Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1669246
label
1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1669246
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota
Wyoming
Legislation
Water projects
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1669246
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-03-31
month
3
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a776a4cc6af9ca32
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 40, folder "1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation
Authorization Act of 1975" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 40 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
3/11/76
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Last Day: March 12
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1976
statement 1/76
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNOM X
3/12/76
SUBJECT:
S. 151 - Reclamation Authorization
Act of 1975
Attached for your consideration is S. 151, sponsored by
Senators Hansen and McGee, which authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to undertake four water resource projects.
Background
This is an omnibus bill covering four separate projects:
1. To construct, operate and maintain the Polecat
Bench, Wyoming project ($46 million)
2. To construct, operate and maintain the Pollock-
Herreid, South Dakota project ($26 million)
3. To make safety and other modifications to
Dickinson Dam, North Dakota ($4 million)
4. To make safety and other modifications to
McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon ($1.3 million)
There would be no immediate budgetary impact, Funding
would be required only when included in the budget as
new starts.
Agency Comments
OMB
Disapproval
Department of Interior
Approval
Council on
Environmental Quality
Would concur in disapproval
Water Resources Council No comment
SEALE YORD JIMBARY
2
Staff Comments and Recommendations
Rogers Morton
Recommends approval.
Max Friedersdorf
Recommends approval. "Close call,
whether to help our friends with an
authorization bill and fight appropriation
later if stipulations are not met.
This bill is very important to Senators
Hatfield and Hansen. I come down on
the side of our friends, since there
is a good likelihood that a veto would
be overridden anyway.' (Tab B)
Counsel's Office
Recommends veto for reasons stated
(Lazarus)
by OMB "despite substantial political
support by Senator Hansen."
Jim Lynn
Recommends veto, citing highly
undesirable precedents of Federal
assumption of safety related costs and
approval of projects prior to proper
benefit/cost analysis. "This would
open the floodgates for a multitude
of other uneconomic water resource
projects.' " (Tab A)
Robert T. Hartmann
Recommends approval.
Recommendation
I recommend disapproval. We should not now set the precent
of the Federal taxpayer assuming safety costs that should
be paid for by the users, as would be the case in the McKay
and Dickinson projects. The Polecat Bench project has not
met the requirement of a favorable benefit-cost analysis,
and there is no feasibility study to support the favorable
consideration of the Pollock-Herreid project.
Decision
Sign S. 151 at Tab C and issue proposed signing statement,
which has been WR7 cleared by Robert T. Hartmann (Tab D).
Approve
Disapprove
Veto S. 151 by signing proposed veto message, which has
been cleared by Robert T. Hartmann (Tab E).
Approve
Disapprove
A
OF TRE
PRESIDENT
OFFICE
&
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAR 8 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 151 - Reclamation Authoriza-
tion Act of 1975
Sponsors - Sen. Hansen (R) Wyoming and Sen.
McGee (D) Wyoming
Last Day for Action
March 12, 1976 - Friday
Purpose
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,
operate and maintain the Polecat Bench, Wyoming project
and the Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, both part
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and to modify
the Dickinson Dam, North Dakota and the McKay Dam and
Reservoir, Oregon.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto Mes-
sage attached)
Department of the Interior
Approval (Signing State-
ment attached)
Council on Environmental Quality
Disapproval
Department of the Treasury
Would concur in dis-
approval
Water Resources Council
No comment
Discussion
The enrolled bill is an omnibus authorization measure
for reclamation projects and programs, comprised of
four titles, each of which deals with a separate
project originally introduced as an individual bill.
LIBRARY in 074338
2
Title I reauthorizes and Title IV authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate and
maintain the Polecat Bench project, Wyoming, and the
Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, respectively.
Appropriations of $46 million would be authorized
for the Polecat Bench project and $26 million for
the Pollock-Herreid unit (plus operation and
maintenance costs and authority for adjustments
for changes in construction costs).
Title II and Title III, respectively, authorize
safety and other modifications to Dickinson Dam,
North Dakota ($4 million), and to the McKay Dam and
Reservoir, Oregon ($1.3 million).
In reporting on the separate bills in committee,
Interior opposed each of them for the following
reasons:
-- Polecat Bench and Pollock-Herreid projects.
The Department recommended that the first pro-
ject be deferred until a new study of the merits
of the project based on current conditions and
criteria was completed. The original 1972 study
indicated that the project did not meet the test
of economic feasibility. Interior recommended
that the second be deferred until a feasibility
report on the unit was reviewed by the Administration.
-- Dickinson and McKay projects. The Department
recommended that the first project be deferred
until receipt of feasibility and safety reports.
The second project was opposed as unnecessary.
More importantly, the Department opposed provi-
sions calling for full payment by the Federal
Government of all costs related to increasing the
safety of project dams. These provisions could
represent a precedent for all cases involving dam
safety.
In its enrolled bill letter recommending approval of S.151,
Interior discusses certain aspects of the four pro-
jects at some length. Pertinent excerpts from
3
its letter are as follows:
"Since that report /departmental report
opposing Polecat Bench/ was completed
however economic factors have changed,
cropping patterns and values have changed,
and the inclusion of municipal and
industrial water supply as a project
purpose will undoubtedly provide for a
more positive analysis of the project."
"A recent 1975 Bureau of Reclamation
reevaluation for the project shows that
the Pollock-Herreid Unit is economically
justified and has financial feasibility."
(The reevaluation has not been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
for the customary review.)
"While we recommend in favor of signing
this bill, we continue to assert the
objection raised in our earlier reports
on this project /Dickinson Dam/, that we
are opposed generally to provisions which
call for full payment by the Federal
Government of the cost of new safety
measures, without reimbursement and
without consideration of the individual
merits of each case. We are opposed to a
policy that full payment should be
undertaken by the Federal Government in
all 'safety of dams' situations involving
modifications to federally built dams for
safety purposes."
"We wish to mention here /in connection
with the discussion of the McKay project7,
as with the Dickinsom Dam proposal, that
we oppose a policy whereby all costs
incurred for modifications for safety
of dams purposes would be non-reimbursable."
More generally, Interior's letter on the enrolled
STATE FORD
4
bill states:
"There would be no immediate budgetary
impact from this proposed action /approval
of the bill/. Funding would not be
required until such time as the projects
may be offered for inclusion in the
budget as new construction starts. Even
then the appropriation requirements would
be spread over the several years of the
construction schedule. Furthermore,
some portion of the project costs would be
repaid by the users of the project services."
"Despite our opposing statements on these
bills at the time of Congressional
hearings, we nevertheless feel that there
are definite merits in the proposed
projects and, now that Congress has
fully considered and enacted these proposals
a veto would not be appropriate. Each has
strong local support and even stronger
official support among State and local
officials and in the Congressional
delegations.'
In its enrolled bill letter, Treasury indicates it
would concur in a recommendation for veto on its
customary grounds that water resource interest rates
provide unwarranted subsidy to water users at the
expense of the taxpayers.
The funds authorized by this bill are not large, as
reclamation projects go, but the bill, in mandating
full (and non-reimbursable) Federal responsibility
for costs related to dam modifications for safety
reasons would constitute a highly undesirable
precedent. The National Program of Inspection of
Dams has identified some 20,000 potentially
hazardous dams out of a total of 49,329, including
about 5,500 Federal dams. In addition, Administration
support of water resources development projects
prior to a favorable benefit-cost analysis and
5
Administration review (as in the case of Polecat
Bench and the Pollock-Herreid unit) would also
serve as an undesirable precedent. This could open
the flood gates for a multitude of other uneconomic
water resource projects.
In its enrolled bill letter, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality cites these latter reasons as well as
inadequate environmental impact studies in the area
of the projects as the principal basis for its veto
recommendation.
We do not believe that the arguments for disapproval
-- which, of course, provided the basis for initial
opposition to the separate bills -- are, in any way,
outweighed by the arguments made in the Interior
enrolled bill letter.
Accordingly, we have prepared the attached proposed
veto message for your consideration.
In the event you decide not to veto the bill, we
recommend that you issue a signing statement which
(a) indicates your concern about authorization of
projects before the completion and full review of
economic feasibility studies, (b) states that you do
not intend to seek appropriations for projects that
have not yet been demonstrated to be economically
feasible, and (c) also notes that you do not intend
to fund the safety improvements until both the Army's
dam safety study and a review of cost-sharing on
water projects are completed.
Attached for your consideration is a draft signing
statement, an alternative to the one prepared by
Interior which addresses only the dam safety issue.
James T. Lynn
Director
Enclosures
FORD , LIBRARY DERACT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MAX L. FRIEDERSDORFA
BW
SUBJECT:
S.151 - Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975
The Office of Legislative Affairs concurs with the agencies
that the
subject bill be signed (SEE ATTACHED MEMO FROM VERN LOEN)
Attachments
is
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
VERN LOEN n
SUBJECT:
Enrolled bill memo S. 151-Reclamation
Authorization Act of 1975
In deciding whether to recommend the President sign or veto this legislation,
I would recommend you take into consideration the following factors:
Legislative history - S. 151 was passed by voice vote in the Senate on
August 1, 1975. H. R. 10537, which expanded the number of projects in
the bill, passed the House on January 1, 1976, by a vote of 284-110 with
40 absentees. The Senate then accepted the House bill by voice vote on
February 25. An analysis of the House vote is attached. Given the
partisanship of an election year, I consider it likely that we would lose 31 of
the 110 nay votes and might gain as many as 36 switches from the yea votes
for a net gain of 5. Of those not voting, 13 looked like targets to sustain.
That would give us a total of 128 votes.
Rhodes was among those voting to pass the bill. When consulted about
sustaining a veto, he said he probably would vote to sustain, but would
be very quiet about it. Michel was among the absentees.
The Senate would act first and, if the 17 reclamation state Senators stick
together, we start off with a base of 34 votes against us. John Kyl feels
it is unlikely that the Senate would sustain. That would build momentum
and partisanship for the House vote and charges of another "anti-jobs veto, "
even though none of the jobs would be created this year. If the bill were
signed, Kyl says we would not have to worry about another package being
rushed in behind this one; however, it is likely that they would try to fund
these projects in FY77.
Signing the bill would be taken by the reclamation community, which is
somewhat monolithic, as a friendly gesture and might blunt criticism of
the President for his "no new starts" budget policy.
-2-
Largest of the four projects, Polecat Bench, is an irrigation project
strongly backed by Senator Hansen, costing $46 million. The Pollock-
Herreid irrigation project, costing $26 million, is strongly pushed by
Rep. Jim Abdnor and is located in his best Republican counties. Rep.
Mark Andrews says the Dickinson Dam safety project in North Dakota
could well burst due to faulty construction. The McKay Dam safety
project in Oregon is located in A1 Ullman's district, but would benefit
Senators Hatfield and Packwood as well.
It's an extremely close call, boiling down to whether we want to help
our friends with an authorization bill in a Presidential election year
and fight the appropriation later if the stipulations are not met, or
do we stand on past established procedures. I come down on the side
of our friends since there is a good likelihood that a veto would be
overridden anyway.
FORD
C
D
STATE
OF
THE
INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
3,
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
March 1, 1976
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This responds to your request for the views of this Department with
respect to an enrolled bill, S. 151, "To authorize and modify various
Federal reclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes."
We recommend in favor of signing the bill.
The bill would authorize four separate projects to be undertaken by
the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam,
North Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon; and Pollock-Herreid
Unit, South Dakota. Each proposal was initially the subject of a
separate bill and each was the subject of a separate report to the
Congress by this Department.
The total authorized cost for the four projects would be $77.3 million,
$46 million of which would be for the Polecat Bench project and $26
million would be for Pollock-Herreid.
There would be no immediate budgetary impact from this proposed action.
Funding would not be required until such time as the projects may be
offered for inclusion in the budget as new construction starts. Even
then the appropriation requirements would be spread over the several
years of the construction schedule. Furthermore, some portion of the
project costs would be repaid by the users of the project services.
Polecat Bench, Wyoming
S. 151 is similar to H.R. 10537 and H.R. 1500. All three bills would
reauthorize the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit as
an integral part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The
reauthorized project would provide water for irrigation of 19,200
acres of land, a municipal and industrial water supply, and water
for conservation and recreation purposes.
These bills list the principle features of the project, integrate the
project physically and financially with other Federal works authorized
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
7776-1976
pursuant to the original authorization, deny for 10 years the delivery
of irrigation water from the project for use on surplus agricultural
crops, and specify the method under which the interest rates would be
computed.
S. 151 would additionally require that up to 2,217 acres of public land
in the Polecat Bench area be made available, on a preference basis for
exchange or amendment, to eligible resident landowners; that repayment
contracts for the return of construction costs be based on the water users'
ability to repay as determined by the Secretary; that such repayment
contracts not exceed 50 years following the permissible development
period; and that lands eligible for water held in single ownership be
limited to 160 acres of Class I land or the equivalent in other lands.
S. 151 authorizes $46,000,000 to be appropriated for construction.
A Departmental report on the proposed Polecat Bench Project in 1972,
by then Assistant Secretary James R. Smith, recommended against
authorization of the project.
Since that report was completed however economic factors have changed,
cropping patterns and values have changed, and the inclusion of municipal
and industrial water supply as a project purpose will undoubtedly provide
for a more positive analysis of the project.
Dickinson Dam, North Dakota
The Dickinson Dam project was formerly proposed as H.R. 8539 and
S. 2089 on which the Department submitted reports in October
1975.
The proposed project consists of certain modifications to be made to
the Dickinson Dam to make additional municipal and industrial water
available to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and for the purpose
of increasing the existing spillway capacity to provide additional
safety allowances in light of increased estimates of possible maximum
flows. The estimated cost of the project is $4,000,000. The project
would also make additional municipal and industrial (M&I) water
available to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota. Installation of
bascule gates on the existing spillway of Dickinson Dam would increase
the conservation storage capacity of Edward Arthur Patterson Lake.
The resulting increase in firm water yield in combination with existing
M&I supplies would be adequate to meet the needs of the city of
Dickinson to about the year 1985.
The project would assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from flood
occurrences currently estimated to be larger than the existing
2
spillway capacity. The existing spillway capacity is 33,200 cubic feet
per second (ft3/s). The currently estimated maximum inflow design flood
(IDF) under the most extreme circumstances would have to peak flow of
about 106,700 ft³/s. The increased estimates of maximum IDF over those
originally anticipated for the dam are the result of improved and updated
scientific methodology.
The legislative proposal would therefore modify the concrete spillway
by the addition of a new and larger grass-covered spillway through the
right abutment to provide the needed safety against possible failure.
The added spillway would have a capacity of 69,200 ft3/s, which, when
combined, with the 29,300 ft3/s remaining in the modified concrete
spillway making a total capacity of 98,500 ft³/s, would prevent failure
of the dam during the occurrence of an inflow design flood.
S. 151 contains no changes from the earlier bills.
While we recommend in favor of signing this bill, we continue to assert
the objection raised in our earlier reports on this project, that we
are opposed generally to provisions which call for full payment by the
Federal Government of the cost of new safety measures, without reimburse-
ment and without consideration of the individual merits of each case.
We are opposed to a policy that full payment should be undertaken by
the Federal Government in all "safety of dams" situations involving
modifications to federally built dams for safety purposes.
McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon
The McKay Dam Project was originally proposed in H.R. 9649 and S. 2361
and was addressed in reports by this Department on October 29, 1975.
The provisions of S. 151 respecting this project are unchanged from
the earlier bills.
As in the Dickinson Dam proposal this proposal would provide for increasing
the capacity of the spillway of the dam for additional safety allowances
to account for new and increased estimates of maximum flows.
Should the new inflow design flood occur without corrective action the
dam embankment and spillway parapet wall would be overtopped and
rapid breaching of the dam embankment could occur. The discharge
from the dam and reservoir could increase from approximately 20,000
cubic feet per second (ft3/s) under flood conditions to as much as
approximately 1,500,000 ft3/s in 1 hour or less if the dam failed.
The loss of life and property damage downstream from the dam could
be substantial.
3
The proposed modification in the design and structure of the dam
would provide a greater factor of safety than was provided by the
original design. The spillway capacity would be increased from its
present capacity of 10,000 ft3/s to 27,000 ft³/s. Although the
reservoir releases would be increased as rapidly as necessary under
flood conditions, more time would be available for warning the
downstream residents to evacuate. The amount of damage to downstream
property and loss of life would be lessened because of the reduction
in reservoir releases.
McKay Dam was constructed specifically for irrigation. Throughout
the years, other incidental benefits, such as flood control, fish
and wildlife, and recreation, have accrued. The proposed bill would
authorize allocation of existing costs, as well as the costs of the
proposed modification, to the reauthorized purposes of the dam i.e.,
irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
Appropriations would be authorized in the amount of $1,300,000, with
an inflation clause built in.
We wish to mention here, as with the Dickinson Dam proposal, that we
oppose a policy whereby all costs incurred for modifications for safety
of dams purposes would be non-reimbursable.
Pollock-Herreid, South Dakota
S. 151 is similar to S. 2493 and H.R. 3383, on which the Department
reported on October 29, 1975. All three bills are based on a plan to
divert water by pumping from the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri
River. The principal purposes of the Pollock-Herreid Unit would be
to supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation for 15,000 acres of land and
to supply municipal and industrial water to two communities. These
bills also contain provisions for fish and wildlife resources.
The physical works of the unit would include: the main pumping plant,
located at the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, to lift the
water into the existing Lake Pocasse; a subimpoundment on Spring
Creek, which is a tributary to Lake Oahe, for reregulation; a 24
mile-long system of main canals; a 56 mile-long system of laterals;
seven relift pumping plants; 165 miles of collector, surface, and
closed pipe drains; and other facilities necessary to the purposes
of the unit.
4
S. 151 is distinguished from both S. 2493 and H.R. 3383 by requiring
that lands eligible for water held in single ownership be limited to
160 acres of Class I land or the equivalent in other lands, and by
authorizing $26,000,000 to be appropriated for construction, rather
than $25,000,000 authorized in both S. 2493 and H.R. 3383.
A recent 1975 Bureau of Reclamation reevaluation for the project shows
that the Pollock-Herreid Unit is economically justified and has financial
feasibility.
Conclusion
Despite our opposing statements on these bills at the time of Congressional
hearings, we nevertheless feel that there are definite merits in the
proposed projects and, now that Congress has fully considered and
enacted these proposals a veto would not be appropriate. Each has
strong local support and even stronger official support among State
and local officials and in the Congressional delegations.
For these reasons we recommend in favor of signing the bill.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Hoston
Assistan$ecretary of the Interior
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C.
Enclosure
5
POSSIBLE SIGNING STATEMENT
I have signed into law today S. 151, an Act which authorizes and
modifies several Federal reclamation projects by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Act authorizes four separate projects to be undertaken by the
Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam,
North Dakota; McKay Dam and reservoir, Oregon; and Pollock-Herreid
Unit, South Dakota.
The Act reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone
extensions unit in Wyoming as an integral part of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin program. The reauthorized project would provide water
for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a municipal and industrial
water supply, and water for conservation and recreation purposes.
The Dickenson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of certain
modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to make additional
municipal and industrial water available to the city of Dickinson,
North Dakota, and for the purpose of increasing the existing spillway
capacity to provide additional safety allowances in light of increased
estimates of possible maximum flows.
The McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the Dickinson Dam
project in that it will provide for increasing the capacity of the
spillway of the dam for safety purposes. The Act will also
reauthorize the project for additional project purposes, including
flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation, as well as the
existing irrigation function.
The Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based on a plan to
divert water by pumping from the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri
River. The principal purposes of the project would be to supply
on-farm sprinkler irrigation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply
municipal and industrial water to two communities. This Act also
contain provisions for fish and wildlife resources.
These four projects will make worthwhile contributions to the economic
life of the areas where the projects will be built and will help to
assure the vitality and stability of their agricultural base.
I am therefore pleased to sign the Act into law. One aspect of the
Act is of particular concern, however. As authorized by the Act,
two of the projects would require work to make dams safe solely at
Federal expense. Safety is normally an integral design and operation
feature of a Federally constructed dam, to be paid for by project
beneficiaries. In approving this bill I am therefore constrained to
2
observe that I do not approve a policy which requires the Federal
Government to underwrite the cost of work to improve dam safety in all
situations involving modifications to federally built dams. Each case
should, in my view, be considered on its merits to determine the most
appropriate way to share costs.
I believe, however, that it is appropriate at this time to sign this
Act into law.
3
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
MAR 4 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. FREY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ATTN:
Ms. Ramsey
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill, S. 151
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.
The Council on Environmental Quality recommends that the
President veto the bill, for the following reasons:
1.
Title I (Polecat Bench, Wyoming) and Title IV (Pollock-
Herreid Unit, South Dakota) would authorize two addi-
tional components of the overall Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin Program. The Bureau of Reclamation has not
conducted adequate environmental analyses of either
of these projects, which may each have serious
adverse environmental impacts. The Bureau's own
procedures, which require that environmental impact
statements be prepared and circulated prior to
authorization, would be violated by this bill, which
would preclude timely consideration of project impacts
and project alternatives as required by NEPA.
2.
The Bureau already has in planning or construction
phases approximately 20 other units of the Pick-
Sloan program. No overall environmental analysis
of this program has been done by the Bureau. The
cumulative effects of land use changes, water
diversions, irrigation return flows, and other
consequences of these projects have not been
reviewed; Titles I and IV of this bill would
compound this problem and might lead to need for
expensive remedial measures in the future.
2
3.
Sections 104 and 406 of this bill would allow
exceptions to the clearly-stated requirements of
the 1902 Reclamation Act, which restrict single
ownership of lands to be irrigated by federal
projects to 160 acres.
We recommend that this bill be vetoed for the above reasons.
Gaywidman Gary
Gary Widman
General Counsel
OF
THE TREASURY BHA DEPARTMENT
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20220
1789
FEB 27 1976
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D. C. 20502
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Sir:
Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on
the enrolled enactment of S. 151, "To authorize and modify various Federal
reclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes."
The enrolled enactment would authorize construction and reclamation
projects at Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam
and Reservoir, Oregon; and the Pollock-Herreid Unit, South Dakota. The
Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget have
opposed these projects in reports to the Committees on Interior and Insular
Affairs.
The interest rate formula provided in sections 106, 203, and 405 of
the enrolled enactment is the so-called water resources rate; i.e., the
computed average rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable
public obligations which are neither due nor callable for 15 years from date
of issue. The water resources interest rate formula produces an arbitrary
subsidy interest rate which bears no relationship to current Treasury
borrowing costs, and is significantly below the current rate on Government
borrowing. The effect of this rate formula is to provide substantial but
hidden subsidies to project beneficiaries at the expense of the Nation's
taxpayers. Any subsidies determined necessary should be provided in a
straight-forward manner, and not be hidden in the interest rate formula.
In view of the foregoing, the Department would concur in a recommendation
that the enrolled enactment not be approved by the President.
Sincerely yours,
General Counsel
R. Albrecht
wrc
UNITED STATES WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
SUITE 800
2120 L STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
MAR 1 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in response to your February 26, 1976, enrolled bill
request on S. 151, an act to authorize and modify various
Federal reclamation projects and programs, and for other
purposes.
The Water Resources Council has not taken any position on
this legislation nor on the proposed projects included therein.
As Director of the Council, I would, therefore, have no comment
on this particular legislation.
Sincerely,
Familide
Warren D. Fairchild
Director
MEMBERS: SECRETARIES OF INTERIOR, AGRICULTURE, ARMY, COMMERCE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
TRANSPORTATION: ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COM-
MISSION OBSERVERS: ATTORNEY GENERAL; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; CHAIRMEN,
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEDNENNING
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS, BASIN IN-
1776-1976
TERAGENCY COMMITTEES.
3-8-76
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAR 8 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 151 - Reclamation Authoriza-
tion Act of 1975
Sponsors - Sen. Hansen (R) Wyoming and Sen.
McGee (D) Wyoming
Last Day for Action
March 12, 1976 - Friday
Purpose
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,
operate and maintain the Polecat Bench, Wyoming project
and the Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, both part
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and to modify
the Dickinson Dam, North Dakota and the McKay Dam and
Reservoir, Oregon.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto Mes-
sage attached)
Department of the Interior
Approval (Signing State-
ment attached)
Council on Environmental Quality
Disapproval
Department of the Treasury
Would concur in dis-
approval
Water Resources Council
No comment
Discussion
The enrolled bill is an omnibus authorization measure
for reclamation projects and programs, comprised of
four titles, each of which deals with a separate
project originally introduced as an individual bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
578
Time:
March 9
930am
ACTION:
George Humphreys
CC (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cavanaugh
Ken Lazarus
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
March 10
Time: 300pm
SUBJECT:
S. 151 - Reclamation Authorization
Act of 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary-Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
i.
XFor Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
Counsel's Office recommends veto for the reasons
expressed in the OMB memorandum despite substantial
political support by Senator Hansen.
I have been requested to indicate that Rog Morton recommends
sent to
approval of the measure and requests that his views be
solicited prior to any presentation to the President.
Ken Lazarus 3/10/76
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
U.S
Prestment
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 578
Date: March 9
Time:
930am
FOR ACTION:
George Humphreys
cc (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cavanaugh
Ken Lazarus
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
March 10
Time: 300pm
SUBJECT:
S. 151 Reclamation Authorization
Act of 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
XFor Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K.R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 578
Date:
March 9
Time:
930am
FOR ACTION:
George Humphreys
cc (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cavanaugh
Ken Lazarus
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
March 10
Time:
300pm
SUBJECT:
3/9-10:25 am
S. 151 - Reclamation Authorization
Act of 1975
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
XFor Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
must he usund before Pass bance
Recommend approval
Draft 0 K
ATH
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Gevenauch
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
FOP the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
VERN LOEN n
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Enrolled bill memo S. .151-Reclamation
Authorization Act of 1975
In deciding whether to recommend the President sign or veto this legislation,
I would recommend you take into consideration the following factors:
Legislative history - S. 151 was passed by voice vote in the Senate on
August 1, 1975. H.R. 10537, which expanded the number of projects in
the bill, passed the House on January 1, 1976, by a vote of 284-110 with
40 absentees. The Senate then accepted the House bill by voice vote on
February 25. An analysis of the House vote is attached. Given the
partisanship of an election year, I consider it likely that we would lose 31 of
the 110 nay votes and might gain as many as 36 switches from the yea votes
for a net gain of 5. Of those not voting, 13 looked like targets to sustain.
That would give us a total of 128 votes.
Rhodes was among those voting to pass the bill. When consulted about
sustaining a veto, he said he probably would vote to sustain, but would
be very quiet about it. Michel was among the absentees.
The Senate would act first and, if the 17 reclamation state Senators stick
together, we start off with a base of 34 votes against us. John Kyl feels
it is unlikely that the Senate would sustain. That would build momentum
and partisanship for the House vote and charges of another "anti-jobs veto,"
even though none of the jobs would be created this year. If the bill were
signed, Kyl says we would not have to worry about another package being
rushed in behind this one; however, it is likely that they would try to fund
these projects in FY77.
Signing the bill would be taken by the reclamation community, which is
somewhat monolithic, as a friendly gesture and might blunt criticism of
the President for his "no new starts" budget policy.
-2-
Largest of the four projects, Polecat Bench, is an irrigation project
strongly backed by Senator Hansen, costing $46 million. The Pollock-
Herreid irrigation project, costing $26 million, is strongly pushed by
Rep. Jim Abdnor and is located in his best Republican counties. Rep.
Mark Andrews says the Dickinson Dam safety project in North Dakota
could well burst due to faulty construction. The McKay Dam safety
project in Oregon is located in Al Ullman's district, but would benefit
Senators Hatfield and Packwood as well.
It's an extremely close call, boiling down to whether we want to help
our friends with an authorization bill in a Presidential election year
and fight the appropriation later if the stipulations are not met, or
do we stand on past established procedures. I come down on the side
of our friends since there is a good likelihood that a veto would be
overridden anyway.
TO THE SENATE
I return herewith, without my approval, S. 151, "The
Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975.' "
S. 151 would authorize four separate projects to be
undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench,
Wyoming; Dickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir,
Oregon; and Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.
The bill would reauthorize the Polecat Bench project
to provide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land,
a municipal and industrial water supply, and water for
conservation and recreation purposes.
The Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based
on a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing
Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes
of the project would be to supply on-farm sprinkler irri-
gation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal
and industrial water to two communities.
The Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, would consist
of certain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam
to make additional municipal and industrial water avail-
able to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to
increase the existing spillway capacity to provide addi-
tional safety allowances in light of increased estimates
of possible maximum flows.
- 2 -
The McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the
Dickinson Dam project in that it would provide for
increasing the capacity of the spillway of the dam for
safety purposes. S. 151 would also reauthorize the
project for additional purposes, including flood control,
fish and wildlife, and recreation, as well as the exist-
ing irrigation function.
I have disapproved this bill for the following reasons:
First, the Polecat Bench project previously failed
the test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied
to other water resource projects generally. To authorize
it now, without a current study of its economic feasibility
would be a departure from the long-standing policy that
only economically justified water resource projects
should be undertaken.
Second, the Executive Branch has not completed its
study of the Pollock-Herreid unit and submitted a report
on its feasibility to the Congress. Until such a report
is prepared, there is no adequate basis for appraising
the merits of this project.
Finally, the latter two projects - McKay Dam and
Dickinson Dam - would require work to make the dams safe
solely at Federal expense. Safety is normally an integral
design and operation feature of a federally constructed
dam, to be paid for. by project beneficiaries. I cannot
- 3 -
approve a policy which would require the Federal Govern-
ment to underwrite the cost of work to improve dam safety
in all situations involving modifications to federally
built dams.
The general question of Federal dam safety policy
will be considered when a congressionally directed report
on dam safety now underway by the Department of the Army
is completed, and cost-sharing recommendations on water
project purposes are made later this year.
The Executive Branch set forth these objections to
the projects while they were being considered by the
Congress. In my judgment they continue to remain valid.
Accordingly, I return S. 151 without my approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
March
, 1976
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today approved S. 151, "The Reclamation Authori-
zation Act of 1975. II
S. 151 authorizes four separate projects to be under-
taken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming;
Dickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon;
and Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.
The bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench project to
provide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a
municipal and industrial water supply, and water for conser-
vation and recreation purposes.
The Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based
on a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing
Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes
of the project are to supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation
for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and
industrial water to two communities.
The Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of
certain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to
make additional municipal and industrial water available
to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to increase
the existing spillway capacity to provide additional safety
allowances in light of increased estimates of possible
maximum flows.
- 2 -
The McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the
Dickinson Dam project in that it provides for increasing
the capacity of the spillway of the dam for safety purposes.
S. 151 also reauthorizes the project for additional purposes,
including flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation,
as well as the existing irrigation function.
Although I have signed S. 151, it should be noted that
I have several reservations about the bill and my imple-
mentation of its provisions will be subject to the following
constraints:
First, the Polecat Bench project previously failed
the test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied
to other water resource projects generally. This project
needs to be re-examined in light of new economic factors
to see if it is economically justified. Similarly, the
Executive Branch has not completed its study of the Pollock-
Herreid unit and submitted a report on its feasibility to
the Congress. Until such reports are prepared, there is
no adequate basis for appraising the merits of these
projects. Accordingly, I will not seek funds for either
project until a cost-effectiveness study has been completed
and the project is demonstrated to be economically justified.
Second, the bill requires work on the latter two projects --
McKay Dam and Dickinson Dam -- solely at Federal expense.
Safety is normally an integral design and operation feature
of a federally constructed dam, to be paid for by project
beneficiaries.
- 3 -
I do not endorse any policy which requires the Federal
Government to pay the entire cost of work to improve dam
safety in all situations involving modifications to federally
built dams. The general question of Federal policy on the
safety of dams will be considered when a congressionally
directed report on that subject now underway by the Depart-
ment of the Army is completed, and when new cost-sharing
recommendations for water projects are made later this year.
Therefore, I will not seek any funds for these two
project until the study has been completed and the Executive
Branch has made its recommendations on cost-sharing for
water projects.
E
Calendar No. 339
"94TH CONGRESS
{
SENATE
REPORT
1st Session
No. 94-350
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF POLECAT BENCH
AREA OF SHOSHONE, WYO.
JULY 31, 1975.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. CHURCH, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S.151]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was re-
ferred the bill (S. 151) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
construct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench area of the Sho-
shone extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyoming,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended
do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
1. On page 2, line 10, added the following sentence to Section 1:
For a period of not more than two years after the initial
availability of irrigation water up to 2217 acres of public
lands in the Polecat Bench area determined to be suitable for
settlement purposes shall be made available, on a preference
basis for exchange or amendment, to resident landowners
on the Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone Project,
who, on or before December 1, 1968, were determined by the
Secretary to be eligible for such exchange or amendment of
their farm units under provisions of the Act of August 13,
1953 (67 Stat. 566).
2. On page 2, line 15, delete the phrase "Recreation Act (79 Stat.
213) and insert instead the following: "Recreation Act (79 Stat.
213), as amended."
3. On page 2, line 21, add the following sentence to Section 3:
Repayment contracts for the return of construction costs
allocated to irrigation will be based on the water user's ability
to repay as determined by the Secretary of the Interior;
57-010
3
2
Section 5
and the terms of such contracts shall not exceed 50 years
Prohibits the delivery of project water to any lands producing a
following the permissable development period.
"surplus" agricultural commodity for a period of ten years following
4. On page 2, line 22, insert the following language as a new
date of enactment.
section 4 and renumber the existing Section 4 and subsequent Sections
Section 6
accordingly:
Provides for the computation of the interest rate of reimbursable
Sec. 4. The provisions of the third sentence of Section 46
costs associated with the construction of the features of the Polecat
of the Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other
Bench area.
similar provisions of the Federal reclamation laws as applied
Section 7
to the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit are
hereby modified to provide that lands held in a single owner-
Authorizes appropriation of $46,000,000 for the construction of the
ship which may be eligible to receive water from, through,
Polecat Bench area facilities and includes provision for changes in
or by means of area works shall be limited to one hundred
construction costs.
and sixty acres of Class I land or the equivalent thereof
PURPOSE
in other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior.
The purpose of S. 151 which was introduced on January 15, 1975, by
the Senators from Wyoming, Mr. Hansen and Mr. McGee, is to author-
5. On page 3, line 19, delete the figure "$40,000,000" and insert in-
ize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Polecat Bench
stead the figure: "$46,000,000"
area of the Shoshone extensions unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
6. Amend the title SO as to read
program in extreme northwestern Wyoming which would develop un-
A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to con-
appropriated natural flows of the Shoshone River for irrigation,
struct, operate, and maintain the Polecat Bench area of
municipal and industrial water suppply, recreation, and fish and wild-
life conservation.
the Shoshone extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
program, Wyoming, and for other purposes.".
BACKGROUND
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 151 AS AMENDED
The construction of the existing Shoshone Project was initiated in
1904 to complete a private development. Closure of the Buffalo Bill
Dam was made in 1910. The Shoshone extensions unit was authorized
Section 1
for construction as a part of the comprehensive plan for the Missouri
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake the con-
River Basin by the Flood Control Acts of 1944 (58 Stat. 887) and
struction, operation and maintenance of the proposed Polecat Bench
1946 (60 Stat. 641). Construction of the unit was not initiated before
area of the Shoshone unit, describes the purposes for which the
1964, however, and reauthorization is therefore necessary under the
project is to be built, and lists the major features of the project.
provisions of the Act of August 14, 1964 (78 Stat. 446).
This section also provides for 2,217 acres to be made available on a
The present proposal includes only a portion of the original plan
preference basis to resident landowners of the adjacent Heart Moun-
for the Shoshone extensions unit. The Secretary of-the Interior's feasi-
tain Division of the Shoshone Project.
bility report was transmitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972. The
Section 2
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Water Resources held a hear-
Provides that project activities and functions related to the con-
ing on S. 151 on April 17, 1975. The Department of the Interior
servation and development of fish and wildlife resources and the
opposed enactment of the bill recommending in lieu thereof further
enhancement of recreation opportunities shall be in accord with the
study of the proposed project.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213), as amended.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Section 3
Provides for the physical and financial integration of the Polecat
The proposed Polecat Bench area is located in Park County, Wyo-
Bench area with the other Federal projects constructed pursuant to
ming, along the Shoshone River. The development would provide a
the comprehensive plan approved as part of the Flood Control Act
full irrigation water supply to 19,200 acres of irrigable lands, a source
of 1944 (58 Stat, 887, 891), as amended. In addition, Section 3 provides
of municipal and industrial water supply for the neighboring town of
for a' fifty year maximum repayment contract for the return of con-
Powell, yoming, and provide outdoor recreation and fish and wild-
struction costs allocable to irrigation.
life conservation.
Section 4
Water supplies for the project would be provided from unappro-
priated natural flows of the Shoshone River, available storage in the
Provides for a. Class I equivalency for ownership of irrigated lands
existing Buffalo Bill Reservoir of the Shoshone Project, and return
in the Polecat Bench area.
S.R. 350
S.R. 350.:
4
5
flows from existing irrigation development. The existing Heart Moun-
the Interior in 1970 indicated that the project had a ratio of benefits to
tain Canal would deliver water from the Buffalo Bill Reservoir to the
costs of 1.68 to 1. Subsequent indexing of construction costs indicates
new facilities.
that the benefit/cost ratio has decreased. However, increases in the
The principal new features of the extension would be the Polecat
value of agricultural commodities have tended to offset the rise in as-
Canal, a relift pumping plant, the Holden reregulating reservoir, the
sociated project costs.
Holden Canal, and distribution and drainage systems. Recreation fa-
Of the costs allocated to irrigation, local beneficiaries would repay
cilities will be provided at Holden Reservoir and fish and wildlife
all maintenance costs and $7,392,000 or about 16 percent of the total
management will be accommodated in the land acquisition and at the
irrigation allocation. The remaining $35,581,000 would be repaid from
reservoir.
power revenues accruing to the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program.
Testimony presented to the Subcommittee on Energy Research and
The Wyoming Recreation Commission has indicated their willingness
Water Resources during the April 17, 1975 hearing indicated that the
to comply with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recrea-
Town of Powell, Wyoming, (population approximately 5,000) could
tion Act of 1965 in regard to project recreation oriented facilities.
utilize approximately 2,700 acre feet of water annually to meet de-
mands through the year 2000, Projected project facilities would be
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
able to meet the additional municipal and industrial capacity.
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs adopted six amend-
PROJECT DATA
ments. The amendments are set forth in full at the beginning of this
report and are explained below.
Holden Dam and Reservoir:
The first amendment, page 2, line 10 of the original bill, will enable
Type: earthfill.
the Secretary of the Interior to give a priority to present irrigators on
Height: 65 feet.
the adjacent Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone project to proj-
Crest length 6,070 feet.
ect lands in the Polecat Bench area in order to bring their total hold-
Reservoir capacity : 9,900 acre-feet.
ings to an economic level. When the Heart Mountain Division was ini-
Reservoir area : 640 acres.
tially developed, it was anticipated that a second stage would be devel-
Distribution System
oped at a later date and that irrigators on several inadequately sized
Polecat Canal length : 18 miles.
units would be able to "round-out" their holdings. The second stage
Holden Canal length : 13.3 miles.
was never developed and this amendment would permit the "rounding-
Laterals total length : 53.9 miles.
out" of the inadequate ownerships utilizing lands of the Polecat Bench
area.
FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The second amendment, page 2, line 15 of the original bill is techni-
cal in nature.
The total estimated construction cost of the project is $46,240,000
The third amendment, page 2, line 21 of the original bill, will enable
based on January, 1975 prices. Assigned costs to reflect the use of
the Secretary of the Interior to execute a 50-year repayment contract
existing facilities of the Shoshone Project and the Pick-Sloan Missouri
with the Polecat Bench Irrigation District. The Department's feasi-
Basin program amount to $1,782,000. The costs have been allocated
bility report on the project utilizes a 50-year repayment provision and
among the project purposes as follows:
without the amendment, the Secretary would be limited to a 40-year
repayment contract pursuant to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939
Amount
Percent
(53 Stat. 1187).
The fourth amendment, page 2, line 22 of the original bill, adds a
Construction costs
$46, 240, 000
Assigned costs
1,782,000
new Section 4 providing a class I equivalency for land ownerships in
Interest during construction
4,115,000
the Polecat Bench area. This means that the Secretary of the Interior
Total
51,577,000
may permit certain ownerships in excess of 160 acres in the area to
Less preauthorization costs
560,000
Less project interest
4,020,000
receive project waters. This flexibility is encouraged because of the
Costs to be allocated
47,557,000
high altitude of associated project lands and other physical features
which may affect related agricultural production.
Irrigation
46,973,000
98. 7
Fish and wildlife
322,000
7
The fifth amendment, page 3, line 19 of the original bill, increases
Recreation
262,000
.6
the authorization by $6,000,000 to a total of $46,000,000. This reflects
Total
47,557,000
100.0
Departmental testimony concerning the actual present estimated costs
for construction of the Polecat Bench area facilities.
Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are estimated
The sixth amendment, to amend the title of S. 151, was adopted to
to be $90,000. Average annual benefits are estimated to be $4,200,000.
correct a typographical error.
The economic analysis presented to the Congress by the Department of
S.R. 350
S.R. 350
6
7
COSTS
nomic efficiency criteria applied to all other water resources projects.
In accordance with Section 252(a) of the Legislative Reorganiza-
Accordingly, this Department recommended against authorization of
tion Act of 1970 the Committee provides the following estimate of
the project during subsequent committee hearings held on the report.
costs:
No further study or actions have been carried out in connection with
S. 151, as reported by the Committee, would authorize the appro-
this proposed project since completion of the original study.
priation of $46,000,000.
The original feasibility study in the Polecat Bench area considered
a system of canals, a reservoir, and other structures to furnish water
TABULATION OF VOTES CAST IN COMMITTEE
supply to irrigate approximately 19,200 acres of lands or about 80 new
farm units in northwestern Wyoming. The proposed development
Pursuant to Section 133 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
would also enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide outdoor
of 1946, as amended, the following is a tabulation of votes of the Com-
recreational opportunities. The water supply would be provided from
mittee during consideration of S. 151.
existing storage facilities at the Buffalo Bill Reservoir on the Shoshone
S. 151, was ordered favorably reported to the Senate with amend-
River.
ments, by unanimous voice vote with a quorum present in open public
Local interests in the area continue to strongly support the project.
session on July 31, 1975.
The city of Powell has recently expressed interest in obtaining munici-
pal and industrial water supply from the project.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
Since the report was completed in 1972, costs for constructing public
works have risen significantly. Prices of crops that would be grown on
The reports of the Department of the Interior and the Office of
land irrigated by the proposed Polecat Bench Project have also in-
Management and Budget are set forth in full as follows:
creased in value. While these factors along with the possible inclusion
of municipal and industrial water supply as a project purpose, are
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
important and would undoubtedly affect the economic feasibility of the
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
project, the precise impact of these changes cannot be determined
Washington, D.C., April 15, 1975.
without the results of a feasibility grade restudy of the project.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
In light of the continuing interest by local interests in the State
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular fairs,
of Wyoming regarding approval of this project, this Department
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
would recommend initiating such a study to determine the merits of the
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of
project based on current conditions and criteria. Until such a study
this Department on S. 151, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the
has been conducted and completed, this Department has no basis for
Interior to construct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench area of
amending its earlier position on the proposed project.
the Shoshone extension unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program,
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
Wyoming, and for other purposes."
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of
The bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone exten-
the Administration's program.
sion unit which had previously been authorized as an integral part of
Sincerely yours,
the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The reauthorized project
JACK HORTON,
would provide irrigation water for 19,200 acres of land, plus municipal
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
and industrial water as well as conservation and recreation uses. The
needed features of the project are set out in section 1. Section 2 of the
bill provides for the conservation and recreational provisions of the
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
project. Section 3 of the bill integrates the project physically and
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
financially with the other Federal works authorized pursuant to the
Washington, D.C., April 23, 1975.
original authorization for this project. Section 4 of the bill denies for
a period of ten years the delivery of irrigation water from the project
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
for use on surplus agricultural crops. Section 5 of the bill sets the
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
method under which the interest rate for the project will be computed.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Section 6 of the bill authorizes the appropriations for the project.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of January 29,
Pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, a report
1975 for the views of the Office of Management and Budget on S. 151,
on a feasibility study of the proposed Polecat Bench Project was trans-
a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate
mitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972, by then Assistant Secretary
and maintain the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extension unit,
James R. Smith. This report indicated that the Polecat Bench Project
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyoming, and for other
did not meet the test of economic feasibility based on the national eco-
purposes." In its report to your Committee, the Department of the Interior
points out that it opposed authorization of the project in 1972 on the
S.R. 350
S.R. 350
8
basis of an economic feasibility study completed that year. The De-
partment went on to say, however, that in light of certain changes in
costs and potential benefits, it would recommend initiating a new study
of the merits of the project based on current criteria, but until that
study is completed, would have no basis for changing its earlier
position.
The Office of Management and Budget concurs with the views ex-
pressed by the Department, and accordingly, recommends against
enactment of S. 151.
Sincerely,
JAMES M. FREY,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
S.R. 350
94TH CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
1st Session
No. 94-694
AUTHORIZING AND MODIFYING VARIOUS FEDERAL
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
DECEMBER 8, 1975.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10537]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (H.R. 10537) To authorize and modify various Federal
reclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
ORGANIZATION OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 10537,1 entitled the Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975,
includes in a single measure all of the authorizing legislation considered
during the First Session of the 94th Congress by the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.
The bill is comprised of four Titles, each of which deals with a
separate activity originally introduced as an individual bill. The in-
dividually introduced bill provided the vehicle for requesting depart-
mental reports and for hearings before the Subcommittee on Water
and Power Resources. Thereafter, each measure was discussed and
amended as appropriate before being approved for inclusion in the
bill reported herein.
Each Title will be discussed separately below, except that the sec-
tions of this report captioned Costs, Committee Recommendations and
Inflationary Impact Assessment will present consolidated information.
1 H.R. 10537 was introduced by Mr. Johnson of California (for himself, Mr. Roncalio,
Mr. Andrews of North Dakota, Mr. Abdnor, Mr. Lujan, Mrs. Pettis, Mr. Ullman, Mr. Don H.
Clausen, and Mr. Symms). The committee also considered related legislation, as follows
H.R. 1500 introduced by Mr. Roncalio; H.R. 8539 introduced by Mr. Andrews of North
Dakota; H.R. 9649 introduced by Mr. Ullman; and H.R. 3383 introduced by Mr. Abdnor.
57-006
2
3
TITLE I-POLECAT BENCH, Wro.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT
PURPOSE
The total estimated construction cost of the facilities authorized by
this Title is $46,240,000 based on January 1975 price levels. This sum
The purpose of this title is to authorize the Secretary of the In-
is ilnclusive of $465,000 previously expended for preauthorization in-
terior to construct, operate, and maintain the Polecat Bench area,
vestigations-thereby indicating a need for future appropriations in
Shoshone Extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyo-
the amount of $45,775,000. The Committee on Interior and Insular
ming. The facilities covered by this title will be a program of the
Affairs rounded this amount to $46,000,000 as the limit on authoriza-
Bureau of Reclamation and will be subject to the provisions of the
tion for appropriations.
Federal Reclamation Act (32 Stat. 388) and Acts amendatory thereof
The benefits estimated to be created by development of the Polecat
and supplementary thereto.
Bench area agrregate $4,160,700 annually, as set forth in detail below
Irrigation
$3,999,000
SETTING AND BACKGROUND
Fish and wildlife
22,000
Recreation
20,000
The Polecat Bench area consists of the facilities for delivery and
M. & I. water
121,500
distribution of irrigation water to approximately 19,200 acres of un-
Less adverse effects
(1, 800)
developed private and public land in Park County, Wyoming. Mu-
The annual economic cost of facilities to be authorized by this title,
nicipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife conservation and
utilizing a discount rate of 57/8 percent, is $3,025,000 and computed as
public outdoor recreation are additional purposes of the development
follows:
and will be benefited by implementation of the plan.
Water for the Polecat Bench development will be regulated in
Construction cost
$46, 240, 000
Less preauthorization costs
(465,000)
Buffalo Bill Reservoir, a feature of the Shoshone Project, which was
Plus: Interest during construction
4,010,000
constructed on the Shoshone River west of Cody, Wyoming, in the
early years of this century. Regulatory capacity was provided at that
Total economic cost
49,690,000
time for the lands of the Polecat Bench. Adequate capacity has also
Annual equivalent of economic construction cost
2,929,000
been provided in the existing Shoshone Canyon Conduit and the Heart
Operation and maintenance
90,000
Mountain Canal to convey the water to the limits of the existing
Heart Mountain division of the Shoshone project.
Total annual cost of foregoing
3,019,000
The facilities authorized by this title will consist of a canal origi-
On the basis of the foregoing the Polecat Bench is shown to have a
nating at the terminus of the Heart Mountain Canal, two relift pump-
ratio of benefits to costs of 1.38. In presenting this ratio the Commit-
ing plants, a regulating facility known as Holden Reservoir, laterals,
tee on Interior and Insular Affairs expressly accepts the validity of
drains and appurtenant facilities. Holden Reservoir will also provide
secondary or regional economic effects of irrigated agriculture-and
storage for the future municipal needs of the City of Powell,
rejects the applicability of sunk-cost in decision making, as well as the
Wyoming.
utilization of a discount rate higher than the long-term cost of money
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FACILITIES
to the Federal government. The Committee notes that such factors
seem to be prevalent in the Executive Branch outlook toward resource
Polecat Bench Canal will originate at the terminus of the Heart
development but declines to be SO limited in its perspective of the value
Mountain Canal, an existing feature of the Shoshone project. It will
and merit of this and other resource development investment
have an initial capacity of 212 cubic feet per second and will extend
opportunities.
for a distance of 18 miles, serving irrigable lands enroute, to discharge
The construction costs of the Polecat Bench area are tentatively al-
into Holden Reservoir.
located as follows:
Holden Reservoir will be a reregulatory facility with a total con-
trolled capacity of 9,900 acre-feet. It will be formed by an earth fill
Irrigation
$45, 226, 000
Recreation
229,000
dam with a height of 65 feet and a crest length of 6,070 feet.
Fish and wildlife
320,000
Holden Canal will originate at Holden Reservoir with an initial
M. & I. water
capacity of 160 cubic feet per second and extend for a distance of 13.8
Preauthorization costs
465,000
miles. À lateral system aggregating 53.9 miles in length and 22 miles
Preauthorization costs are nonreimbursable by statute. The costs al-
of pipe and open drains are also planned for the area. Two relift
located to irrigation are reimbursable without interest, in accordance
pumping plants are required to serve 3,100 acres of land situated
with reclamation law and precedent. The water users will repay the
above the water surface elevation of Polecat Canal.
sum of $7,392,000 in accordance with their computed ability to pay
The project plan also will include the development of two land-
for a period of 50 years after the permissible development. The re-
scaped visitor areas along the shore of Holden Reservoir. They will be
maining costs allocated to the irrigation purpose will be returned from
equipped with shelter, water and sanitation facilities.
net power revenues of the interconnected power system of the Pick-
Sloan Missouri River program.
4
5
The relatively modest costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhance-
TITLE II-DICKINSON DAM MODIFICATIONS, NORTH DAKOTA
ment and recreation will be shared by local agencies in accordance with
the cost-sharing precepts of the Federal Water Project Recreation
PURPOSE
Act (Public Law 89-72).
There have not as yet been any costs allocated to municipal and in-
The purpose of title II of HR 10537 is to authorize structural modi-
dustrial water supply but the Committee expects that such an alloca-
fication of Dickinson Dam on the Heart River in the State of North
tion will be made during the post-authorization investigation period
Dakota. The work to be done will consist of the installation of gates on
and that arrangements for repayment of the amount SO allocated will
the existing spillway to increase the yield of municipal water from the
be accomplished at the interest rate prescribed for the return of reim-
reservoir and the construction of an auxiliary spillway deemed neces-
bursable costs.
sary to protect the dam from overtopping and failure during occur-
rence of the spillway design flood.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE TITLE
BACKGROUND AND NEED
This Title is comprised of seven sections as follows:
Section 101 authorizes construction, operation, and maintenance of
Dickinson Dam was authorized for construction by the Flood Con-
the Polecat Bench area facilities, enumerates purposes of the project,
trol Acts of 1944 and 1946. Construction was completed in 1950 and
lists the major facilities to be constructed and provides that entrymen
thereafter the principal use of the reservoir has been as a source of
on the Heart Mountain division of the Shoshone project may have a
municipal water supply for the City of Dickinson, North Dakota. This
priority in obtaining up to 2,217 acres of land to augment their present
city is a major commercial center situated in close proximity to the coal
farm units.
resources of Western North Dakota. It has sustained a rapid rate of
Section 102 invokes the cost-sharing provisions of the Federal Wa-
growth and expects an accelerated growth rate as the coal resources are
ter Project Recreation Act, as amended (79 Stat. 213) as a guide to the
developed to meet growing national energy needs. Enlargement of the
development of the fish and wildlife and recreation features of the area.
water yield capacity of Dickinson Reservoir affords a means of sup-
Section 103 provides that the Polecat Bench area shall be integrated
plying the water needed to support the anticipated growth of the city.
financially and physically with other Federal works comprising the
Since Dickinson Dam was constructed much progress has been made
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin project. This, in a practical sense, provides
in the science of estimating likely flood occurrences. It has now been
for the use of basin-wide net power revenues to repay irrigation costs
determined that the spillway of Dickinson Dam would be inadequate
in excess of the repayment ability of the water users. Section 103 also
to regulate the amount of flood runoff capable of entering Dickinson
provides for irrigation repayment to be accomplished over a period of
Reservoir. If and when this runoff occurs, the embankment would be
50 years plus permissible development period.
overtopped and the structure would fail quite rapidly. An auxiliary
Section 104 authorizes the Secretary to compute and promulgate a
spillway is badly needed to prevent such an occurrence.
Class I equivalent for inferior land classes thereby enabling settlers of
land other than Class I to receive water for more than 160 acres or 320
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
acres for man and wife.
Section 105 prohibits the delivery of water for the production of
Title II is comprised of four sections, as follows
certain crops determined by the Secretary of the Agriculture to be
Section 201 provides basic authority to the Secretary of the Interior
"surplus". Section 106 establishes the formula for computing the interest rate
to perform the necessary construction involved in installing gates on
the existing spillway and providing a new auxiliary spillway.
for the return of interest-bearing reimbursable costs.
Section 202 provides for an amendatory repayment contract to ac-
Section 107 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $46,000,000
complish return of costs of allocated municipal water supply and also
based on price levels as of January 1975 and authorizes appropriations
provides that the cost of the auxiliary spillway, required for the safety
for operation and maintenance.
of Dickinson Dam, shall be nonreimbursable.
Section 203 establishes the formula for determination of the interest
COSTS
rate to be applied to the repayment of municipal water costs.
The Committee estimate of Federal cost as required to be stated by
Section 204 authorizes appropriations of necessary funds.
the Rules of the House is the sum authorized to be appropriated for
COSTS
this Title-$46,000,000.
The Committee estimate of costs associated with enactment of title
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
II is $4 million, the amount authorized to be appropriated.
The report of the Department of the Interior on the companion bill
H.R. 1500, dated April 15, 1975, appears at the end of this report.
6
7
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
for safety of dams, flood control and joint costs of recreation and fish
The report of the Department of the Interior on HR 8539, a bill
and wildlife. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs calls
related to Title II, is dated October 2, 1975, and appears in its entirety
attention to the fact that cost-sharing, as provided by this section, is
at the end of this report.
in keeping with the precedents established by the Congress for such
matters.
TITLE III-McKAY DAM, UMATILLA PROJECT, OREGON
Section 305 authorizes the Secretary to amend and revise existing
irrigation repayment contracts, as needed, to conform such contracts
The purpose of title III of HR 10537 is to reauthorize McKay Dam,
to the revised cost allocations made pursuant to this title.
Umatilla Project, Oregon, to encompass water resource purposes other
Section 306 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $1,300,000
than irrigation and to authorize structural modifications to the spill-
with which to implement the authority contained in the title.
way to protect the dam from failure during occurrence of the spillway
design flood.
COSTS
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The Committee estimate of costs associated with enactment of title
McKay Dam was constructed in 1927 on McKay Creek about 6
III is $1,300,000-the amount authorized to be appropriated.
miles south of Pendleton, Oregon, as a feature of the Umatilla Project.
It forms a reservoir with an active storage capacity of 74,000 acre-
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
feet which provides irrigation water to the Stanfield and Westlands
Irrigation Districts. The reservoir is a part of the McKay National
The report of the Department of the Interior on HR 9649, a com-
Wildlife Refuge, an important migratory waterfowl resource of the
panion measure to title III is presented in its entirety at the end of this
report.
area.
McKay Creek is a tributary of the Umatilla River and enters that
TITLE IV-POLLOCK-HERREID UNIT, SOUTH DAKOTA
stream at the City of Pendleton, Oregon. Although none of the cost
PURPOSE
of this facility is allocated to the flood control purpose, it has been
possible through careful operation to provide approximately 6,000
The purpose of this title is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
acre-feet of flood control capacity in the reservoir.
to construct, operate and maintain the Pollock-Herreid Unit, South
Application of updated techniques for estimation of probable and
Dakota Pumping Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin pro-
possible floods indicates that floods are capable of occurrence in the
gram, South Dakota. The facilities covered by this title will be a pro-
McKay Creek watershed that would exceed the spillway capability of
gram of the Bureau of Reclamation and will be subject to the provi-
McKay Dam and lead to overtopping and failure of the embankment.
sions of the Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and Acts
Such an event could lead to much loss of life and property on the
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.
flood plain downstream from the dam where the creek traverses the
urbanized area of Pendleton.
SETTING AND BACKGROUND
Modification of the spillway of the existing dam, together with statu-
tory authority to operate the reservoir for flood control, are badly
The Pollock-Herreid Unit consists of the facilities required for the
needed to protect the downstream area from flood damage and from
diversion and distribution of irrigation water to approximately 15,000
the consequences of dam failure at this location.
acres of privately-owned irrigable land, occupying a river terrace im-
mediately east of the Missouri River in Campbell County, South
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Dakota. Municipal and industrial water supply and fish and wildlife
enhancement are other water resource development purposes that
Title III is comprised of six sections to accomplish the purposes set
will be benefited by the unit works.
forth above.
Water from Pollock-Herreid will be diverted from the existing Lake
Section 301 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate the
Oahe, a mainstem reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers,
costs of McKay Dam and Reservoir to all the water resource purposes
Department of the Army, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A sub-
served by the reservoir, including an allocation to safety of dams. The
impoundment known as Lake Pocasse has been created on an arm of
Committee expects that the entire cost of the structural modifications
Lake Oahe and is managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the
authorized by this title will be allocated to safety of dams.
Department of the Interior as a migratory waterfowl refuge.
Section 302 authorizes the modifications to the structure.
The structures authorized by this title will include a pumping plant
Section 303 provides the legislative basis for reservation of reservoir
for lifting water from Lake Oahe to Lake Pocasse; a canal extending
capacity for control and regulation of flood flows.
from the pumping plant to Lake Pocasse; canals, laterals and relift
Section 304 establishes cost-sharing criteria for repayment of McKay
pumping plants for distribution of the water beyond Lake Pocasse;
Dam and Reservoir and specifically provides for Federal responsibility
and drainage facilities as required for preserving the arability of the
unit lands.
8
9
Existing elements of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program
Preauthorization costs are nonreimbursable by statute. The costs al-
were authorized in 1944 and many of such elements have been com-
located to irrigation are reimbursable without interest in accordance
pleted and placed in service. Oahe Dam and Lake Oahe is but one of
with basic Reclamation law and precedent. The water users of the Pol-
many such facilities, the development of which for downstream flood
lock-Herreid Unit will contract to repay, in accordance with their
control, navigation and hydroelectric power production was accom-
capacity to pay, the sum of $3,397,000 (plus operation and mainte-
plished at great economic sacrifice in terms of inundated river valley
nance costs) during 50 years following a permissible development
lands within South Dakota. The Oahe Project and companion develop-
period. The remaining costs allocated to irrigation will be repaid from
ments within the State resulted in the inundation and removal from
productivity, and the tax base, of 500,000 acres of the best farm land
Sloan Missouri River program.
net power revenues of the interconnected power system of the Pick-
in the State. Authorization and development of the Pollock-Herreid
The costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement will be cost-
Unit represents a small but significant step in extenuation of these
shared by a non-federal public body in accordance with the cost-shar-
adverse effects on the economy and social structure of rural South
Law 89-72). Municipal and industrial water supply will be repaid in
ing precepts of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public
Dakota.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE UNIT
its entirety at prescribed interest rates.
The total cost of the Pollock-Herreid Unit facilities authorized by
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
this title is $25,940,000 at January 1975 price levels. This sum is in-
clusive of $370,000 of preauthorization investigation costs which, al-
The Title is comprised of seven sections as follows:
though technically a part of the cost of the unit, do not represent future
expenditures and therefore should not influence decision making rela-
sets forth the purposes of the development, and enumerates the major
Section 401 conveys basic authority for development of the project,
tive to the development. The "new money" cost involved in economic
features of the plan.
analysis of the unit is thus established as $25,570,000. Annual opera-
Section 402 invokes the cost-sharing precepts of the Federal Water
tion, maintenance and replacement costs are estimated at $160,000 and
Project of Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213) as a guide to the development
interest during construction is $3,207,000.
the fish and wildlife features of the Unit.
The annual equivalent cost of the Pollock-Herreid Unit is summa-
Section 403 provides that the unit shall be an element of the Pick-
rized as follows:
Construction cost
pumping power.
share in the basinwide net power revenues and is eligible for project
Sloan Missouri River program which means that the unit is eligible to
$25,940,000
Less preauthorization investigations
370,000
Section 404 prohibits the delivery of water for the production of
New money cost
25,570,000
Plus interest during construction
3,207,000
"surplus". certain crops determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be
Investment cost
28,777,000
Section 405 establishes the formula for establishing the interest
Annual equivalent at 5% percent discount rate
1,767,000
bearing costs of the Unit.
for computing interest during construction and for return of interest- rate
Plus operation and maintenance
160,000
Section 406 provides that the Secretary of the Interior may
Annual economic cost
1,927,000
Total estimated annual benefits accruing to the Pollock-Herreid
enabling water users to receive service to more than 160 acres, or 320
and promulgate a class 1 equivalent for inferior land classes, compute thereby
Unit are summarized as follows:
2 and 3.
acres for man and wife, if their farms contain irrigable lands in classes
Irrigation
$3,346,000
Fish and wildlife
9,000
Section 407 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $26,000,000
Municipal water supply
4,000
tion and maintenance.
at January 1975 price levels and authorizes appropriations for opera-
Area redevelopment
60,000
COSTS
Total
3,419,000
Less adverse effects
9,000
of this Title is $26,000,000.
The Committee estimate of Federal costs associated with enactment
Annual benefits
3,410,000
The benefit cost ratio, utilizing the foregoing data is 1.77. Costs of
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
the Pollock-Herreid Unit are tentatively allocated as follows:
Irrigation
$25,429,000
The report of the Department of the Interior, on the companion
M. & I. water
47,000
Fish and wildlife
at the end of this report.
bill H.R. 3383, is dated October 29, 1975, and is set forth in its entirety
94,000
Preauthorization investigations
370,000
Total
25,940,000
H. Rept. 94-694
10
11
SUMMARY OF COSTS
of the bill provides for the conservation and recreational provisions
of the project. Section 3 of the bill integrates the project physically
The summary of costs of all Titles of H.R. 10537 is as follows
and financially with the other Federal works authorized pursuant to
Title I-Polecast Bench, Wyo
$46, 000, 000
the original authorization for this project. Section 4 of the bill denies
Title II-Dickinson Dam, N. Dak
4,000,000
for a period of ten years the delivery of irrigation water from the
Title III-McKay Dam, Oreg
1,300,000
project for use on surplus agricultural crops. Section 5 of the bill sets
Title IV-Pollock-Herreid, S. Dak
26,000,000
the method under which the interest rate for the project will be com-
Totals
77, 300, 000
puted. Section 6 of the bill authorizes the appropriations for the
project.
INFLATIONARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, a report on
a feasibility study of the proposed Polecat Bench Project was trans-
The sums authorized to be appropriated by H.R. 10537 will be sched-
mitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972, by then Assistant Secre-
uled for expenditure over a period of several years commencing at the
tary James R. Smith. This report indicated that the Polecat Bench
conclusion of a period of post-authorization planning. The total im-
Project did not meet the test of economic feasibility based on the
pact of this legislation will extend over a term of as much as 10 years.
national economic efficiency criteria applied to all other water re-
The existing level of construction activity of the Bureau of Reclama-
sources projects. Accordingly, this Department recommended against
tion is in the neighborhood of $400,000,000 each year. It can thus be
authorization of the project during subsequent committee hearings
seen that the average fiscal impact of this legislation, when imple-
held on the report. No further study or actions have been carried out
mented, is on the order of a 2 percent increase in current funding levels
in connection with this proposed project since completion of the
for Federal Reclamation construction.
original study.
The programs authorized by this legislation will be in areas where
The original feasibility study in the Polecat Bench area considered
the existing economy is not overheated and any economic impact on
a system of canals, a reservoir, and other structures to furnish water
the local area will be helpful rather than harmful.
supply to irrigate approximately 19,200 acres of lands or about 80
new farm units in northwestern Wyoming. The proposed develop-
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
ment would also enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide out-
door recreational opportunities. The water supply would be provided
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs approved H.R.
from existing storage facilities at the Buffalo Bill Reservoir on the
10537 by voice vote without dissent and recommends its enactment.
Shoshone River.
Local interests in the area continue to strongly support the project.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
The city of Powell has recently expressed interest in obtaining munici-
None.
pal and industrial water supply from the project.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
Since the report was completed in 1972, costs for constructing
TITLE I
public works have risen significantly. Prices of crops that would be
grown on land irrigated by the proposed Polecat Bench Project have
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
also increased in value. While these factors along with the possible
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
inclusion of municipal and industrial water supply as a project pur-
pose, are important and would undoubtedly affect the economic feasi-
Washington, D.C., April 15, 1975.
bility of the project, the precise impact of these changes cannot be
Hon. JAMES A. HALEY,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
determined without the results of a feasibility grade restudy of the
project.
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
In light of the continuing interest by local interests in the State
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN This responds to your request for the views
of Wyoming regarding approval of this project, this Department
of this Department on H.R. 1500, a bill "To authorize the Secretary
would recommend initiating such a study to determine the merits of
of the Interior to construct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench
the project based on current conditions and criteria. Until such a study
area of the Shoshone extension unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Pro-
has been conducted and completed, this Department has no basis for
gram, Wyoming, and for other purposes."
amending its earlier position on the proposed project.
The bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone ex-
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
tension unit which had previously been authorized as an integral part
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The reauthorized project
the Administration's program.
would provide irrigation water for 19,200 acres of land, plus munici-
Sincerely yours,
pal and industrial water as well as conservation and recreation uses.
JACK HORTON,
The needed features of the project are set out in section 1. Section 2
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
12
13
TITLE II
2. The report on the safety feature of the dam has not been ap-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
proved by the Department, nor has the Administration or the Congress
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
had time to consider it. Although the Administration has not yet
Washington, D.C., October 2, 1975.
finalized its policy with respect to safety of dams issues, the Depart-
Hon. JAMES A. HALEY,
ment has heretofore applied a policy whereby legislative action under
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
the Safety of Dams program would be considered on a case-by-case
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
basis, only after full Executive review of study reports on each
project.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the
3. The proposed modifications are not of such urgency that further
views of this Department with respect to a bill, H.R. 8539, "To author-
consideration of the issues for a period amounting to a matter of
ize modifications to Dickinson Dam, Dickinson Unit, Pick-Sloan
weeks would be a serious or unwarranted delay. [Where necessary to
Missouri Basin Program, North Dakota, and for other purposes."
reduce the risk, the Department would apply interim operating cri-
We have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend against
terial, although it does not appear to be required in this case.]
its enactment at this time. The Department and the Administration
Moreover, the Administration and the Department would oppose
are of the view that the legislation is being proposed and considered
any provision which calls for full payment by the Federal Government
prematurely, and that consideration should be deferred.
of the cost of new safety measures, without reimbursement and with-
H.R. 8539 proposes that modifications be made to the existing
out consideration of the individual merits of each case, and which
Dickinson Dam. The purposes of the proposed modifications are:
would appear to assume that full payment should be undertaken by
1. To make additional municipal and industrial (M&I) water
the Federal Government in all cases involving the Safety of Dams
available to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota. Installation of bas-
program. In considering the matters of cost and allocation of costs and
cule gates on the existing spillway of Dickinson Dam would increase
repayment for safety modifications, such factors as the original pur-
the conservation storage capacity of Edward Arthur Patterson Lake.
pose and uses of the dam, the proposed uses of the dam as modified, the
The resulting increase in firm water yield in combination with exist-
reasons for the modification, the urgency of the need, the remaining
ing M&I supplies would be adequate to meet the needs of the city of
life expectancy of the dam, and the financial circumstances of those
Dickinson to about the year 1985.
benefiting from the dam should be taken into account.
2. To assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from flood occurrences
While we feel that this legislation is premature, we are aware that
currently estimated to be larger than the existing spillway capacity.
other similar proposals are being scheduled for consideration in the
The existing spillway capacity is 33,200 cubic feet per second (ft.³/s).
near future and we are making every effort to establish a more defini-
The currently estimated maximum inflow design flood (IDF) under
tive Department and Administration position on Safety and Dams
the most extreme circumstances would have a peak flow of about
issues in time to fully consider those upcoming proposals.
106,700 ft³/s. The addition of an auxiliary spillway, with a design
Dickinson Dam was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation,
capacity of 69,200 ft³/s, in combination with the existing spillway and
under the authority of Public Law 80-299 and was completed in 1950.
surcharge storage would allow safe passage of the currently estimated
Dickinson has grown from a small town in 1910 of 3,700 people to its
maximum IDF. The increased estimates of maximum IDF over those
present size of about 14,000. By 1950 the city had reached a population
originally anticipated for the dam are the result of improved and
of 7,500 and had become a hub of business and distribution for much of
updated scientific methodology. There are no structural defects in the
the western part of North Dakota. In that year it began converting
dam.
from its limited ground water supply to a surface water system and
The total estimated cost, based on January 1974 price levels, of the
storage supply from Dickinson Dam. The dam and small reservoir
measures included in H.R. 8539 is $3,171,000 including interest during
near the city on the Heart River were constructed for the principal
construction. Under the terms of the proposed bill, the portion of
purpose of providing municipal water, but also included some recrea-
the cost relating to increased water supply for the city would be
tion, limited irrigation, and incidental flood control.
reimbursable with interest. The portion relating to dam safety would
The Heart River originates on the semiarid high plains and pro-
not be reimbursable. Costs as presently projected include $681,000 for
vides limited runoff from about 400 square miles of drainage. While
the bascule gates, and $2,490,000 for safety improvements.
the runoff varies between flood and drought conditions, the Dickinson
The bill is premature for the following reasons:
Reservoir yield is too small to insure the municipal supply of the
1. The feasibility report on the modifications for increased capacity
present population in a dry year and the yield even in average water
is not yet final and has not yet been approved by the Department,
years will not supply the increasing water needs.
the Administration or the Congress; action on the bill now would
If Dickinson grows at a moderate pace it can, by modifving the
therefore serve to circumvent and short-circuit proper consideration
present water facilities, extend its water supply another decade or
of the report as well as the legislative procedures normally followed
more, but it should anticipate plans for a long-range solution.
for a project of this type, pursuant to authorization of a feasibility
The population of the city of Dickinson could increase very rapidly
study.
if strippable lignite deposits of about 800 million tons, which are lo-
cated within 15 miles of the city are developed. If development of the
14
15
tremendous coal deposits in the Northern Great Plains begins to accel-
The legislative proposal would therefore modify the concrete spill-
erate, the city will rapidly increase beyond the capability of the pres-
way by the addition of a new and larger grass-covered spillway
ent and improved water sources and require a new and costly
through the right abutment to provide the needed safety against
alternative.
possible failure. The added spillway would have a capacity of 69,200
The short-range plan to extend the city's water supply, which is part
ft³/s, which, when combined, with the 29,300 ft³/s remaining in the
of the legislative proposal, requires that the original concrete spillway
modified concrete spillway making a total capacity of 98,500 ft³/s,
for the existing dam, which is 200 feet wide, be gated SO that the water
would prevent failure of the dam during the occurrence of an inflow
surface can be raised 31/2 feet. This additional storage will provide the
design flood.
needed water for another decade during which time the trend of future
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
growth will become evident.
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of
One possible long-range solution would be a new dam and reservoir
the Administration's program.
on Green River about 10 miles east of the city at the Versippi site.
Sincerely yours,
When the city will require such an alternate can be decided some years
JOHN KYL,
hence, and other sources should be investigated. Development of the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Versippi site would be expensive and beyond the city's capability to
finance in the immediate future.
The short-range solution, modification of the existing spillway,
would raise the controlled water surface 31/2 feet, increase the storage
TITLE III
by 3,493 acre-feet, increase the yield by 900 acre-feet in a critical
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
streamflow year to 3,300 acre-feet a year, increase the water surface
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
by 372 acres to 1,191 acres, and increase the land management area
by 243 acres.
Washington, D.C., October 29, 1975.
Recreation and fish and wildlife benefits would be preserved at
Hon. JAMES A. HALEY,
present levels. Existing recreation facilities, including boat ramps,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
beaches, roads, day use facilities, and a youth camp would be relocated.
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Use of these facilities would be lost temporarily during relocation.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the
The addition of a wildlife management area would mitigate loss of
views of this Department on H.R. 9649, a bill "To reauthorize and
habitat in the'area to be flooded.
modify McKay Dam, Umatilla Project, Oregon, for multiple func-
A further problem exists, however, in that the existing spillway is
tions, and for other purposes."
inadequate to handle potential floods as currently estimated. Through
We have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend against
the utilization of modern meteorological and hydrological techniques,
its enactment.
plus the additional years of experience in precipitation and flood
The proposed bill would authorize the Secretary to increase the
studies, we have determined that the maximum inflow design flood is
capacity of the spillway as required for the safety of the dam and
greater than was estimated when Dickinson Dam was designed and
would reauthorize the dam to include expanded project functions, for
constructed.
flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The safety features
When the existing spillway was designed the inflow design flood was
are required as a result of new and updated estimates of possible
estimated at 40,000 ft³/s. At that time, the design was based on an
maximum flood inflows to the reservoir. The storage capacity of the
analysis of the recorded runoff resulting from all historic major
dam would not be increased, although the usefulness of its current
storms in the general area. A peak of 40,000 ft³/s represented the
capacity would be firmed up and assured by the safety modifications.
highest ever recorded or estimated for the 400 square mile drainage
Appropriations would be authorized in the amount of $1,300,000, with
area. The new analysis and design assume 13 inches of rainfall in 12
an inflation clause built in.
hours over the entire water shed. Therefore, we now judge that the
The Administration has advised that it considers the project un-
maximum inflow design flood could reach 106,700 ft³/s at Dickinson
necessary. This is not a situation involving a structural defect or weak-
Dam assuming the most extreme circumstances, and could cause struc-
ness in the dam. Rather the only change in safety factors here is the
tural failure of the dam which would cause the flood surge through
new, increased inflow design flood, which has a low probability of
the city to be increased by 30 percent. This flood surge, resulting from
occurrence. The position of the Administration is that the expenditure
a failure, would occur in a matter of minutes, whereas a flood peak,
here is undesirable and unnecessary, and that an adequate margin of
without failure, would afford about 9 hours of warning.
safety can be achieved through operating procedures. The Adminis-
The rainfall of storms which have occurred in the general region,
tration recognizes that this may mean substantial reductions in bene-
and which could have occurred above Dickinson Dam ranges from
fits obtained from the dam and in repayment from the water uses.
12 to 24 inches. In June of 1975 a storm occurring in Ransom County,
The Project. The Umatilla Project is located along the Umatilla
about 100 miles southeast of Dickinson, had a measured rainfall of
and Columbia Rivers in north-central Oregon. McKay Dam, located
20.6 inches.
about 6 miles south of Pendleton on McKav Creek (a tributary of the
Umatilla River), was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation dur-
16
17
ing the period 1923-27, at a cost of $2,133,457. The proposal for cor-
TITLE IV
rective work was recently made as a result of newly developed meteoro-
logical techniques and hydrological data. It was determined that
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
McKay Dam was incapable of storing or passing safely the updated
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
inflow design flood. It was also determined that the same margin of
Washington, D.C., October 29, 1975.
safety could be obtained reserving storage space of 36,000 acre feet
Hon. JAMES A. HALEY,
(1/2 of capacity) during the storm season until the storm threat passed.
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Rep-
Should an inflow design flood occur without corrective action the
resentatives, Washington, D.C.
dam embankment and spillway parapet wall would be overtopped
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views
and rapid breaching of the dam embankment could occur. The dis-
of this Department with respect to H.R. 3383, a bill "To authorize the
charge from the dam and reservoir could increase from approximately
Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the
20,000 cubic feet per second (ft. 3/s) under flood conditions to as
Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota pumping division, Pick-Sloan
much as approximately 1,500,000 ft. 3/s in 1 hour or less if the dam
Missouri Basin program, South Dakota, and for other purposes."
failed. The loss of life and property damage downstream from the
We have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend that con-
dam could be disastrous. The flood resulting from dam failure would
sideration of it be deferred until a feasibility report on the unit is cur-
pass through areas ranging from highly developed urban areas to
rently reevaluated.
agricultural and grazing lands. Residences of over 1,100, commercial
H.R. 3383 is based on a plan to divert water by pumping from the
developments, public facilities, roads, railroad tracks, bridges, and
existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes of
other improvements in the areas of the Montee addition of Pendleton,
the Pollock-Herreid Unit would be to supply on-farm sprinkler irri-
Reith and Echo would be inundated by the flood.
gation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and industrial
The proposed modification in the design and structure of the dam
water to two communities. H.R. 3383 also contains provisions for fish
would provide a greater factor of safety than was provided by the
and wildlife resources.
original design. The spillway capacity would be increased from its
The physical works of the unit would include: the main pumping
present capacity of 10,000 ft. 3/s to 27,000 ft. 3/s. Although the re-
plant, located at the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, to lift
servoir releases would be increased as rapidly as necessary under flood
the water into the existing Lake Pocasse a subimpoundment on Spring
conditions, more time would be available for warning the downstream
Creek, which is a tributory to Lake Oahe, for reregulation; a 24 mile-
residents to evacuate. The amount of damage to downstream property
long system of main canals; a 56 mile-long system of laterals; seven
and loss of life would be lessened because of the reduction in reservoir
relift pumping plants; 165 miles of collector, surface, and closed pipe
releases.
drains; and other facilities necessary to the purposes of the unit.
McKay Dam was constructed specifically for irrigation. Throughout
The cost of the unit is estimated to be $25,570,000 based on January
the years, other incidental benefits, such as flood control, fish and wild-
1975 price levels.
life, and recreation, have accrued. The proposed bill would authorize
A feasibility report on the unit was completed in January of 1968
allocation of existing costs, as well as the costs of the proposed modi-
and was transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior on September 16,
fication, to the reauthorized purposes of the dam; i.e., irrigation, flood
1971. A reevaluation statement, which updated the feasibility report,
control, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
was completed in March 1971; and another is expected to be completed
A copy of the report entitled "Proposed Alteration of an Existing
shortly. Neither the feasibility report nor the updatings have been
Structure, Modification of McKay Dam, Umatilla Project, Oregon,"
approved by the Department nor reviewed and approved by the Ad-
dated April 1975 is attached. The report described possibilities for
ministration. Action on H.R. 3383 now would serve to circumvent
providing irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation
proper administrative consideration of the project.
and for obtaining appropriate repayment if the project is authorized.
In 1971 a 12 page environmental impact statement, pursuant to
The estimated cost of the proposed modification is $1,160,000 (based
section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
upon October 1974 prices), and $1,300,000 at current (July 1975)
was drafted for the project. This Office later judged this statement to
prices.
be insufficient for purposes of the project. Preparation of a new en-
An assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed con-
vironmental impact statement is necessary.
struction has been completed, and a negative determination (NDN
The Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the proposed project in
75-17 (PN)) was made on June 23, 1975.
1966 and found that it would not seriously degrade fish and wildlife
As indicated above, however, the Administration is opposed to the
resources. However, nine years have elapsed since that analysis and
project as proposed in H.R. 9649.
a new appraisal of impacts, addressing current environmental con-
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
cerns, is in order. Subsequent to our 1966 detailed report on the Pol-
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the
lock-Herreid Unit, the Water Resources Council's Principles and
Administration's program.
Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resource Projects
Sincerely yours,
have been adopted and the Endangered Species Act have been enacted.
JOHN KYL,
These new planning considerations and laws should be applied to this
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
project.
18
The unit will have an agricultural return flow of approximately
14,000 acre-feet. About 5,000 acre-feet will be returned to Lake Pocasse,
a National Wildlife Refuge, and the remainder to Oahe Reservoir.
We have not defined, at this time, the effects of the return flow on the
Pocasse Wildlife Refuge.
As mentioned previously, the 1968 Pollock-Herreid report was
amended by a 1971 reevaluation. This reevaluation included new costs
and benefits. At that time a major change in costs and benefits occurred
as a result of a new cropping pattern. The area converted from a
predominate wheat and grain area to producing potatoes, offering
better yield per acre. Because of this and as the result of increased
farm prices for potatoes, the benefit-cost ratio improved despite a new
discount rate and higher construction cost. Another reevaluation will
be presented shortly, based on 1975 costs and the latest "agriculture
normalized prices" developed by the Economic Research Service, De-
partment of Agriculture, for the current Water Resources Council.
Current costs and benefits and repayment obligations should be clearer
at that time.
Also undefined is the projects' effects on the water rights of the
Indian tribes in the Upper Missouri River Basin.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN KYL,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
S. 151
Rinety-fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six
An Act
To authorize and modify various Federal reclamation projects and programs,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall
be known as the Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975.
TITLE I
POLECAT BENCH, WYOMING
SEC. 101. The Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit,
heretofore authorized as an integral part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin program by the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891),
is hereby reauthorized as a part of that project. The construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Polecat Bench area for the purposes
of providing irrigation water for approximately nineteen thousand
two hundred acres of land, municipal and industrial water supply,
fish and wildlife conservation and development, public outdoor rec-
reation, and other purposes shall be prosecuted by the Secretary of
the Interior in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (Act
of June 17, 1902; 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supple-
mentary thereto). The principal features of the Polecat Bench area
shall include the Holden Reservoir, related canals, pumping plants,
laterals, drains, and necessary facilities to effect the aforesaid purposes
of the area. For a period of not more than two years after the initial
availability of irrigation water up to two thousand two hundred and
seventeen acres of public lands in the Polecat Bench area determined
to be suitable for settlement purposes shall be made available, on a
preference basis for exchange or amendment, to resident landowners
on the Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone project, who, on
or before December 1, 1968, were determined by the Secretary to be
eligible for such exchange or amendment of their farm units under
provisions of the Act of August 13, 1953 (67 Stat. 566).
SEC. 102. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife
resources and the enhancement of recreation opportunities in con-
nection with the Polecat Bench area shall be in accordance with the
Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213), as amended.
SEC. 103. The Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit
shall be integrated physically and financially with the other Federal
works constructed under the comprehensive plan approved by section 9
of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891), as
amended and supplemented. Repayment contracts for the return of
construction costs allocated to irrigation will be based on the water
users' ability to repay as determined by the Secretary of the Interior;
and the terms of such contracts shall not exceed fifty years following
the permissible development period.
CORRECTED SHEET
S. 151-2
SEC. 104. The provisions of the third sentence of section 46 of the
Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other similar pro-
visions of Federal reclamation laws as applied to the Polecat Bench
area of the Shoshone extensions unit are hereby modified to provide
that lands held in a single ownership which may be eligible to receive
water from, through, or by means of area works shall be limited to
one hundred and sixty acres of class I land or the equivalent thereof
in other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 105. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of
this title no water from the unit authorized by this title shall be
delivered to any water user for the production on newly irrigated
lands of any basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agri-
cultural Act of 1949, or any amendment 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 (52 Stat. 31, 41), as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture
calls for an increase in production of such commodity in the interest
of national security.
SEC. 106. The interest rate used for computing interest during con-
struction and interest on the unpaid balance of the reimbursable costs
of the Polecat Bench area shall be determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construction
of the Polecat Bench area is commenced, on the basis of the computed
average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding
marketable public obligations which are neither due nor callable for
fifteen years from date of issue.
SEC. 107. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-
struction of the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit the
sum of $46,000,000 (January 1975 price levels), plus or minus such
amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of changes in construc-
tion costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the
types of construction involved and, in addition thereto, such sums as
may be required for operation and maintenance of the works of said
area.
TITLE II
DICKINSON DAM, NORTH DAKOTA
SEC. 201. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to modify the
spillway of Dickinson Dam on the Heart River in the State of North
Dakota, to increase conservation storage by installing gates on the
existing spillway. The Secretary is also authorized to construct a new
spillway to assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from floods currently
estimated to be capable of occurrence.
SEC. 202. The Secretary is authorized to enter into an amendatory
repayment contract with the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, to
accomplish the repayment of that portion of the cost of the work
authorized herein properly allocable to municipal and industrial water
supplies in not to exceed forty years from completion of construction
Provided, That the total cost of the new spillway and related works
incurred for the safety of the structure shall be nonreimbursable and
nonreturnable.
CORRECTED
CHEET
S. 151-3
SEC. 203. The interest rate used for purposes of computing interest
during construction and interest on the unpaid balance of the capital
costs allocated to interest-bearing features of the works authorized
herein shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the
beginning of the fiscal year in which construction is initiated, on the
basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury
upon its outstanding marketable public obligations, which are neither
due nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue.
SEC. 204. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-
struction of works authorized by this title the sum of $4,000,000
(January 1975 price levels) plus or minus such amounts as may be
justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as
indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the types of con-
struction involved herein.
TITLE III
MC KAY DAM AND RESERVOIR, OREGON
SEC. 301. McKay Dam and Reservoir, Umatilla project, Oregon, is
hereby reauthorized for the purposes of irrigation, flood control, fish
and wildlife, recreation, and safety of dams, and the costs thereof shall
be reallocated among these purposes by the Secretary of the Interior
(hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary"), in a manner consistent
with the provisions of this title.
SEC. 302. The Secretary is authorized to perform modifications to
the spillway structure at McKay Dam as he determines to be reason-
ably required for safety of the dam from failure due to overtopping
by potential flood inflows to the reservoir.
SEC. 303. Not to exceed six thousand acre-feet of storage capacity
in McKay Reservoir shall be allocated for the primary purpose of
retaining and regulating flood flows.
SEC. 304. Costs incurred in the modification of McKay Dam to
insure its safety from failure shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturn-
able. All other costs of McKay Dam and Reservoir, heretofore or here-
inafter incurred, shall be allocated among the authorized purposes
served by the dam and reservoir in accordance with standard cost
allocation procedures, and the joint costs allocated to flood control,
recreation, and fish and wildlife shall be nonreimbursable.
SEC. 305. The Secretary is authorized to enter into amendatory
repayment contracts with the Stanfield and Westland Irrigation
Districts, or other water users, if appropriate, to secure the return of
reimbursable irrigation construction and operation and maintenance
costs arising from the modification and reallocation of McKay Dam
and Reservoir.
SEC. 306. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for mod-
ification of McKay Dam the sum of $1,300,000 (based on July 1975
prices), plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by
reason of changes in construction costs as indicated by engineering
cost indexes applicable to the types of construction involved, and, in
addition thereto sums as may be required for operation and mainte-
nance of McKay Dam and Reservoir.
S. 151-4
TITLE IV
POLLOCK-HERREID UNIT, SOUTH DAKOTA
SEC. 401. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to con-
struct, operate, and maintain in accordance with the Federal reclama-
tion laws (Act of June 17, 1902; 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto) the Pollock-Herreid unit, South
Dakota pumping division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, South
Dakota, for the purposes of providing irrigation water service for
approximately fifteen thousand acres of land, municipal and industrial
water supply, and fish and wildlife conservation and development.
The principal works of the project would include the main pumping
plant located at Lake Oahe, the storage reservoir created by the exist-
ing Oahe Dam on the Missouri River, to lift water into Lake Pocasse, a
subimpoundment on tributary Spring Creek, which would serve as a
regulating reservoir; a system of main canals and laterals; relift
pumping plants; drains; and the necessary facilities to effect the
aforesaid purposes of the area.
SEC. 402. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife
resources in connection with the Pollock-Herreid unit shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recrea-
tion Act (79 Stat. 213) as amended.
SEC. 403. The Pollock-Herreid unit shall be integrated physically
and financially with the other Federal works constructed under the
comprehensive plan approved by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of
December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891), as amended and supplemented.
SEC. 404. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of
this title no water from the unit authorized by this title shall be deliv-
ered to any water user for the production on newly irrigated lands of
any basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agricultural Act
of 1949, or any amendment thereof, if the total supply of such a com-
modity 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 (52
Stat. 31, 41), as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture calls for
an increase in production of such commodity in the interest of national
security.
SEC. 405. The interest rate used for computing interest during
construction and interest on the unpaid balance of the interest bearing
reimbursable costs of the unit shall be determined by the Secretary
of the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which
construction of the unit is commenced, on the basis of the computed
average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding
marketable public obligations which are neither due or callable for
fifteen years from date of issue.
SEC. 406. The provisions of the third sentence of section 46 of the
Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other similar pro-
visions of Federal reclamation laws as applied to the Pollock-Herreid
unit, South Dakota pumping division, are hereby modified to provide
that lands held in a single ownership which may be eligible to receive
water from, through, or by means of unit works shall be limited to
one hundred and sixty acres of Class I land or the equivalent thereof
in other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
S. 151-5
SEC. 407. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-
struction of the Pollock-Herreid unit, as authorized in this title, the
sum of $26,000,000 (January 1975 price levels), plus or minus such
amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of changes in construc-
tion costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the
types of construction involved herein and, in addition thereto, such
sums as may be required for operation and maintenance of the works
of said unit.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today approved S. 151, "The Reclamation
Authorization Act of 1975.'
S. 151 authorizes four separate projects to be under--
taken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming;
Dickinson Dam, North Dakota, McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon
and Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.
The bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench project to
provide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a
municipal and industrial water supply, and water for con-
servation and recreation purposes.
The Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based
on a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing
Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes
of the project are to supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation
for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and
industrial water to two communities.
The Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of
certain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to
make additional municipal and industrial water available
to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to increase
the existing spillway capacity to provide additional safety
allowances in light of increased estimates of possible
maximum flows.
The McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the
Dickinson Dam project in that it provides for increasing
the capacity of the spillway of the dam for safety purposes.
S. 151 also reauthorizes the project for additional purposes,
including flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation,
as well as the existing irrigation function.
Although I have signed S. 151, it should be noted that
I have several reservations about the bill and my implemen-
tation of its provisions will be subject to the following
constraints:
First, the Polecat Bench project previously failed
the test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied to
other water resource projects generally. This project needs
to be re-examined in light of new economic factors to see if
it is economically justified. Similarly, the Executive
Branch has not completed its study of the Pollock-Herreid
unit and submitted a report on its feasibility to the
Congress. Until such reports are prepared, there is no
adequate basis for appraising the merits of these projects.
Accordingly, I will not seek funds for either project until
a cost-effactiveness study has been completed and the proj-
ect is demonstrated to be economically justified.
more
2
Second, the bill requires work on the latter two
projects -- McKay Dam and Dickinson Dam -- solely at Federal
expense. Safety is normally an integral design and operation
feature of a federally constructed dam, to be paid for by
project beneficiaries.
I do not endorse any policy which requires the Federal
Government to pay the entire cost of work to improve dam
safety in all situations involving modifications to federally
built dams. The general question of Federal policy on the
safety of dams will be considered when a congressionally
directed report on that subject now underway by the Depart-
ment of the Army is completed, and when new cost-sharing
recommendations for water projects are made later this year.
Therefore, I will not seek any funds for these two
projects until the study has been completed and the Executive
Branch has made its recommendations on cost-sharing for
water projects.
#####