KINGS RIVER PROJECT IN CALIFORNIA LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TRANSMITTING PURSUANT TO LAW, A REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DATED JANUARY 23, 1940, ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE KINGS RIVER PROJ ECT IN CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 12, 1940.-Referred to the Committee on Irrigation and UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1940 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Speaker of the House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting herewith the Reclamation report on the Kings River Project in California. The letter of January 23, 1940, to me from Commissioner John C. Page, of the Bureau of Reclamation, states that, "The project is desirable, and clearly meets all requirements of feasibility and authorization under section 9 of the Reclamation (Project) Act of 1939." My letter to the President dated January 24, 1940, states that, "The proposed allocation of costs is proper and equals the estimated cost of the project. The repayment of reimbursable costs can be anticipated with assurance. I find the project desirable, economically and engineeringly feasible, and authorized for construction under the provisions of section 9 of the Reclamation (Project) Act of 1939. I therefore recommend its construction thereunder, if and when funds. are made available." These letters, together with a letter from the President approving transmittal of the report to the Congress, are attached and are a part of the report, the main body of which, separately bound, also is enclosed. These enclosures constitute the report, the findings, and the authorization contemplated in section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 on the Kings River Project, California. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. HAROLD L. ICKES, THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, February 10, 1940. The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have your letter of January 24 which was your finding with respect to the Kings River project in California and with which you submitted the Reclamation report on the project. I am returning your letter and its enclosures. You may transmit the report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. The PRESIDENT, The White House. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, (Through the National Resources Planning Board.) MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted a letter of January 23, 1939, from the Commissioner of Reclamation, submitting a report on the Kings River project of California, contemplating an expenditure of $22,300,000 for the Pine Flat Reservoir on Kings River with a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet and a power plant, to provide supplemental irrigation water, flood control, and a power supply for an area of about 800,000 acres of developed lands around Fresno, Calif., together with minor river-control works. Through consultation and agreement with the Chief of Engineers, representing the Secretary of War, $9,950,000 of this cost has been allocated to flood control, with no reimbursement contemplated. To irrigation there would be allocated $9,750,000 to be repaid under the reclamation law in 40 years without interest. A power investment of $2,600,000 would be repaid in 40 years with interest at 31⁄21⁄2 percent, from power sales. The proposed allocation of costs is proper and equals the estimated cost of the project. The repayment of reimbursable costs can be anticipated with assurance. I find the project desirable, economically and engineeringly feasible, and authorized for construction under the provisions of section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 1939. I therefore recommend its construction thereunder, if and when funds are made available. Unless you have objections thereto, the letter and report will be transmitted to the Congress, in accordance with the provisions of that law. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. HAROLD L. ICKES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. SIR: I am transmitting the report of the Bureau of Reclamation on the Kings River project in California, prepared after careful investigation of the project and consultation with the Corps of Engineers of the War Department, which is making a similar report. There is appended a tabulation presenting descriptive and factual data on the project. The Bureau report contemplates a storage project for supplemental irrigation water on about 800,000 acres of developed land, and for flood control and power development. The report of the Chief of Engineers, War Department, omits power development, which the Bureau considers essential to the proper and most beneficial utilization of conserved waters. Both reports recommend allocating one-half the cost of the reservoir to flood control. The Bureau report contemplates repayment of construction costs allocated to irrigation in the amount of $9,750,000, in 40 years without interest, requiring annual construction installments of $243,750. The Chief of Engineers' report proposes a lump-sum payment by irrigation interests upon completion of construction of $5,200,000, which amount, if borrowed, and retired in 40 years with interest at 321⁄2 percent, results in annual costs to the irrigators equivalent to the Bureau plan. In this project irrigation and power combined exceed flood control, both as to costs and benefits. Since navigation is not involved, and the flood damage to be eliminated is almost wholly local, as also are the anticipated flood control benefits, the project is more one for irrigation than for flood control. The Chief of Engineers proposes that all operation and maintenance of the project be perpetually performed by local interests at their own expense and that a reduction of the local contribution to the extent of $400,000 be made in compensation for operation and maintenance costs chargeable to flood control. In my opinion, the complexities of irrigation uses, the potentially conflicting interests of irrigation and flood control, the coordination of power production by the Kings River and Central Valley projects, and the prospect of the sale of water from the Central Valley project to portions of the Kings River service area, make it highly advisable for the Government to operate the contemplated Kings River project works, leaving the operation of the canals and the distribution of water in local hands. Water releases, except in rare cases, must conform to vested irrigation rights. In the circumstances, I believe that the project, if and when undertaken, should be constructed and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation because of the preponderance of irrigation and agricultural use. The development is greatly desired by the people of this thickly settled area which it would admirably serve. No new lands are to be developed. The benefits far exceed the costs. The project is desirable, and clearly meets all requirements of feasibility and authorization under section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 1939. I recommend that a finding of feasibility, together with the report, be submitted to the President and to the Congress in compliance with that act. Respectfully, 1 Equal allocation to flood control and irrigation agreed upon with Chief of Engineers. ? Initial power development incapable of carrying any reservoir costs. Costs include provision for ultimate installation of 45,000 kilowatts. To connect with lines of Central Valley project from which part of power is bought. Amortization in 40 years with interest at 311⁄2 percent in accordance with Army procedure, plus half of operation and maintenance cost on reservoir and river works. Repayment in 40 years without interest of irrigation allocation, plus other half of operation and maintenance on reservoir and river works. Repayment in 40 years with interest at 31⁄2 percent of power investment, plus operation, maintenance and replacement of power features. Reduction in power rates for pumping. |