Bureau of Reclamation: Information on Allocation and Repayment of Costs
of Constructing Water Projects (Chapter Report, 07/03/96,
GAO/RCED-96-109).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the costs of
constructing federal water projects, focusing on: (1) the allocation of
costs among various projects; (2) irrigators' repayment of their share
of costs; and (3) changes in reclamation law since 1902 regarding the
allocation of projects construction costs and repayment requirements.
GAO found that: (1) since the start of the reclamation program in 1902,
irrigators generally have had 40 years or more to repay without interest
their share of water project construction costs; (2) if irrigators are
unable to repay their share of project construction costs, the costs are
repaid from other project revenues, primarily hydropower revenues; (3)
if the federal government determines that special circumstances exist in
the irrigated area, such as unproductive land, drought, or depressed
economic conditions, it will relieve irrigators of portions of their
repayment obligation; (4) the Bureau of Reclamation has determined that
$16.9 billion of the $21.8-billion investment in water projects is
reimbursable to the federal government; (5) while $7.1 billion in
reimbursable costs have been allocated to irrigators, the irrigators are
scheduled to repay only $3.4 billion, because their obligations have
been adjusted by irrigation assistance and charge-offs; (6) $3.4 billion
of the $7.1 billion of reimbursable costs owed by irrigators will be
paid by other sources, primarily hydropower revenues; and (7) $373.1
million of the $7.1 billion of reimbursable costs owed by irrigators has
been charged off.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-96-109
TITLE: Bureau of Reclamation: Information on Allocation and
Repayment of Costs of Constructing Water Projects
DATE: 07/03/96
SUBJECT: Water resources development
Indebtedness waivers
Land reclamation
Reimbursements to government
Farm subsidies
Cost sharing (finance)
Construction costs
Loan defaults
Loan repayments
Water supply management
IDENTIFIER: Bureau of Reclamation Tuclatin Project (OR)
Central Arizona Project (AZ)
Parker-Davis Project (AZ/CA)
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Resources, House
of Representatives
July 1996
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION -
INFORMATION ON ALLOCATION AND
REPAYMENT OF COSTS
OF CONSTRUCTING
WATER PROJECTS
GAO/RCED-96-109
Costs of Constructing Federal Water Projects
(140895)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CED -
PSAD -
RED -
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-271539
July 3, 1996
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Miller:
This report responds to your request for information on various
issues surrounding the allocation and repayment of the costs of
constructing federal water projects, including the allocation of
these costs among the projects' various purposes and irrigators'
repayment of their share of these costs. As requested, we are also
providing information on changes in reclamation law since 1902
regarding the allocation of the projects' costs and repayment
requirements.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of the Interior; the Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others on request.
This report was prepared under the direction of Barry Hill, Associate
Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, who can be reached
at (202) 512-9775 if you or your staff have any questions. Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix X.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
The federal government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water
projects in the western United States that provide water for various
purposes, including irrigation. The beneficiaries of these projects
are generally required to repay to the federal government their
allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects.
However, as a result of various forms of financial assistance
provided by the federal government, some beneficiaries repay
considerably less than their full share of these costs. Among the
beneficiaries, irrigators generally receive the largest amount of
such financial assistance.\1
The Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Resources asked
GAO to provide information on the (1) types of financial assistance
received by the irrigators that participate in the federal water
projects built by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation or for which the Bureau has water marketing
responsibilities and (2) amount of these water projects' construction
costs allocated to irrigators and the status of their repayment of
these costs. As requested, GAO is also providing information on the
allocation of construction costs among the projects' various purposes
and changes in reclamation law since 1902 regarding the allocation of
the projects' costs and repayment requirements. The latter is
presented in appendix I.
--------------------
\1 In this report, "irrigators" refers to the irrigation or water
districts that have contracted to repay the costs of constructing a
project.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
Since 1902, the federal government has been involved in financing and
building water projects, primarily to reclaim arid and semiarid land
in the West. Initially, these projects were generally small and
built almost solely to provide irrigation. Over the years, however,
the projects have grown in size and purpose, providing municipal and
industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, recreation,
flood control, and other benefits in addition to irrigation. The
Bureau and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers build most federal water
projects. While the Corps operates nationwide, the Bureau's
activities are limited to 17 western states.
Collectively, the federal statutes that are generally applicable to
all reclamation water projects and the statutes authorizing
individual projects are known as reclamation law. Reclamation law
determines how the costs of constructing reclamation projects are
allocated and how the repayment responsibilities are assigned among
the projects' various beneficiaries. Under reclamation law, these
costs are designated as either reimbursable--to be repaid by the
projects' beneficiaries--or nonreimbursable--to be borne by the
federal government. The costs allocated to irrigation, municipal and
industrial water supply, and power are reimbursable. The costs
allocated to purposes such as navigation and flood control are
nonreimbursable because these purposes are viewed as national in
scope.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Under reclamation law, the irrigators that participate in a federal
water project can receive three types of financial assistance: (1)
federally subsidized financing of the project's construction costs,
because no interest is charged; (2) a shifting to the project's other
beneficiaries of the repayment of part or all of the costs allocated
to irrigators but determined to be over their ability to pay; and (3)
relief of part or all of their repayment obligation through specific
legislation in special circumstances, such as economic hardship or
drought. The cost of providing this financial assistance can be
substantial over the course of a project's repayment period. For
example, when water from the Tualatin project in Oregon became
available to irrigators in 1976, the federal subsidy associated with
the project's $31.5 million irrigation component was $30.6 million.
According to the Bureau's financial reports, as of September 30,
1994, irrigators had been allocated $7.1 billion of the $16.9 billion
federal investment in water projects considered reimbursable.
However, as a result of adjustments made after analyzing the
irrigators' ability to pay and relief granted through specific
legislation, that amount was reduced to $3.4 billion--or 47 percent
of the irrigators' allocated share of the construction costs.
According to Bureau officials, the irrigators are generally current
on the repayment of their obligation.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO
IRRIGATORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Since the initiation of the reclamation program in 1902, the
construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid
without interest. In addition, irrigators generally have 40 years or
more to repay their share of these costs, often after a period of up
to 10 years in which the irrigators receive water to develop their
land but are not required to begin payments. The cost to the federal
government of providing interest-free financing can be substantial
over a project's lengthy repayment period. For example, according to
the Bureau's records, the irrigation component of the Tualatin
project represented $31.5 million of the project's total construction
cost of $58.7 million; however, because of interest-free financing
and a 64-year repayment period, which began in 1976, the federal
subsidy provided to the irrigators amounted to $30.6 million, or 97
percent of the construction costs allocated to irrigators.
Reclamation law has also provided irrigators with financial
assistance by shifting the repayment of part or all of their
obligation to the other beneficiaries of a project. The costs
determined to be beyond the irrigators' ability to pay are repaid
from the project's other revenues, primarily power revenues. In the
Tualatin project, it was determined that the irrigators could pay
only $5.9 million of the $31.5 million in construction costs
allocated to them. The repayment of the remaining $25.6 million, or
81 percent of the allocated costs, has been shifted to power users.\2
This shifting of the repayment of the obligation is known as
irrigation assistance.
The Congress has also provided irrigators with financial assistance,
referred to as a charge-off, by enacting specific legislation
relieving irrigators of portions of their repayment obligation. In
general, the relief is provided in response to special circumstances,
such as a determination that the land is unproductive, drought, or
depressed economic conditions. For example, the Omnibus Adjustment
Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 636) provided repayment relief to irrigators
at 21 projects. About 13 percent of all the construction costs
incurred up to that time--$17.3 million--were forgiven by the federal
government because land was determined to be unproductive at specific
projects.
--------------------
\2 In this report, "power users" refers to the commercial users of
the electrical power generated by a water project.
COSTS ALLOCATED TO
IRRIGATORS AND THEIR
REPAYMENT STATUS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
The Bureau has determined that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the
$21.8 billion investment in water projects is reimbursable to the
federal government. Of these reimbursable costs, the largest
portion--$7.1 billion--has been allocated to irrigators. However,
when the repayment obligation is adjusted through irrigation
assistance and charge-offs, the irrigators are scheduled to repay
only $3.4 billion. On the basis of a determination that the
irrigators are unable to pay the full amount of $7.1 billion, $3.4
billion of their obligation has been shifted to the projects' other
beneficiaries for repayment, primarily through power revenues. In
addition, irrigators have been relieved of $373.1 million of their
repayment obligation through charge-offs. Because irrigation
assistance is generally scheduled to be credited at or near the end
of a project's repayment period, few power revenues have been
transferred to the federal government to date for this purpose.
As a result of this financial assistance, irrigators have either
paid, or are scheduled to pay, their entire allocated share of the
construction costs for only 14 of the 133 water projects. According
to Bureau officials, irrigators are generally current in repaying
their obligations, having repaid $945 million as of September 30,
1994.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior
and the Bureau of Reclamation for review and comment. In commenting
on the report, agency officials, including the Director of the Office
of Program Analysis, Denver Service Center, agreed with the
information presented. They stated that the report accurately
presented the allocation of the costs of the water projects, their
repayment, and the financial assistance provided to the irrigators
that participate in these projects. They also provided several
technical clarifications to the draft, which have been incorporated
into the report as appropriate.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the federal government has
been involved in financing and building water projects in 17 western
states.\3
Turn-of-the-century water projects were built primarily to reclaim
arid and semiarid land in these states and to meet the then-national
objective of "developing the West." These earlier projects were
generally small and built almost solely to provide irrigation. Since
then, the projects have grown in size and now serve multiple
purposes, including municipal and industrial water supply,
hydroelectric power generation,\4 recreation, and flood control, as
well as irrigation.
The Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers are the principal federal agencies that build and
operate multipurpose water projects. The Bureau is responsible for
projects in the 17 western states. While the Corps operates
nationwide, in general it has transferred responsibility to the
Bureau for marketing the irrigation water from its projects in the 17
western states and for recovering these projects' reimbursable
construction costs allocated to irrigators. In general, the Corps'
water projects follow a design, construction, and cost allocation
procedure similar to that used for the Bureau's projects. In this
report, the projects cited include both those built and operated by
the Bureau and those for which the responsibility for recovering the
costs allocated to irrigators has been transferred from the Corps to
the Bureau. As of September 30, 1994, the Bureau was responsible for
managing repayment of reimbursable construction costs for 158
projects, 133 of which involved irrigation.
--------------------
\3 The 17 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
\4 Many federal water projects generate electrical power for use in
their pumping operations. The power generated in excess of a
project's needs is sold by the Department of Energy's power marketing
authorities to utilities. In this report, power users refers to the
commercial users of the electrical power generated by a water
project.
DEVELOPMENT, COST ALLOCATION,
AND ASSIGNMENT OF REPAYMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER
PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
The development of a federal water project generally begins with a
feasibility study outlining the proposed design and potential
benefits and costs. A definite plan with more detailed cost
estimates is then prepared and submitted to the Congress for review.
If the Congress approves the project, legislation is introduced to
authorize construction and appropriate funds. Once the construction
of a project is authorized, the Bureau negotiates contracts with the
potential users of a project's water for repayment of the
construction costs.\5 Under what are known as Section 9(d) contracts,
the water users' repayment obligation is limited to their share of
the project's estimated construction costs. Construction generally
does not begin until the contracts are in place.
Initially, the Bureau estimates the construction costs, identifies
the costs to be recovered, and then allocates these costs among the
project's specific purposes. In general, the Bureau uses the
"Separable Costs Remaining Benefits" method to allocate these costs.
This method is based on the principle that users should not pay more
for a purpose than the benefits they receive or the cost of the most
economical single-purpose alternative that would serve the same
purpose. Once a project is completed, a final cost allocation is
made on the basis of a determination of the actual costs.
Under reclamation law, a project's construction costs are divided
into two categories--reimbursable and nonreimbursable costs.
Reimbursable costs are those that are to be repaid by the project's
beneficiaries. The costs allocated to irrigation, municipal and
industrial water supply, and power are reimbursable. Nonreimbursable
costs are those that are borne by the federal government because
certain purposes of the project are viewed as national in scope.
These costs include those allocated to flood control and navigation,
as well as the majority of costs allocated to fish and wildlife
enhancement, highway transportation, and recreation. For example,
the $108 million Weber Basin project in Utah includes $18.9 million
in nonreimbursable costs allocated to flood control, recreation, fish
and wildlife enhancement, highway transportation, and the safety of
dams.
The amount of reimbursable costs that a water user is responsible for
repaying varies by the type of user. Irrigators are responsible for
repaying their allocated share of a project's construction costs as
limited by a determination of their ability to pay.\6 They are not
required to repay the interest that accrues during construction or
during the repayment period. Municipal and industrial water users
and power users are responsible for repaying their allocated share of
the construction costs plus the interest that accrues during the
repayment period. They can also be required to repay the
construction costs that are determined to be above the irrigators'
ability to pay; however, they pay no interest on these shifted costs.
Figure 1.1 shows how the reimbursable costs are allocated for
repayment among a project's water users.
Figure 1.1: Typical Repayment
Obligations for Users of Water
From Federal Projects
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\5 The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) authorizes
two types of contracts for repayment of the construction costs
allocated to irrigators. Section 9(d) authorizes repayment contracts
for a fixed dollar amount of the construction costs over a period of
40 years or more. Section 9(e) authorizes water deliveries on the
basis of water service contracts for up to 40-year periods, and the
rates charged for the amount of water delivered are sufficient to
cover recovery of the construction costs and the project's annual
operation and maintenance costs.
\6 In this report, "irrigators" refers to the irrigation or water
districts that have contracted with the federal government to repay
the costs of constructing a project.
GAO'S PRIOR WORK ON WATER
PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
We have issued a number of reports and testified on various aspects
of the Bureau's program for constructing water projects. These
reports and testimonies, listed at the end of this report, include
general discussions of the program's costs and benefits as well as
information on specific projects.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3
The Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Resources asked
us to provide information on the (1) types of financial assistance
received by the irrigators that participate in federal water projects
built by the Bureau of Reclamation or for which the Bureau has water
marketing responsibilities and (2) amount of the water projects'
construction costs allocated to irrigators and the status of their
repayment of these costs. As requested, we are also providing
information on the allocation of construction costs among the
projects' various purposes and the changes in reclamation law
regarding the allocation of the projects' costs and repayment
requirements. The latter is presented in appendix I.
In this report, the financial assistance received by irrigators is
defined as the difference between the irrigators' allocated share of
a project's construction costs, including interest, and the amount
the irrigators actually repay.
To identify the financial assistance provided to irrigators, we
reviewed federal reclamation law, opinions from the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor, reports from Interior's Inspector
General, and GAO reports and discussed the issue with officials in
the Bureau's headquarters and regions. To illustrate the cost to the
federal government of the financial assistance provided to
irrigators, we judgmentally selected the Tualatin project in Oregon
because the irrigators' repayment obligation included both subsidized
financing and irrigation assistance. We reviewed this project's
repayment contracts and calculated the subsidy provided by the
federal government through interest-free financing.\7 The interest
subsidy for this project cannot be projected to the universe of
projects because of differences among the projects in the interest
rate, length of the repayment period, and terms of the individual
repayment contract.
To assess how much of a project's total costs have been allocated to
irrigation and how much the irrigators have repaid, we reviewed the
Bureau's unaudited financial reports for each of the 133 projects.
The principal report for data on construction costs and their
repayment status is the Bureau's Project Construction Cost and
Repayment Report, in which this information is published annually for
each project. The construction costs recorded in these reports are
the actual costs incurred as of September 30, 1994. At the time we
began our review, these were the most current data available in the
Bureau's financial reports for the 133 projects. In general, these
reports present the costs and repayments in millions and billions of
dollars, rounded to the nearest decimal; some of the totals do not
add because of rounding. These costs do not include interest on the
costs allocated to irrigation or interest costs allocated to
nonreimbursable purposes. Under reclamation law, the government is
not expected to obtain repayment of interest in either case.
When the data in a report included estimates of the cost to complete
a project's future phases or units, we subtracted these estimated
costs from the total because such costs may never be incurred. We
also reclassified some of the costs reported in the Bureau's
financial reports to more accurately reflect the costs allocated to
irrigation. Bureau officials stated that some portion of these costs
are repaid under water service contracts and some through irrigation
assistance. We reclassified these costs with the assistance and
concurrence of the finance specialists assigned to each water project
in the Bureau's five regions.
We did not independently verify the accuracy of the financial reports
that the Bureau used to determine the cost allocation, repayment
obligation, and repayment status of each project. Bureau officials
told us that approximately 8,700 contracts govern the repayment of
construction costs for the 158 projects, including the 133 projects
that provide irrigation. While the Bureau does not maintain a
comprehensive Bureau-wide list of projects, Bureau officials stated
that each region knows the current status of repayment of its
project.\8 During this review, we did not have the time or resources
to review each of the contracts to determine whether the data
reported for each project were current and accurate. As a result,
the status of the projects' repayment is based solely on data
contained in the Bureau's financial reports for the projects.
During the course of our review, we noted that the Bureau also makes
loans to local entities to finance the construction of small water
projects and water delivery systems and to rehabilitate existing
water projects' irrigation systems. These loans offer irrigators
financial assistance similar to the assistance provided to the
irrigators participating in large reclamation projects. Appendixes
II and III provide the details on these loans and the status of their
repayment.
We conducted our work at the Bureau's headquarters in Washington
D.C.; Service Center in Denver, Colorado; and five regional offices
in Boise, Idaho; Billings, Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah; Boulder
City, Nevada; and Sacramento, California.
We performed our work from April 1995 though June 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior
and the Bureau of Reclamation for review and comment. In commenting
on the report, agency officials, including the Director of the Office
of Program Analysis, Denver Service Center agreed with the
information presented. They stated that the report accurately
presented the allocation of the costs of water projects, their
repayment, and the financial assistance provided to the irrigators
that participate in these projects. They also provided several
technical clarifications to the draft, which we have incorporated as
appropriate.
--------------------
\7 Federal law requires that budget authority for the subsidy costs
of direct loans be provided in the budget before the loans are made.
However, the subsidy cost associated with the irrigators' repayment
of their share of the projects' construction costs has not been
recorded as such in the budget because the repayment contracts have
not been considered to be direct loans for budget reporting purposes.
Inherent in the appropriation of funds for the construction of water
projects is the inclusion of the subsidy associated with the
irrigators' repayment of their allocated construction costs. See
appendix II for information on the reporting of the subsidies
associated with the Bureau's loan programs.
\8 The Bureau's Repayment of Reclamation Projects, which provides a
comprehensive listing of projects, repayment contracts, and the
status of repayment, was last published in 1972. Comprehensive
statistics on water projects and their repayment status were last
published in the Bureau's 1984 Summary Statistics, Volume II,
Finances and Physical Features.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO
IRRIGATORS PARTICIPATING IN
FEDERAL WATER PROJECTS
============================================================ Chapter 2
Under reclamation law, the irrigators that participate in a federal
water project can receive three types of financial assistance: (1)
federally subsidized financing of their allocated share of the
project's construction costs, because no interest is charged; (2) a
shifting to the project's other beneficiaries of the repayment of
part or all of those costs allocated to the irrigators but determined
to be over their ability to pay; and (3) relief of part or all of
their repayment obligation through specific congressional action.
The cost of providing financial assistance to irrigators can be
substantial over the course of a project's repayment period. For
example, according to the Bureau's financial reports, the Tualatin
project in Oregon cost the federal government $58.7 million to
construct. The Bureau allocated $31.5 million of the project's
construction costs to irrigation. However, because reclamation law
does not require irrigators to repay their share of the construction
costs with interest, when irrigators began receiving water from the
project in 1976, the federal subsidy associated with the irrigators'
repayment obligation was $30.6 million, or 97 percent of the
irrigators' allocated share of the construction costs.
IRRIGATORS' REPAYMENT
OBLIGATIONS ARE SUBSIDIZED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
Since the inception of the reclamation program in 1902, the federal
government has subsidized the repayment of irrigators' allocated
share of water projects' construction costs. Under reclamation law,
the construction costs associated with a project's irrigation
component are to be repaid without interest. Furthermore, irrigators
generally have 40 years or more to make their payments, often after a
"development period" of up to 10 years during which irrigators
receive water to develop their lands but are not required to begin
repaying the construction costs.
FINANCING OF CONSTRUCTION
COSTS IS INTEREST-FREE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1
Although reclamation law requires a project's beneficiaries to repay
the reimbursable costs of the federal investment, the law does not
require irrigators to pay interest on their repayment obligation.
The subsidy associated with this interest-free financing continues
from the time the construction funds are first expended through the
end of the project's repayment period.
Since early in the reclamation program, and especially after 1939,
appropriated funds have been used to finance the construction of
water projects. These funds are borrowed from the U.S. Treasury and
accrue interest until repaid. As part of the project's total cost,
interest during construction is calculated annually and becomes part
of the total federal investment in the project. However, because
reclamation law does not require irrigators to pay interest, the
interest associated with the irrigation component of a project is not
recognized as a reimbursable cost. The federal government absorbs
this expense, thereby reducing the irrigators' share of the costs.
In contrast, municipal and industrial water users and power users are
generally required to repay the interest costs over a project's
repayment period.
REPAYMENT EXTENDS OVER
LENGTHY PERIODS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2
Irrigators repay their allocated cost share over lengthy periods of
time, usually in equal annual or semiannual installments. Initially,
the 1902 act set the repayment period at 10 years. However, because
of economic difficulties faced by the irrigators, this period was
extended to 20 years by legislation in 1914 and then to 40 years by
legislation in 1926. Repayment periods exceeding 40 years have been
authorized by legislation for specific projects. For example, the
legislation for the Central Arizona project authorizes a 50-year
repayment period.\9 Furthermore, because this project was constructed
in two phases, with a 5-year gap between completion of the two
phases, the irrigators are scheduled to repay their obligation over
55 years.
In addition, as noted earlier, irrigators generally do not begin
repaying their share of costs until after a development period of up
to 10 years. The Congress authorized this repayment hiatus in the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to provide irrigators with time to
develop arid lands for farming and achieve the financial position
necessary to meet the costs before beginning repayment. During the
development period, irrigators use water from a project without the
financial burden of having to repay their share of the project's
construction costs. This period begins when irrigators first receive
water from the project. In contrast, municipal and industrial water
users begin repaying their share of the construction costs as soon as
they begin taking water from a project.\10
--------------------
\9 Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 ( P.L. 90-537, tit.
III, 82 Stat. 885).
\10 Under the Water Supply Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-500, tit. III, 72
Stat. 319), up to 30 percent of a project's total cost may be
allocated to anticipated future demand. No payment is required for
this allocation to future demand until the water is first used.
Furthermore, no interest need be charged until the water is used
except that the interest-free period can not exceed 10 years.
THE TUALATIN PROJECT: AN
EXAMPLE OF THE COST OF THE
FINANCING SUBSIDY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.3
According to 1994 Bureau financial records, the Tualatin project in
Oregon cost the federal government $58.7 million to construct. The
irrigation component of this project cost $31.5 million.
Construction took place in two phases, with a 3-year gap between the
phases. Following a 10-year development period, the irrigators are
to repay their portion of the construction costs without interest
over a 53-year period (1986 to 2038). Power users are responsible
for a final payment in 2039, making the total repayment period 54
years. Figure 2.1 shows how the Bureau allocated the project's
construction costs among the various beneficiaries.
Figure 2.1: Allocation of
Construction Costs for the
Tualatin Project, as of
September 30, 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The federal subsidy associated with the interest-free financing of
the irrigators' $31.5 million repayment obligation is substantial.
In 1976, when irrigators started to receive water, the present value
of their scheduled repayment to the federal government over the
64-year repayment period was $0.9 million. The remaining $30.6
million, or 97 percent of the construction costs allocated to
irrigation, represents the subsidy associated with the interest-free
financing.\11
--------------------
\11 To estimate the subsidy associated with interest-free financing,
we calculated a present value, as of 1976, of the stream of payments
scheduled to be made through the year 2039. The present value, in
1976, of the total stream was approximately $870,000, which
represents almost 3 percent of the irrigators' repayment obligation.
In making these calculations, we used a discount rate of 7.6 percent
to approximate the government's long-term borrowing costs in 1976.
IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
Reclamation law has also provided irrigators with financial
assistance by having other beneficiaries of a project assist in
repaying the obligation. Construction costs determined to be beyond
the irrigators' ability to pay are to be repaid by other
beneficiaries, primarily power users, as "irrigation assistance."
Since 1906, reclamation law has authorized the use of power revenues
to assist in the payment of irrigation costs. A 1944 opinion from
the Department of Interior's Office of the Solicitor interpreting the
provisions of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 confirmed the
principle of limiting the irrigators' financial obligation for their
share of a project's costs to the amount they were able to repay.
Under this ability-to-pay concept, the Secretary of the Interior
determines the amount of construction costs allocated to irrigation
that are within the irrigators' ability to repay. The determination
is based on an economic analysis of a given geographic area. The
analysis estimates the difference in farmers' income with and without
an irrigation project and involves projections of farm size, type and
quantity of crops, and crop prices. The irrigators' ability to pay
is measured in terms of the farm income available to meet the annual
cost of water after all crop production, overhead, and family living
expenses are recognized. This analysis and determination generally
occur before construction begins on a project. Under repayment
contracts, once the ability to pay has been determined, the
irrigators' repayment obligation is fixed for the repayment period,
regardless of changes in the irrigators' profitability, unless the
irrigators request a revision. Bureau officials stated that the
Bureau's policy now is to include a provision requiring that
ability-to-pay determinations be reviewed every 5 years in all new or
amended repayment or water service contracts.
The amount of the repayment obligation that is determined to be above
the irrigators' ability to pay is repaid from a project's other
revenues, primarily the revenues earned from the sale of the electric
power generated by the project. Irrigation assistance is also paid
with nonpower revenues. Grazing fees, building rentals, concession
income, gravel sales, and farming leases are examples of revenues
from a project that have been credited to irrigators' repayment
obligations. In general, this type of assistance is limited in terms
of the dollar amounts involved.
In addition to this general authority for irrigation assistance, the
individual authorizations for some projects provide for irrigation
assistance. For example, the 1952 legislation authorizing the
Collbran project in Colorado\12 (a multipurpose project designed for
irrigation and the production of power) provided that the net
revenues from the sale of power and municipal and industrial water
are available to pay those construction costs that are allocated to
irrigation but that are beyond the irrigators' ability to pay.
Furthermore, the authorizing legislation for certain projects without
power-generating facilities provides that power revenues from other
federal projects may be used to pay irrigation assistance. For
example, subject to certain limitations, the net power revenues of
the federal Columbia River power system may be used to pay the
construction costs allocated to irrigation for any water project in
the Pacific Northwest authorized under reclamation law after 1966.
For the Tualatin project, of the $31.5 million in construction costs
allocated to irrigation, it was determined that the irrigators had
the ability to pay only $5.9 million. Responsibility for the
remaining $25.6 million (81.3 percent of the allocated costs) has
been shifted to power users for repayment as irrigation assistance.
As shown in figure 2.2, irrigators are now scheduled to repay less
than 19 cents of every dollar of the construction costs allocated to
irrigation. Repayment began in 1986 following a 10-year development
period. Bureau officials stated that as of September 30, 1994, the
irrigators were current on their repayment obligation, having repaid
$694,440, or 12 percent of the $5.9 million.
Figure 2.2: Amount Irrigators
Will Pay Out of Each Dollar in
Construction Costs Allocated to
Irrigation in the Tualatin
Project
(See figure in printed
edition.)
From the federal government's perspective, having power users pay
irrigation assistance reduces the value of the reimbursements the
government receives over the repayment period. Under federal law and
a Department of Energy order, the power rates charged to customers
are to be set at a level that will recover (1) the operation and
maintenance costs of the power marketing administrations, (2) a
project's construction costs allocated to power (with interest), and
(3) irrigation assistance (which is interest-free). In repaying a
project's construction costs, power revenues annually deposited in
the Treasury are typically applied first to the payment of the power
users' interest-bearing repayment obligation. Once the
interest-bearing obligation has been repaid, revenues are accumulated
for repayment of the non-interest-bearing irrigation assistance. As
such, irrigation assistance is typically credited in a lump sum at or
near the end of the irrigators' normal repayment period. As a
result, the rate charged to power customers is minimized, but the
value of the funds received by the federal government, which
effectively has to wait longer to get its money, is reduced. In
contrast, irrigators repay their allocated construction costs in a
continuous stream of payments over the repayment period. Appendixes
V and VI provide details on the irrigation assistance associated with
each project.\13
--------------------
\12 66 Stat. 325.
\13 Appendix IV shows how construction costs are allocated by the
project's purposes.
CONGRESSIONAL CHARGE-OFFS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3
The Congress has also provided financial assistance to irrigators by
selectively relieving them of a portion of their repayment
obligations on certain projects. This assistance is referred to as a
charge-off. In general, the Congress has provided such relief in
response to special circumstances, such as a determination that the
land is unproductive,\14 construction costs in excess of the amounts
agreed in the repayment contracts, settlement of Indian water rights
claims, droughts, and depressed economic conditions. Repayment
relief is authorized by specific statutes that may apply to a single
project or a number of projects. For example, the Omnibus Adjustment
Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 636) provided repayment relief to irrigators
in 21 projects. About 13 percent of all the construction costs
incurred up to that time--about $17.3 million--were forgiven by the
federal government because a determination was made that the land was
nonproductive at specific projects.
--------------------
\14 In such a case, land originally included in the economic
justification for a water project is found to be unproductive despite
the addition of water. Following a determination by the Secretary of
the Interior and enactment of relief legislation, the land is deleted
from the project's justification, and the irrigator's repayment
obligation is correspondingly reduced.
COSTS ALLOCATED TO IRRIGATORS AND
THEIR REPAYMENT STATUS
============================================================ Chapter 3
According to the Bureau's financial reports, as of September 30,
1994, the government's construction investment in 133 water projects
having irrigation as a purpose totaled about $21.8 billion. Over
three-quarters of this total, $16.9 billion, is considered
reimbursable to the federal government. Of the reimbursable costs,
$7.1 billion was allocated to irrigators for repayment. Under
reclamation law, repayment of the irrigators' obligation can be
shifted to other beneficiaries of a project for payment as irrigation
assistance or reduced through charge-offs. As a result of
adjustments made for irrigation assistance and charge-offs,
irrigators are scheduled to repay only $3.4 billion, or 47 percent,
of their allocated share of the water projects' construction costs.
In only 14 of the 133 water projects we reviewed have irrigators
either paid, or are they scheduled to repay, their entire allocated
share of the construction costs. According to Bureau officials,
irrigators are generally current on their repayment, having repaid
$945.0 million.
MOST COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
WATER PROJECTS ARE CONSIDERED
REIMBURSABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
The Bureau has determined that under reclamation law, the federal
government should be reimbursed for $16.9 billion, or 77.5 percent,
of the $21.8 billion it has spent on constructing federal water
projects. Of these reimbursable costs, the largest repayment
obligation--$7.1 billion--was allocated to irrigation. Figure 3.1
shows how the reimbursable costs were allocated among the purposes of
the projects and the dollar amounts.
Figure 3.1: Allocation of
Reimbursable Construction Costs
by Purpose, as of September 30,
1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The Bureau has also determined that under reclamation law, $5.0
billion, or 22.9 percent, of the water projects' total construction
costs are nonreimbursable. Of these nonreimbursable costs, flood
control was allocated the largest share--about $1.1 billion. Figure
3.2 shows how the nonreimbursable costs were allocated among the
purposes of the projects and the dollar amounts.
Figure 3.2: Allocation of
Nonreimbursable Construction
Costs by Purpose, as of
September 30, 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Appendix IV provides detailed information on the allocation of the
reimbursable and nonreimbursable construction costs for each project.
IRRIGATORS ARE OBLIGATED TO
REPAY LESS THAN HALF OF THEIR
ALLOCATED COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
Irrigators are responsible for repaying $3.4 billion, or 47 percent,
of the $7.1 billion in construction costs allocated to them for the
water projects. Based on a determination regarding the irrigators'
ability to pay the full amount, repayment of $3.4 billion of these
costs was shifted to other users of the projects, mostly through
irrigation assistance to be paid with power revenues. In addition,
irrigators have been relieved of $373.1 million of their repayment
obligation through charge-offs.
MOST IRRIGATORS RECEIVE
IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1
For almost three-quarters of the 133 water projects that involve
irrigation, the Secretary of the Interior has determined that the
irrigators do not have the ability to repay all the costs allocated
to them. As a result, $3.4 billion of the irrigators' repayment
obligation is scheduled for repayment as irrigation assistance by the
projects' other users, primarily from power revenues. In 36
projects, irrigation assistance is scheduled to account for repayment
of 50 percent or more of the irrigators' repayment obligation. The
highest percentage of irrigation assistance occurs with the
Parker-Davis project, where 100 percent of the irrigators' $14.1
million repayment obligation is to be repaid through irrigation
assistance. The largest dollar amount of irrigation assistance
occurs with the Pick-Sloan Consolidated project, where such
assistance represents $1.2 billion of the irrigators' repayment
obligation of $1.5 billion.
To date, power revenues account for only a small portion of the $49
million in irrigation assistance that has been paid to the federal
government. As discussed in chapter 2, irrigation assistance paid
from power revenues is generally credited at or near the end of a
project's repayment period. The Western Area Power Administration's
financial reports show receipt of $2 million from components of the
Pick-Sloan Consolidated project. The next scheduled crediting of
irrigation assistance from power revenues is $25.1 million due to the
federal government in 1997 for the Boise project. Appendixes V and
VI provide detailed information on the dollar amount of irrigation
assistance associated with each project and the percentage of the
irrigators' allocated costs being repaid through irrigation
assistance.
CHARGE-OFFS HAVE REDUCED
IRRIGATORS' REPAYMENT
OBLIGATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2
In response to such events as land reclassification, construction
costs in excess of the amounts agreed in repayment contracts,
droughts, and depressed economic conditions, the Congress has
legislatively relieved irrigators of repayment of $275.9 million of
the $7.1 billion allocated to irrigation. In 15 projects, such
charge-offs account for relief from over 50 percent of the
irrigators' repayment obligation. Appendix VII lists the 15
projects. The highest percentage of relief--98.7 percent of the
irrigators' $2.2 million repayment obligation--was granted for the
Pecos River Basin project. The largest dollar amount of
relief--$114.9 million of the irrigators' repayment obligation of
$1.5 billion--was granted for the Pick-Sloan Consolidated project.
According to Bureau reports, the Congress authorized the Bureau to
charge off an additional $97.2 million of the irrigators' repayment
obligation in 15 projects through an accounting procedure.\15 Thus,
as a result of legislative actions and a resulting change in the
Bureau's accounting procedures, $373.1 million of the irrigators'
repayment obligation has been charged off. Appendixes V and VI
provide detailed information on the dollar amount charged off for
each project and the percentage reduction in the irrigators'
allocated costs as a result of such charge-offs.
Overall, as a result of irrigation assistance and charge-offs,
irrigators are now scheduled to repay 47 percent of their total
repayment obligation of $7.1 billion. Figure 3.3 shows how much of
the construction costs allocated to irrigation will actually be
repaid by the irrigators.
Figure 3.3: Amount Irrigators
Will Pay Out of Each Dollar in
Construction Costs Allocated to
Irrigation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
According to Bureau officials, the irrigators are generally current
on their repayment obligations, having repaid $945 million of their
obligation as of September 30, 1994.
--------------------
\15 In 1988, as directed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1987 (P.L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-268), the Bureau discounted and
allowed prepayment of construction costs authorized under the
Rehabilitation and Betterment Act of 1949. In accounting for these
sales, the Bureau recorded these transactions as discounted loans
within the overall category of charge-offs. The recorded figure
represents the difference between the construction costs originally
allocated to the irrigators and the value received by the federal
government when these costs were discounted and prepaid.
IRRIGATORS RARELY PAY THEIR
FULL ALLOCATED SHARE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
In only 14 of the 133 water projects we reviewed have irrigators
either paid, or are they scheduled to repay, their entire allocated
share of the construction costs. The Bureau's records for the 133
projects show that as of September 30, 1994, irrigators had fully
paid their repayment obligations without benefit of irrigation
assistance and/or charge-offs for three projects--the $242,926 Arnold
project, the $601,026 Burnt River project, and the $1,247,220
Brantley project. In 11 other projects, irrigators are scheduled to
pay their full share without such assistance or legislative relief.
As of September 30, 1994, the irrigators associated with these
projects had repaid $47.3 million of their $76.3 million repayment
obligation and are scheduled to repay the remaining $29.0 million.
For almost 90 percent of the water projects, irrigation assistance
and/or charge-offs account for payment and/or relief of some portion
of the irrigators' repayment obligation. Figure 3.4 shows the number
and percentage of projects for which such combinations of repayment
and irrigation assistance and/or charge-offs are being used to meet
the irrigators' repayment obligation.
Figure 3.4: Repayment and
Assistance/Relief Combinations
for Costs Allocated to
Irrigators by Number of
Projects and Percentage, as of
September 30, 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
For the projects overall, irrigation assistance and charge-offs
account for either a large amount of the repayment and/or relief of
the irrigators' obligation (over 70 percent) or a small amount (less
than 10 percent). For three projects with repayment obligations
totaling $142.8 million, irrigation assistance and/or charge-offs are
scheduled to account for 100 percent of the obligation. For 41
projects with repayment obligations totaling $3.7 billion, irrigation
assistance and charge-offs are scheduled to account for 70 percent or
more of the repayment and/or relief of these obligations. At the
other end of the scale, for 39 projects having a combined repayment
obligation of $2.7 billion, irrigation assistance and charge-offs
represent less than 10 percent of the obligation. Appendix VI
contains details for each project on the dollar amount and percentage
that irrigation assistance and/or charge-offs are scheduled to
account for out of the irrigators' total repayment obligation,
appendix VIII lists the 41 projects where irrigation assistance
and/or charge-offs account for 70 percent or more of the irrigators'
obligation, and appendix IX lists the 39 projects where they account
for 10 percent or less of the obligation.
CHANGES IN RECLAMATION LAW
REGARDING ALLOCATION OF PROJECT
COSTS AND REPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Reclamation law determines how the costs of constructing reclamation
projects are allocated and how repayment responsibilities are
assigned among the projects' beneficiaries. Collectively, the
federal reclamation statutes that are generally applicable to all
projects and the statutes authorizing individual projects are
referred to as reclamation law. In implementing reclamation law, the
Bureau is guided by its implementing regulations, administrative
decisions of the Secretary of the Interior, and applicable court
cases.
The passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388)
established the Reclamation Fund and provided for the construction of
single-purpose irrigation projects in the West. Since then,
reclamation law has been significantly amended and supplemented.
Initially, the federal water project construction program was to be
self-sufficient. Under the 1902 act, projects were to be funded
through a revolving fund initially capitalized by revenue generated
from the sale of public lands. No appropriated funds were to be used
to build these water projects. Upon completion of a project,
irrigators\16 were to repay the revolving fund for the costs of
constructing the project within 10 years. However, from the
beginning, irrigators were not required to pay interest on their
repayment obligation. The act's legislative history states that ".
. . the Government, interested only in the settlement of the lands,
can well forego any interest on investments and be content with the
return of the principal."
Early on, it was discovered that the costs of establishing irrigated
farming on previously unfarmed, arid land were much higher than
expected, and the costs of building the water projects were much
higher than originally estimated. As a result, major funding and
repayment changes were made to the reclamation program between 1902
and 1939.
In 1939, the Congress fundamentally changed the nature of the
reclamation program in the West by enacting the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187). Under the act, projects could be
authorized for multiple purposes, and the construction costs would be
allocated among the projects' various purposes: irrigation,
municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power
generation, flood control, and navigation. The economies of scale
associated with these multipurpose projects allowed sharing of costs,
so that these projects, including those that provided irrigation,
were economically viable. Since 1939, appropriated funds have been
used to construct most reclamation projects.
Since 1906, reclamation law has authorized the use of power revenues
to assist in the payment of irrigation costs. A 1944 opinion from
the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor,
interpreting the provisions of the 1939 act, confirmed the principle
of limiting the financial obligation of irrigators to their ability
to repay their share of a project's construction costs. Costs
determined to be beyond the irrigators' ability to pay could be
repaid by other revenue sources, primarily from revenues earned from
the sale of the electric power generated by the projects. Payments
made from other sources under this interpretation of the law became
known as irrigation assistance.
Table I.1 lists some of the significant legislation enacted since
1902 concerning the reclamation project construction program as it
related to irrigators and the characteristics of this legislation.
Table I.1
Some Significant Changes in Reclamation
Law Regarding Allocation of Project
Costs to Irrigators and Their Repayment
of These Costs
Statute Change
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) Irrigation projects are authorized.
Construction is funded via a
revolving fund.
Repayment of costs takes place over
10 years.
Repayment is interest-free.
Town Sites and Power Development Act of Establishment of towns and provision
1906 (34 Stat. 116) of water are authorized.
Projects' surplus power can be sold
to towns and the revenues credited to
repayment of irrigation costs.
Advances to the Reclamation Fund Act of U.S. Treasury is directed to loan up
1910 (36 Stat. 835) to $20 million to the fund to finance
completion of the construction of water
projects.
Reclamation Extension Act of 1914 (38 Repayment period is extended from 10
Stat. 686) to 20 years.
Fact Finders' Act of 1924 (43 Stat. Irrigators' repayments are amended to
672) 5 percent per year of their average
crop value based on the preceding 10
years.
Use of project revenues from
nonirrigation activities, such as power
sales and surplus water sales, is
authorized for repayment of irrigators'
construction costs and payment of
operation and maintenance costs.
Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 (44 Repayment period is extended from 20
Stat. 636) to 40 years.
Irrigators are relieved of parts of
their repayment obligations because of
nonproductive land at specified
projects.
Five Million Dollar Advance to the U.S. Treasury is directed to loan up
Reclamation Fund Act of 1931 (46 Stat. to $5 million to the fund to finance
1507) completion of the construction of water
projects.
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Multipurpose water projects are
Stat. 1187) authorized, allowing for power,
municipal and industrial water supply,
navigation, and flood control as
project purposes.
Construction of projects is financed
by appropriated funds.
Development period of up to 10 years
is added to the irrigators' repayment
schedule.
Some construction costs are
designated as nonreimbursable.
Power costs are to be repaid with
interest.
Municipal and industrial water supply
costs can be repaid with interest.
Repayment of irrigation costs remains
interest-free.
Rehabilitation and Betterment Act of Repayment of expenditures is
1949 (63 Stat. 724) authorized for the rehabilitation and
betterment of the irrigation systems of
existing Bureau projects in
installments fixed according to the
water user's ability to pay.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act of Up to 50 percent of the separable
1965 (P.L. 89-72, 79 Stat. 213) construction costs for recreation and
fish and wildlife enhancement are
deemed nonreimbursable.
Reimbursable costs for these purposes
are to be repaid with interest over 50
years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the statutes listed, which are generally applicable to
all federal water projects, specific authorizing legislation can
dictate a water project's purposes, cost reimbursement terms, and
repayment period. For example, section 2 of the Tualatin Project Act
of 1966 (P.L. 89-596, 80 Stat. 822) authorizes a 50-year period for
repayment of the project's construction costs allocated to irrigation
and municipal and industrial water supply. Furthermore, section 4 of
the act authorizes highway transportation as a purpose of the project
and states that the costs allocated to this purpose are
nonreimbursable in accordance with section 208 of the Flood Control
Act of 1962. The 1962 act sets out criteria for nonreimbursement of
the federal costs of relocating roads to current standards.
--------------------
\16 In this report, "irrigators" refers to the irrigation or water
districts that have contracted to repay the costs of constructing a
project.
SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECT LOANS
AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOANS MADE
TO IRRIGATORS
========================================================== Appendix II
The Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044) and the
Distribution System Loans Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 244) provide the
Bureau with general authority to finance the construction of small
water projects and water delivery systems and to rehabilitate and
improve the construction of existing federal water projects.
Currently, only the Small Reclamation Program is active, and several
loan applications are under consideration. Distribution System loans
have not been made since 1991. Under Phase II of the National
Performance Review, the two programs are scheduled to be terminated.
Under the Small Reclamation Project Act, the Bureau makes
interest-free loans and grants for the construction of projects
similar to those of the regular reclamation program. These loans and
grants are limited to a fixed amount of the total costs of the Small
Reclamation project being financed. The 1956 act initially set this
limit at $10 million, but the limit was raised to $51.3 million as of
1994. The Bureau also requires 10- to 25-percent local financing for
projects built under the act. While such projects must have
irrigation as a principal purpose, they can also provide water for
municipal and industrial water supply, hydropower electrical
generation, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife
improvement.
Under the Distribution System Loans Act, the Bureau made loans for
the construction of the distribution systems associated with federal
water projects. Borrowers could be required to contribute up to 10
percent of the amount to be financed. The loan repayment terms are
similar to the standard repayment provisions provided for by
reclamation law in larger projects. Repayment of the irrigation
component of the loans is interest-free. Recipients of distribution
system loans could also be granted a development period of up to 10
years.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROVIDED TO IRRIGATORS
RECEIVING LOANS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1
The financial assistance that irrigators receive under these loans is
the same as they receive on the repayment of their share of the
construction costs for larger water projects--the loans are
interest-free and repaid over a lengthy period of time. As with the
larger water projects, the subsidy associated with these loans can be
substantial. For example, in 1984 irrigators from the Harquahala
Valley Irrigation District in Arizona contracted with the Bureau to
construct a $34.5 million distribution system to transport water from
the aqueduct of the Bureau's Central Arizona project to their farms.
Construction was financed, in part, by a $26 million loan from the
Bureau. The loan was interest-free and repayable over 37.5 years.
In 1989, when the District began making payments towards its debt for
the distribution system, the present value of the $26 million
repayment stream was $4 million. The remaining $22 million, or 84.6
percent of the loan amount, represents the interest subsidy
associated with this loan.
REPORTING OF SUBSIDIES IN
THE BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2
Effective in fiscal year 1992, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-508, tit. V, 104 Stat. 1388-610) requires that new
budget authority and outlays be recorded in the budget for the
government's cost of extending or guaranteeing credit, called the
subsidy cost.\17 Separate appropriations are made for administrative
expenses. The unsubsidized portion of a direct loan is expected to
be recovered from the borrower. The subsidy costs of the Small
Reclamation Loan program are reported under the act. The Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997 reported that for
fiscal year 1995, $9 million in new budget authority was provided,
which would support $16 million in direct loans; for fiscal year
1996, $12 million in new budget authority was estimated to support
$33 million in new direct loans; and $13 million in new budget
authority was requested for fiscal year 1997 to support new loans of
$36 million. According to Bureau officials, the subsidy costs
associated with the Distribution System Loans program are not
reported because no loans have been made since the passage of the
act.
--------------------
\17 The act defines the subsidy cost of direct loans as the present
value--over the loan's life--of the disbursements made by the
government (loan disbursements and other payments) minus the
estimated payments to the government (repayment of principal,
payments of interest, and other payments) after adjusting for any
defaults in the project, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other
recoveries.
STATUS OF LOAN PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3
Since 1956, the Bureau has issued 102 Small Reclamation Project loans
totaling $532.6 million. The repayment terms for the loans ranged
from 6 years to 50 years; 57.8 percent of the loans have terms of 40
years or more. During 1988, the federal government discounted and
allowed early repayment of 87 of these loans to the respective water
users as directed by deficit reduction legislation. In 1990,
Congress forgave repayment of two loans as part of an Indian water
rights claims settlement. As of September 30, 1994, 13 loans with a
repayment balance of $79.2 million remained. According to Bureau
officials, all borrowers are current.
Since 1955, the Bureau has issued 53 loans totaling $707.4 million,
to finance distribution systems in California and Arizona. Repayment
terms ranged from 15 years to 64 years; 64.2 percent of the loans
have terms of 40 years or more. During 1988 and 1992, the federal
government discounted and allowed early repayment of 19 of the loans.
As of September 30, 1994, one loan had been repaid, and the remaining
33 had a repayment balance of $406.6 million. According to Bureau
officials, most borrowers are current on the repayment of their
loans. However, two loans, totaling $84.4 million, are owed by
entities that are involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
Appendix III provides a detailed list of these loans, including the
borrowers, amounts, and repayment status.
STATUS OF REPAYMENT OF BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION LOANS BY STATE AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
========================================================= Appendix III
Payout
Stat period Repayments Unpaid
e Borrower (years) Loan amount Charge-offs to date balance
---- ------------------ ------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Small Reclamation Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ Ak-Chin Farms N/A $13,842,788 $13,842,788 0 0
Eastside
AZ Ak-Chin Farms West N/A 18,542,801 18,542,801 0 0
Indian Community
AZ Brown Canal 45 164,145 64,566 $99,579 0
Company
AZ Curtis Canal 50 84,720 67,787 16,933 0
Company
AZ Gila River Farms 18 6,567,304 0 1,906,720 $4,660,584
AZ Gila River Farms 29 14,020,826 8,989,671 5,031,154 0
AZ Graham Canal 50 139,713 120,070 19,643 0
Company
AZ Roosevelt 48 3,982,209 1,817,390 2,164,819 0
Irrigation
District
AZ Roosevelt 26 10,391,971 6,057,686 4,334,285 0
Irrigation
District
AZ Roosevelt Water 50 4,833,481 2,836,989 1,996,492 0
Conservation
District
CA Alpaugh Water 24 1,412,000 656,178 755,822 0
District
CA Banta-Carbona 40 964,000 333,417 630,583 0
Irrigation
District
CA Browns Valley 49 4,797,071 2,047,412 2,749,659 0
Irrigation
District
CA Buttonwillow 43 6,000,000 3,985,964 2,014,036 0
Improvement
District
CA Buttonwillow 30 3,000,000 1,355,990 1,644,010 0
Irrigation
District
CA Byron-Bethany 40 1,756,700 576,685 1,180,015 0
Irrigation
District
CA Camrosa County 35 4,800,000 2,502,862 2,297,138 0
Water District
CA De-Luz Heights 31 7,969,493 5,185,872 2,783,621 0
Municipal Water
District
CA Eastern Municipal 40 4,971,983 1,658,567 3,313,416 0
Water District
CA Eastern Municipal 38 17,607,333 10,349,997 7,257,337 0
Water District
Number 2
CA Elsinore Valley 40 16,594,500 0 15,553 16,578,947
Municipal Water
District
CA Fallbrook Public 26 10,712,384 4,928,686 5,783,698 0
Utility District
CA Georgetown Divide 49 4,636,771 1,754,012 2,882,759 0
Public Utility
District
CA Glen-Colusa 29 17,000,000 10,218,512 6,781,488 0
Irrigation
District
CA Goleta County 40 1,626,343 286,310 1,340,033 0
Water District
CA Jackson Valley 50 2,377,804 1,081,012 1,296,792 0
Irrigation
District
CA Nevada Irrigation 40 6,550,000 4,093,590 2,456,410 0
District
CA Pioneer Water 35 997,000 608,427 388,573 0
Company
CA Pleasant Valley 40 2,040,000 338,450 1,701,550 0
County Water
District
CA Pleasant Valley 34 4,700,000 2,972,477 1,727,523 0
County Water
District
CA Pond-Poso 40 14,200,000 8,287,787 5,912,213 0
Improvement
District
CA Rainbow Municipal 40 2,987,732 2,414,910 572,822 0
Water District -
Annex District 6
CA Rainbow Parent 30 16,218,528 10,857,349 5,361,178 0
Municipal Water
District
CA Ramona Municipal 30 25,943,921 20,663,224 5,280,697 0
Water District
CA Rancho California 30 15,255,051 6,069,713 9,185,338 0
Water District
CA Redwood Valley 35 7,313,000 0 458,000 6,855,000
County Water
District
CA San Benito County 40 1,424,999 319,358 1,105,641 0
Water
Conservation and
Flood Control
District
CA San Bernadino - 20 13,437,267 0 2,018,445 11,418,822
Day Creek
CA Santa Ana 30 14,876,248 0 2,034,000 12,842,248
Watershed Project
Authority
CA Santa Ynez River 40 3,763,852 1,062,567 2,701,285 0
Water
Conservation
District
CA South San Joaquin 40 4,892,838 952,111 3,940,727 0
Irrigation
District
CA South Sutter Water 50 4,703,808 2,423,347 2,280,461 0
District
CA Tehachapi- 40 6,498,869 3,726,204 2,772,665 0
Cummings Water
District
CA United Water 20 18,678,131 0 2,288,000 16,390,131
Conservation
District
CA Valley Center 40 10,000,000 7,656,959 2,343,041 0
Municipal Water
District
CA West San 40 3,519,297 1,450,368 2,068,929 0
Bernardino County
Water District
CA Yolo County Flood 41 2,123,800 1,602,940 520,860 0
Control and Water
Conservation
District
CO City of Fort 20 7,355,000 2,172,658 5,182,342 0
Collins -Joe
Wright Reservoir
CO North Poudre 50 951,534 511,813 439,721 0
Irrigation
Company
CO Orchard City 49 270,000 132,565 137,435 0
Irrigation
District
CO Overland Ditch and 40 2,834,230 2,292,283 541,947 0
Reservoir
CO Water Supply and 50 1,355,700 837,759 517,942 0
Storage Company
HI Molokai Irrigation 40 4,513,727 1,734,729 2,778,998 0
District
ID King Hill 50 817,596 511,287 306,309 0
Irrigation
District
ID Malad Valley 50 527,125 265,547 261,578 0
Irrigating
Company
ID Salmon River Canal 50 984,557 571,605 412,952 0
Company
ID Saint John 50 737,833 438,513 299,320 0
Irrigating
Company
MT Buffalo Rapids 19 815,560 146,321 669,239 0
Irrigation
District Number 1
MT Buffalo Rapids 19 175,000 45,835 129,165 0
Irrigation
District Number
1, Amendment
MT Buffalo Rapids 21 1,409,000 748,943 660,057 0
Irrigation
District Number 2
MT East Bench 37 3,202,000 2,564,278 637,722 0
Irrigation
District
MT State of Montana - 40 1,308,230 936,420 371,810 0
Cooney Dam
Rehabilitation
MT West Bench 28 3,400,000 2,140,639 1,259,361 0
Irrigation
District
NE Central Nebraska 40 9,946,400 6,791,917 3,154,483 0
Public Power and
Irrigation
District
NE Central Nebraska 27 10,368,000 6,513,551 3,854,449 0
Public Power and
Irrigation
District -Phelps
System
NE Mitchell -Gering 40 447,750 253,344 194,406 0
Irrigation
Districts
NE Mitchell 50 1,769,250 1,098,865 670,385 0
Irrigation
District
NE Whitney Irrigtion 20 1,682,000 521,050 1,160,950 0
Company
NV Walker River 40 224,548 28,002 196,546 0
Irrigation
District
OR Central Oregon 44 3,072,000 1,808,436 1,263,564 0
Irrigtion
District
OR Douglas County 40 11,799,442 4,543,257 7,256,185 0
Water Resources
Survey/
Galesville
Project
OR Klamath Basin 40 817,993 172,030 645,963 0
Water District
TX Adams Garden 35 2,087,548 1,321,811 765,737 0
Irrigation
District Number
19
TX Cameron County 35 4,596,877 1,132,069 3,464,808 0
Water
Conservation
Irrigation
District 1/
Harlington
TX Cameron County 45 4,907,117 3,135,529 1,771,588 0
Water
Conservation
Irrigation
District 5/
Brownville
TX Delta Lake 43 16,178,736 12,458,034 3,720,702 0
Irrigation
District
TX Donna Irrigtion 35 4,067,000 0 3,207,000 860,000
District
TX Hidalgo County 29 7,517,000 5,388,338 2,128,662 0
Water
Conservation
Irrigation
District Number 1
TX Hidalgo County 40 16,182,937 12,561,891 3,621,046 0
Water
Conservation
Irrigation
District Number 2
San Juan
TX Hidalgo County 40 4,842,075 3,187,225 1,654,850 0
Water
Conservation
Irrigation
District Number 5
TX Santa Maria Water 41 1,573,800 931,044 642,756 0
Conservation
Irrigation
District/Cameron
County Number 4
UT Bountiful Water 50 3,510,000 1,843,914 1,666,086 0
Subconservancy
District
UT Centerville-Deuel 48 401,802 0 328,410 73,392
Creek Irrigation
Company
UT Farmington 28 4,424,000 2,372,031 2,051,969 0
Pressurized
Irrigation
District
UT Haights Creek 6 70,947 0 62,099 8,847
Irrigation
Company
UT Haights Creek 38 326,845 0 213,210 113,635
Irrigation
Company -Loan
Number 1
UT Haights Creek 45 716,437 0 206,032 510,405
Irrigation
Company -Loan
Number 2
UT Hooper Irrigation 50 1,511,711 701,892 809,819 0
Company
UT Kays Creek 46 372,504 48,693 323,811 0
Irrigation
Company
UT Roy Water 40 2,847,603 1,778,275 1,069,328 0
Conservation
District -Part B
UT Roy Water 50 4,859,008 3,473,763 1,385,245 0
Conservation
Subdistrict -
Part A
UT Settlement Canyon 50 1,162,307 608,009 554,298 0
Irrigation
Company
UT South Davis County 37 570,933 63,250 507,683 0
Water Improvement
District
UT South Weber Water 38 1,880,000 1,396,890 483,110 0
Improvement
District
UT Upper Yampa Water 30 3,635,000 0 347,645 3,287,355
Conservatory
District
UT Weber-Box Elder 48 302,458 51,402 251,056 0
Conservation
District Loan
Number 1
UT Weber-Box Elder 45 811,000 428,869 382,131 0
Conservation
District Loan
Number 2
WA Columbia 39 2,734,100 1,926,805 807,295 0
Irrigation
District
WA Greater Wenatchee 34 6,444,641 0 861,507 5,583,134
Irrigation
District
WA Wenatchee Heights 38 920,000 526,096 393,904 0
Reclamation
District
WY Shoshone 40 3,263,300 1,074,950 2,188,350 0
Irrigation
District -
Garland Canal
Power Project
WY Shoshone 39 214,000 47,005 166,995 0
Irrigation
District -
Garland Canal
Power Project
=========================================================================================
Total Small $532,636,843 $269,000,434 $184,453,907 $79,182,501
Reclamation Loans
Distribution System Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ Central Arizona 26 66,900,000 0 2,400,000 64,500,000
Irrigation
Drainage District
AZ Chandler Heights 27 620,000 0 15,140 604,860
Citrus Irragation
District
AZ Chaparral City 20 3,091,923 0 461,767 2,630,156
Water Company
AZ Harquahala Valley 38 26,063,770 19,912,400 6,151,370 0
Irrigation
District
AZ Hohokam Irrigation 30 31,800,000 0 258,000 31,542,000
Drainage District
AZ Maricopa Stanfield 26 78,000,000 0 3,600,000 74,400,000
AZ New Magma 22 17,500,000 0 61,077 17,438,923
Irrigation and
Drainage District
AZ Queen Creek 26 9,960,000 0 92,364 9,867,636
Irrigation
District
AZ San Tan Irrigation 19 1,820,000 0 22,242 1,797,758
District
AZ Tonopah Irrigation 29 2,797,504 0 60,000 2,737,504
District
CA Arvin-Edison Water 40 41,000,000 16,891,396 24,108,604 0
Storage District
CA Bella Vista Water 40 2,945,710 0 1,133,054 1,812,656
District
CA Broadview 40 1,113,366 298,849 814,517 0
Irrigation
District
CA Chowchilla Water 40 3,250,000 732,261 2,517,739 0
District
CA Clear Creek 50 1,174,399 0 693,599 480,801
Community Service
District
CA Colusa County 40 14,800,000 0 2,220,000 12,580,000
Water District
CA Colusa County 57 6,408,800 3,942,309 2,466,490 0
Water District
CA Contra Costa 44 1,164,923 0 975,041 189,882
County District
CA Corning Water 40 5,108,060 0 1,472,622 3,635,438
District
CA Delano-Earlimont 40 10,560,201 0 9,373,222 1,186,978
Irrigation
District
CA Dunnigan Water 40 6,817,416 0 681,742 6,135,673
District
CA El Dorado 46 24,323,230 0 6,495,119 17,828,111
Irrigation
District
CA Exeter Irrigation 40 3,485,126 0 3,005,906 479,220
District
CA Feather Water 38 2,764,473 950,959 1,813,514 0
District
CA Garfield Water 35 386,378 0 336,701 49,677
District
CA Glide Irrigation 64 5,457,188 3,833,628 1,623,560 0
District
CA Huron, City of 40 77,560 0 36,841 40,719
CA Ivanhoe Irrigation 40 2,150,984 0 1,962,773 188,211
District
CA Kanawha Water 40 2,690,835 2,035,043 655,792 0
District -
Improvement
District Number 1
CA Kanawha Water 32 3,202,240 1,958,901 1,243,339 0
District -
Improvement
District Number 2
CA Kanawha Water 33 2,466,415 1,703,850 762,565 0
District -
Improvement
District Number 3
CA La Branza Water 40 2,990,500 1,989,553 1,000,947 0
District
CA Lewis Creek Water 40 395,000 0 227,125 167,875
District
CA Lindmore 40 4,991,841 0 4,555,055 436,786
Irrigation
District
CA Lindsay-Stratmore 40 2,248,038 0 2,248,038 0
Irrigation
District
CA Madera Irrigation 40 5,177,000 0 1,241,800 3,935,200
District
CA Madera Irrigation 40 8,320,000 0 7,589,044 730,956
District
CA Oakdale Irrigation 15 17,833,016 9,992,766 7,840,249 0
District
CA Orland-Artois 30 23,127,537 0 1,156,377 21,971,160
Water District
CA Plain View Water 40 544,760 0 388,142 156,618
District
CA Proberta Water 40 591,895 250,749 341,146 0
District
CA San Benito County 27 19,258,125 14,256,733 5,001,392 0
Water
Conservation and
Flood Control
District
CA San Luis Water 38 13,640,951 8,264,121 5,376,830 0
District
Irrigation
District Numbers
1, 2, 3
CA Saucelito 40 3,586,291 709,563 2,876,728 0
Irrigation
District
CA Shafter-Wasco 40 8,366,979 0 6,798,171 1,568,808
Irrigation
District
CA Solano Irrigation 40 15,050,480 4,454,425 10,596,055 0
District
CA Southern San 40 8,338,835 0 7,192,289 1,146,546
Joaquin Municipal
Utility District-
1
CA Southern San 40 888,883 0 766,889 121,994
Joaquin Municipal
Utility District-
2
CA Stone Corral 40 1,888,000 0 1,184,606 703,394
Irrigation
District
CA Tea Pot Dome Water 40 1,665,816 0 1,228,539 437,277
District
CA Terra Bella 38 1,900,000 383,731 1,516,269 0
Irrigation
District
CA Westlands Water 40 179,075,371 0 53,941,937 125,133,434
District
CA Westside Water 37 7,620,546 5,687,687 1,932,859 0
District
=========================================================================================
Total Distribution $707,400,364 $98,248,925 $202,515,186 $406,636,252
System Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BY PROJECT PURPOSE FOR 133
PROJECTS INVOLVING IRRIGATION, AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
========================================================== Appendix IV
(Dollars in thousands)
Highway Cultural Total
Region and Flood Fish and improvem restorat project
project Irrigation M&I\a Power Total\b control Recreation wildlife ent SOD\c ion Indian use Other\d Total\b cost\b
----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ========== ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ========== ==========
Great Plains Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Rapids $5,264 0 0 $ 5,264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,264
Colorado-Big 112,116 0 $111,767 223,883 0 $688 $15 0 $273 0 0 0 $976 224,858
Thompson
Fryingpan- 70,720 $150,081 238,899 459,700 $15,162 43,273 89,123 $1,550 0 $958 0 $22,659 172,724 632,425
Arkansas
Huntley 2,312 0 0 2,312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,312
Intake 94 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
Kendrick 17,843 0 23,055 40,898 0 199 0 0 4 0 0 0 204 41,102
Lower Rio Grande- 5,774 0 0 5,774 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,774
La Feria
Division
Lower Rio Grande- 11,817 0 0 11,817 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,817
Mercedes
Division
Lower Yellowstone 4,615 0 0 4,615 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 4,651
Milk River 12,856 96 0 12,952 0 0 0 26 3,504 0 0 0 3,530 16,482
Mirage Flats 3,106 0 0 3,106 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 22 3,128
North Platte 32,709 0 15,611 48,319 0 0 0 0 835 0 0 0 835 49,154
Pick-Sloan 1,497,969 256,398 1,870,236 3,624,603 529,839 70,158 80,298 13,388 23,263 1,297 0 115,647 833,890 4,458,493
Consolidated
Rapid Valley 420 500 0 920 0 0 0 0 6,931 0 0 0 6,931 7,851
San Angelo 10,815 6,567 0 17,381 11,128 68 3,897 0 1,835 0 0 0 16,928 34,310
Shoshone 34,928 10 5,092 40,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,030
Sun River 19,104 0 0 19,104 0 0 0 0 3,515 0 0 0 3,515 22,619
Trinidad 6,446 0 0 6,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,446
W.C. Austin 10,475 1,080 0 11,555 1,130 15 0 0 1,899 0 0 0 3,045 14,600
Washita Basin 2,775 13,011 0 15,786 15,417 639 1,135 0 35 0 0 193 17,420 33,206
Lower Colorado Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Canyon- 73,733 0 0 73,733 4,586 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,586 78,320
All-American
Canal
Central Arizona 342,693 1,275,024 702,404 2,320,122 93,981 106,074 0 0 107,302 23,916 $781,245 32,964 1,145,481 3,465,603\
e
Colorado River 45,938 0 0 45,938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 338,941 338,941 384,879
Salinity Control
Dixie 1,974 0 0 1,974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,974
Gila 43,760 0 0 43,760 5,915 0 0 0 0 0 23,892 2,186 31,993 75,753
Palo Verde 4,026 0 0 4,026 886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 886 4,912
Diversion
Parker-Davis 14,079 13,190 353,667 380,937 0 0 0 872 0 0 0 14,135 15,007 395,944
Salt River 47,020 0 0 47,020 0 0 0 0 190,657 0 949 0 191,606 238,626
Yuma Auxiliary 2,762 0 0 2,762 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,762
Yuma 5,769 0 497 6,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 6,280
Mid Pacific Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of 29,151 0 2,148 31,299 81,398 1,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,437 113,737
Engineers
Combined
Projects
Cachuma 24,923 20,026 0 44,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,950
Central Valley 1,617,675 579,776 698,332 3,188,388\ 130,412 90,730 274,804 15,973 20,675 4,610 0 90,733 627,938 3,816,326
f
Humboldt 1,776 0 0 1,776 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 26 37 1,813
Klamath 52,569 0 0 52,569 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 243 52,812
Newlands 10,729 0 342 11,071 0 198 0 0 6,319 0 0 10,380 16,898 27,968
Orland 3,610 0 0 3,610 0 0 0 0 3,034 0 0 3 3,037 6,647
Santa Maria 9,588 0 0 9,588 2,068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,068 11,656
Solano 35,761 5,314 0 41,075 1,132 8,276 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,408 50,484
Truckee Storage 1,662 0 33 1,695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,695
Ventura River 17,534 14,497 0 32,031 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 26,571 26,671 58,701
Pacific Northwest Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold 243 0 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243
Avondale 573 0 0 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 573
Baker 5,502 0 0 5,502 890 209 1,070 535 0 0 0 0 2,704 8,206
Bitter Root 9,567 0 0 9,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,567
Boise 67,670 0 13,025 80,695 17,076 0 0 0 14,314 9 0 0 31,399 112,094
Burnt River 601 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 601
Central Oregon 1,869 57 0 1,926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,926
Irrigation
District
Chief Joseph- 3,371 0 0 3,371 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 3,389
Foster Creek
Chief Joseph- 8,664 0 0 8,664 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 8,683
Greater
Wenatchee
Chief Joseph- 18,778 0 0 18,778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,778
Chelan-Manson
Unit
Chief Joseph- 2,912 0 0 2,912 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 96 3,008
Oroville-
Tonasket
Chief Joseph-
Oroville- 84,778 0 0 84,778 0 0 3,021 0 0 123 530 521 4,195 88,974
Tonasket
Extension
Chief Joseph- 8,380 0 0 8,380 0 144 58 0 0 0 0 0 202 8,582
Whitestone
Coulee
Columbia Basin 652,081 0 1,118,006 1,770,087 58,034 154 5,793 0 0 846 0 17,951 82,778 1,852,866
Crescent Lake 3,827 0 0 3,827 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,827
Crooked River 9,135 0 0 9,135 1,806 307 480 0 0 0 0 0 2,593 11,728
Dalton Gardens 564 0 0 564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 564
The Dalles 6,824 0 0 6,824 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 6,850
Deschutes 13,193 25 0 13,218 207 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 13,459
Frenchtown 298 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298
Grants Pass 809 0 0 809 0 0 1,073 0 0 0 0 0 1,073 1,881
Lewiston Orchards 1,669 1,046 0 2,714 0 0 0 0 1,508 0 0 0 1,508 4,222
Little Wood River 1,053 0 0 1,053 755 422 227 0 0 0 0 0 1,404 2,457
Mann Creek 3,763 0 0 3,763 0 360 18 62 0 0 0 0 440 4,203
Michaud Flats 5,009 0 0 5,009 0 0 0 252 0 0 0 0 252 5,262
Minidoka 52,179 0 8,613 60,792 33,527 5,888 1,711 0 121,512 0 0 0 162,638 223,431
Missoula Valley 278 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278
Okanogan 12,508 0 0 12,508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,508
Owyhee 20,873 0 0 20,873 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 21,090
Palisades 23,024 0 12,674 35,697 30,904 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,048 66,746
Rathdrum Prairie 9,941 147 0 10,087 0 46 512 0 0 0 0 0 558 10,645
Rogue River- 19,813 0 10,547 30,360 672 753 137 0 0 0 0 0 1,563 31,922
Other District
Spokane Valley 5,132 970 0 6,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,102
Teton Basin 61,076 0 7,827 68,902 9,265 2,448 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,713 80,615
Tualatin 31,480 4,713 0 36,193 2,457 5,762 5,000 6,032 0 0 0 3,261 22,512 58,706
Umatilla 20,929 0 0 20,929 1,449 29 11,973 0 1,842 0 0 0 15,293 36,222
Vale 7,719 0 0 7,719 1,080 174 595 0 0 0 0 0 1,849 9,568
Wapinitia 509 0 0 509 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 543
Yakima 138,339 0 6,635 144,973 912 238 47,208 0 0 0 0 0 48,358 193,331
Upper Colorado Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animas-LaPlata 37,585 6,954 0 44,539 0 0 1,177 0 0 1,610 0 0 2,787 47,326
Balmorhea 437 0 0 437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437
Bonneville Unit- 567,991 468,009 18,254 1,054,254 15,732 51,252 200,677 32,101 0 0 0 0 299,763 1,354,017
Central Utah
Bostwick Park 6,656 0 0 6,656 0 2,928 915 0 0 0 0 0 3,843 10,499
Brantley 1,247 0 0 1,247 1,039 5,300 4,942 1,716 183,983 735 0 316 198,031 199,279
Carlsbad 10,803 0 0 10,803 1,162 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,220 12,022
Collbran 6,189 0 15,039 21,227 0 0 728 0 0 0 0 0 728 21,955
Colorado River 127,147 7,492 1,079,163 1,213,802 5,179 42,724 46,598 2,815 0 0 0 0 97,317 1,311,119
Storage Project
Dallas Creek 39,575 95,454 1,925 136,954 4,408 34,849 5,899 1,998 0 0 0 850 48,004 184,958
Dolores 362,522 14,546 35,173 412,241 2 15,859 65,399 1 0 20,794 0 38,084 140,138 552,379
Eden 13,916 0 0 13,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,916
Emery County 8,787 3,772 0 12,559 0 75 3,523 468 55 0 0 0 4,121 16,680
Florida 9,720 0 0 9,720 120 103 1,486 0 0 0 0 0 1,709 11,429
Fort Sumner 2,433 0 0 2,433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,433
Fruitgrowers Dam 2,262 0 0 2,262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,262
Fruitland Mesa 3,181 0 0 3,181 0 88 44 0 0 0 0 0 133 3,314
Grand Valley 11,233 0 214 11,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,446
Hammond 7,234 0 0 7,234 0 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 206 7,439
Hyrum 3,057 0 0 3,057 0 227 0 0 769 0 0 0 996 4,053
Jensen Unit- 5,563 45,632 1,669 52,864 1,797 1,941 1,745 454 11,428 45 0 0 17,410 70,274
Central Utah
LaBarge 222 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222
Lyman 26,845 1,118 0 27,963 0 1,337 6,692 0 4,749 0 0 0 12,778 40,741
Mancos 3,934 0 0 3,934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,934
McMillan Delta 243 0 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277 277 520
Middle Rio Grande 15,974 0 0 15,974 0 202 0 0 0 0 0 22,615 22,817 38,790
Moon Lake 1,801 0 0 1,801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,801
Newton 3,210 0 0 3,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,210
Ogden River 16,372 0 0 16,372 0 0 0 0 337 0 0 0 337 16,709
Paonia 7,626 0 0 7,626 174 95 286 93 0 0 0 5 653 8,279
Pecos River Basin 2,220 0 0 2,220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,220
Pine River 1,754 0 0 1,754 1,797 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,797 3,551
Preston Bench 690 0 0 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 690
Provo River 6,898 30,869 1,556 39,322 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 39,522
Rio Grande 25,661 0 13,301 38,962 1,574 608 0 0 515 0 0 1,000 3,698 42,660
San Juan-Chama 34,614 39,332 0 73,946 0 901 7,960 806 0 0 0 0 9,667 83,612
San Luis Valley 2,332 0 0 2,332 1,643 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,643 3,975
San Miguel 2,981 809 0 3,790 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 3,806
Sanpete 434 0 0 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 434
Savery-Pot Hook 2,399 0 0 2,399 13 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 31 2,430
Scofield 521 0 0 521 393 115 31 0 0 0 0 0 539 1,060
Seedskadee 1,604 13,263 7,384 22,251 0 637 21,157 201 31,372 0 0 1 53,367 75,618
Silt 6,735 0 0 6,735 0 60 565 150 0 0 0 0 775 7,510
Smith Fork 4,300 0 0 4,300 0 104 286 0 0 0 0 0 390 4,690
Strawberry Valley 11,589 0 0 11,589 0 0 17,536 0 0 0 0 0 17,536 29,125
Tucumcari 18,506 0 0 18,506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,506
Uintah Unit- 3,962 140 0 4,101 86 0 2,880 0 0 0 0 0 2,966 7,068
Central Utah
Uncompahgre 18,376 0 0 18,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,376
Upalco Unit- 5,272 1,323 0 6,595 65 0 4,818 101 0 0 0 0 4,984 11,579
Central Utah
Vermejo 2,340 0 0 2,340 55 0 198 0 0 0 0 0 253 2,593
Vernal Unit- 10,846 702 0 11,548 0 110 282 1 7,690 0 0 0 8,084 19,632
Central Utah
Weber Basin 58,621 30,684 0 89,305 6,433 5,494 5,616 886 505 0 0 0 18,935 108,239
Weber River 3,197 0 0 3,197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 3,231
West Divide 2,260 655 0 2,915 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 2,920
===================================================================================================================================================================================
Totals\b $7,095,702 $3,103,283 $6,373,084 $16,864,67 $1,093,760 $504,149 $929,980 $80,482 $750,683 $54,943 $806,615 $739,610 $4,960,222 $21,824,89
4 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Municipal and industrial water supply.
\b Totals may not add because of rounding.
\c Safety of dams.
\d Other nonreimbursable costs, such as water quality,
investigations, and the Settlement Land Program.
\e The total cost of the Central Arizona project cost excludes
$10,954,610 in unallocated costs for the Middle and Upper Gila and
Drainage Division because the beneficiaries and repayment entities
have not been identified.
\f The total includes $292.6 million in other reimbursable costs
consisting of $12.1 million for fish and wildlife, $7.4 million for
recreation, $212.3 million for the state's share of the San Luis
unit, $3.6 million for the safety of dams, $57 million for deferred
use, and $0.3 million for preconstruction investigations.
STATUS OF REPAYMENT OF COSTS
ALLOCATED TO IRRIGATION BY PROJECT
PURPOSE FOR 133 PROJECTS, AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
=========================================================== Appendix V
(Dollars in thousands)
Total
Irrigatio Charge- irrigation
Project Irrigation Other\a Total\b n Power\a Other Total off Loan Total repayment
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- -------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- ----------
Great Plains Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Rapids $962 0 $962 $438 0 0 $438 $3,865 0 $3,865 $5,264
Colorado-Big Thompson 25,204 $1,334 26,538 9,153 $76,425 0 85,578 0 0 0 112,116
Fryingpan-Arkansas 2,460 2 2,462 68,258 0 0 68,258 0 0 0 70,720
Huntley 1,665 0 1,665 237 0 0 237 410 0 410 2,312
Intake 47 0 47 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 94
Kendrick 1,625 0 1,625 1,650 14,568 0 16,218 0 0 0 17,843
Lower Rio Grande-La 4,560 0 4,560 1,214 0 0 1,214 0 0 0 5,774
Feria Division
Lower Rio Grande- 8,132 1 8,133 0 0 0 0 0 $3,684 3,684 11,817
Mercedes Division
Lower Yellowstone 3,974 0 3,974 0 0 0 0 654 0 654 4,629
Milk River 6,765 4 6,769 2,736 0 0 2,736 3,375 0 3,375 12,880
Mirage Flats 863 0 863 4 0 0 4 2,238 0 2,238 3,106
North Platte 25,940 1,062 27,002 967 825 0 1,792 3,914 0 3,914 32,709
Rapid Valley 0 11 11 409 0 0 409 0 0 0 420
San Angelo 1,091 0 1,091 9,201 0 0 9,201 297 0 297 10,589
Shoshone 11,904 1,147 13,050 9,601 146 0 9,746 12,128 0 12,128 34,925
Sun River 12,988 0 12,988 0 0 0 0 510 5,685 6,195 19,183
Trinidad 680 0 680 5,766 0 0 5,766 0 0 0 6,446
W.C. Austin 2,197 0 2,197 0\c 0 0 0\c 8,278 0 8,278 10,475
Washita Basin 3 637 639 2,136 0 0 2,136 0 0 0 2,775
Pick-Sloan 52,601 10,652 63,254 144,499 1,171,321 $1,438 1,317,258 114,899 2,682 117,581 1,498,092
Consolidated
Lower Colorado Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Canyon-All- 62,822 2,357 65,179 6,075 0 0 6,075 3,464 421 3,886 75,140
American Canal
Central Arizona 46,266 43 46,309 296,384 0 0 296,384 0 0 0 342,693
Colorado River 0 0 0 31,008 0 0 31,008 14,930 0 14,930 45,938
Salinity Control
Dixie 6 240 245 0 1,729 0 1,729 0 0 0 1,974
Gila 8,408 1,486 9,894 36 0 1 37 36,227 0 36,227 46,159
Palo Verde Diversion 1,250 26 1,276 426 0 0 426 2,325 0 2,325 4,026
Parker-Davis 0 3,654 3,654 0 10,425 0 10,425 0 0 0 14,079
Salt River 41,342 2,312 43,654 0 0 0 0 3,472 0 3,472 47,126
Yuma Auxiliary 2,226 37 2,263 465 0 0 465 82 0 82 2,809
Yuma 5,372 107 5,479 0 0 0 0 384 0 384 5,862
Mid Pacific Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers 24,618 0 24,618 4,533 0 0 4,533 0 0 0 29,151
Combined Projects
Cachuma 8,824 0 8,824 16,099 0 0 16,099 0 0 0 24,923
Central Valley 186,735 0 186,735 1,325,801 105,139 0 1,430,940 0 0 0 1,617,675
Humboldt 1,725 137 1,861 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 1,884
Klamath 38,412 431 38,842 10,372 0 0 10,372 915 2,440 3,355 52,569
Newlands 4,135 0 4,135 1,805 0 0 1,805 4,789 0 4,789 10,729
Orland 3,491 44 3,534 0 0 78 78 0 0 0 3,613
Santa Maria 7,137 67 7,204 2,379 0 5 2,384 0 0 0 9,588
Solano 10,700 10,417 21,117 10,804 0 2,858 13,662 0 982 982 35,761
Truckee Storage 1,000 0\c 1,000 0 0 0 0 662 0 662 1,662
Ventura River 9,192 524 9,717 8,340 0 0 8,340 0 0 0 18,056
Pacific Northwest Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold 243 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243
Avondale 312 0 312 77 184 0 261 0 0 0 573
Baker 570 0 570 789 4,092 0 4,881 52 0 52 5,502
Bitter Root 1,852 0 1,852 7,712 0 0 7,712 2 0 2 9,567
Boise 27,462 3,245 30,707 13,310 23,563 0 36,874 90 0 90 67,670
Burnt River 601 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 601
Central Oregon 1,843 0 1,843 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 1,869
Irrigation District
Chief Joseph-Foster 658 4 663 904 1,805 0 2,709 0 0 0 3,371
Creek
Chief Joseph-Greater 2,023 5 2,028 2,670 3,970 0 6,637 0 0 0 8,664
Wenatchee
Chief Joseph-Chelan- 372 0 372 2,288 16,118 0 18,406 0 0 0 18,778
Manson Unit
Chief Joseph- 1,804 0 1,804 1,108 0 0 1,108 0 0 0 2,912
Oroville-Tonasket
Chief Joseph- 0 0 0 11,825 72,953 0 84,778 0 0 0 84,778
Oroville-Tonasket
Extension
Chief Joseph- 207 0 207 703 7,470 0 8,173 0 0 0 8,380
Whitestone Coulee
Columbia Basin 44,244 0 44,244 118,848 488,989 0 607,837 0 0 0 652,081
Crescent Lake 3,754 0 3,754 43 0 0 43 30 0 30 3,827
Crooked River 1,645 579 2,225 2,938 3,871 0 6,809 0 102 102 9,135
Dalton Gardens 277 0 277 79 208 0 287 0 0 0 564
The Dalles 903 9 912 1,713 4,199 0 5,912 0 0 0 6,824
Deschutes 4,743 114 4,858 6,644 0 0 6,644 1,691 0 1,691 13,193
Frenchtown 297 0 297 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 298
Grants Pass 489 0 489 320 0 0 320 0 0 0 809
Lewiston Orchards 1,266 0 1,266 403 0 0 403 0 0 0 1,669
Little Wood River 626 0 626 331 0 0 331 96 0 96 1,053
Mann Creek 528 2 530 284 2,950 0 3,233 0 0 0 3,763
Michaud Flats 1,461 32 1,492 1,437 2,080 0 3,517 0 0 0 5,009
Minidoka 32,292 1,569 33,861 18,307 0 0 18,307 12 0 12 52,179
Missoula Valley 38 0 38 0 0 0 0 240 0 240 278
Okanogan 2,885 63 2,948 35 0 0 35 978 8,547 9,525 12,508
Owyhee 10,196 62 10,258 10,615 0 0 10,615 0 0 0 20,873
Palisades 7,995 25 8,020 596 14,407 0 15,004 0 0 0 23,024
Rathdrum Prairie 1,156 121 1,277 912 7,578 0 8,490 174 0 174 9,941
Rogue River-Other 5,016 74 5,091 4,979 9,672 0 14,651 71 0 71 19,813
District
Spokane Valley 1,101 0\c 1,101 1,627 1,996 408 4,031 0 0 0 5,132
Teton Basin 241 227 467 20,335 40,273 0 60,608 0 0 0 61,076
Tualatin 694 0 694 5,179 25,607 0 30,786 0 0 0 31,480
Umatilla 1,293 301 1,593 572 54 0 626 18,709 0 18,709 20,929
Vale 4,341 0 4,341 3,378 0 0 3,378 0 0 0 7,719
Wapinitia 411 0 411 98 0 0 98 0 0 0 509
Yakima 50,565 157 50,722 19,290 12,303 0 31,594 13 56,010 56,023 138,339
Upper Colorado Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animas-LaPlata 16 537 553 36,951 0 81 37,032 0 0 0 37,585
Balmorhea 256 0 256 0 0 0 0 182 0 182 437
Bonneville Unit- 359 732 1,091 16,046 550,252 0 566,298 602 0 602 567,991
Central Utah
Bostwick Park 314 16 330 768 5,483 0 6,251 76 0 76 6,656
Brantley 1,247 1 1,248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,248
Carlsbad 6,068 1,100 7,167 0 0 0 0 552 4,154 4,705 11,874
Collbran 619 0 619 470 5,059 0 5,529 41 0 41 6,189
Colorado River Storage 0 156 156 0 126,735 0 126,735 256 0 256 127,147
Project
Dallas Creek 353 98 451 5,973 33,151 0 39,123 0 0 0 39,575
Dolores 691 100 791 28,779 332,566 0 361,345 387 0 387 362,522
Eden 532 103 635 784 12,479 0 13,263 18 0 18 13,916
Emery County 1,195 4 1,199 1,155 6,415 0 7,570 17 0 17 8,787
Florida 817 41 857 1,084 7,757 0 8,841 22 0 22 9,720
Fort Sumner 1,037 10 1,047 1,395 0 0 1,395 0 0 0 2,442
Fruitgrowers Dam 198 3 201 0 0 0 0 2,061 0 2,061 2,262
Fruitland Mesa 0 14 14 3,000 0 0 3,000 167 0 167 3,181
Grand Valley 6,112 72 6,184 0 0 0 0 2,306 2,742 5,048 11,233
Hammond 195 32 227 341 6,658 0 6,999 8 0 8 7,234
Hyrum 1,213 10 1,223 1,814 0 0 1,814 21 0 21 3,057
Jensen Unit-Central 135 4 139 615 4,805 0 5,420 5 0 5 5,563
Utah
LaBarge 0\c 0 0\c 0 136 0 136 86 0 86 222
Lyman 442 3 446 1,770 24,573 0 26,343 56 0 56 26,845
Mancos 603 11 613 300 0 0 300 3,021 0 3,021 3,934
McMillan Delta 0 0 0 243 0 0 243 0 0 0 243
Middle Rio Grande 13,745 9 13,755 2,244 0 0 2,244 0 0 0 15,999
Moon Lake 1,592 8 1,600 0 0 0 0 201 0 201 1,801
Newton 381 0\c 381 12 0 0 12 2,817 0 2,817 3,210
Ogden River 5,582 105 5,687 10,214 0 0 10,214 278 222 500 16,401
Paonia 716 112 829 1,604 5,194 0 6,797 0 0 0 7,626
Pecos River Basin 2 28 30 0 0 0 0 2,190 0 2,190 2,220
Pine River 1,335 322 1,656 0 0 0 0 98 0 98 1,754
Preston Bench 311 0 311 379 0 0 379 0 0 0 690
Provo River 4,087 50 4,137 2,729 0 0 2,729 31 0 31 6,898
Rio Grande 14,504 1,052 15,556 0 5,535 0 5,535 563 4,110 4,673 25,764
San Juan-Chama 743 346 1,089 2,947 30,154 0 33,101 424 0 424 34,614
San Luis Valley 475 7 482 0 0 0 0 1,856 0 1,856 2,338
San Miguel 47 0 47 2,638 0 0 2,638 295 0 295 2,981
Sanpete 373 1 375 0 0 0 0 59 0 59 434
Savery-Pot Hook 1 1 2 2,160 0 0 2,160 237 0 237 2,399
Scofield 216 1 217 0 0 0 0 304 0 304 521
Seedskadee 0 0 0 0 1,193 0 1,193 411 0 411 1,604
Silt 442 17 459 518 5,742 0 6,260 17 0 17 6,735
Smith Fork 554 4 558 472 3,199 0 3,671 72 0 72 4,300
Strawberry Valley 4,275 265 4,540 6,638 0 0 6,638 426 0 426 11,604
Tucumcari 3,614 8 3,622 3,064 0 0 3,064 11,829 0 11,829 18,514
Uintah Unit-Central 0 0 0 3,723 0 0 3,723 238 0 238 3,962
Utah
Uncompahgre 7,125 153 7,279 2,821 0 0 2,821 3,002 5,371 8,373 18,473
Upalco Unit-Cental 0 0 0 5,241 0 0 5,241 31 0 31 5,272
Utah
Vermejo 43 0 43 2,065 0 0 2,065 232 0 232 2,340
Vernal Unit-Central 841 5 847 1,499 8,425 0 9,924 76 0 76 10,846
Utah
Weber Basin 14,704 65 14,769 43,852 0 0 43,852 0 0 0 58,621
Weber River 3,185 13 3,198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,198
West Divide 0 58 58 1,921 0 0 1,921 281 0 281 2,260
=====================================================================================================================================================
Totals\b $945,020 $48,999 $994,019 $2,429,37 $3,300,426 $4,870 $5,734,668 $275,899 $97,173 $373,072 $7,101,760
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Irrigation assistance payments made with revenues from power or a
project's other sources, such as miscellaneous water sales and
land-use leases, because the amounts allocated to irrigators have
been determined to exceed their ability to pay.
\b Total may not add due to rounding.
\c Less than $500.
IMPACT OF IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE
AND CHARGE-OFFS ON REPAYMENT OF
COSTS ALLOCATED TO IRRIGATION FOR
THE 133 PROJECTS, AS OF SEPTEMBER
30, 1994
========================================================== Appendix VI
(Dollars in thousands)
Region
and
project Total Percent Total Percent Total\a Percent
-------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------
Great Plains Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo 0 0.00 $3,865 73.42 $3,865 73.42
Rapids
Colorado $77,759 69.36 0 0.00 77,759 69.36
-Big
Thompso
n
Fryingpa 2 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.00
n-
Arkansa
s
Huntley 0 0.00 410 17.73 410 17.73
Intake 0 0.00 47 50.22 47 50.22
Kendrick 14,568 81.64 0 0.00 14,568 81.64
Lower 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rio
Grande-
La
Feria
Divisio
n
Lower 1 0.01 0 0.00 1 0.01
Rio
Grande-
Mercede
s
Divisio
n
Lower 0 0.00 654 14.18 654 14.18
Yellows
tone
Milk 4 0.03 3,375 26.25 3,380 26.29
River
Mirage 0 0.00 2,238 72.08 2,238 72.08
Flats
North 1,887 5.77 3,914 11.97 5,801 17.74
Platte
Pick- 1,183,411 79.00 114,899 7.67 1,298,310 86.67
Sloan
Consoli
dated
Rapid 11 2.66 0 0.00 11 2.66
Valley
San 0 0.00 297 2.74 297 2.74
Angelo
Shoshone 1,293 3.70 12,128 34.72 13,421 38.42
Sun 0 0.00 510 2.67 510 2.67
River
Trinidad 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
W.C. 0 0.00 8,278 79.02 8,278 79.02
Austin
Washita 637 22.94 0 0.00 637 22.94
Basin
Lower Colorado Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder 2,357 3.20 3,464 4.70 5,822 7.90
Canyon-
All-
America
n Canal
Central 43 0.01 0 0.00 43 0.01
Arizona
Colorado 0 0.00 14,930 32.50 14,930 32.50
River
Salinit
y
Control
Dixie 1,968 99.72 0 0.00 1,968 99.72
Gila 1,488 3.40 36,227 82.79 37,714 86.19
Palo 26 0.65 2,325 57.75 2,351 58.40
Verde
Diversi
on
Parker- 14,079 100.00 0 0.00 14,079 100.00
Davis
Salt 2,312 4.92 3,472 7.38 5,784 12.30
River
Yuma 37 1.33 82 2.96 118 4.29
Auxilia
ry
Yuma 107 1.85 384 6.65 491 8.50
Mid Pacific Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Enginee
rs
Combine
d
Project
s
Cachuma 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Central 105,139 6.50 0 0.00 105,139 6.50
Valley
Humboldt 137 7.71 0 0.00 137 7.71
Klamath 431 0.82 915 1.74 1,346 2.56
Newlands 0 0.00 4,789 44.64 4,789 44.64
Orland 122 3.38 0 0.00 122 3.38
Santa 72 0.75 0 0.00 72 0.75
Maria
Solano 13,276 37.12 0 0.00 13,276 37.12
Truckee 0\b 0.02 662 39.80 662 39.83
Storage
Ventura 524 2.99 0 0.00 524 2.99
River
Pacific Northwest Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Avondale 184 32.08 0 0.00 184 32.08
Baker 4,092 74.36 52 0.94 4,143 75.30
Bitter 0 0.00 2 0.02 2 0.02
Root
Boise 26,808 39.62 90 0.13 26,898 39.75
Burnt 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
River
Central 0 0.00 26 1.38 26 1.38
Oregon
Irrigat
ion
Distric
t
Chief 1,809 53.66 0 0.00 1,809 53.66
Joseph-
Foster
Creek
Chief 3,972 45.84 0 0.00 3,972 45.84
Joseph-
Greater
Wenatch
ee
Chief 16,118 85.83 0 0.00 16,118 85.83
Joseph-
Chelan-
Manson
Unit
Chief 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Joseph-
Orovill
e-
Tonaske
t
Chief 72,953 86.05 0 0.00 72,953 86.05
Joseph-
Orovill
e-
Tonaske
t
Extensi
on
Chief 7,470 89.14 0 0.00 7,470 89.14
Joseph-
Whitest
one
Coulee
Columbia 488,989 74.99 0 0.00 488,989 74.99
Basin
Crescent 0 0.00 30 0.78 30 0.78
Lake
Crooked 4,450 48.71 0 0.00 4,450 48.71
River
Dalton 208 36.83 0 0.00 208 36.83
Gardens
The 4,208 61.66 0 0.00 4,208 61.66
Dalles
Deschute 114 0.87 1,691 12.82 1,806 13.69
s
Frenchto 0 0.00 1 0.35 1 0.35
wn
Grants 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Pass
Lewiston 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Orchards
Little 0 0.00 96 9.12 96 9.12
Wood
River
Mann 2,951 78.43 0 0.00 2,951 78.43
Creek
Michaud 2,111 42.14 0 0.00 2,111 42.14
Flats
Minidoka 1,569 3.01 12 0.02 1,581 3.03
Missoula 0 0.00 240 86.41 240 86.41
Valley
Okanogan 63 0.50 978 7.82 1,041 8.32
Owyhee 62 0.30 0 0.00 62 0.30
Palisade 14,433 62.69 0 0.00 14,433 62.69
s
Rathdrum 7,699 77.45 174 1.75 7,873 79.20
Prairie
Rogue 9,747 49.19 71 0.36 9,818 49.55
River-
Other
Distric
t
Spokane 2,404 46.84 0 0.00 2,404 46.84
Valley
Teton 40,500 66.31 0 0.00 40,500 66.31
Basin
Tualatin 25,607 81.34 0 0.00 25,607 81.34
Umatilla 355 1.70 18,709 89.39 19,064 91.09
Vale 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Wapiniti 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
a
Yakima 12,461 9.01 13 0.01 12,474 9.02
Upper Colorado Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animas- 619 1.65 0 0.00 619 1.65
LaPlata
Balmorhe 0 0.00 182 41.55 182 41.55
a
Bonnevil 550,983 97.01 602 0.11 551,586 97.11
le
Unit-
Central
Utah
Bostwick 5,499 82.61 76 1.14 5,574 83.75
Park
Brantley 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Carlsbad 1,100 10.18 552 5.11 1,652 15.29
Collbran 5,059 81.74 41 0.66 5,100 82.40
Colorado 126,891 99.80 256 0.20 127,148 100.00
River
Storage
Project
Dallas 33,249 84.01 0 0.00 33,249 84.01
Creek
Dolores 332,666 91.76 387 0.11 333,052 91.87
Eden 12,582 90.42 18 0.13 12,600 90.55
Emery 6,419 73.05 17 0.20 6,436 73.25
County
Florida 7,798 80.22 22 0.23 7,820 80.45
Fort 10 0.40 0 0.00 10 0.40
Sumner
Fruitgro 3 0.11 2,061 91.12 2,063 91.23
wers
Dam
Fruitlan 14 0.44 167 5.25 181 5.69
d Mesa
Grand 72 0.64 2,306 20.53 2,378 21.17
Valley
Hammond 6,690 92.49 8 0.11 6,698 92.60
Hyrum 10 0.33 21 0.67 31 1.00
Jensen 4,808 86.43 5 0.09 4,813 86.52
Unit-
Central
Utah
LaBarge 136 61.20 86 38.60 222 99.80
Lyman 24,577 91.55 56 0.21 24,633 91.76
Mancos 11 0.27 3,021 76.79 3,031 77.05
McMillan 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Delta
Middle 9 0.06 0 0.00 9 0.06
Rio
Grande
Moon 8 0.45 201 11.13 209 11.58
Lake
Newton 0\b 0.01 2,817 87.75 2,817 87.76
Ogden 105 0.64 278 1.70 383 2.34
River
Paonia 5,306 69.58 0 0.00 5,306 69.58
Pecos 28 1.26 2,190 98.65 2,218 99.91
River
Basin
Pine 322 18.33 98 5.57 419 23.90
River
Preston 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Bench
Provo 50 0.72 31 0.45 81 1.18
River
Rio 6,587 25.67 563 2.19 7,150 27.86
Grande
San 30,500 88.11 424 1.22 30,924 89.34
Juan-
Chama
San Luis 7 0.30 1,856 79.58 1,863 79.88
Valley
San 0 0.00 295 9.91 295 9.91
Miguel
Sanpete 1 0.27 59 13.69 61 13.96
Savery- 1 0.05 237 9.86 238 9.91
Pot
Hook
Scofield 1 0.21 304 58.35 305 58.56
Seedskad 1,193 74.40 411 25.60 1,604 100.00
ee
Silt 5,759 85.50 17 0.25 5,775 85.75
Smith 3,203 74.50 72 1.67 3,275 76.16
Fork
Strawber 265 2.28 426 3.68 691 5.96
ry
Valley
Tucumcar 8 0.04 11,829 63.92 11,836 63.96
i
Uintah 0 0.00 238 6.02 238 6.02
Unit-
Central
Utah
Uncompah 153 0.83 3,002 16.34 3,155 17.17
gre
Upalco 0 0.00 31 0.59 31 0.59
Unit-
Central
Utah
Vermejo 0 0.00 232 9.93 232 9.93
Vernal 8,430 77.73 76 0.70 8,506 78.43
Unit-
Central
Utah
Weber 65 0.11 0 0.00 65 0.11
Basin
Weber 13 0.41 0 0.00 13 0.41
River
West 58 2.58 281 12.42 339 15.00
Divide
================================================================================
Totals\a $3,354,295 $275,899 $3,630,194
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not add due to rounding.
\b Less than $500.
FIFTEEN PROJECTS WHERE CHARGE-OFFS
RELIEVE IRRIGATORS OF 50 PERCENT
OR MORE OF THEIR REPAYMENT
OBLIGATION
========================================================= Appendix VII
Percent of
irrigation costs
Costs allocated to relieved by
Project irrigation Charge-off charge-offs
----------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Pecos River Basin $2,219,548 $2,189,695 98.65
Fruitgrowers Dam 2,261,506 2,060,765 91.12
Umatilla 20,928,812 18,709,225 89.39
Newton 3,209,885 2,816,805 87.75
Missoula Valley 278,298 240,472 86.41
Gila 43,759,839 39,226,839 82.79
San Luis Valley 2,332,356 1,856,012 79.58
W.C. Austin 10,475,188 8,277,517 79.02
Mancos 3,933,934 3,020,725 76.79
Buffalo Rapids 5,263,718 3,864,500 73.42
Mirage Flats 3,105,717 2,238,473 72.08
Tucumcari 18,506,443 11,828,612 63.92
Scofield 521,203 304,096 58.35
Palo Verde Diversion 4,026,395 2,325,197 57.75
Intake 94,213 47,313 50.22
=========================================================================================
Total $120,917,055 $96,006,246 79.40
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORTY-ONE PROJECTS WHERE
IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE AND
CHARGE-OFFS ACCOUNT FOR 70 PERCENT
OR MORE OF COSTS ALLOCATED TO
IRRIGATION, AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1994
======================================================== Appendix VIII
Percent of irrigation
costs repaid by
Irrigation irrigation assistance
Costs allocated to assistance and and/or relieved by
Project irrigation charge-offs charge-offs
--------------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
Colorado River $127,146,714 $127,146,714 100.00
Storage
Project
Parker-Davis 14,079,368 14,079,368 100.00
Seedskadee 1,603,855 1,603,855 100.00
Pecos River 2,219,548 2,217,630 99.91
Basin
LaBarge 222,108 221,663 99.80
Dixie 1,973,978 1,968,478 99.72
Bonneville 567,991,060 551,585,682 97.11
Unit-Central
Utah
Hammond 7,233,653 6,698,149 92.60
Dolores 362,522,335 333,052,335 91.87
Lyman 26,844,916 24,632,916 91.76
Fruitgrowers 2,261,506 2,063,265 91.23
Dam
Umatilla 20,928,812 19,064,018 91.09
Eden 13,916,086 12,600,470 90.55
San Juan-Chama 34,613,764 30,923,786 89.34
Chief Joseph- 8,380,091 7,469,903 89.14
Whitestone
Coulee
Newton 3,209,885 2,817,036 87.76
Pick-Sloan 1,497,968,514 1,298,310,197 86.67
Consolidated
Jensen Unit- 5,563,343 4,813,343 86.52
Central Utah
Missoula Valley 278,298 240,472 86.41
Gila 43,759,839 37,714,456 86.19
Chief Joseph- 84,778,424 72,953,424 86.05
Oroville-
Tonasket
Extension
Chief Joseph- 18,777,979 16,117,979 85.83
Chelan-Manson
Unit
Silt 6,735,402 5,775,402 85.75
Dallas Creek 39,574,894 33,248,794 84.01
Bostwick Park 6,656,125 5,574,358 83.75
Collbran 6,188,853 5,099,633 82.40
Kendrick 17,843,174 14,567,684 81.64
Tualatin 31,480,432 25,606,532 81.34
Florida 9,720,113 7,820,113 80.45
San Luis Valley 2,332,356 1,863,095 79.88
Rathdrum 9,940,983 7,872,819 79.20
Prairie
W.C. Austin 10,475,188 8,277,517 79.02
Mann Creek 3,763,063 2,951,329 78.43
Vernal Unit- 10,846,438 8,506,438 78.43
Central Utah
Mancos 3,933,934 3,031,270 77.05
Smith Fork 4,299,765 3,274,765 76.16
Baker 5,502,309 4,143,059 75.30
Columbia Basin 652,081,317 488,988,989 74.99
Buffalo Rapids 5,263,718 3,864,500 73.42
Emery County 8,787,001 6,436,293 73.25
Mirage Flats 3,105,717 2,238,473 72.08
================================================================================
Total $3,684,804,858 $3,207,436,202 87.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRTY-NINE PROJECTS WHERE
IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE AND
CHARGE-OFFS ACCOUNT FOR 10 PERCENT
OR LESS OF COSTS ALLOCATED TO
IRRIGATION, AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1994
========================================================== Appendix IX
Percent of irrigation
costs repaid by
Irrigation irrigation assistance
Costs allocated to assistance and and/or relieved by
Project irrigation charge-offs charge-offs
---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------------
Vermejo $2,340,314 $232,371 9.93
San Miguel 2,980,937 295,452 9.91
Savery-Pot Hook 2,398,546 237,646 9.91
Little Wood 1,053,000 96,000 9.12
River
Yakima 138,338,657 12,474,142 9.02
Yuma 5,768,630 490,564 8.50
Okanogan 12,507,824 1,040,561 8.32
Boulder Canyon- 73,733,175 5,821,802 7.90
All-American
Canal
Humboldt 1,775,646 136,935 7.71
Central Valley 1,617,674,994 105,139,291 6.50
Uintah Unit- 3,961,765 238,418 6.02
Central Utah
Strawberry 11,589,435 690,780 5.96
Valley
Fruitland Mesa 3,180,911 181,145 5.69
Yuma Auxiliary 2,762,188 118,421 4.29
Orland 3,610,398 122,155 3.38
Minidoka 52,179,463 1,580,974 3.03
Ventura River 17,533,966 524,394 2.99
San Angelo 10,814,706 296,536 2.74
Sun River 19,104,244 509,714 2.67
Rapid Valley 420,224 11,162 2.66
Klamath 52,569,165 1,345,920 2.56
Ogden River 16,372,368 383,059 2.34
Animas-LaPlata 37,584,990 618,532 1.65
Central Oregon 1,868,555 25,818 1.38
Irrigation
District
Provo River 6,897,762 81,137 1.18
Hyrum 3,057,013 30,571 1.00
Crescent Lake 3,826,935 30,000 0.78
Santa Maria 9,588,071 71,896 0.75
Upalco Unit- 5,272,129 31,000 0.59
Central Utah
Weber River 3,197,069 12,992 0.41
Fort Sumner 2,433,320 9,635 0.40
Frenchtown 298,332 1,050 0.35
Owyhee 20,873,217 62,394 0.30
Weber Basin 58,620,847 64,959 0.11
Middle Rio 15,973,548 9,487 0.06
Grande
Bitter Root 9,566,547 2,310 0.02
Central Arizona 342,693,091 42,998 0.01
Lower Rio 11,817,133 926 0.01
Grande-
Mercedes
Division
Fryingpan- 70,720,376 2,146 0.00
Arkansas
================================================================================
Total $2,656,959,491 $133,065,293 5.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix X
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Alan Bennett
Steve Brown
Leo E. Ganster
Barry T. Hill
Mehrzad Nadji
James R. Yeager
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Anndrea H. Ewertsen
George R. Senn
Kenneth J. Townsend
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Doreen S. Feldman
Alan R. Kasdan
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1
Central Arizona Project: Costs and Benefits of Acquiring the
Harquahala Water Entitlement (GAO/RCED-95-102, June 5, 1995).
Water Markets: Increasing Federal Revenues Through Water Transfers
(GAO/RCED-94-164, Sept. 21, 1994).
Water Subsidies: Impact of Higher Irrigation Rates on Central Valley
Project Farmers (GAO/RCED-94-8, Apr. 19, 1994).
Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project Cost Allocation
Overdue and New Method Needed (GAO/RCED-92-74, Mar. 31, 1992).
Reclamation Law: Changes Needed Before Water Service Contracts Are
Renewed (GAO/T-RCED-92-13, Oct. 29, 1991).
Water Subsidies: Views on Proposed Reclamation Reform Legislation
(GAO/T-RCED-91-90, Sept. 12, 1991).
Reclamation Law: Changes Needed Before Water Service Contracts Are
Renewed (GAO/RCED-91-175, Aug. 22, 1991).
Federal Electric Power: Effects of Delaying Colorado River Storage
Project Irrigation Units (GAO/RCED-91-62, Mar. 22, 1991).
Water Subsidies: The Westhaven Trust Reinforces the Need to Change
Reclamation Law (GAO/RCED-90-198, June 5, 1990).
Basic Changes Needed to Avoid Abuse of the 960-Acre Limit
(GAO/T-RCED-90-80, May 16, 1990).
Reclamation Law: Changes to Excess Land Sales Will Generate Millions
in Federal Revenues (GAO/RCED-90-100, Feb. 1, 1990).
Water Subsidies: Basic Changes Needed to Avoid Abuse of the 960-Acre
Limit (GAO/RCED-90-6, Oct. 12, 1989).
Federal Electric Power: Information Concerning the Colorado River
Storage Project, (GAO/RCED-90-2FS, Oct. 3, 1989).
Federal Electric Power: Pricing Alternatives for Power Marketed by
the Department of Energy (GAO/RCED-86-186BR, Sept. 30, 1986).
Federal Power: Additional Information on Repaying Investments in
Electric Power Facilities (GAO/RCED-86-44FS, Nov. 12, 1985).
Additional Information Concerning Irrigation Project Costs and
Pricing Federal Power (GAO/RCED-86-18FS, Oct. 10, 1985).
Bureau of Reclamation's Central Utah and Central Valley Projects
Repayment Arrangements (GAO/RCED-85-158, Sept. 9, 1985).
Recovering a Portion of Federal Irrigation Project Construction Costs
Through Revenues From Department of Energy Electric Power Sales
(GAO/RCED-85-128, July 26, 1985).
Recovery of the Federal Investment in Water Projects (GAO/RCED-5-21,
July 8, 1985).
Information on Repayment of the Bureau of Reclamation's Central
Valley Project (GAO/RCED-84-122, Mar. 16, 1984).
Proposed Pricing of Irrigation Water From California's Central Valley
New Melones Reservoir (GAO/RCED-83-150, June 8, 1983).
Water Issues Facing The Nation: An Overview (GAO/CED-82-83, May 6,
1982).
Reforming Interest Provisions in Federal Water Laws Could Save
Millions (CED-82-3, Oct. 22, 1981).
Changes in Federal Water Project Repayment Policies Can Reduce
Federal Costs (CED-81-77, Aug. 7, 1981).
Federal Charges for Irrigation Projects Reviewed Do Not Recover Costs
(PAD-81-07, Mar. 13, 1981).
Selected Water Sales Contracts (CED-80-69, Mar. 25, 1980).
Palmetto Bend Dam and Reservoir Need for Improved Analysis of
Alternatives and Cost Data (PSAD-78-43, Dec.16, 1977).
Better Federal Coordination Needed to Promote More Efficient Farm
Irrigation (RED-76-116, June 22, 1976).
Appraisal Procedures and Solutions to Problems Involving the 160-Acre
Limitation Provision of Reclamation Law (RED-76-119, June 3, 1976).
Bureau of Reclamation's Procedures and Practices for Computing
Authorized Cost Ceilings and Project Cost Estimates Need Improvement
(RED-76-49, Nov. 17, 1975).
More Effective Procedures Are Needed for Establishing Payment Terms
and Development Periods for Irrigation Projects (RED-75-372, May 23,
1975).
Congress Needs More Information on Plans for Constructing the
Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota (RED-75-277, Nov. 23, 1974).
Improvements Needed in Making Benefit-Cost Analyses for Federal Water
Resources Projects (RED-75-264, Sept. 20, 1974).
Congress Should Reevaluate the 160-Acre Limitation on Land Eligible
to Receive Water From Federal Water Resources Projects (B-125045,
Nov. 30, 1972).
*** End of document. ***