Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1669246",
    "label": "1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669246"
}

{
    "id": "1669246",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669246",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669246",
    "collections": [
        "White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
        "Legislation Case Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "North Dakota",
        "Oregon",
        "South Dakota",
        "Wyoming",
        "Legislation",
        "Water projects"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/46/6692/1669246/content/library/document/0055/1669246.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/46/6692/1669246/content/library/document/0055/1669246.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/46/6692/1669246/content/library/document/0055/1669246.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669246",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/46/6692/1669246/content/library/document/0055/1669246.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a776a4cc6af9ca32",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 40, folder \"1976/03/11 S151 Reclamation\nAuthorization Act of 1975\" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at\nthe Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nDigitized from Box 40 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n3/11/76\nACTION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nLast Day: March 12\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 10, 1976\nstatement 1/76\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNOM X\n3/12/76\nSUBJECT:\nS. 151 - Reclamation Authorization\nAct of 1975\nAttached for your consideration is S. 151, sponsored by\nSenators Hansen and McGee, which authorizes the Secretary\nof the Interior to undertake four water resource projects.\nBackground\nThis is an omnibus bill covering four separate projects:\n1. To construct, operate and maintain the Polecat\nBench, Wyoming project ($46 million)\n2. To construct, operate and maintain the Pollock-\nHerreid, South Dakota project ($26 million)\n3. To make safety and other modifications to\nDickinson Dam, North Dakota ($4 million)\n4. To make safety and other modifications to\nMcKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon ($1.3 million)\nThere would be no immediate budgetary impact, Funding\nwould be required only when included in the budget as\nnew starts.\nAgency Comments\nOMB\nDisapproval\nDepartment of Interior\nApproval\nCouncil on\nEnvironmental Quality\nWould concur in disapproval\nWater Resources Council No comment\nSEALE YORD JIMBARY\n2\nStaff Comments and Recommendations\nRogers Morton\nRecommends approval.\nMax Friedersdorf\nRecommends approval. \"Close call,\nwhether to help our friends with an\nauthorization bill and fight appropriation\nlater if stipulations are not met.\nThis bill is very important to Senators\nHatfield and Hansen. I come down on\nthe side of our friends, since there\nis a good likelihood that a veto would\nbe overridden anyway.' (Tab B)\nCounsel's Office\nRecommends veto for reasons stated\n(Lazarus)\nby OMB \"despite substantial political\nsupport by Senator Hansen.\"\nJim Lynn\nRecommends veto, citing highly\nundesirable precedents of Federal\nassumption of safety related costs and\napproval of projects prior to proper\nbenefit/cost analysis. \"This would\nopen the floodgates for a multitude\nof other uneconomic water resource\nprojects.' \" (Tab A)\nRobert T. Hartmann\nRecommends approval.\nRecommendation\nI recommend disapproval. We should not now set the precent\nof the Federal taxpayer assuming safety costs that should\nbe paid for by the users, as would be the case in the McKay\nand Dickinson projects. The Polecat Bench project has not\nmet the requirement of a favorable benefit-cost analysis,\nand there is no feasibility study to support the favorable\nconsideration of the Pollock-Herreid project.\nDecision\nSign S. 151 at Tab C and issue proposed signing statement,\nwhich has been WR7 cleared by Robert T. Hartmann (Tab D).\nApprove\nDisapprove\nVeto S. 151 by signing proposed veto message, which has\nbeen cleared by Robert T. Hartmann (Tab E).\nApprove\nDisapprove\nA\nOF TRE\nPRESIDENT\nOFFICE\n&\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nUNITED\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nSTATE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nMAR 8 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 151 - Reclamation Authoriza-\ntion Act of 1975\nSponsors - Sen. Hansen (R) Wyoming and Sen.\nMcGee (D) Wyoming\nLast Day for Action\nMarch 12, 1976 - Friday\nPurpose\nTo authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,\noperate and maintain the Polecat Bench, Wyoming project\nand the Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, both part\nof the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and to modify\nthe Dickinson Dam, North Dakota and the McKay Dam and\nReservoir, Oregon.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Veto Mes-\nsage attached)\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval (Signing State-\nment attached)\nCouncil on Environmental Quality\nDisapproval\nDepartment of the Treasury\nWould concur in dis-\napproval\nWater Resources Council\nNo comment\nDiscussion\nThe enrolled bill is an omnibus authorization measure\nfor reclamation projects and programs, comprised of\nfour titles, each of which deals with a separate\nproject originally introduced as an individual bill.\nLIBRARY in 074338\n2\nTitle I reauthorizes and Title IV authorizes the\nSecretary of the Interior to construct, operate and\nmaintain the Polecat Bench project, Wyoming, and the\nPollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, respectively.\nAppropriations of $46 million would be authorized\nfor the Polecat Bench project and $26 million for\nthe Pollock-Herreid unit (plus operation and\nmaintenance costs and authority for adjustments\nfor changes in construction costs).\nTitle II and Title III, respectively, authorize\nsafety and other modifications to Dickinson Dam,\nNorth Dakota ($4 million), and to the McKay Dam and\nReservoir, Oregon ($1.3 million).\nIn reporting on the separate bills in committee,\nInterior opposed each of them for the following\nreasons:\n-- Polecat Bench and Pollock-Herreid projects.\nThe Department recommended that the first pro-\nject be deferred until a new study of the merits\nof the project based on current conditions and\ncriteria was completed. The original 1972 study\nindicated that the project did not meet the test\nof economic feasibility. Interior recommended\nthat the second be deferred until a feasibility\nreport on the unit was reviewed by the Administration.\n-- Dickinson and McKay projects. The Department\nrecommended that the first project be deferred\nuntil receipt of feasibility and safety reports.\nThe second project was opposed as unnecessary.\nMore importantly, the Department opposed provi-\nsions calling for full payment by the Federal\nGovernment of all costs related to increasing the\nsafety of project dams. These provisions could\nrepresent a precedent for all cases involving dam\nsafety.\nIn its enrolled bill letter recommending approval of S.151,\nInterior discusses certain aspects of the four pro-\njects at some length. Pertinent excerpts from\n3\nits letter are as follows:\n\"Since that report /departmental report\nopposing Polecat Bench/ was completed\nhowever economic factors have changed,\ncropping patterns and values have changed,\nand the inclusion of municipal and\nindustrial water supply as a project\npurpose will undoubtedly provide for a\nmore positive analysis of the project.\"\n\"A recent 1975 Bureau of Reclamation\nreevaluation for the project shows that\nthe Pollock-Herreid Unit is economically\njustified and has financial feasibility.\"\n(The reevaluation has not been submitted\nto the Office of Management and Budget\nfor the customary review.)\n\"While we recommend in favor of signing\nthis bill, we continue to assert the\nobjection raised in our earlier reports\non this project /Dickinson Dam/, that we\nare opposed generally to provisions which\ncall for full payment by the Federal\nGovernment of the cost of new safety\nmeasures, without reimbursement and\nwithout consideration of the individual\nmerits of each case. We are opposed to a\npolicy that full payment should be\nundertaken by the Federal Government in\nall 'safety of dams' situations involving\nmodifications to federally built dams for\nsafety purposes.\"\n\"We wish to mention here /in connection\nwith the discussion of the McKay project7,\nas with the Dickinsom Dam proposal, that\nwe oppose a policy whereby all costs\nincurred for modifications for safety\nof dams purposes would be non-reimbursable.\"\nMore generally, Interior's letter on the enrolled\nSTATE FORD\n4\nbill states:\n\"There would be no immediate budgetary\nimpact from this proposed action /approval\nof the bill/. Funding would not be\nrequired until such time as the projects\nmay be offered for inclusion in the\nbudget as new construction starts. Even\nthen the appropriation requirements would\nbe spread over the several years of the\nconstruction schedule. Furthermore,\nsome portion of the project costs would be\nrepaid by the users of the project services.\"\n\"Despite our opposing statements on these\nbills at the time of Congressional\nhearings, we nevertheless feel that there\nare definite merits in the proposed\nprojects and, now that Congress has\nfully considered and enacted these proposals\na veto would not be appropriate. Each has\nstrong local support and even stronger\nofficial support among State and local\nofficials and in the Congressional\ndelegations.'\nIn its enrolled bill letter, Treasury indicates it\nwould concur in a recommendation for veto on its\ncustomary grounds that water resource interest rates\nprovide unwarranted subsidy to water users at the\nexpense of the taxpayers.\nThe funds authorized by this bill are not large, as\nreclamation projects go, but the bill, in mandating\nfull (and non-reimbursable) Federal responsibility\nfor costs related to dam modifications for safety\nreasons would constitute a highly undesirable\nprecedent. The National Program of Inspection of\nDams has identified some 20,000 potentially\nhazardous dams out of a total of 49,329, including\nabout 5,500 Federal dams. In addition, Administration\nsupport of water resources development projects\nprior to a favorable benefit-cost analysis and\n5\nAdministration review (as in the case of Polecat\nBench and the Pollock-Herreid unit) would also\nserve as an undesirable precedent. This could open\nthe flood gates for a multitude of other uneconomic\nwater resource projects.\nIn its enrolled bill letter, the Council on Environ-\nmental Quality cites these latter reasons as well as\ninadequate environmental impact studies in the area\nof the projects as the principal basis for its veto\nrecommendation.\nWe do not believe that the arguments for disapproval\n-- which, of course, provided the basis for initial\nopposition to the separate bills -- are, in any way,\noutweighed by the arguments made in the Interior\nenrolled bill letter.\nAccordingly, we have prepared the attached proposed\nveto message for your consideration.\nIn the event you decide not to veto the bill, we\nrecommend that you issue a signing statement which\n(a) indicates your concern about authorization of\nprojects before the completion and full review of\neconomic feasibility studies, (b) states that you do\nnot intend to seek appropriations for projects that\nhave not yet been demonstrated to be economically\nfeasible, and (c) also notes that you do not intend\nto fund the safety improvements until both the Army's\ndam safety study and a review of cost-sharing on\nwater projects are completed.\nAttached for your consideration is a draft signing\nstatement, an alternative to the one prepared by\nInterior which addresses only the dam safety issue.\nJames T. Lynn\nDirector\nEnclosures\nFORD , LIBRARY DERACT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 10, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CAVANAUGH\nFROM:\nMAX L. FRIEDERSDORFA\nBW\nSUBJECT:\nS.151 - Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975\nThe Office of Legislative Affairs concurs with the agencies\nthat the\nsubject bill be signed (SEE ATTACHED MEMO FROM VERN LOEN)\nAttachments\nis\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM:\nVERN LOEN n\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled bill memo S. 151-Reclamation\nAuthorization Act of 1975\nIn deciding whether to recommend the President sign or veto this legislation,\nI would recommend you take into consideration the following factors:\nLegislative history - S. 151 was passed by voice vote in the Senate on\nAugust 1, 1975. H. R. 10537, which expanded the number of projects in\nthe bill, passed the House on January 1, 1976, by a vote of 284-110 with\n40 absentees. The Senate then accepted the House bill by voice vote on\nFebruary 25. An analysis of the House vote is attached. Given the\npartisanship of an election year, I consider it likely that we would lose 31 of\nthe 110 nay votes and might gain as many as 36 switches from the yea votes\nfor a net gain of 5. Of those not voting, 13 looked like targets to sustain.\nThat would give us a total of 128 votes.\nRhodes was among those voting to pass the bill. When consulted about\nsustaining a veto, he said he probably would vote to sustain, but would\nbe very quiet about it. Michel was among the absentees.\nThe Senate would act first and, if the 17 reclamation state Senators stick\ntogether, we start off with a base of 34 votes against us. John Kyl feels\nit is unlikely that the Senate would sustain. That would build momentum\nand partisanship for the House vote and charges of another \"anti-jobs veto, \"\neven though none of the jobs would be created this year. If the bill were\nsigned, Kyl says we would not have to worry about another package being\nrushed in behind this one; however, it is likely that they would try to fund\nthese projects in FY77.\nSigning the bill would be taken by the reclamation community, which is\nsomewhat monolithic, as a friendly gesture and might blunt criticism of\nthe President for his \"no new starts\" budget policy.\n-2-\nLargest of the four projects, Polecat Bench, is an irrigation project\nstrongly backed by Senator Hansen, costing $46 million. The Pollock-\nHerreid irrigation project, costing $26 million, is strongly pushed by\nRep. Jim Abdnor and is located in his best Republican counties. Rep.\nMark Andrews says the Dickinson Dam safety project in North Dakota\ncould well burst due to faulty construction. The McKay Dam safety\nproject in Oregon is located in A1 Ullman's district, but would benefit\nSenators Hatfield and Packwood as well.\nIt's an extremely close call, boiling down to whether we want to help\nour friends with an authorization bill in a Presidential election year\nand fight the appropriation later if the stipulations are not met, or\ndo we stand on past established procedures. I come down on the side\nof our friends since there is a good likelihood that a veto would be\noverridden anyway.\nFORD\nC\nD\nSTATE\nOF\nTHE\nINTERIOR\nUnited States Department of the Interior\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nMarch\n3,\n1849\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20240\nMarch 1, 1976\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis responds to your request for the views of this Department with\nrespect to an enrolled bill, S. 151, \"To authorize and modify various\nFederal reclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes.\"\nWe recommend in favor of signing the bill.\nThe bill would authorize four separate projects to be undertaken by\nthe Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam,\nNorth Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon; and Pollock-Herreid\nUnit, South Dakota. Each proposal was initially the subject of a\nseparate bill and each was the subject of a separate report to the\nCongress by this Department.\nThe total authorized cost for the four projects would be $77.3 million,\n$46 million of which would be for the Polecat Bench project and $26\nmillion would be for Pollock-Herreid.\nThere would be no immediate budgetary impact from this proposed action.\nFunding would not be required until such time as the projects may be\noffered for inclusion in the budget as new construction starts. Even\nthen the appropriation requirements would be spread over the several\nyears of the construction schedule. Furthermore, some portion of the\nproject costs would be repaid by the users of the project services.\nPolecat Bench, Wyoming\nS. 151 is similar to H.R. 10537 and H.R. 1500. All three bills would\nreauthorize the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit as\nan integral part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The\nreauthorized project would provide water for irrigation of 19,200\nacres of land, a municipal and industrial water supply, and water\nfor conservation and recreation purposes.\nThese bills list the principle features of the project, integrate the\nproject physically and financially with other Federal works authorized\nREVOLUTION\nAMERICAN\nBICENTENNIAL\n7776-1976\npursuant to the original authorization, deny for 10 years the delivery\nof irrigation water from the project for use on surplus agricultural\ncrops, and specify the method under which the interest rates would be\ncomputed.\nS. 151 would additionally require that up to 2,217 acres of public land\nin the Polecat Bench area be made available, on a preference basis for\nexchange or amendment, to eligible resident landowners; that repayment\ncontracts for the return of construction costs be based on the water users'\nability to repay as determined by the Secretary; that such repayment\ncontracts not exceed 50 years following the permissible development\nperiod; and that lands eligible for water held in single ownership be\nlimited to 160 acres of Class I land or the equivalent in other lands.\nS. 151 authorizes $46,000,000 to be appropriated for construction.\nA Departmental report on the proposed Polecat Bench Project in 1972,\nby then Assistant Secretary James R. Smith, recommended against\nauthorization of the project.\nSince that report was completed however economic factors have changed,\ncropping patterns and values have changed, and the inclusion of municipal\nand industrial water supply as a project purpose will undoubtedly provide\nfor a more positive analysis of the project.\nDickinson Dam, North Dakota\nThe Dickinson Dam project was formerly proposed as H.R. 8539 and\nS. 2089 on which the Department submitted reports in October\n1975.\nThe proposed project consists of certain modifications to be made to\nthe Dickinson Dam to make additional municipal and industrial water\navailable to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and for the purpose\nof increasing the existing spillway capacity to provide additional\nsafety allowances in light of increased estimates of possible maximum\nflows. The estimated cost of the project is $4,000,000. The project\nwould also make additional municipal and industrial (M&I) water\navailable to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota. Installation of\nbascule gates on the existing spillway of Dickinson Dam would increase\nthe conservation storage capacity of Edward Arthur Patterson Lake.\nThe resulting increase in firm water yield in combination with existing\nM&I supplies would be adequate to meet the needs of the city of\nDickinson to about the year 1985.\nThe project would assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from flood\noccurrences currently estimated to be larger than the existing\n2\nspillway capacity. The existing spillway capacity is 33,200 cubic feet\nper second (ft3/s). The currently estimated maximum inflow design flood\n(IDF) under the most extreme circumstances would have to peak flow of\nabout 106,700 ft³/s. The increased estimates of maximum IDF over those\noriginally anticipated for the dam are the result of improved and updated\nscientific methodology.\nThe legislative proposal would therefore modify the concrete spillway\nby the addition of a new and larger grass-covered spillway through the\nright abutment to provide the needed safety against possible failure.\nThe added spillway would have a capacity of 69,200 ft3/s, which, when\ncombined, with the 29,300 ft3/s remaining in the modified concrete\nspillway making a total capacity of 98,500 ft³/s, would prevent failure\nof the dam during the occurrence of an inflow design flood.\nS. 151 contains no changes from the earlier bills.\nWhile we recommend in favor of signing this bill, we continue to assert\nthe objection raised in our earlier reports on this project, that we\nare opposed generally to provisions which call for full payment by the\nFederal Government of the cost of new safety measures, without reimburse-\nment and without consideration of the individual merits of each case.\nWe are opposed to a policy that full payment should be undertaken by\nthe Federal Government in all \"safety of dams\" situations involving\nmodifications to federally built dams for safety purposes.\nMcKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon\nThe McKay Dam Project was originally proposed in H.R. 9649 and S. 2361\nand was addressed in reports by this Department on October 29, 1975.\nThe provisions of S. 151 respecting this project are unchanged from\nthe earlier bills.\nAs in the Dickinson Dam proposal this proposal would provide for increasing\nthe capacity of the spillway of the dam for additional safety allowances\nto account for new and increased estimates of maximum flows.\nShould the new inflow design flood occur without corrective action the\ndam embankment and spillway parapet wall would be overtopped and\nrapid breaching of the dam embankment could occur. The discharge\nfrom the dam and reservoir could increase from approximately 20,000\ncubic feet per second (ft3/s) under flood conditions to as much as\napproximately 1,500,000 ft3/s in 1 hour or less if the dam failed.\nThe loss of life and property damage downstream from the dam could\nbe substantial.\n3\nThe proposed modification in the design and structure of the dam\nwould provide a greater factor of safety than was provided by the\noriginal design. The spillway capacity would be increased from its\npresent capacity of 10,000 ft3/s to 27,000 ft³/s. Although the\nreservoir releases would be increased as rapidly as necessary under\nflood conditions, more time would be available for warning the\ndownstream residents to evacuate. The amount of damage to downstream\nproperty and loss of life would be lessened because of the reduction\nin reservoir releases.\nMcKay Dam was constructed specifically for irrigation. Throughout\nthe years, other incidental benefits, such as flood control, fish\nand wildlife, and recreation, have accrued. The proposed bill would\nauthorize allocation of existing costs, as well as the costs of the\nproposed modification, to the reauthorized purposes of the dam i.e.,\nirrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation.\nAppropriations would be authorized in the amount of $1,300,000, with\nan inflation clause built in.\nWe wish to mention here, as with the Dickinson Dam proposal, that we\noppose a policy whereby all costs incurred for modifications for safety\nof dams purposes would be non-reimbursable.\nPollock-Herreid, South Dakota\nS. 151 is similar to S. 2493 and H.R. 3383, on which the Department\nreported on October 29, 1975. All three bills are based on a plan to\ndivert water by pumping from the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri\nRiver. The principal purposes of the Pollock-Herreid Unit would be\nto supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation for 15,000 acres of land and\nto supply municipal and industrial water to two communities. These\nbills also contain provisions for fish and wildlife resources.\nThe physical works of the unit would include: the main pumping plant,\nlocated at the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, to lift the\nwater into the existing Lake Pocasse; a subimpoundment on Spring\nCreek, which is a tributary to Lake Oahe, for reregulation; a 24\nmile-long system of main canals; a 56 mile-long system of laterals;\nseven relift pumping plants; 165 miles of collector, surface, and\nclosed pipe drains; and other facilities necessary to the purposes\nof the unit.\n4\nS. 151 is distinguished from both S. 2493 and H.R. 3383 by requiring\nthat lands eligible for water held in single ownership be limited to\n160 acres of Class I land or the equivalent in other lands, and by\nauthorizing $26,000,000 to be appropriated for construction, rather\nthan $25,000,000 authorized in both S. 2493 and H.R. 3383.\nA recent 1975 Bureau of Reclamation reevaluation for the project shows\nthat the Pollock-Herreid Unit is economically justified and has financial\nfeasibility.\nConclusion\nDespite our opposing statements on these bills at the time of Congressional\nhearings, we nevertheless feel that there are definite merits in the\nproposed projects and, now that Congress has fully considered and\nenacted these proposals a veto would not be appropriate. Each has\nstrong local support and even stronger official support among State\nand local officials and in the Congressional delegations.\nFor these reasons we recommend in favor of signing the bill.\nSincerely yours,\nJack Hoston\nAssistan$ecretary of the Interior\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of\nManagement and Budget\nWashington, D.C.\nEnclosure\n5\nPOSSIBLE SIGNING STATEMENT\nI have signed into law today S. 151, an Act which authorizes and\nmodifies several Federal reclamation projects by the Bureau of\nReclamation.\nThe Act authorizes four separate projects to be undertaken by the\nBureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam,\nNorth Dakota; McKay Dam and reservoir, Oregon; and Pollock-Herreid\nUnit, South Dakota.\nThe Act reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone\nextensions unit in Wyoming as an integral part of the Pick-Sloan\nMissouri Basin program. The reauthorized project would provide water\nfor irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a municipal and industrial\nwater supply, and water for conservation and recreation purposes.\nThe Dickenson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of certain\nmodifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to make additional\nmunicipal and industrial water available to the city of Dickinson,\nNorth Dakota, and for the purpose of increasing the existing spillway\ncapacity to provide additional safety allowances in light of increased\nestimates of possible maximum flows.\nThe McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the Dickinson Dam\nproject in that it will provide for increasing the capacity of the\nspillway of the dam for safety purposes. The Act will also\nreauthorize the project for additional project purposes, including\nflood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation, as well as the\nexisting irrigation function.\nThe Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based on a plan to\ndivert water by pumping from the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri\nRiver. The principal purposes of the project would be to supply\non-farm sprinkler irrigation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply\nmunicipal and industrial water to two communities. This Act also\ncontain provisions for fish and wildlife resources.\nThese four projects will make worthwhile contributions to the economic\nlife of the areas where the projects will be built and will help to\nassure the vitality and stability of their agricultural base.\nI am therefore pleased to sign the Act into law. One aspect of the\nAct is of particular concern, however. As authorized by the Act,\ntwo of the projects would require work to make dams safe solely at\nFederal expense. Safety is normally an integral design and operation\nfeature of a Federally constructed dam, to be paid for by project\nbeneficiaries. In approving this bill I am therefore constrained to\n2\nobserve that I do not approve a policy which requires the Federal\nGovernment to underwrite the cost of work to improve dam safety in all\nsituations involving modifications to federally built dams. Each case\nshould, in my view, be considered on its merits to determine the most\nappropriate way to share costs.\nI believe, however, that it is appropriate at this time to sign this\nAct into law.\n3\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY\n722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\nMAR 4 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. FREY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nATTN:\nMs. Ramsey\nSUBJECT: Enrolled Bill, S. 151\nThank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.\nThe Council on Environmental Quality recommends that the\nPresident veto the bill, for the following reasons:\n1.\nTitle I (Polecat Bench, Wyoming) and Title IV (Pollock-\nHerreid Unit, South Dakota) would authorize two addi-\ntional components of the overall Pick-Sloan Missouri\nBasin Program. The Bureau of Reclamation has not\nconducted adequate environmental analyses of either\nof these projects, which may each have serious\nadverse environmental impacts. The Bureau's own\nprocedures, which require that environmental impact\nstatements be prepared and circulated prior to\nauthorization, would be violated by this bill, which\nwould preclude timely consideration of project impacts\nand project alternatives as required by NEPA.\n2.\nThe Bureau already has in planning or construction\nphases approximately 20 other units of the Pick-\nSloan program. No overall environmental analysis\nof this program has been done by the Bureau. The\ncumulative effects of land use changes, water\ndiversions, irrigation return flows, and other\nconsequences of these projects have not been\nreviewed; Titles I and IV of this bill would\ncompound this problem and might lead to need for\nexpensive remedial measures in the future.\n2\n3.\nSections 104 and 406 of this bill would allow\nexceptions to the clearly-stated requirements of\nthe 1902 Reclamation Act, which restrict single\nownership of lands to be irrigated by federal\nprojects to 160 acres.\nWe recommend that this bill be vetoed for the above reasons.\nGaywidman Gary\nGary Widman\nGeneral Counsel\nOF\nTHE TREASURY BHA DEPARTMENT\nTHE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20220\n1789\nFEB 27 1976\nDirector, Office of Management and Budget\nExecutive Office of the President\nWashington, D. C. 20502\nAttention: Assistant Director for Legislative\nReference\nSir:\nReference is made to your request for the views of this Department on\nthe enrolled enactment of S. 151, \"To authorize and modify various Federal\nreclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes.\"\nThe enrolled enactment would authorize construction and reclamation\nprojects at Polecat Bench, Wyoming; Dickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam\nand Reservoir, Oregon; and the Pollock-Herreid Unit, South Dakota. The\nDepartment of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget have\nopposed these projects in reports to the Committees on Interior and Insular\nAffairs.\nThe interest rate formula provided in sections 106, 203, and 405 of\nthe enrolled enactment is the so-called water resources rate; i.e., the\ncomputed average rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable\npublic obligations which are neither due nor callable for 15 years from date\nof issue. The water resources interest rate formula produces an arbitrary\nsubsidy interest rate which bears no relationship to current Treasury\nborrowing costs, and is significantly below the current rate on Government\nborrowing. The effect of this rate formula is to provide substantial but\nhidden subsidies to project beneficiaries at the expense of the Nation's\ntaxpayers. Any subsidies determined necessary should be provided in a\nstraight-forward manner, and not be hidden in the interest rate formula.\nIn view of the foregoing, the Department would concur in a recommendation\nthat the enrolled enactment not be approved by the President.\nSincerely yours,\nGeneral Counsel\nR. Albrecht\nwrc\nUNITED STATES WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL\nSUITE 800\n2120 L STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037\nMAR 1 1976\nMr. James M. Frey\nAssistant Director for Legislative\nReference\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nDear Mr. Frey:\nThis is in response to your February 26, 1976, enrolled bill\nrequest on S. 151, an act to authorize and modify various\nFederal reclamation projects and programs, and for other\npurposes.\nThe Water Resources Council has not taken any position on\nthis legislation nor on the proposed projects included therein.\nAs Director of the Council, I would, therefore, have no comment\non this particular legislation.\nSincerely,\nFamilide\nWarren D. Fairchild\nDirector\nMEMBERS: SECRETARIES OF INTERIOR, AGRICULTURE, ARMY, COMMERCE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,\nTRANSPORTATION: ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COM-\nMISSION OBSERVERS: ATTORNEY GENERAL; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; CHAIRMEN,\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION WEDNENNING\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS, BASIN IN-\n1776-1976\nTERAGENCY COMMITTEES.\n3-8-76\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nMAR 8 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 151 - Reclamation Authoriza-\ntion Act of 1975\nSponsors - Sen. Hansen (R) Wyoming and Sen.\nMcGee (D) Wyoming\nLast Day for Action\nMarch 12, 1976 - Friday\nPurpose\nTo authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,\noperate and maintain the Polecat Bench, Wyoming project\nand the Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota, both part\nof the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and to modify\nthe Dickinson Dam, North Dakota and the McKay Dam and\nReservoir, Oregon.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Veto Mes-\nsage attached)\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval (Signing State-\nment attached)\nCouncil on Environmental Quality\nDisapproval\nDepartment of the Treasury\nWould concur in dis-\napproval\nWater Resources Council\nNo comment\nDiscussion\nThe enrolled bill is an omnibus authorization measure\nfor reclamation projects and programs, comprised of\nfour titles, each of which deals with a separate\nproject originally introduced as an individual bill.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\n578\nTime:\nMarch 9\n930am\nACTION:\nGeorge Humphreys\nCC (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nJim Cavanaugh\nKen Lazarus\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nMarch 10\nTime: 300pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. 151 - Reclamation Authorization\nAct of 1975\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary-Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\ni.\nXFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nCounsel's Office recommends veto for the reasons\nexpressed in the OMB memorandum despite substantial\npolitical support by Senator Hansen.\nI have been requested to indicate that Rog Morton recommends\nsent to\napproval of the measure and requests that his views be\nsolicited prior to any presentation to the President.\nKen Lazarus 3/10/76\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nU.S\nPrestment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.: 578\nDate: March 9\nTime:\n930am\nFOR ACTION:\nGeorge Humphreys\ncc (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nJim Cavanaugh\nKen Lazarus\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nMarch 10\nTime: 300pm\nSUBJECT:\nS. 151 Reclamation Authorization\nAct of 1975\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nXFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nK.R. COLE, JR.\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.: 578\nDate:\nMarch 9\nTime:\n930am\nFOR ACTION:\nGeorge Humphreys\ncc (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nJim Cavanaugh\nKen Lazarus\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nMarch 10\nTime:\n300pm\nSUBJECT:\n3/9-10:25 am\nS. 151 - Reclamation Authorization\nAct of 1975\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nXFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nPlease return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing\nmust he usund before Pass bance\nRecommend approval\nDraft 0 K\nATH\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nGevenauch\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFOP the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nVERN LOEN n\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled bill memo S. .151-Reclamation\nAuthorization Act of 1975\nIn deciding whether to recommend the President sign or veto this legislation,\nI would recommend you take into consideration the following factors:\nLegislative history - S. 151 was passed by voice vote in the Senate on\nAugust 1, 1975. H.R. 10537, which expanded the number of projects in\nthe bill, passed the House on January 1, 1976, by a vote of 284-110 with\n40 absentees. The Senate then accepted the House bill by voice vote on\nFebruary 25. An analysis of the House vote is attached. Given the\npartisanship of an election year, I consider it likely that we would lose 31 of\nthe 110 nay votes and might gain as many as 36 switches from the yea votes\nfor a net gain of 5. Of those not voting, 13 looked like targets to sustain.\nThat would give us a total of 128 votes.\nRhodes was among those voting to pass the bill. When consulted about\nsustaining a veto, he said he probably would vote to sustain, but would\nbe very quiet about it. Michel was among the absentees.\nThe Senate would act first and, if the 17 reclamation state Senators stick\ntogether, we start off with a base of 34 votes against us. John Kyl feels\nit is unlikely that the Senate would sustain. That would build momentum\nand partisanship for the House vote and charges of another \"anti-jobs veto,\"\neven though none of the jobs would be created this year. If the bill were\nsigned, Kyl says we would not have to worry about another package being\nrushed in behind this one; however, it is likely that they would try to fund\nthese projects in FY77.\nSigning the bill would be taken by the reclamation community, which is\nsomewhat monolithic, as a friendly gesture and might blunt criticism of\nthe President for his \"no new starts\" budget policy.\n-2-\nLargest of the four projects, Polecat Bench, is an irrigation project\nstrongly backed by Senator Hansen, costing $46 million. The Pollock-\nHerreid irrigation project, costing $26 million, is strongly pushed by\nRep. Jim Abdnor and is located in his best Republican counties. Rep.\nMark Andrews says the Dickinson Dam safety project in North Dakota\ncould well burst due to faulty construction. The McKay Dam safety\nproject in Oregon is located in Al Ullman's district, but would benefit\nSenators Hatfield and Packwood as well.\nIt's an extremely close call, boiling down to whether we want to help\nour friends with an authorization bill in a Presidential election year\nand fight the appropriation later if the stipulations are not met, or\ndo we stand on past established procedures. I come down on the side\nof our friends since there is a good likelihood that a veto would be\noverridden anyway.\nTO THE SENATE\nI return herewith, without my approval, S. 151, \"The\nReclamation Authorization Act of 1975.' \"\nS. 151 would authorize four separate projects to be\nundertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench,\nWyoming; Dickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir,\nOregon; and Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.\nThe bill would reauthorize the Polecat Bench project\nto provide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land,\na municipal and industrial water supply, and water for\nconservation and recreation purposes.\nThe Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based\non a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing\nLake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes\nof the project would be to supply on-farm sprinkler irri-\ngation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal\nand industrial water to two communities.\nThe Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, would consist\nof certain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam\nto make additional municipal and industrial water avail-\nable to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to\nincrease the existing spillway capacity to provide addi-\ntional safety allowances in light of increased estimates\nof possible maximum flows.\n- 2 -\nThe McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the\nDickinson Dam project in that it would provide for\nincreasing the capacity of the spillway of the dam for\nsafety purposes. S. 151 would also reauthorize the\nproject for additional purposes, including flood control,\nfish and wildlife, and recreation, as well as the exist-\ning irrigation function.\nI have disapproved this bill for the following reasons:\nFirst, the Polecat Bench project previously failed\nthe test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied\nto other water resource projects generally. To authorize\nit now, without a current study of its economic feasibility\nwould be a departure from the long-standing policy that\nonly economically justified water resource projects\nshould be undertaken.\nSecond, the Executive Branch has not completed its\nstudy of the Pollock-Herreid unit and submitted a report\non its feasibility to the Congress. Until such a report\nis prepared, there is no adequate basis for appraising\nthe merits of this project.\nFinally, the latter two projects - McKay Dam and\nDickinson Dam - would require work to make the dams safe\nsolely at Federal expense. Safety is normally an integral\ndesign and operation feature of a federally constructed\ndam, to be paid for. by project beneficiaries. I cannot\n- 3 -\napprove a policy which would require the Federal Govern-\nment to underwrite the cost of work to improve dam safety\nin all situations involving modifications to federally\nbuilt dams.\nThe general question of Federal dam safety policy\nwill be considered when a congressionally directed report\non dam safety now underway by the Department of the Army\nis completed, and cost-sharing recommendations on water\nproject purposes are made later this year.\nThe Executive Branch set forth these objections to\nthe projects while they were being considered by the\nCongress. In my judgment they continue to remain valid.\nAccordingly, I return S. 151 without my approval.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMarch\n, 1976\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have today approved S. 151, \"The Reclamation Authori-\nzation Act of 1975. II\nS. 151 authorizes four separate projects to be under-\ntaken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming;\nDickinson Dam, North Dakota; McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon;\nand Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.\nThe bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench project to\nprovide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a\nmunicipal and industrial water supply, and water for conser-\nvation and recreation purposes.\nThe Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based\non a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing\nLake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes\nof the project are to supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation\nfor 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and\nindustrial water to two communities.\nThe Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of\ncertain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to\nmake additional municipal and industrial water available\nto the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to increase\nthe existing spillway capacity to provide additional safety\nallowances in light of increased estimates of possible\nmaximum flows.\n- 2 -\nThe McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the\nDickinson Dam project in that it provides for increasing\nthe capacity of the spillway of the dam for safety purposes.\nS. 151 also reauthorizes the project for additional purposes,\nincluding flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation,\nas well as the existing irrigation function.\nAlthough I have signed S. 151, it should be noted that\nI have several reservations about the bill and my imple-\nmentation of its provisions will be subject to the following\nconstraints:\nFirst, the Polecat Bench project previously failed\nthe test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied\nto other water resource projects generally. This project\nneeds to be re-examined in light of new economic factors\nto see if it is economically justified. Similarly, the\nExecutive Branch has not completed its study of the Pollock-\nHerreid unit and submitted a report on its feasibility to\nthe Congress. Until such reports are prepared, there is\nno adequate basis for appraising the merits of these\nprojects. Accordingly, I will not seek funds for either\nproject until a cost-effectiveness study has been completed\nand the project is demonstrated to be economically justified.\nSecond, the bill requires work on the latter two projects --\nMcKay Dam and Dickinson Dam -- solely at Federal expense.\nSafety is normally an integral design and operation feature\nof a federally constructed dam, to be paid for by project\nbeneficiaries.\n- 3 -\nI do not endorse any policy which requires the Federal\nGovernment to pay the entire cost of work to improve dam\nsafety in all situations involving modifications to federally\nbuilt dams. The general question of Federal policy on the\nsafety of dams will be considered when a congressionally\ndirected report on that subject now underway by the Depart-\nment of the Army is completed, and when new cost-sharing\nrecommendations for water projects are made later this year.\nTherefore, I will not seek any funds for these two\nproject until the study has been completed and the Executive\nBranch has made its recommendations on cost-sharing for\nwater projects.\nE\nCalendar No. 339\n\"94TH CONGRESS\n{\nSENATE\nREPORT\n1st Session\nNo. 94-350\nAUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF POLECAT BENCH\nAREA OF SHOSHONE, WYO.\nJULY 31, 1975.-Ordered to be printed\nMr. CHURCH, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,\nsubmitted the following\nREPORT\n[To accompany S.151]\nThe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was re-\nferred the bill (S. 151) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to\nconstruct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench area of the Sho-\nshone extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyoming,\nand for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably\nthereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended\ndo pass.\nThe amendments are as follows:\n1. On page 2, line 10, added the following sentence to Section 1:\nFor a period of not more than two years after the initial\navailability of irrigation water up to 2217 acres of public\nlands in the Polecat Bench area determined to be suitable for\nsettlement purposes shall be made available, on a preference\nbasis for exchange or amendment, to resident landowners\non the Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone Project,\nwho, on or before December 1, 1968, were determined by the\nSecretary to be eligible for such exchange or amendment of\ntheir farm units under provisions of the Act of August 13,\n1953 (67 Stat. 566).\n2. On page 2, line 15, delete the phrase \"Recreation Act (79 Stat.\n213) and insert instead the following: \"Recreation Act (79 Stat.\n213), as amended.\"\n3. On page 2, line 21, add the following sentence to Section 3:\nRepayment contracts for the return of construction costs\nallocated to irrigation will be based on the water user's ability\nto repay as determined by the Secretary of the Interior;\n57-010\n3\n2\nSection 5\nand the terms of such contracts shall not exceed 50 years\nProhibits the delivery of project water to any lands producing a\nfollowing the permissable development period.\n\"surplus\" agricultural commodity for a period of ten years following\n4. On page 2, line 22, insert the following language as a new\ndate of enactment.\nsection 4 and renumber the existing Section 4 and subsequent Sections\nSection 6\naccordingly:\nProvides for the computation of the interest rate of reimbursable\nSec. 4. The provisions of the third sentence of Section 46\ncosts associated with the construction of the features of the Polecat\nof the Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other\nBench area.\nsimilar provisions of the Federal reclamation laws as applied\nSection 7\nto the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit are\nhereby modified to provide that lands held in a single owner-\nAuthorizes appropriation of $46,000,000 for the construction of the\nship which may be eligible to receive water from, through,\nPolecat Bench area facilities and includes provision for changes in\nor by means of area works shall be limited to one hundred\nconstruction costs.\nand sixty acres of Class I land or the equivalent thereof\nPURPOSE\nin other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the\nInterior.\nThe purpose of S. 151 which was introduced on January 15, 1975, by\nthe Senators from Wyoming, Mr. Hansen and Mr. McGee, is to author-\n5. On page 3, line 19, delete the figure \"$40,000,000\" and insert in-\nize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Polecat Bench\nstead the figure: \"$46,000,000\"\narea of the Shoshone extensions unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin\n6. Amend the title SO as to read\nprogram in extreme northwestern Wyoming which would develop un-\nA bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to con-\nappropriated natural flows of the Shoshone River for irrigation,\nstruct, operate, and maintain the Polecat Bench area of\nmunicipal and industrial water suppply, recreation, and fish and wild-\nlife conservation.\nthe Shoshone extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin\nprogram, Wyoming, and for other purposes.\".\nBACKGROUND\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 151 AS AMENDED\nThe construction of the existing Shoshone Project was initiated in\n1904 to complete a private development. Closure of the Buffalo Bill\nDam was made in 1910. The Shoshone extensions unit was authorized\nSection 1\nfor construction as a part of the comprehensive plan for the Missouri\nAuthorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake the con-\nRiver Basin by the Flood Control Acts of 1944 (58 Stat. 887) and\nstruction, operation and maintenance of the proposed Polecat Bench\n1946 (60 Stat. 641). Construction of the unit was not initiated before\narea of the Shoshone unit, describes the purposes for which the\n1964, however, and reauthorization is therefore necessary under the\nproject is to be built, and lists the major features of the project.\nprovisions of the Act of August 14, 1964 (78 Stat. 446).\nThis section also provides for 2,217 acres to be made available on a\nThe present proposal includes only a portion of the original plan\npreference basis to resident landowners of the adjacent Heart Moun-\nfor the Shoshone extensions unit. The Secretary of-the Interior's feasi-\ntain Division of the Shoshone Project.\nbility report was transmitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972. The\nSection 2\nSubcommittee on Energy Research and Water Resources held a hear-\nProvides that project activities and functions related to the con-\ning on S. 151 on April 17, 1975. The Department of the Interior\nservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and the\nopposed enactment of the bill recommending in lieu thereof further\nenhancement of recreation opportunities shall be in accord with the\nstudy of the proposed project.\nFederal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213), as amended.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT\nSection 3\nProvides for the physical and financial integration of the Polecat\nThe proposed Polecat Bench area is located in Park County, Wyo-\nBench area with the other Federal projects constructed pursuant to\nming, along the Shoshone River. The development would provide a\nthe comprehensive plan approved as part of the Flood Control Act\nfull irrigation water supply to 19,200 acres of irrigable lands, a source\nof 1944 (58 Stat, 887, 891), as amended. In addition, Section 3 provides\nof municipal and industrial water supply for the neighboring town of\nfor a' fifty year maximum repayment contract for the return of con-\nPowell, yoming, and provide outdoor recreation and fish and wild-\nstruction costs allocable to irrigation.\nlife conservation.\nSection 4\nWater supplies for the project would be provided from unappro-\npriated natural flows of the Shoshone River, available storage in the\nProvides for a. Class I equivalency for ownership of irrigated lands\nexisting Buffalo Bill Reservoir of the Shoshone Project, and return\nin the Polecat Bench area.\nS.R. 350\nS.R. 350.:\n4\n5\nflows from existing irrigation development. The existing Heart Moun-\nthe Interior in 1970 indicated that the project had a ratio of benefits to\ntain Canal would deliver water from the Buffalo Bill Reservoir to the\ncosts of 1.68 to 1. Subsequent indexing of construction costs indicates\nnew facilities.\nthat the benefit/cost ratio has decreased. However, increases in the\nThe principal new features of the extension would be the Polecat\nvalue of agricultural commodities have tended to offset the rise in as-\nCanal, a relift pumping plant, the Holden reregulating reservoir, the\nsociated project costs.\nHolden Canal, and distribution and drainage systems. Recreation fa-\nOf the costs allocated to irrigation, local beneficiaries would repay\ncilities will be provided at Holden Reservoir and fish and wildlife\nall maintenance costs and $7,392,000 or about 16 percent of the total\nmanagement will be accommodated in the land acquisition and at the\nirrigation allocation. The remaining $35,581,000 would be repaid from\nreservoir.\npower revenues accruing to the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program.\nTestimony presented to the Subcommittee on Energy Research and\nThe Wyoming Recreation Commission has indicated their willingness\nWater Resources during the April 17, 1975 hearing indicated that the\nto comply with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recrea-\nTown of Powell, Wyoming, (population approximately 5,000) could\ntion Act of 1965 in regard to project recreation oriented facilities.\nutilize approximately 2,700 acre feet of water annually to meet de-\nmands through the year 2000, Projected project facilities would be\nCOMMITTEE AMENDMENTS\nable to meet the additional municipal and industrial capacity.\nThe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs adopted six amend-\nPROJECT DATA\nments. The amendments are set forth in full at the beginning of this\nreport and are explained below.\nHolden Dam and Reservoir:\nThe first amendment, page 2, line 10 of the original bill, will enable\nType: earthfill.\nthe Secretary of the Interior to give a priority to present irrigators on\nHeight: 65 feet.\nthe adjacent Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone project to proj-\nCrest length 6,070 feet.\nect lands in the Polecat Bench area in order to bring their total hold-\nReservoir capacity : 9,900 acre-feet.\nings to an economic level. When the Heart Mountain Division was ini-\nReservoir area : 640 acres.\ntially developed, it was anticipated that a second stage would be devel-\nDistribution System\noped at a later date and that irrigators on several inadequately sized\nPolecat Canal length : 18 miles.\nunits would be able to \"round-out\" their holdings. The second stage\nHolden Canal length : 13.3 miles.\nwas never developed and this amendment would permit the \"rounding-\nLaterals total length : 53.9 miles.\nout\" of the inadequate ownerships utilizing lands of the Polecat Bench\narea.\nFINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS\nThe second amendment, page 2, line 15 of the original bill is techni-\ncal in nature.\nThe total estimated construction cost of the project is $46,240,000\nThe third amendment, page 2, line 21 of the original bill, will enable\nbased on January, 1975 prices. Assigned costs to reflect the use of\nthe Secretary of the Interior to execute a 50-year repayment contract\nexisting facilities of the Shoshone Project and the Pick-Sloan Missouri\nwith the Polecat Bench Irrigation District. The Department's feasi-\nBasin program amount to $1,782,000. The costs have been allocated\nbility report on the project utilizes a 50-year repayment provision and\namong the project purposes as follows:\nwithout the amendment, the Secretary would be limited to a 40-year\nrepayment contract pursuant to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939\nAmount\nPercent\n(53 Stat. 1187).\nThe fourth amendment, page 2, line 22 of the original bill, adds a\nConstruction costs\n$46, 240, 000\nAssigned costs\n1,782,000\nnew Section 4 providing a class I equivalency for land ownerships in\nInterest during construction\n4,115,000\nthe Polecat Bench area. This means that the Secretary of the Interior\nTotal\n51,577,000\nmay permit certain ownerships in excess of 160 acres in the area to\nLess preauthorization costs\n560,000\nLess project interest\n4,020,000\nreceive project waters. This flexibility is encouraged because of the\nCosts to be allocated\n47,557,000\nhigh altitude of associated project lands and other physical features\nwhich may affect related agricultural production.\nIrrigation\n46,973,000\n98. 7\nFish and wildlife\n322,000\n7\nThe fifth amendment, page 3, line 19 of the original bill, increases\nRecreation\n262,000\n.6\nthe authorization by $6,000,000 to a total of $46,000,000. This reflects\nTotal\n47,557,000\n100.0\nDepartmental testimony concerning the actual present estimated costs\nfor construction of the Polecat Bench area facilities.\nAnnual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are estimated\nThe sixth amendment, to amend the title of S. 151, was adopted to\nto be $90,000. Average annual benefits are estimated to be $4,200,000.\ncorrect a typographical error.\nThe economic analysis presented to the Congress by the Department of\nS.R. 350\nS.R. 350\n6\n7\nCOSTS\nnomic efficiency criteria applied to all other water resources projects.\nIn accordance with Section 252(a) of the Legislative Reorganiza-\nAccordingly, this Department recommended against authorization of\ntion Act of 1970 the Committee provides the following estimate of\nthe project during subsequent committee hearings held on the report.\ncosts:\nNo further study or actions have been carried out in connection with\nS. 151, as reported by the Committee, would authorize the appro-\nthis proposed project since completion of the original study.\npriation of $46,000,000.\nThe original feasibility study in the Polecat Bench area considered\na system of canals, a reservoir, and other structures to furnish water\nTABULATION OF VOTES CAST IN COMMITTEE\nsupply to irrigate approximately 19,200 acres of lands or about 80 new\nfarm units in northwestern Wyoming. The proposed development\nPursuant to Section 133 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act\nwould also enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide outdoor\nof 1946, as amended, the following is a tabulation of votes of the Com-\nrecreational opportunities. The water supply would be provided from\nmittee during consideration of S. 151.\nexisting storage facilities at the Buffalo Bill Reservoir on the Shoshone\nS. 151, was ordered favorably reported to the Senate with amend-\nRiver.\nments, by unanimous voice vote with a quorum present in open public\nLocal interests in the area continue to strongly support the project.\nsession on July 31, 1975.\nThe city of Powell has recently expressed interest in obtaining munici-\npal and industrial water supply from the project.\nEXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS\nSince the report was completed in 1972, costs for constructing public\nworks have risen significantly. Prices of crops that would be grown on\nThe reports of the Department of the Interior and the Office of\nland irrigated by the proposed Polecat Bench Project have also in-\nManagement and Budget are set forth in full as follows:\ncreased in value. While these factors along with the possible inclusion\nof municipal and industrial water supply as a project purpose, are\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,\nimportant and would undoubtedly affect the economic feasibility of the\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\nproject, the precise impact of these changes cannot be determined\nWashington, D.C., April 15, 1975.\nwithout the results of a feasibility grade restudy of the project.\nHon. HENRY M. JACKSON,\nIn light of the continuing interest by local interests in the State\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular fairs,\nof Wyoming regarding approval of this project, this Department\nU.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.\nwould recommend initiating such a study to determine the merits of the\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of\nproject based on current conditions and criteria. Until such a study\nthis Department on S. 151, a bill \"To authorize the Secretary of the\nhas been conducted and completed, this Department has no basis for\nInterior to construct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench area of\namending its earlier position on the proposed project.\nthe Shoshone extension unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program,\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no\nWyoming, and for other purposes.\"\nobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of\nThe bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone exten-\nthe Administration's program.\nsion unit which had previously been authorized as an integral part of\nSincerely yours,\nthe Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The reauthorized project\nJACK HORTON,\nwould provide irrigation water for 19,200 acres of land, plus municipal\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior.\nand industrial water as well as conservation and recreation uses. The\nneeded features of the project are set out in section 1. Section 2 of the\nbill provides for the conservation and recreational provisions of the\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,\nproject. Section 3 of the bill integrates the project physically and\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,\nfinancially with the other Federal works authorized pursuant to the\nWashington, D.C., April 23, 1975.\noriginal authorization for this project. Section 4 of the bill denies for\na period of ten years the delivery of irrigation water from the project\nHon. HENRY M. JACKSON,\nfor use on surplus agricultural crops. Section 5 of the bill sets the\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,\nmethod under which the interest rate for the project will be computed.\nU.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.\nSection 6 of the bill authorizes the appropriations for the project.\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of January 29,\nPursuant to Section 9(a) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, a report\n1975 for the views of the Office of Management and Budget on S. 151,\non a feasibility study of the proposed Polecat Bench Project was trans-\na bill \"To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate\nmitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972, by then Assistant Secretary\nand maintain the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extension unit,\nJames R. Smith. This report indicated that the Polecat Bench Project\nPick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyoming, and for other\ndid not meet the test of economic feasibility based on the national eco-\npurposes.\" In its report to your Committee, the Department of the Interior\npoints out that it opposed authorization of the project in 1972 on the\nS.R. 350\nS.R. 350\n8\nbasis of an economic feasibility study completed that year. The De-\npartment went on to say, however, that in light of certain changes in\ncosts and potential benefits, it would recommend initiating a new study\nof the merits of the project based on current criteria, but until that\nstudy is completed, would have no basis for changing its earlier\nposition.\nThe Office of Management and Budget concurs with the views ex-\npressed by the Department, and accordingly, recommends against\nenactment of S. 151.\nSincerely,\nJAMES M. FREY,\nAssistant Director for Legislative Reference.\nS.R. 350\n94TH CONGRESS\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nREPORT\n1st Session\nNo. 94-694\nAUTHORIZING AND MODIFYING VARIOUS FEDERAL\nRECLAMATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, AND FOR\nOTHER PURPOSES\nDECEMBER 8, 1975.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the\nState of the Union and ordered to be printed\nMr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,\nsubmitted the following\nREPORT\n[To accompany H.R. 10537]\nThe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re-\nferred the bill (H.R. 10537) To authorize and modify various Federal\nreclamation projects and programs, and for other purposes, having\nconsidered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment\nand recommend that the bill do pass.\nORGANIZATION OF LEGISLATION\nH.R. 10537,1 entitled the Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975,\nincludes in a single measure all of the authorizing legislation considered\nduring the First Session of the 94th Congress by the Committee on\nInterior and Insular Affairs.\nThe bill is comprised of four Titles, each of which deals with a\nseparate activity originally introduced as an individual bill. The in-\ndividually introduced bill provided the vehicle for requesting depart-\nmental reports and for hearings before the Subcommittee on Water\nand Power Resources. Thereafter, each measure was discussed and\namended as appropriate before being approved for inclusion in the\nbill reported herein.\nEach Title will be discussed separately below, except that the sec-\ntions of this report captioned Costs, Committee Recommendations and\nInflationary Impact Assessment will present consolidated information.\n1 H.R. 10537 was introduced by Mr. Johnson of California (for himself, Mr. Roncalio,\nMr. Andrews of North Dakota, Mr. Abdnor, Mr. Lujan, Mrs. Pettis, Mr. Ullman, Mr. Don H.\nClausen, and Mr. Symms). The committee also considered related legislation, as follows\nH.R. 1500 introduced by Mr. Roncalio; H.R. 8539 introduced by Mr. Andrews of North\nDakota; H.R. 9649 introduced by Mr. Ullman; and H.R. 3383 introduced by Mr. Abdnor.\n57-006\n2\n3\nTITLE I-POLECAT BENCH, Wro.\nECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT\nPURPOSE\nThe total estimated construction cost of the facilities authorized by\nthis Title is $46,240,000 based on January 1975 price levels. This sum\nThe purpose of this title is to authorize the Secretary of the In-\nis ilnclusive of $465,000 previously expended for preauthorization in-\nterior to construct, operate, and maintain the Polecat Bench area,\nvestigations-thereby indicating a need for future appropriations in\nShoshone Extensions unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Wyo-\nthe amount of $45,775,000. The Committee on Interior and Insular\nming. The facilities covered by this title will be a program of the\nAffairs rounded this amount to $46,000,000 as the limit on authoriza-\nBureau of Reclamation and will be subject to the provisions of the\ntion for appropriations.\nFederal Reclamation Act (32 Stat. 388) and Acts amendatory thereof\nThe benefits estimated to be created by development of the Polecat\nand supplementary thereto.\nBench area agrregate $4,160,700 annually, as set forth in detail below\nIrrigation\n$3,999,000\nSETTING AND BACKGROUND\nFish and wildlife\n22,000\nRecreation\n20,000\nThe Polecat Bench area consists of the facilities for delivery and\nM. & I. water\n121,500\ndistribution of irrigation water to approximately 19,200 acres of un-\nLess adverse effects\n(1, 800)\ndeveloped private and public land in Park County, Wyoming. Mu-\nThe annual economic cost of facilities to be authorized by this title,\nnicipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife conservation and\nutilizing a discount rate of 57/8 percent, is $3,025,000 and computed as\npublic outdoor recreation are additional purposes of the development\nfollows:\nand will be benefited by implementation of the plan.\nWater for the Polecat Bench development will be regulated in\nConstruction cost\n$46, 240, 000\nLess preauthorization costs\n(465,000)\nBuffalo Bill Reservoir, a feature of the Shoshone Project, which was\nPlus: Interest during construction\n4,010,000\nconstructed on the Shoshone River west of Cody, Wyoming, in the\nearly years of this century. Regulatory capacity was provided at that\nTotal economic cost\n49,690,000\ntime for the lands of the Polecat Bench. Adequate capacity has also\nAnnual equivalent of economic construction cost\n2,929,000\nbeen provided in the existing Shoshone Canyon Conduit and the Heart\nOperation and maintenance\n90,000\nMountain Canal to convey the water to the limits of the existing\nHeart Mountain division of the Shoshone project.\nTotal annual cost of foregoing\n3,019,000\nThe facilities authorized by this title will consist of a canal origi-\nOn the basis of the foregoing the Polecat Bench is shown to have a\nnating at the terminus of the Heart Mountain Canal, two relift pump-\nratio of benefits to costs of 1.38. In presenting this ratio the Commit-\ning plants, a regulating facility known as Holden Reservoir, laterals,\ntee on Interior and Insular Affairs expressly accepts the validity of\ndrains and appurtenant facilities. Holden Reservoir will also provide\nsecondary or regional economic effects of irrigated agriculture-and\nstorage for the future municipal needs of the City of Powell,\nrejects the applicability of sunk-cost in decision making, as well as the\nWyoming.\nutilization of a discount rate higher than the long-term cost of money\nDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FACILITIES\nto the Federal government. The Committee notes that such factors\nseem to be prevalent in the Executive Branch outlook toward resource\nPolecat Bench Canal will originate at the terminus of the Heart\ndevelopment but declines to be SO limited in its perspective of the value\nMountain Canal, an existing feature of the Shoshone project. It will\nand merit of this and other resource development investment\nhave an initial capacity of 212 cubic feet per second and will extend\nopportunities.\nfor a distance of 18 miles, serving irrigable lands enroute, to discharge\nThe construction costs of the Polecat Bench area are tentatively al-\ninto Holden Reservoir.\nlocated as follows:\nHolden Reservoir will be a reregulatory facility with a total con-\ntrolled capacity of 9,900 acre-feet. It will be formed by an earth fill\nIrrigation\n$45, 226, 000\nRecreation\n229,000\ndam with a height of 65 feet and a crest length of 6,070 feet.\nFish and wildlife\n320,000\nHolden Canal will originate at Holden Reservoir with an initial\nM. & I. water\ncapacity of 160 cubic feet per second and extend for a distance of 13.8\nPreauthorization costs\n465,000\nmiles. À lateral system aggregating 53.9 miles in length and 22 miles\nPreauthorization costs are nonreimbursable by statute. The costs al-\nof pipe and open drains are also planned for the area. Two relift\nlocated to irrigation are reimbursable without interest, in accordance\npumping plants are required to serve 3,100 acres of land situated\nwith reclamation law and precedent. The water users will repay the\nabove the water surface elevation of Polecat Canal.\nsum of $7,392,000 in accordance with their computed ability to pay\nThe project plan also will include the development of two land-\nfor a period of 50 years after the permissible development. The re-\nscaped visitor areas along the shore of Holden Reservoir. They will be\nmaining costs allocated to the irrigation purpose will be returned from\nequipped with shelter, water and sanitation facilities.\nnet power revenues of the interconnected power system of the Pick-\nSloan Missouri River program.\n4\n5\nThe relatively modest costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhance-\nTITLE II-DICKINSON DAM MODIFICATIONS, NORTH DAKOTA\nment and recreation will be shared by local agencies in accordance with\nthe cost-sharing precepts of the Federal Water Project Recreation\nPURPOSE\nAct (Public Law 89-72).\nThere have not as yet been any costs allocated to municipal and in-\nThe purpose of title II of HR 10537 is to authorize structural modi-\ndustrial water supply but the Committee expects that such an alloca-\nfication of Dickinson Dam on the Heart River in the State of North\ntion will be made during the post-authorization investigation period\nDakota. The work to be done will consist of the installation of gates on\nand that arrangements for repayment of the amount SO allocated will\nthe existing spillway to increase the yield of municipal water from the\nbe accomplished at the interest rate prescribed for the return of reim-\nreservoir and the construction of an auxiliary spillway deemed neces-\nbursable costs.\nsary to protect the dam from overtopping and failure during occur-\nrence of the spillway design flood.\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE TITLE\nBACKGROUND AND NEED\nThis Title is comprised of seven sections as follows:\nSection 101 authorizes construction, operation, and maintenance of\nDickinson Dam was authorized for construction by the Flood Con-\nthe Polecat Bench area facilities, enumerates purposes of the project,\ntrol Acts of 1944 and 1946. Construction was completed in 1950 and\nlists the major facilities to be constructed and provides that entrymen\nthereafter the principal use of the reservoir has been as a source of\non the Heart Mountain division of the Shoshone project may have a\nmunicipal water supply for the City of Dickinson, North Dakota. This\npriority in obtaining up to 2,217 acres of land to augment their present\ncity is a major commercial center situated in close proximity to the coal\nfarm units.\nresources of Western North Dakota. It has sustained a rapid rate of\nSection 102 invokes the cost-sharing provisions of the Federal Wa-\ngrowth and expects an accelerated growth rate as the coal resources are\nter Project Recreation Act, as amended (79 Stat. 213) as a guide to the\ndeveloped to meet growing national energy needs. Enlargement of the\ndevelopment of the fish and wildlife and recreation features of the area.\nwater yield capacity of Dickinson Reservoir affords a means of sup-\nSection 103 provides that the Polecat Bench area shall be integrated\nplying the water needed to support the anticipated growth of the city.\nfinancially and physically with other Federal works comprising the\nSince Dickinson Dam was constructed much progress has been made\nPick-Sloan Missouri Basin project. This, in a practical sense, provides\nin the science of estimating likely flood occurrences. It has now been\nfor the use of basin-wide net power revenues to repay irrigation costs\ndetermined that the spillway of Dickinson Dam would be inadequate\nin excess of the repayment ability of the water users. Section 103 also\nto regulate the amount of flood runoff capable of entering Dickinson\nprovides for irrigation repayment to be accomplished over a period of\nReservoir. If and when this runoff occurs, the embankment would be\n50 years plus permissible development period.\novertopped and the structure would fail quite rapidly. An auxiliary\nSection 104 authorizes the Secretary to compute and promulgate a\nspillway is badly needed to prevent such an occurrence.\nClass I equivalent for inferior land classes thereby enabling settlers of\nland other than Class I to receive water for more than 160 acres or 320\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS\nacres for man and wife.\nSection 105 prohibits the delivery of water for the production of\nTitle II is comprised of four sections, as follows\ncertain crops determined by the Secretary of the Agriculture to be\nSection 201 provides basic authority to the Secretary of the Interior\n\"surplus\". Section 106 establishes the formula for computing the interest rate\nto perform the necessary construction involved in installing gates on\nthe existing spillway and providing a new auxiliary spillway.\nfor the return of interest-bearing reimbursable costs.\nSection 202 provides for an amendatory repayment contract to ac-\nSection 107 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $46,000,000\ncomplish return of costs of allocated municipal water supply and also\nbased on price levels as of January 1975 and authorizes appropriations\nprovides that the cost of the auxiliary spillway, required for the safety\nfor operation and maintenance.\nof Dickinson Dam, shall be nonreimbursable.\nSection 203 establishes the formula for determination of the interest\nCOSTS\nrate to be applied to the repayment of municipal water costs.\nThe Committee estimate of Federal cost as required to be stated by\nSection 204 authorizes appropriations of necessary funds.\nthe Rules of the House is the sum authorized to be appropriated for\nCOSTS\nthis Title-$46,000,000.\nThe Committee estimate of costs associated with enactment of title\nDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS\nII is $4 million, the amount authorized to be appropriated.\nThe report of the Department of the Interior on the companion bill\nH.R. 1500, dated April 15, 1975, appears at the end of this report.\n6\n7\nDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS\nfor safety of dams, flood control and joint costs of recreation and fish\nThe report of the Department of the Interior on HR 8539, a bill\nand wildlife. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs calls\nrelated to Title II, is dated October 2, 1975, and appears in its entirety\nattention to the fact that cost-sharing, as provided by this section, is\nat the end of this report.\nin keeping with the precedents established by the Congress for such\nmatters.\nTITLE III-McKAY DAM, UMATILLA PROJECT, OREGON\nSection 305 authorizes the Secretary to amend and revise existing\nirrigation repayment contracts, as needed, to conform such contracts\nThe purpose of title III of HR 10537 is to reauthorize McKay Dam,\nto the revised cost allocations made pursuant to this title.\nUmatilla Project, Oregon, to encompass water resource purposes other\nSection 306 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $1,300,000\nthan irrigation and to authorize structural modifications to the spill-\nwith which to implement the authority contained in the title.\nway to protect the dam from failure during occurrence of the spillway\ndesign flood.\nCOSTS\nBACKGROUND AND NEED\nThe Committee estimate of costs associated with enactment of title\nMcKay Dam was constructed in 1927 on McKay Creek about 6\nIII is $1,300,000-the amount authorized to be appropriated.\nmiles south of Pendleton, Oregon, as a feature of the Umatilla Project.\nIt forms a reservoir with an active storage capacity of 74,000 acre-\nDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS\nfeet which provides irrigation water to the Stanfield and Westlands\nIrrigation Districts. The reservoir is a part of the McKay National\nThe report of the Department of the Interior on HR 9649, a com-\nWildlife Refuge, an important migratory waterfowl resource of the\npanion measure to title III is presented in its entirety at the end of this\nreport.\narea.\nMcKay Creek is a tributary of the Umatilla River and enters that\nTITLE IV-POLLOCK-HERREID UNIT, SOUTH DAKOTA\nstream at the City of Pendleton, Oregon. Although none of the cost\nPURPOSE\nof this facility is allocated to the flood control purpose, it has been\npossible through careful operation to provide approximately 6,000\nThe purpose of this title is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior\nacre-feet of flood control capacity in the reservoir.\nto construct, operate and maintain the Pollock-Herreid Unit, South\nApplication of updated techniques for estimation of probable and\nDakota Pumping Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin pro-\npossible floods indicates that floods are capable of occurrence in the\ngram, South Dakota. The facilities covered by this title will be a pro-\nMcKay Creek watershed that would exceed the spillway capability of\ngram of the Bureau of Reclamation and will be subject to the provi-\nMcKay Dam and lead to overtopping and failure of the embankment.\nsions of the Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and Acts\nSuch an event could lead to much loss of life and property on the\namendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.\nflood plain downstream from the dam where the creek traverses the\nurbanized area of Pendleton.\nSETTING AND BACKGROUND\nModification of the spillway of the existing dam, together with statu-\ntory authority to operate the reservoir for flood control, are badly\nThe Pollock-Herreid Unit consists of the facilities required for the\nneeded to protect the downstream area from flood damage and from\ndiversion and distribution of irrigation water to approximately 15,000\nthe consequences of dam failure at this location.\nacres of privately-owned irrigable land, occupying a river terrace im-\nmediately east of the Missouri River in Campbell County, South\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS\nDakota. Municipal and industrial water supply and fish and wildlife\nenhancement are other water resource development purposes that\nTitle III is comprised of six sections to accomplish the purposes set\nwill be benefited by the unit works.\nforth above.\nWater from Pollock-Herreid will be diverted from the existing Lake\nSection 301 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate the\nOahe, a mainstem reservoir constructed by the Corps of Engineers,\ncosts of McKay Dam and Reservoir to all the water resource purposes\nDepartment of the Army, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A sub-\nserved by the reservoir, including an allocation to safety of dams. The\nimpoundment known as Lake Pocasse has been created on an arm of\nCommittee expects that the entire cost of the structural modifications\nLake Oahe and is managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the\nauthorized by this title will be allocated to safety of dams.\nDepartment of the Interior as a migratory waterfowl refuge.\nSection 302 authorizes the modifications to the structure.\nThe structures authorized by this title will include a pumping plant\nSection 303 provides the legislative basis for reservation of reservoir\nfor lifting water from Lake Oahe to Lake Pocasse; a canal extending\ncapacity for control and regulation of flood flows.\nfrom the pumping plant to Lake Pocasse; canals, laterals and relift\nSection 304 establishes cost-sharing criteria for repayment of McKay\npumping plants for distribution of the water beyond Lake Pocasse;\nDam and Reservoir and specifically provides for Federal responsibility\nand drainage facilities as required for preserving the arability of the\nunit lands.\n8\n9\nExisting elements of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program\nPreauthorization costs are nonreimbursable by statute. The costs al-\nwere authorized in 1944 and many of such elements have been com-\nlocated to irrigation are reimbursable without interest in accordance\npleted and placed in service. Oahe Dam and Lake Oahe is but one of\nwith basic Reclamation law and precedent. The water users of the Pol-\nmany such facilities, the development of which for downstream flood\nlock-Herreid Unit will contract to repay, in accordance with their\ncontrol, navigation and hydroelectric power production was accom-\ncapacity to pay, the sum of $3,397,000 (plus operation and mainte-\nplished at great economic sacrifice in terms of inundated river valley\nnance costs) during 50 years following a permissible development\nlands within South Dakota. The Oahe Project and companion develop-\nperiod. The remaining costs allocated to irrigation will be repaid from\nments within the State resulted in the inundation and removal from\nproductivity, and the tax base, of 500,000 acres of the best farm land\nSloan Missouri River program.\nnet power revenues of the interconnected power system of the Pick-\nin the State. Authorization and development of the Pollock-Herreid\nThe costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement will be cost-\nUnit represents a small but significant step in extenuation of these\nshared by a non-federal public body in accordance with the cost-shar-\nadverse effects on the economy and social structure of rural South\nLaw 89-72). Municipal and industrial water supply will be repaid in\ning precepts of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public\nDakota.\nECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE UNIT\nits entirety at prescribed interest rates.\nThe total cost of the Pollock-Herreid Unit facilities authorized by\nSECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS\nthis title is $25,940,000 at January 1975 price levels. This sum is in-\nclusive of $370,000 of preauthorization investigation costs which, al-\nThe Title is comprised of seven sections as follows:\nthough technically a part of the cost of the unit, do not represent future\nexpenditures and therefore should not influence decision making rela-\nsets forth the purposes of the development, and enumerates the major\nSection 401 conveys basic authority for development of the project,\ntive to the development. The \"new money\" cost involved in economic\nfeatures of the plan.\nanalysis of the unit is thus established as $25,570,000. Annual opera-\nSection 402 invokes the cost-sharing precepts of the Federal Water\ntion, maintenance and replacement costs are estimated at $160,000 and\nProject of Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213) as a guide to the development\ninterest during construction is $3,207,000.\nthe fish and wildlife features of the Unit.\nThe annual equivalent cost of the Pollock-Herreid Unit is summa-\nSection 403 provides that the unit shall be an element of the Pick-\nrized as follows:\nConstruction cost\npumping power.\nshare in the basinwide net power revenues and is eligible for project\nSloan Missouri River program which means that the unit is eligible to\n$25,940,000\nLess preauthorization investigations\n370,000\nSection 404 prohibits the delivery of water for the production of\nNew money cost\n25,570,000\nPlus interest during construction\n3,207,000\n\"surplus\". certain crops determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be\nInvestment cost\n28,777,000\nSection 405 establishes the formula for establishing the interest\nAnnual equivalent at 5% percent discount rate\n1,767,000\nbearing costs of the Unit.\nfor computing interest during construction and for return of interest- rate\nPlus operation and maintenance\n160,000\nSection 406 provides that the Secretary of the Interior may\nAnnual economic cost\n1,927,000\nTotal estimated annual benefits accruing to the Pollock-Herreid\nenabling water users to receive service to more than 160 acres, or 320\nand promulgate a class 1 equivalent for inferior land classes, compute thereby\nUnit are summarized as follows:\n2 and 3.\nacres for man and wife, if their farms contain irrigable lands in classes\nIrrigation\n$3,346,000\nFish and wildlife\n9,000\nSection 407 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $26,000,000\nMunicipal water supply\n4,000\ntion and maintenance.\nat January 1975 price levels and authorizes appropriations for opera-\nArea redevelopment\n60,000\nCOSTS\nTotal\n3,419,000\nLess adverse effects\n9,000\nof this Title is $26,000,000.\nThe Committee estimate of Federal costs associated with enactment\nAnnual benefits\n3,410,000\nThe benefit cost ratio, utilizing the foregoing data is 1.77. Costs of\nDEPARTMENTAL REPORT\nthe Pollock-Herreid Unit are tentatively allocated as follows:\nIrrigation\n$25,429,000\nThe report of the Department of the Interior, on the companion\nM. & I. water\n47,000\nFish and wildlife\nat the end of this report.\nbill H.R. 3383, is dated October 29, 1975, and is set forth in its entirety\n94,000\nPreauthorization investigations\n370,000\nTotal\n25,940,000\nH. Rept. 94-694\n10\n11\nSUMMARY OF COSTS\nof the bill provides for the conservation and recreational provisions\nof the project. Section 3 of the bill integrates the project physically\nThe summary of costs of all Titles of H.R. 10537 is as follows\nand financially with the other Federal works authorized pursuant to\nTitle I-Polecast Bench, Wyo\n$46, 000, 000\nthe original authorization for this project. Section 4 of the bill denies\nTitle II-Dickinson Dam, N. Dak\n4,000,000\nfor a period of ten years the delivery of irrigation water from the\nTitle III-McKay Dam, Oreg\n1,300,000\nproject for use on surplus agricultural crops. Section 5 of the bill sets\nTitle IV-Pollock-Herreid, S. Dak\n26,000,000\nthe method under which the interest rate for the project will be com-\nTotals\n77, 300, 000\nputed. Section 6 of the bill authorizes the appropriations for the\nproject.\nINFLATIONARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT\nPursuant to Section 9(a) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, a report on\na feasibility study of the proposed Polecat Bench Project was trans-\nThe sums authorized to be appropriated by H.R. 10537 will be sched-\nmitted to the Congress on August 11, 1972, by then Assistant Secre-\nuled for expenditure over a period of several years commencing at the\ntary James R. Smith. This report indicated that the Polecat Bench\nconclusion of a period of post-authorization planning. The total im-\nProject did not meet the test of economic feasibility based on the\npact of this legislation will extend over a term of as much as 10 years.\nnational economic efficiency criteria applied to all other water re-\nThe existing level of construction activity of the Bureau of Reclama-\nsources projects. Accordingly, this Department recommended against\ntion is in the neighborhood of $400,000,000 each year. It can thus be\nauthorization of the project during subsequent committee hearings\nseen that the average fiscal impact of this legislation, when imple-\nheld on the report. No further study or actions have been carried out\nmented, is on the order of a 2 percent increase in current funding levels\nin connection with this proposed project since completion of the\nfor Federal Reclamation construction.\noriginal study.\nThe programs authorized by this legislation will be in areas where\nThe original feasibility study in the Polecat Bench area considered\nthe existing economy is not overheated and any economic impact on\na system of canals, a reservoir, and other structures to furnish water\nthe local area will be helpful rather than harmful.\nsupply to irrigate approximately 19,200 acres of lands or about 80\nnew farm units in northwestern Wyoming. The proposed develop-\nCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS\nment would also enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide out-\ndoor recreational opportunities. The water supply would be provided\nThe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs approved H.R.\nfrom existing storage facilities at the Buffalo Bill Reservoir on the\n10537 by voice vote without dissent and recommends its enactment.\nShoshone River.\nLocal interests in the area continue to strongly support the project.\nCHANGES IN EXISTING LAW\nThe city of Powell has recently expressed interest in obtaining munici-\nNone.\npal and industrial water supply from the project.\nDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS\nSince the report was completed in 1972, costs for constructing\nTITLE I\npublic works have risen significantly. Prices of crops that would be\ngrown on land irrigated by the proposed Polecat Bench Project have\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,\nalso increased in value. While these factors along with the possible\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\ninclusion of municipal and industrial water supply as a project pur-\npose, are important and would undoubtedly affect the economic feasi-\nWashington, D.C., April 15, 1975.\nbility of the project, the precise impact of these changes cannot be\nHon. JAMES A. HALEY,\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of\ndetermined without the results of a feasibility grade restudy of the\nproject.\nRepresentatives, Washington, D.C.\nIn light of the continuing interest by local interests in the State\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN This responds to your request for the views\nof Wyoming regarding approval of this project, this Department\nof this Department on H.R. 1500, a bill \"To authorize the Secretary\nwould recommend initiating such a study to determine the merits of\nof the Interior to construct, operate and maintain the Polecat Bench\nthe project based on current conditions and criteria. Until such a study\narea of the Shoshone extension unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Pro-\nhas been conducted and completed, this Department has no basis for\ngram, Wyoming, and for other purposes.\"\namending its earlier position on the proposed project.\nThe bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone ex-\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no\ntension unit which had previously been authorized as an integral part\nobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of\nof the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. The reauthorized project\nthe Administration's program.\nwould provide irrigation water for 19,200 acres of land, plus munici-\nSincerely yours,\npal and industrial water as well as conservation and recreation uses.\nJACK HORTON,\nThe needed features of the project are set out in section 1. Section 2\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior.\n12\n13\nTITLE II\n2. The report on the safety feature of the dam has not been ap-\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,\nproved by the Department, nor has the Administration or the Congress\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\nhad time to consider it. Although the Administration has not yet\nWashington, D.C., October 2, 1975.\nfinalized its policy with respect to safety of dams issues, the Depart-\nHon. JAMES A. HALEY,\nment has heretofore applied a policy whereby legislative action under\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of\nthe Safety of Dams program would be considered on a case-by-case\nRepresentatives, Washington, D.C.\nbasis, only after full Executive review of study reports on each\nproject.\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the\n3. The proposed modifications are not of such urgency that further\nviews of this Department with respect to a bill, H.R. 8539, \"To author-\nconsideration of the issues for a period amounting to a matter of\nize modifications to Dickinson Dam, Dickinson Unit, Pick-Sloan\nweeks would be a serious or unwarranted delay. [Where necessary to\nMissouri Basin Program, North Dakota, and for other purposes.\"\nreduce the risk, the Department would apply interim operating cri-\nWe have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend against\nterial, although it does not appear to be required in this case.]\nits enactment at this time. The Department and the Administration\nMoreover, the Administration and the Department would oppose\nare of the view that the legislation is being proposed and considered\nany provision which calls for full payment by the Federal Government\nprematurely, and that consideration should be deferred.\nof the cost of new safety measures, without reimbursement and with-\nH.R. 8539 proposes that modifications be made to the existing\nout consideration of the individual merits of each case, and which\nDickinson Dam. The purposes of the proposed modifications are:\nwould appear to assume that full payment should be undertaken by\n1. To make additional municipal and industrial (M&I) water\nthe Federal Government in all cases involving the Safety of Dams\navailable to the city of Dickinson, North Dakota. Installation of bas-\nprogram. In considering the matters of cost and allocation of costs and\ncule gates on the existing spillway of Dickinson Dam would increase\nrepayment for safety modifications, such factors as the original pur-\nthe conservation storage capacity of Edward Arthur Patterson Lake.\npose and uses of the dam, the proposed uses of the dam as modified, the\nThe resulting increase in firm water yield in combination with exist-\nreasons for the modification, the urgency of the need, the remaining\ning M&I supplies would be adequate to meet the needs of the city of\nlife expectancy of the dam, and the financial circumstances of those\nDickinson to about the year 1985.\nbenefiting from the dam should be taken into account.\n2. To assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from flood occurrences\nWhile we feel that this legislation is premature, we are aware that\ncurrently estimated to be larger than the existing spillway capacity.\nother similar proposals are being scheduled for consideration in the\nThe existing spillway capacity is 33,200 cubic feet per second (ft.³/s).\nnear future and we are making every effort to establish a more defini-\nThe currently estimated maximum inflow design flood (IDF) under\ntive Department and Administration position on Safety and Dams\nthe most extreme circumstances would have a peak flow of about\nissues in time to fully consider those upcoming proposals.\n106,700 ft³/s. The addition of an auxiliary spillway, with a design\nDickinson Dam was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation,\ncapacity of 69,200 ft³/s, in combination with the existing spillway and\nunder the authority of Public Law 80-299 and was completed in 1950.\nsurcharge storage would allow safe passage of the currently estimated\nDickinson has grown from a small town in 1910 of 3,700 people to its\nmaximum IDF. The increased estimates of maximum IDF over those\npresent size of about 14,000. By 1950 the city had reached a population\noriginally anticipated for the dam are the result of improved and\nof 7,500 and had become a hub of business and distribution for much of\nupdated scientific methodology. There are no structural defects in the\nthe western part of North Dakota. In that year it began converting\ndam.\nfrom its limited ground water supply to a surface water system and\nThe total estimated cost, based on January 1974 price levels, of the\nstorage supply from Dickinson Dam. The dam and small reservoir\nmeasures included in H.R. 8539 is $3,171,000 including interest during\nnear the city on the Heart River were constructed for the principal\nconstruction. Under the terms of the proposed bill, the portion of\npurpose of providing municipal water, but also included some recrea-\nthe cost relating to increased water supply for the city would be\ntion, limited irrigation, and incidental flood control.\nreimbursable with interest. The portion relating to dam safety would\nThe Heart River originates on the semiarid high plains and pro-\nnot be reimbursable. Costs as presently projected include $681,000 for\nvides limited runoff from about 400 square miles of drainage. While\nthe bascule gates, and $2,490,000 for safety improvements.\nthe runoff varies between flood and drought conditions, the Dickinson\nThe bill is premature for the following reasons:\nReservoir yield is too small to insure the municipal supply of the\n1. The feasibility report on the modifications for increased capacity\npresent population in a dry year and the yield even in average water\nis not yet final and has not yet been approved by the Department,\nyears will not supply the increasing water needs.\nthe Administration or the Congress; action on the bill now would\nIf Dickinson grows at a moderate pace it can, by modifving the\ntherefore serve to circumvent and short-circuit proper consideration\npresent water facilities, extend its water supply another decade or\nof the report as well as the legislative procedures normally followed\nmore, but it should anticipate plans for a long-range solution.\nfor a project of this type, pursuant to authorization of a feasibility\nThe population of the city of Dickinson could increase very rapidly\nstudy.\nif strippable lignite deposits of about 800 million tons, which are lo-\ncated within 15 miles of the city are developed. If development of the\n14\n15\ntremendous coal deposits in the Northern Great Plains begins to accel-\nThe legislative proposal would therefore modify the concrete spill-\nerate, the city will rapidly increase beyond the capability of the pres-\nway by the addition of a new and larger grass-covered spillway\nent and improved water sources and require a new and costly\nthrough the right abutment to provide the needed safety against\nalternative.\npossible failure. The added spillway would have a capacity of 69,200\nThe short-range plan to extend the city's water supply, which is part\nft³/s, which, when combined, with the 29,300 ft³/s remaining in the\nof the legislative proposal, requires that the original concrete spillway\nmodified concrete spillway making a total capacity of 98,500 ft³/s,\nfor the existing dam, which is 200 feet wide, be gated SO that the water\nwould prevent failure of the dam during the occurrence of an inflow\nsurface can be raised 31/2 feet. This additional storage will provide the\ndesign flood.\nneeded water for another decade during which time the trend of future\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no\ngrowth will become evident.\nobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of\nOne possible long-range solution would be a new dam and reservoir\nthe Administration's program.\non Green River about 10 miles east of the city at the Versippi site.\nSincerely yours,\nWhen the city will require such an alternate can be decided some years\nJOHN KYL,\nhence, and other sources should be investigated. Development of the\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior.\nVersippi site would be expensive and beyond the city's capability to\nfinance in the immediate future.\nThe short-range solution, modification of the existing spillway,\nwould raise the controlled water surface 31/2 feet, increase the storage\nTITLE III\nby 3,493 acre-feet, increase the yield by 900 acre-feet in a critical\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,\nstreamflow year to 3,300 acre-feet a year, increase the water surface\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\nby 372 acres to 1,191 acres, and increase the land management area\nby 243 acres.\nWashington, D.C., October 29, 1975.\nRecreation and fish and wildlife benefits would be preserved at\nHon. JAMES A. HALEY,\npresent levels. Existing recreation facilities, including boat ramps,\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of\nbeaches, roads, day use facilities, and a youth camp would be relocated.\nRepresentatives, Washington, D.C.\nUse of these facilities would be lost temporarily during relocation.\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the\nThe addition of a wildlife management area would mitigate loss of\nviews of this Department on H.R. 9649, a bill \"To reauthorize and\nhabitat in the'area to be flooded.\nmodify McKay Dam, Umatilla Project, Oregon, for multiple func-\nA further problem exists, however, in that the existing spillway is\ntions, and for other purposes.\"\ninadequate to handle potential floods as currently estimated. Through\nWe have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend against\nthe utilization of modern meteorological and hydrological techniques,\nits enactment.\nplus the additional years of experience in precipitation and flood\nThe proposed bill would authorize the Secretary to increase the\nstudies, we have determined that the maximum inflow design flood is\ncapacity of the spillway as required for the safety of the dam and\ngreater than was estimated when Dickinson Dam was designed and\nwould reauthorize the dam to include expanded project functions, for\nconstructed.\nflood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The safety features\nWhen the existing spillway was designed the inflow design flood was\nare required as a result of new and updated estimates of possible\nestimated at 40,000 ft³/s. At that time, the design was based on an\nmaximum flood inflows to the reservoir. The storage capacity of the\nanalysis of the recorded runoff resulting from all historic major\ndam would not be increased, although the usefulness of its current\nstorms in the general area. A peak of 40,000 ft³/s represented the\ncapacity would be firmed up and assured by the safety modifications.\nhighest ever recorded or estimated for the 400 square mile drainage\nAppropriations would be authorized in the amount of $1,300,000, with\narea. The new analysis and design assume 13 inches of rainfall in 12\nan inflation clause built in.\nhours over the entire water shed. Therefore, we now judge that the\nThe Administration has advised that it considers the project un-\nmaximum inflow design flood could reach 106,700 ft³/s at Dickinson\nnecessary. This is not a situation involving a structural defect or weak-\nDam assuming the most extreme circumstances, and could cause struc-\nness in the dam. Rather the only change in safety factors here is the\ntural failure of the dam which would cause the flood surge through\nnew, increased inflow design flood, which has a low probability of\nthe city to be increased by 30 percent. This flood surge, resulting from\noccurrence. The position of the Administration is that the expenditure\na failure, would occur in a matter of minutes, whereas a flood peak,\nhere is undesirable and unnecessary, and that an adequate margin of\nwithout failure, would afford about 9 hours of warning.\nsafety can be achieved through operating procedures. The Adminis-\nThe rainfall of storms which have occurred in the general region,\ntration recognizes that this may mean substantial reductions in bene-\nand which could have occurred above Dickinson Dam ranges from\nfits obtained from the dam and in repayment from the water uses.\n12 to 24 inches. In June of 1975 a storm occurring in Ransom County,\nThe Project. The Umatilla Project is located along the Umatilla\nabout 100 miles southeast of Dickinson, had a measured rainfall of\nand Columbia Rivers in north-central Oregon. McKay Dam, located\n20.6 inches.\nabout 6 miles south of Pendleton on McKav Creek (a tributary of the\nUmatilla River), was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation dur-\n16\n17\ning the period 1923-27, at a cost of $2,133,457. The proposal for cor-\nTITLE IV\nrective work was recently made as a result of newly developed meteoro-\nlogical techniques and hydrological data. It was determined that\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,\nMcKay Dam was incapable of storing or passing safely the updated\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\ninflow design flood. It was also determined that the same margin of\nWashington, D.C., October 29, 1975.\nsafety could be obtained reserving storage space of 36,000 acre feet\nHon. JAMES A. HALEY,\n(1/2 of capacity) during the storm season until the storm threat passed.\nChairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Rep-\nShould an inflow design flood occur without corrective action the\nresentatives, Washington, D.C.\ndam embankment and spillway parapet wall would be overtopped\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views\nand rapid breaching of the dam embankment could occur. The dis-\nof this Department with respect to H.R. 3383, a bill \"To authorize the\ncharge from the dam and reservoir could increase from approximately\nSecretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the\n20,000 cubic feet per second (ft. 3/s) under flood conditions to as\nPollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota pumping division, Pick-Sloan\nmuch as approximately 1,500,000 ft. 3/s in 1 hour or less if the dam\nMissouri Basin program, South Dakota, and for other purposes.\"\nfailed. The loss of life and property damage downstream from the\nWe have reviewed the proposed legislation and recommend that con-\ndam could be disastrous. The flood resulting from dam failure would\nsideration of it be deferred until a feasibility report on the unit is cur-\npass through areas ranging from highly developed urban areas to\nrently reevaluated.\nagricultural and grazing lands. Residences of over 1,100, commercial\nH.R. 3383 is based on a plan to divert water by pumping from the\ndevelopments, public facilities, roads, railroad tracks, bridges, and\nexisting Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes of\nother improvements in the areas of the Montee addition of Pendleton,\nthe Pollock-Herreid Unit would be to supply on-farm sprinkler irri-\nReith and Echo would be inundated by the flood.\ngation for 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and industrial\nThe proposed modification in the design and structure of the dam\nwater to two communities. H.R. 3383 also contains provisions for fish\nwould provide a greater factor of safety than was provided by the\nand wildlife resources.\noriginal design. The spillway capacity would be increased from its\nThe physical works of the unit would include: the main pumping\npresent capacity of 10,000 ft. 3/s to 27,000 ft. 3/s. Although the re-\nplant, located at the existing Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, to lift\nservoir releases would be increased as rapidly as necessary under flood\nthe water into the existing Lake Pocasse a subimpoundment on Spring\nconditions, more time would be available for warning the downstream\nCreek, which is a tributory to Lake Oahe, for reregulation; a 24 mile-\nresidents to evacuate. The amount of damage to downstream property\nlong system of main canals; a 56 mile-long system of laterals; seven\nand loss of life would be lessened because of the reduction in reservoir\nrelift pumping plants; 165 miles of collector, surface, and closed pipe\nreleases.\ndrains; and other facilities necessary to the purposes of the unit.\nMcKay Dam was constructed specifically for irrigation. Throughout\nThe cost of the unit is estimated to be $25,570,000 based on January\nthe years, other incidental benefits, such as flood control, fish and wild-\n1975 price levels.\nlife, and recreation, have accrued. The proposed bill would authorize\nA feasibility report on the unit was completed in January of 1968\nallocation of existing costs, as well as the costs of the proposed modi-\nand was transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior on September 16,\nfication, to the reauthorized purposes of the dam; i.e., irrigation, flood\n1971. A reevaluation statement, which updated the feasibility report,\ncontrol, fish and wildlife, and recreation.\nwas completed in March 1971; and another is expected to be completed\nA copy of the report entitled \"Proposed Alteration of an Existing\nshortly. Neither the feasibility report nor the updatings have been\nStructure, Modification of McKay Dam, Umatilla Project, Oregon,\"\napproved by the Department nor reviewed and approved by the Ad-\ndated April 1975 is attached. The report described possibilities for\nministration. Action on H.R. 3383 now would serve to circumvent\nproviding irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation\nproper administrative consideration of the project.\nand for obtaining appropriate repayment if the project is authorized.\nIn 1971 a 12 page environmental impact statement, pursuant to\nThe estimated cost of the proposed modification is $1,160,000 (based\nsection 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,\nupon October 1974 prices), and $1,300,000 at current (July 1975)\nwas drafted for the project. This Office later judged this statement to\nprices.\nbe insufficient for purposes of the project. Preparation of a new en-\nAn assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed con-\nvironmental impact statement is necessary.\nstruction has been completed, and a negative determination (NDN\nThe Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the proposed project in\n75-17 (PN)) was made on June 23, 1975.\n1966 and found that it would not seriously degrade fish and wildlife\nAs indicated above, however, the Administration is opposed to the\nresources. However, nine years have elapsed since that analysis and\nproject as proposed in H.R. 9649.\na new appraisal of impacts, addressing current environmental con-\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no\ncerns, is in order. Subsequent to our 1966 detailed report on the Pol-\nobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the\nlock-Herreid Unit, the Water Resources Council's Principles and\nAdministration's program.\nStandards for Planning Water and Related Land Resource Projects\nSincerely yours,\nhave been adopted and the Endangered Species Act have been enacted.\nJOHN KYL,\nThese new planning considerations and laws should be applied to this\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior.\nproject.\n18\nThe unit will have an agricultural return flow of approximately\n14,000 acre-feet. About 5,000 acre-feet will be returned to Lake Pocasse,\na National Wildlife Refuge, and the remainder to Oahe Reservoir.\nWe have not defined, at this time, the effects of the return flow on the\nPocasse Wildlife Refuge.\nAs mentioned previously, the 1968 Pollock-Herreid report was\namended by a 1971 reevaluation. This reevaluation included new costs\nand benefits. At that time a major change in costs and benefits occurred\nas a result of a new cropping pattern. The area converted from a\npredominate wheat and grain area to producing potatoes, offering\nbetter yield per acre. Because of this and as the result of increased\nfarm prices for potatoes, the benefit-cost ratio improved despite a new\ndiscount rate and higher construction cost. Another reevaluation will\nbe presented shortly, based on 1975 costs and the latest \"agriculture\nnormalized prices\" developed by the Economic Research Service, De-\npartment of Agriculture, for the current Water Resources Council.\nCurrent costs and benefits and repayment obligations should be clearer\nat that time.\nAlso undefined is the projects' effects on the water rights of the\nIndian tribes in the Upper Missouri River Basin.\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no\nobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the\nAdministration's program.\nSincerely yours,\nJOHN KYL,\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior.\nS. 151\nRinety-fourth Congress of the United States of America\nAT THE SECOND SESSION\nBegun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,\none thousand nine hundred and seventy-six\nAn Act\nTo authorize and modify various Federal reclamation projects and programs,\nand for other purposes.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\nUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall\nbe known as the Reclamation Authorization Act of 1975.\nTITLE I\nPOLECAT BENCH, WYOMING\nSEC. 101. The Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit,\nheretofore authorized as an integral part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri\nBasin program by the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891),\nis hereby reauthorized as a part of that project. The construction,\noperation, and maintenance of the Polecat Bench area for the purposes\nof providing irrigation water for approximately nineteen thousand\ntwo hundred acres of land, municipal and industrial water supply,\nfish and wildlife conservation and development, public outdoor rec-\nreation, and other purposes shall be prosecuted by the Secretary of\nthe Interior in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (Act\nof June 17, 1902; 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supple-\nmentary thereto). The principal features of the Polecat Bench area\nshall include the Holden Reservoir, related canals, pumping plants,\nlaterals, drains, and necessary facilities to effect the aforesaid purposes\nof the area. For a period of not more than two years after the initial\navailability of irrigation water up to two thousand two hundred and\nseventeen acres of public lands in the Polecat Bench area determined\nto be suitable for settlement purposes shall be made available, on a\npreference basis for exchange or amendment, to resident landowners\non the Heart Mountain Division of the Shoshone project, who, on\nor before December 1, 1968, were determined by the Secretary to be\neligible for such exchange or amendment of their farm units under\nprovisions of the Act of August 13, 1953 (67 Stat. 566).\nSEC. 102. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife\nresources and the enhancement of recreation opportunities in con-\nnection with the Polecat Bench area shall be in accordance with the\nFederal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213), as amended.\nSEC. 103. The Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit\nshall be integrated physically and financially with the other Federal\nworks constructed under the comprehensive plan approved by section 9\nof the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891), as\namended and supplemented. Repayment contracts for the return of\nconstruction costs allocated to irrigation will be based on the water\nusers' ability to repay as determined by the Secretary of the Interior;\nand the terms of such contracts shall not exceed fifty years following\nthe permissible development period.\nCORRECTED SHEET\nS. 151-2\nSEC. 104. The provisions of the third sentence of section 46 of the\nAct of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other similar pro-\nvisions of Federal reclamation laws as applied to the Polecat Bench\narea of the Shoshone extensions unit are hereby modified to provide\nthat lands held in a single ownership which may be eligible to receive\nwater from, through, or by means of area works shall be limited to\none hundred and sixty acres of class I land or the equivalent thereof\nin other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.\nSEC. 105. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of\nthis title no water from the unit authorized by this title shall be\ndelivered to any water user for the production on newly irrigated\nlands of any basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agri-\ncultural Act of 1949, or any amendment thereof, if the total supply of\nsuch commodity for the marketing year in which the bulk of the crop\nwould normally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply as\ndefined in section 301 (b) (10) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of\n1938 (52 Stat. 31, 41), as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture\ncalls for an increase in production of such commodity in the interest\nof national security.\nSEC. 106. The interest rate used for computing interest during con-\nstruction and interest on the unpaid balance of the reimbursable costs\nof the Polecat Bench area shall be determined by the Secretary of the\nTreasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construction\nof the Polecat Bench area is commenced, on the basis of the computed\naverage interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding\nmarketable public obligations which are neither due nor callable for\nfifteen years from date of issue.\nSEC. 107. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-\nstruction of the Polecat Bench area of the Shoshone extensions unit the\nsum of $46,000,000 (January 1975 price levels), plus or minus such\namounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of changes in construc-\ntion costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the\ntypes of construction involved and, in addition thereto, such sums as\nmay be required for operation and maintenance of the works of said\narea.\nTITLE II\nDICKINSON DAM, NORTH DAKOTA\nSEC. 201. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to modify the\nspillway of Dickinson Dam on the Heart River in the State of North\nDakota, to increase conservation storage by installing gates on the\nexisting spillway. The Secretary is also authorized to construct a new\nspillway to assure the safety of Dickinson Dam from floods currently\nestimated to be capable of occurrence.\nSEC. 202. The Secretary is authorized to enter into an amendatory\nrepayment contract with the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, to\naccomplish the repayment of that portion of the cost of the work\nauthorized herein properly allocable to municipal and industrial water\nsupplies in not to exceed forty years from completion of construction\nProvided, That the total cost of the new spillway and related works\nincurred for the safety of the structure shall be nonreimbursable and\nnonreturnable.\nCORRECTED\nCHEET\nS. 151-3\nSEC. 203. The interest rate used for purposes of computing interest\nduring construction and interest on the unpaid balance of the capital\ncosts allocated to interest-bearing features of the works authorized\nherein shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the\nbeginning of the fiscal year in which construction is initiated, on the\nbasis of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury\nupon its outstanding marketable public obligations, which are neither\ndue nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue.\nSEC. 204. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-\nstruction of works authorized by this title the sum of $4,000,000\n(January 1975 price levels) plus or minus such amounts as may be\njustified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as\nindicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the types of con-\nstruction involved herein.\nTITLE III\nMC KAY DAM AND RESERVOIR, OREGON\nSEC. 301. McKay Dam and Reservoir, Umatilla project, Oregon, is\nhereby reauthorized for the purposes of irrigation, flood control, fish\nand wildlife, recreation, and safety of dams, and the costs thereof shall\nbe reallocated among these purposes by the Secretary of the Interior\n(hereinafter referred to as the \"Secretary\"), in a manner consistent\nwith the provisions of this title.\nSEC. 302. The Secretary is authorized to perform modifications to\nthe spillway structure at McKay Dam as he determines to be reason-\nably required for safety of the dam from failure due to overtopping\nby potential flood inflows to the reservoir.\nSEC. 303. Not to exceed six thousand acre-feet of storage capacity\nin McKay Reservoir shall be allocated for the primary purpose of\nretaining and regulating flood flows.\nSEC. 304. Costs incurred in the modification of McKay Dam to\ninsure its safety from failure shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturn-\nable. All other costs of McKay Dam and Reservoir, heretofore or here-\ninafter incurred, shall be allocated among the authorized purposes\nserved by the dam and reservoir in accordance with standard cost\nallocation procedures, and the joint costs allocated to flood control,\nrecreation, and fish and wildlife shall be nonreimbursable.\nSEC. 305. The Secretary is authorized to enter into amendatory\nrepayment contracts with the Stanfield and Westland Irrigation\nDistricts, or other water users, if appropriate, to secure the return of\nreimbursable irrigation construction and operation and maintenance\ncosts arising from the modification and reallocation of McKay Dam\nand Reservoir.\nSEC. 306. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for mod-\nification of McKay Dam the sum of $1,300,000 (based on July 1975\nprices), plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by\nreason of changes in construction costs as indicated by engineering\ncost indexes applicable to the types of construction involved, and, in\naddition thereto sums as may be required for operation and mainte-\nnance of McKay Dam and Reservoir.\nS. 151-4\nTITLE IV\nPOLLOCK-HERREID UNIT, SOUTH DAKOTA\nSEC. 401. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to con-\nstruct, operate, and maintain in accordance with the Federal reclama-\ntion laws (Act of June 17, 1902; 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory\nthereof or supplementary thereto) the Pollock-Herreid unit, South\nDakota pumping division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, South\nDakota, for the purposes of providing irrigation water service for\napproximately fifteen thousand acres of land, municipal and industrial\nwater supply, and fish and wildlife conservation and development.\nThe principal works of the project would include the main pumping\nplant located at Lake Oahe, the storage reservoir created by the exist-\ning Oahe Dam on the Missouri River, to lift water into Lake Pocasse, a\nsubimpoundment on tributary Spring Creek, which would serve as a\nregulating reservoir; a system of main canals and laterals; relift\npumping plants; drains; and the necessary facilities to effect the\naforesaid purposes of the area.\nSEC. 402. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife\nresources in connection with the Pollock-Herreid unit shall be in\naccordance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recrea-\ntion Act (79 Stat. 213) as amended.\nSEC. 403. The Pollock-Herreid unit shall be integrated physically\nand financially with the other Federal works constructed under the\ncomprehensive plan approved by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of\nDecember 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 891), as amended and supplemented.\nSEC. 404. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of\nthis title no water from the unit authorized by this title shall be deliv-\nered to any water user for the production on newly irrigated lands of\nany basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agricultural Act\nof 1949, or any amendment thereof, if the total supply of such a com-\nmodity for the marketing year in which the bulk of the crop would\nnormally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply as defined in\nsection 301 (b) (10) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (52\nStat. 31, 41), as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture calls for\nan increase in production of such commodity in the interest of national\nsecurity.\nSEC. 405. The interest rate used for computing interest during\nconstruction and interest on the unpaid balance of the interest bearing\nreimbursable costs of the unit shall be determined by the Secretary\nof the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which\nconstruction of the unit is commenced, on the basis of the computed\naverage interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding\nmarketable public obligations which are neither due or callable for\nfifteen years from date of issue.\nSEC. 406. The provisions of the third sentence of section 46 of the\nAct of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 649, 650), and any other similar pro-\nvisions of Federal reclamation laws as applied to the Pollock-Herreid\nunit, South Dakota pumping division, are hereby modified to provide\nthat lands held in a single ownership which may be eligible to receive\nwater from, through, or by means of unit works shall be limited to\none hundred and sixty acres of Class I land or the equivalent thereof\nin other land classes, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.\nS. 151-5\nSEC. 407. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for con-\nstruction of the Pollock-Herreid unit, as authorized in this title, the\nsum of $26,000,000 (January 1975 price levels), plus or minus such\namounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of changes in construc-\ntion costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the\ntypes of construction involved herein and, in addition thereto, such\nsums as may be required for operation and maintenance of the works\nof said unit.\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives.\nVice President of the United States and\nPresident of the Senate.\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nMarch 11, 1976\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have today approved S. 151, \"The Reclamation\nAuthorization Act of 1975.'\nS. 151 authorizes four separate projects to be under--\ntaken by the Bureau of Reclamation: Polecat Bench, Wyoming;\nDickinson Dam, North Dakota, McKay Dam and Reservoir, Oregon\nand Pollock-Herreid unit, South Dakota.\nThe bill reauthorizes the Polecat Bench project to\nprovide water for irrigation of 19,200 acres of land, a\nmunicipal and industrial water supply, and water for con-\nservation and recreation purposes.\nThe Pollock-Herreid project, South Dakota, is based\non a plan to divert water by pumping from the existing\nLake Oahe on the Missouri River. The principal purposes\nof the project are to supply on-farm sprinkler irrigation\nfor 15,000 acres of land and to supply municipal and\nindustrial water to two communities.\nThe Dickinson Dam project, North Dakota, consists of\ncertain modifications to be made to the Dickinson Dam to\nmake additional municipal and industrial water available\nto the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, and to increase\nthe existing spillway capacity to provide additional safety\nallowances in light of increased estimates of possible\nmaximum flows.\nThe McKay Dam project, Oregon, is similar to the\nDickinson Dam project in that it provides for increasing\nthe capacity of the spillway of the dam for safety purposes.\nS. 151 also reauthorizes the project for additional purposes,\nincluding flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation,\nas well as the existing irrigation function.\nAlthough I have signed S. 151, it should be noted that\nI have several reservations about the bill and my implemen-\ntation of its provisions will be subject to the following\nconstraints:\nFirst, the Polecat Bench project previously failed\nthe test of cost-effectiveness, a test which is applied to\nother water resource projects generally. This project needs\nto be re-examined in light of new economic factors to see if\nit is economically justified. Similarly, the Executive\nBranch has not completed its study of the Pollock-Herreid\nunit and submitted a report on its feasibility to the\nCongress. Until such reports are prepared, there is no\nadequate basis for appraising the merits of these projects.\nAccordingly, I will not seek funds for either project until\na cost-effactiveness study has been completed and the proj-\nect is demonstrated to be economically justified.\nmore\n2\nSecond, the bill requires work on the latter two\nprojects -- McKay Dam and Dickinson Dam -- solely at Federal\nexpense. Safety is normally an integral design and operation\nfeature of a federally constructed dam, to be paid for by\nproject beneficiaries.\nI do not endorse any policy which requires the Federal\nGovernment to pay the entire cost of work to improve dam\nsafety in all situations involving modifications to federally\nbuilt dams. The general question of Federal policy on the\nsafety of dams will be considered when a congressionally\ndirected report on that subject now underway by the Depart-\nment of the Army is completed, and when new cost-sharing\nrecommendations for water projects are made later this year.\nTherefore, I will not seek any funds for these two\nprojects until the study has been completed and the Executive\nBranch has made its recommendations on cost-sharing for\nwater projects.\n#####"
}