that in this case we are providing stream regulation only. We are not providing his diversion facilities, nor his distribution system. This is the cost for release of water at the dam. In most reclamation projects, as you know, we provide the diversion facilities, the canals and laterals, the drainage system, all as part of the Federal cost, and all also part of the water users' obligation to repay. In this case, he bears these costs, completely independent of the Touchet division costs. This is only water released in the river. If you look at the storage cost alone on our other projects, you would find the cost per acre-foot of water released at the dam is substantially less than the cost delivered to the farmers' headgate. We have computed the average cost of water on the land for the farmers to be about $1~ per acre. (The following data on the average cost of irrigation for a farmer on the Touchet Irrigation District under project operation was fur- nished after the hearing:) DoUars~ per acre Proposed annual water charge; for full service land 5.40 Power for pumping and sprinkler pressure 7. 90 Interest and equity on investment in irrigation facilities 1. 65 Repairs . 33 Depreciation 1. 5~ Operating Interest . 24 Total 17. 0 Senator Au~orr. Well, there are a lot of reclamation projects we have had here before us, in which people did provide their own diver- sions, in which they provided their own lateral systems, and I can. never recall in the 12 years I have served on this committee, any such abstird-and I do think it is absurd-cost for irrigation water. For example with respect to the construction of Frying Pan, which as a reclamation project, back as far as 1948, which is 21 years ago,. the farmers committed themselves to the payment of $5 per acre-foot for supplemental water. Mr. STAMM. I would be happy to review, if you wish the rates of charge that have been suggested or put into practice in similar situa- tions in the past 10 years. I can't tell you offhand how many there may be, but these tharges are based on an analysis of water user repayment capacity. We use a standard procedure throughout the West on all projects, and have for sometime, and so the results come up with a water user repayment capacity, based on standard analyses. We have not altered those procedures in connection with this project or any other specific project. Senator ALLorr. Now on the M. & I. the city of Dayton has diversion facilities in the river? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0045" 41 Senator ALLorr. And they buy it at $10 per acre-foot? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLorr. Can you show me any other place where M. & I. `water is purchased at $10 per acre-foot? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. Where? Mr. STAMM. What is the Fryingpan rate, Mr. Ca~ey? Mr. CAsi~v. It is the same as the irrigation rate, $5.60, plus delivery cost. Senator ALLOTr. What? Mr. th.SEY. It is the same as the irrigation rate. Senator ALLOTT. What is the same? Mr. CASEY. The muthcipal and industrial rate. At the lake or at the river, as the case may be. Aquedurt delivery and conveyance costs, of course, are in addition to that. The ~holesa1e raThe at the lake. Senator ALL0m The Fryin.gpan has an ad valorem tax in addition to the water charge, however. Now we have had several of these bills before us, in the last 3 years, in which the M. & I. water runs as high as $30 and $35. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; there have been some, but on the Colorado River project, out of Navajo, for example, the rate $7 an acre-foot for municipal and `industrial water. Out of Yellowtail Re~servoir in Wyoming the municipal and indus~ trial rate is $11 above the dam and $9 below the powerplant. Some of the older contracts in California have municipal and indus- trial rates of $9 to $10. These rates are going up, particularly in areas where the M. & I. water supply is more difficult to develop. Senator ALLOTT. Well, now just one last question. On this project, the authorization is $22,774,000 as I have it here. Almost $~3 milicion. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLorP. And o'f that amount the total reimbursement for irrigation i's only `$4,273,000, or less than one-fifth of the total. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. That is the cost allocated to the initial 9,960 acres of land to be served. About 28 percent of that is to be repaid by water users, and the remainder by power. Senator ALLOTT. And by power? Mr. STAMM. By power revenues; yes, sir. Senator ALL0rF. Is there a power facility in coi~junction with this? Mr. STAMM. No, s'ir~ but there `is `the Federal Columbia River Power System account, which was authorized by the `Congress `several y~ars ago. Senator ALLo~rr. Now I have a note here prepared by Mr. Cook of the staff. It says `it appears that approx~im'ately $5 million of irrigation costs are not `scheduled for reimbnrsement? Mr. STAMM. That is the deferred use. Senator ALLo~rr. That is what? Mr. STAMM. That is related to the deferred capacity, deferred use of capacity in the reservoir. Senator ALLorrr. What does that mean.? Mr. STAMM. It means that the dam would be built to take advantage PAGENO="0046" 42 of the full physical capability of the site, and it will provide initially more conservation space than we initially have commitments for from water users. The water yield of this deferred space., however, will be marketed to the water users and landowners along the river, as the districts expand, and we gain additional customers. Senator Annorr. Isn't i.t customary to have contracts for the sale of the water before you authorize a reclamation project? Mr. S~AMM. Normally we have contracts for the irrigation aspects before we initiate construction and we will have them for the initial development of the Touchet division. The Congress has, in a number of cases, however, in order to take advantage of the physical dam sites, or for other reasons, authorized us to provide capacity for deferred uses in the initially authorized facilities. This also is true in the Kennewick division, which this committee will hear today. Additional capacity in the main canal was authorized in 1948, and it is that capacity that will be used for the Kennewick extension. The Crooked River project in Oregon had extra capacity, Prine- ville Reservoir was built with about a hundred thousand acre feet of deferred use capacity. There have been others: in the case of the Tehama Colusa Canal, in the Sacramento River Valley of California, the Congress authorized excess capacity to permit future extension of the canal to serve lands downstream in anticipation of future agricultural use. The deferred capacity may also be needed for municipal and indus- trial use along the Touchet River Valley. Senator ALLOTT. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Senator BURDICK. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stamm, I have several questions. First of all the increase in cost, I am looking now at your sheet on economic and financial analyses, the last page. of the report, comparing the two reports for 1962 costs and Januai~y 1969 costs. The cost of this project has gone up about 50 percent in 7 years. How much of that is attributable to a change in design to ac- commodate more floodwaters and how much to the inflation of con- struction costs during that 7-year period? Mr. STAMM. I have the detail on a sheet here. The cost for the design modifications of the spillway at the dam is estimated at $1,640,000. Senator JORDAN. That is for a change in design? Mr. STAMM. That is due to the enlargement of the spillway, at the dam; yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. So then about $6 million of this is due to the nor- mal in~rease in costs of construction for that period? Mr. STAMM. Yes. From 1962 to 1967 the construction costs index alone accounted for over $2 million of increase, and between April of 1967 and January 1969 it accounts for another million and a half, so three and a half million is due to construction costs in~ - ~reases alone Another increase of about $400,000 is due tO costs. PAGENO="0047" 43 Senator JORDAN. An increase in the cost of the highway replace- ment? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir, about $230,000 is due to increased costs to meet higher standards of highway relocation. Senator JORDAN. I suppose added all together that would account for the substantial 50-percent difference? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. I share Senator Allott's concern about the rela- tively low cost of this water to the irrigators. I am familiar with this beautiful Touchet Valley. What is the elevation there, Mr. Stamm? Mr. STAMM. Oh, it is about 600 or 700 feet. Mr. MARLL. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is about 1,800. Dayton is 1,600. I believe it is 1,800 feet. Senator JORDAN. The irrigable lands have an elevation of about 1,800 feet. Mr. MARLL. Yes. From the damsite on down. Sei~ator JORDAN. I know the growing season is long, and the soil is very good. It is a silt soil, and I think it is classified mostly as No. 1, is it not? Mr. MAnra~. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. I know the cannery at Dayton is engaged largely in canning of row crops such as table peas, and asplaragus-great asparagus country, isn't it? Mr. STAMM. We would anticipate that there would be some aspara- gus with a dependable i'~ater supply. Senator JORDAN. I see substantial acreage of asparagus when I go through the valley. My point is that these are big return crops, and I can't understand why new land, class I land, with a long growing season could not stand more than that annual cost of water. Mr. STAMM. Well, let me expand on that a little, if I may. I emphasize that this charge would be for water released from the dam and merely put into the river. The total cost to the farmer, we estimate, is about $17 an acre. Senator JORDAN. An acre? Mr. STAMM. An acre; yes. Senator JORDAN. That is still $5 an acre-foot; isn't it? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. Yes; that is still $5. And that is still very cheap for that class of land, for that elevation, for the type of produce that you can raise on that land; is it not? Mr. SmMM. Well, I think it is reasonable. The rates are reached through our standard procedures. Now we have not updated our pay- ment capacity analyses for the last 2 years. These rates come out of payment capacity analyses that were pre- pared 2 years ago, and it is possible, if these were reviewed today, we might come up with higher figures. Senator JORDAN. Well, I think they ought to be updated. That land is not comparable to land at an elevation over a mile high, say 5,000 to 7,000 feet, that can only grow small grains and maybe hay crops. This same standard should not be applied across the board to land PAGENO="0048" 44 of this character and this elevation that can produce this kind of crops. I hope you will review it, because I think it is inexcusably low. Now, you are still using the rate of 31/4 percent, I see. Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. When are you going to change? Mr. STAMM. Well, a directive requires us to change all of our analyses that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress, so those that are still in the Department of Interior, and are yet to be sub- mitted, wIll be changed before they are submitted. Those that are already before the Congress are not required by our directive to be reevaluated. However, we know of your interest, and we have taken a look at this project under the new interest rates. Senator JORDAN~ \Vhat would happen to this project under 4%- percent interest? First let me ask, what interest rate are you applying now to new projects? Mr. STAMM. Three and one-quarter percent. Senator JORDAN. To new projects? Mr. SPAMM. No; three and a quarter is the interest rate that was used in evaluating this project. Senator JORDAN. All right. Mr. STAJ~M. At the time it came up. Senator JORDAN. All right. What rate will be used for projects that come after this? Mr. STAM1~[. Four and five-eighths percent. Senator JORDAN. Have you applied a 4%-percent rate to this project? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. And what results did you show with respect to its economic feasibility? Mr. STAM~t. Well, this one still has a favorable ratio, above unity, but it gets pretty close, as a matter of fact. Under the 4%-percent interest rate, the ratio of total benefits to costs is 1.29 to 1, and for direct benefits alone, the ratio is 1.04 to 1. Senator JORDAN. It is 1.04 under the 4% rate? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. For a hundred years? Mr. STAMMS Yes, sir. Senator JOItDAN. Right on the borderline. If this came under the new rate it would be a borderline project; would it not? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. If there were no modification of benefit evaluation. Senator JORtAN. Well, if the modification of benefit evaluation were the other way-now I am going to talk to you about fish pretty soon- it would work against you, wouldn't it? Mr. STAMM. I will ask my benefit-cost ratio expert to answer that, Mr. Casey. Mr. CASEY. If I understand the question, if in the benefit evaluation study, the benefits go down, rather than up. Senator JORDAN. Well, if we can- Mr. STAMM. I think the Senator may be asking if the anadromous fish feature were not a part of this project- Senator JORDAN. That is right. Mr. STAMM. What would the benefit-cost ratio likely be? PAGENO="0049" 45 Senator JORDAN. Yes. You don't need to calculate it. Mr. CASEY. I have all the fish and wildlife benefits here, Senator Jordan, which are about 40 percent of the total benefits being claimed. Senator JORDAN. That is right. Mr. CASEY. So that, using the 1.04 ratio as a reference point, it would become 0.6 to 1. Specific costs of fishery facilities should also be eliminated from the ratio. Senator JORDAN. Yes. You all know that the Federal Government now is paying 6 percent for 90-day Treasury notes, 61/4 percent, I should say, for 90-day Treasury notes, and I am sure you are aware that the Federal Government is borrowing money, 3- and 4-year bonds at the rate of 6 percent and upward. This $121/4 million that is called nonreimbursable by reason of its being for fish and wildlife enhance- ment, in order to accommodate a speculative 40,000 salmon, have you ever calculated what that would cost the Federal Government at 6-per- cent interest? It would be $720,000 in interest alone for 40,000 fish. An interest cost on that enhancement factor of $720,000 a year is $30 a fish, with no reduction in the principal. Is that approximately right? Mr. STAMM. I assume `so; yes. Senator JOR1AN. Does anyone `disagree? Mr. WHITE. No; I `have not analyzed those figures. Senator JORDAN. Well, I will go through it again with you. It is very simple arithmetic. For $12 million at 6-percent interest a year the `annual `interest cost would be-you say it. What would it be? Mr. WHITE. I believe you said it would be $720,000. Senator JORDAN. Would you agree? `Mr. WHITE. Yes, `sir. Senator JORDAN. You `are talking about making life `happier for 40,000 fish. How `much is that `a fish, if `the annual cost i's $720,000 interest? Mr. WHrf~. I believe `it would be $18 `a fish. It would still be high. Senator JORDAN. $18. M'r. WHITE. Yes, sir if the entire $12 million is assigned `to salmon enhancement. Senator JORDAN. Thi's is not the `total cost of `the fi'sh. We keep ap- propriating money for every dam downstream for fish and wildlife enhancement. If this $18 had to bear its `share, pr'o rata, of the cost of the other `dams downstream, how `much do you suppose it would amount to? Mr. WHITE. The downstream coSts for fish passage `and propagation have already been incurred and represent `sunk costs. By adding only the `salmon enhancement `costs of $6,243,00 at the Touohet project, an an'adromous fishery benefit `of `about $456,000 can be realized each year. Senator JORDAN. Well, will someone sometime, I think in your De- partment, give us an idea, an estimate, of the dollars we are putting into enhancement of fish and wildlife on `all `of `these `dams, `and evaluate it against the total ressources of the fish that we are accommodating? Mr. WHIm. We will be glad to provide that for you, Sen'ator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. What `i's the total value of the fish `that are `spawned in Columbia E,i~rer `waters? Do you know? Mr. WHITE. It `has been estimated in the past `at $18 million `a year, as I `recall. We shall be glad to review the matter and provide ~he latest figure for the record. PAGENO="0050" 46 Senator JORDAN. I wish you would, and then could you go through the various projects-and this might be a ôooperative project with the Bureau of Reclamation and perhaps others-to find out how much we are spending annually to accommodate this $18 million value resource. Senator JORDAN. I think it would be interesting to know, because it just seems to me that an inordinately high cost, 50 percent of the cost of this project, is credited to enhancement of fish and wildlife, as a very nebulous value in regard to the number of fish that are going to be accommodated in this spawning area. Mr. STAMM. Well, Senator Jordan, we will be glad to work with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and supply something for the record in response to your question. (The data referred to follows:) The expenditures for anadronious fisheries on the Ck~1umbia River system have for the major part been for mitigating the damage .to these fisheries caused by blockage Of the runs, inundation of spawning areas, and reductions in stream flow. We can~not call this an enhancement program. This salvage operation has maintained salmon runs which, on a net basis, result in some $13.8 million in annual benefits to sport and commercial fisheries. Capitalized at 314 percent this amounts to over $400 million. The related project construction costs for fishery facilities at Federal structures amounts to some $1643.5 million with proportion of these costs being allocated to the project beneficiaries. Additional costs have been incurred by private and public power utilities in recognition of the impact of their projects on fishery habitat. The Touchet project is one of the few opportunities there has been to reverse the trend. While we have called this enhancement, looking back over the years the fisheries are still very much on the losing end. Senator JORDAN. I think we have got to know what we are doing here. The Federal Government had a $25 million deficit last year and we had to go into the marketplace and finance it. A's I say, the short-term, ~0-day Treasury notes are costing 63% percent interest on 3- and 4-year bonds, and I think these are some of the things we have to be looking into. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator BURDICK. If there are no further questions, I presume you can start on the other project. Mr. STAMi~t. The other project i's the Kennewick division exten- sion, an extension of the Yakima project. There is a map on the right side, and as I make reference to various facilities and portions of the project in my statement, Mr. Gugel will point them out. Senator ALtorr (presiding). Mr. Stamm, I wonder if, using that big map, someone could point out the location of that for me? I am not familiar with this part of the State. Where is this in Washington? Mr. STAMM. The cities of Kennewick and Pasco are in south-central Washington. Kennewick and Pasco lie on each side of the Columbia River about 4 miles downstream from the confluence with the Yakima River. The existing Kennewick division is essentially the green lands shown on the map, all laying south of the Yakima River, Yakima project water is delivered through the Chandler Canal to the Chandler powerplant and pumping plant. At the time the Kennewick division was authorized extra capacity was designed in the main canal for future service to the yellow area on the map, which we will be discussing today, the Kennewick divisiou extension. PAGENO="0051" 47 Senator ALL0TT. We have been through this project two or three times, have we not, Mr. Stamm? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator Auo~r. I think I remember the project. It is lifted out of The main aqueduct by where it says "main relift," it is lifted into the yellow portion on the map by pump at that point, isn't it ~ Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. There is a long siphon across the draw and then there are about four relift pumping plants involved to serve those lands. Senator ALLo~. All right. Thank you. Mr. STAMM. S. 742 would amend the act of June 12, 1948, which was the act providing for the construction, operation, and maintenance ~of the Kennewick division extension, Yakima project, Washington. The Secretary's feasibility report on the extension has been printed as House Document 296, 88th Congress. The Department's report on this bill was just cleared by the Bureau of the Budget late yesterday, and was hand carried up here this morning. The Department recommends enactment of S. 742 with one amend- ment which would increase the authorization ceiling to reflect modern- ization of the proposed distribution system. The Kennewick division extension is designed to provide an adequate water supply for the irrigation of 6,300 acres of land in Benton County, southern Washington. The Kennewick division is the most recently constructed division of the Yakima project. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized by the act of June 12, 1948, to construct extra capacity in the Kenne- wick main canal for the future irrigation of approximately 7,000 acres of land. Major new facilities of the Kennewick division extension would be a third hydraulic pump at Chandler pumping plant, the mile-long Kiona siphon, a distribution system of concrete line canals and pipes, and drainage facilities. Relift pumps and electrical facilites to serve them will also be needed. Use of concrete-lined canals and pipe for the lateral system in lieu of the open-ditch system originally proposed results in some additional construction costs. The more modern system also will save substantial amounts of water which would otherwise be lost through evaporation and deep percolation. Nearly all of the lands within the extension are presently dry, supporting only sagebrush and native grasses used for livestock graz- ing. About 70 percent of the extension acreage to be developed for irrigation would most likely be devoted to feed and general row crops. Specialty crops now being grown on adjoining areas, which might also be grown in the extension area, are mint and asparagus. Grapes, sweet cherries, prunes, peaches, and apricots also are grown. The water supply for the extension would consist primarily of return flows from irrigated lands upstream supplemented by natural flows of the Yakima River. In 1931, we obtained a permit for the State of Washington for the Kennewick Irrigation District to divert up to 1,600 cubic feet per second for irrigation and power purposes. This permit fully covers the needs of the extension lands. As presented in our feasibility report, the construction cost of the PAGENO="0052" 4~8 extension, based on January 1962 prices, was estimated to be $5,250,400. We have adjusted the construction cost estimate to January 1969 prices i~nd added the pipe distribution system. The construction cost estimate is now $6,735,000. Provision should be made in the legisla- tion for adjustment of the appropriation ceiling to reflect the new cost estimate. The current estimated investment costs of $7,554,700, which in- cludes assigned storage costs, deferred main canal costs, and an irri- gation power subaflocation, are allocated $7,421,900 to irrigation and $132,800 to fish and wildlife. Annual operating costs are allocated $50,690 to irrigation and $910 to fish and wildlife. The cQsts allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable without interest. In accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, the èosts allocated to fish and wildlife would be nonreimbursable, as they cØnsist wholly of joint costs. Annual irrigation benefits total $884,300 and include direct benefits of $484,100 and direct public benefits of $400,200. Annual fish and wildlife benefits amount to $5,500 and are based on the beneficial effects which irrigation of the extension lands would have on upland game and birds. The annual equivalent cost of the proposed development amounts to $364,9~0. The ratio of all benefits to costs is 2.8 to 1. Using only direct benefits, the ratio is 1.6 to 1. These ratios are based on the 31%-percent interest rate. The tabula- tion attached to this statement compares financial and economic data in the feasibility report with the current data. (The document referred to follows:) ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSES Feasibility Current report (April analysis (Jan. 1963 costs) uary 1969 costs Construction cost allocation: Irrigation $1, 115, 500 $6, 602,200 Fish and wildIi~e enhancement 134,900 132,800 Total 5,250,400 6,735,000 Annual equivalent costs: Construction 161, 230 313, 300 Operation and maintenance 48,370 51,600 Total 210,600 364,900 Annual equivalent bBnefits: Irrigation, total 890,900 884, 300 Fish and wildlife 5 500 5 500 Total 896,400 889, 800 Benefit-cost ratios: Total benefits ~43to1 s2.8 tol Direct benefits o~ily... ~1.9 to 1 2 1.6 tol Reimbursement: lr~igation allocation $5, 115, 500 8$7, 162,600 Repaid bywaterusers 1,914,640 1,688,400 Peri~ent 37 24 Federal Columbia River revenues 3,200, 860 5,474,200 Percent 63 76 1100 years, 2~ percent. ~ 100 years, 3~4 pereent a Do not include the irrigation power suballocation ($259,300) which will be repaid from irrigation water r---~---- power charges. PAGENO="0053" 49 Mr. STAMM. It is proposed that the same general irrigation repay- ment terms used in the Kennewick division repayment contracts also be applied to the extension. Because the extension lands are presently undeveloped, a 10-year development period is recommended. Present repayment provisions require that all of the Kennewick division's reimbursable irrigation costs be repaid within 66 years following delivery of water. There- fore, construction payments by extension water users would be made over a 56-year period after the initial 10-year development period. Water users could pay $88,420 annwdly for irrigation service. Or $14.03 per acre. These revenues, during the 56~year repayment period would meet all annual operating costs and in addition would repay $1,698,400 or about 24 percent of the capital costs allocated to irriga- tion. Financial assistance in the amount of $~,474~200 would be needed to complete repayment of the irrigation allocation. The foregoing analysis utilizes a recently developed formula for determining an irrigation pumping power rate which assures repay- ment without interest of an equitable portion of the overall power investment of the Federal Columbia River power system and associ~ ated operating costs. This is compatible with the traditional recIama.~ tion policy that irrigation investment be returned without interest. It will not adversely affect the rates or the repayment schedule for the commercial power investment of the system. We anticipate that the Kennewick Irrigation District will operate and maintain the extension facilities, achieving more' eMciency and savings in operating cost~ to the water users by spreading overhead costs over a greater acreage. The enactment in the 89th Congress of seotio~ 2 of Puh1i~ Law 89-448, as amended by section, .6 of Public Law 86~561, established new procedures ~nd limitations for financial management of the Fed- eral Columbia River power system and the associated Federal projects4 Together these two sections provide a legislative policy under which the construction costs allocated to irrigation on future Federal recla~ mation projects, to the extent they are beyond the ability of the irri- gation water users to repay, shall be charged to and returned within the irrigation repayment period from net revenues derived from the Federal Columbia River power system. There is strong support for the plan of development a~nong local interests and representatives of the State of Washington. We reconi~ mend 1~avorable consideration of the Kennewick divisio~i e±tension and early action toward enactment of S. 742. Already placed in the record i's the financial table which iden±ifies the increases and differences between the feasibility repoi~t ~t 19~3 costs and the c~trrent analysis at 1969 costs. Senator ALLOTT. On page 3 of your statement, Mr. Stamm, you say that the annual irrigation benefits total $884,800 and include direct benefits of $484,100 and indirect and publh~ benefits of $404,200~ What are these indirect and public benefits? That is almost 50 percent, by the way, of the ai~nusl irrigatiorL bene- fits. ` . Mr. STAMM. Mr. Casey? Mr. CASEY. They are comprised of amounts that stem from in- creased farm purchases due to irrigation, increased processing and PAGENO="0054" 50 transportation activity for disposing of the produce from irrigation and the public benefit factor is largely an allowance for increased new farm opportunities. In other words, economic effects that accrue to other than the direct water user. Mr. STAMM. The direct benefits are a measure of the increased in- come to the water user himself, in a before and after situation, and all other benefits that accrue to the community come in the indirect and public benefit category. Senator ALLOTT. Well if, in the calculations, you build up the in- direct and public benefits, you increase the possibility of securing a more fai~orable feasibility figure, do you not? Mr. Smi~ri~i. If you build up the indirect, yes, sir. Senator ALL0TT. And public benefits? Mr. SmMM. Yes, it would result in a more favorable benefit-cost ratio on the basis of total benefits to cost. Senator ALLOTT. Of your total figure here, your total cost is $7,162,- 000? Mr. STAMM. That is the investment cost. That is more than is re- quired in the way of ne~r appropriations, because that includes an al- location from the storage division of the Yakima project, and the sunk cost in the enlargement of the canal that was constructed earlier. Senator AILo~r~r. And there would actually be of that amount,, $1,~88,400 or only 24 percent of the irrigation allocation, would b~ repaidby the water usersthemselves, right? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. And the rest would be charged ultimately and even- tually to the Columbia River revenues? Mr. STAMM. Yes. Actually $5,474,200 would be the requirement from the Columbia River basin power revenues. Senator ALLOTT. And since the irrigaitor does not pay any interest until such time as this amount was repaid from the Federal Columbia River revenues, the Federal Government would be paying interest on that money. Mr. STA~t Yes. You are assuminO~ that the funds made available would b~iiorrowed fund~, F~deral1y ~orrowed funds. That is right. Senator ALLOTT. There; is there any other assumption I can make? Mr. STAMM. I don't know of any. Senator ALLOPT~ Now that is roughly $5i~' niilliOn. When would the first funds be available out of the Columbia River revenues, for the Kennewick division? Not before 2030, is that right? Mr SPA~tM While Mr Casey is looking up that figure, the aid that is authorl7ed from the dolumbia River power system by the acts to which I made reference, during the 20 year period, 2017 to 2036 dur ing which time this amount would fall due, is limited to $600 million of assistance The total commitment against those revenues, dnring that same fime period, i~ $275 mìllioti, so there is an uncommitted cushion of $325 million. : Seth~to~ Axi~orr. Well; theoretieally there is a cushion. `I may be wrong, because I am trusting my memory in this, but in some previQus reclamation projects here, it was wy recollection thai `there could.. be no sums paid out, that 1a11 the sums in that fund were c~mmittcd through the year 2025.' PAGENO="0055" 51 Am I wrong? Mr. STAMM. That possibly could be right. I will be happy to check those figures. I have not looked at them for several years but my rec- ollection is that all of the financial assistance required for author- ized projects and all of the amounts authorized to be repaid from that fund can be covered well within the anticipated revenues and within the time periods required by law. Mr. CASEY. I have an annual report of the Bonneville Power Ad- ministration, which, of course, supervises the Federal Columbia River Power System, for fiscal year 1968 which indicates that the commer- cial power investment that is now authorized to be made will be amor- tized in its entirety in the year 2029. Now there is $275 million worth of authorized irrigation financial assistance that would have a claim during the same period as the Kennewick and the statutes limit the availability of that to an average of $30 million a year. So that would indicate the financial assistance for the Kennewick extension would be available on Bonneville's books when required at the end of the irrigation repayment period. Buimicn. What does that mean? will it be available? It would be required about 9 years after 2029, which Nine years after 2029. That was something along the lines of my recol- iecuon. I have, Senator Jordan. Senator ~ )AN. Just two questions: Have you calculated what the benefit-cost ratio would be on a rate of 45/s? Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir, we have. Senator JORDAN. Will you give it to me? Mr. STAMM. On total benefits, the ratio drops down to 2.1 to 1. On direct benefits only, it drops down to 1.1 to 1. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Now on page 4 you say water users could pay $88,420 annually for irrigation services, or $1404 per acre Now how does this $14.04 per acre rate differ from the $5.60 per acre on the other project? Mr. STAMM. This covers delivery of water to the farmers' head- gate. This not only covers a share of the cost of storage in the Yakima project storage system, but it also includes diversion from the Yakima River into the main canal, the cost of the main canal, the costs of the siphons and the relift pumps, the laterals and canals, down to the farmers' headgate. Senator JORDAN. Is it broken down with respect to storage and delivery? Mr. STAMM. I don't have the breakdown, but the amount allocated to storage is pretty small here, because the Yakima storage system was built many years ago, when costs were substantially less than they are today. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. STAM1SI. It seems to me that the cost of storage is only about $6 PAGENO="0056" 52 an acre~foot of capacity Which the water Users woujd pay out over a long Period of time, so the storage component is fairly small. Costly. But the diversion, distribution, and Pumping facilities are more Senator JORDAN Th~k you, that is all I have, Mr. Ohai~an Senator Aja,o~ Senator hatfield Senator ~ I have no questio~5 Mr. Chairman, thank you. Senato~~ Anything else? Any other witnesses? Thank you, gent1e~~~ If not, these meetings will be recessed upon the call of the Chaj~ (Whereupon at 12:07 p.m. the subcommittee adjour~~~ subject to call of the Chair.)' 0