Page images
PDF
EPUB

J. Contracts will be written to avoid or elisinata nonessential explanatory recitals and other restatements of past agreements, accomplishments, or rights of parties other than the United States.

4. Contracts will promote improved water management and conservation and require water conservation plans (with implementation schedules) pursuant to the authority of section 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), as amended.

5. Pricing and rate-setting provisions will promote efficient use of project water supplies. Our pricing policy is to recognize market prices and/or the value of water in specific situations. We will rely less on cost-cased or replacement costbased methods of pricing and setting rates. In addition, vaerever possible, we will eliminate or avoid using take-cr-pay previsicas, which sand is encourage excessive or unnecessary use of vatar.

6. Contracts will provide for reasonable beneficial use determinations by Reclamation and require that the inappropriata or vasteful use of watar be eliminated. Contracts should also provide for suitable and effective enforcement actions in the event there is inappropriate or wasteful use of water.

7. Contracts will be written for the shortest possible ter consistent with good business practices and effective watar management. The working presumption is that this period is 25 years or less, Contractors might be offered a "menu" of possibilities from which they could select the most suitable caras. Rather than offering a 25 year contract fer a specific quantity of water, the contractor could be offered a 5, 10, ∙ 15, or 20 year contract, with different quantities and repayment terms for each contract. Another possibility might be to avoid Long Card "dropdead" contraces, and develop short-cara contracts of 10 years that could be renewed annually, providing ehe user with a more or less permanent 10 year contract. Under cais approach, when the Government decided that it no longer desired to renew, the uses would have 10 years to make other arrangements.

8. Contract negotiations will be in strict compliance with the RRA, the accompanying rules and regulations, and applicable policy, including the requirement to announce negotiations in advance, and will be conducted in a manner that provides opportunities for the public to observe and provide meaningful input.

9. Subject to delegation of authority and approval of a basis of negotiation, each Regional Director will be responsible and accountable for conducting contract negotiations and drafting proposed contracts.

*

10. Meetings held prior to the approval of the basis of negotiation for the purpose of gathering and exchanging factual information will be clearly identified as such and conducted in a Banner that would not prejudica the pending approval of the basis of negotiation or the contract negotiations,

Amendatory Contraces

We will negotiate contract amendments to achieve as many of the preceding policy objectives as are applicable to a given situation as a condition of agreeing to the additional benefits sought by the water user. Reclamation cannot obtain sufficient concessions of value to the United States to justify providing additional benefits to the water user, then we will exercise our option of simply not agreeing to contract anendants.

Repayment contracts

Repayment contraces, although having a fixed repayment period, have implications lasting far beyond the original contract tera. After payout of construction costs, water users often pay only OLX costs. O&M costs alone are not sufficient to maintain the services that are provided; replacement costs are major additional costs that have not always been collected. Taus, fer paid-out repayment contracts, I want us to ramedy the existing situations and avoid future situations where water users pay only a part of the costs associated with providing project benefits after payout of construction costs. mere are at least three options available to address this problem: (2) charge for replacement costs, (2) levy a charge that is commensurate vich the value of vater, or (3) transfer title of the facilities tos the water users. Water users must be encouraged to assume greater responsibility for all costs and to recognize the public values associated with Reclamation projects. I expect to see Laproved cost recovery that in turn will result in watar prices that more nearly reflect market value and will encourage vater conservation.

Preparacion of Policies and Procedures

I am assigning the Director, Office of Program Analysis, in consultation with the office of the soliciter, the Director, office of operations, and the Regional Directors, to develop new policy guidance and procadures, and standardized contract provisions, to ensure the implementation of the above principles, and to analyze and recommend means for dealing with existing repayment contracts. Also, I am assigning the Director, Offica of Program Analysis, to review Reclamation's beneficial use determinations. Your interest in and support for these laportant

activities is appreciated.

Congressman John T. Doolittle

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources

Testimony prepared for Hearing on October 5, 1995, Boise, Idaho.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I hope that I can convey to you the depth of frustration and growing animosity the farmers I work with are feeling towards the federal government. While I have respect for each of you individually, I have little respect for the federal government as a whole.

In my latest experience with the federal government, I was asked to handle the protest regarding the change in the use of Idaho's storage water filed by the BOR on behalf of our canal, New Dry Creek. We filed a simple letter of protest. We felt it unnecessary to use the services of our attorney at this time. Following the stipulation between the water users and the BOR, I spoke to many different people in the process of seeking information on this document to address our concerns. I was told repeatedly that this was the best course to follow to hold off hearings and court proceedings for a year in the hope that the ESA would be amended and state law could address the situation as well. I now fully understand that we have been betrayed, and I have no hope that the ESA (which should be repealed as completely unconstitutional) will even be amended. We did not feel comfortable in signing the Stipulation as we, among many other water users were alarmed at the BOR's desire to rely on the NMFS's Biological Opinion. Their opinion seems to be all there is. Science is non-existent. When we did not sign the stipulation by the deadline stated, we began receiving phone calls. The first was from Tony A. Sullins, attorney for the BOR He asked my husband, Dana, President of our canal, why we hadn't signed and stated we needed to get this done. We then received a call from our attorney, Bruce Smith, who had been previously contacted by Mr. Sullin. Mr. Smith left a message on our answering machine stating that this was the best way to proceed, the bugs had been worked out, and that if we didn't sign we would be subject to a long hearing process and costly legal fees. The next call was from Idaho Department of Water Resources attorney, Phil Rassier, who wanted to know if we were going to sign. We asked ourselves why the concern with such a small canal company with only 3,000 acre feet of storage water. As if that wasn't enough, the ultimate red flag was the letter we received from the Department of Interior signed by John Keys. This letter angered us so much that we felt we didn't want our signature on any document that had anything to do with the federal government. This same letter (or one similar) was sent to at least five canal companies who all reacted the same as we did. They all stated the letter was viewed as a threat and they would not even consider selling even one drop of water. This letter indicated that the Lucky Peak water is targeted as part of the 427,000 acre feet needed for the salmon flush and further states urbanization and the fact that some canal companies have never used their entire allotment, suggesting that we don't need it at all. It states "near term permanent acquisitions of storage space may need to take into account Reclamation's change-of-use application currently before the IDWR. It should still be appropriate to complete longterm rentals and enter contracts for permanent acquisitions at this time." It continues to say, while we will be given consideration for renewal of contracted water when our

[blocks in formation]

contract expires in the year 2006, it will be the BOR that decides whether or not we need
it. In our worst drought year, we used all but 200 acre feet of our storage water. We are
very frugal with our water and our dollars, which is required by our contract with BOR in
Section 25 (a) - entitled Economical Use of Water. It states that the BOR will take such
action as may be necessary to correct wasteful, inefficient or uneconomic use of water.
Now they use that as a means to take our storage rights. Did they forget that clause, or
did they change their minds and forget to tell us? Storage water is very expensive. All
five canal companies have asked the question, how can the BOR charge irrigators
operation and maintenance costs for decades, plus construction costs of storage
reservoirs, and then stab us in the back? I guess the answer is that this is the federal
government and they can do whatever they want. I can now say without a doubt in my
mind that there is not a single state or federal agency that is on the side of agriculture with
the exception of the office of Governor Batt! Regardless, we are pretty tough and will
fight to the end, but knowing the government's tactics, we signed the stipulation with an
attached letter following my conversation with Phil Rassier. He could not help me
because the law prevented him from disclosing information as the IDWR was acting as the
court in this case. We now have had to double the price of our water shares to cover legal
fees, knowing full well that if we keep the attorneys in business long enough, we will be
out of business! Water users are sued by so-called environmentalists using government
grant money (our tax dollars in the form of grant money). Our tax dollars are used to pay
for federal lawyers that in turn sue us or fine us for some regulation violation, the federal
government steals our profits in the name of taxation, and then expects us to abide by
every overzealous whimsical regulation, yet they know little about agriculture. The
number of government agencies desiring control over our water, our land, and our ability
to earn a living is so numerous we have lost count. I ask you, which government agency
will you entrust with our future food production needs? Once the incredibly productive
federal government takes on this task, how long before actual starvation begins to set in?
How many wars have been lost because countries could not feed their people? I'm here 10
tell you, the family farm is not just a life style we seek to protect, it is much much more.
We are raising our future farmers, no one learns to farm out of a book. Our kids are the
best and the brightest, and they aren't staying on the farm. Why should they put up with
the constant hell we are continually forced to endure. The tax laws interfere in every way
possible to allow the farmer in the family keep the farm. I know we will never be the same
after our ordeal to buy our farm.

As a girl who grew up in the city, I can tell you our farmers are of the highest integrity. They have a drive and work ethic unmatched by any industry. They continue to be more productive and the government continues to force costly regulations upon us. We need all our farms, large and small. There are no sacrificial lambs left.

In my opinion, the BOR should be abolished. It has lost all credibility with the farmers and has made a mockery of it's charter. The letter which I refer to has sealed itself into an adversarial position with farmers. Farmers call it the "Bureau of Recreation" chartered now to meet the recreational wants and whims of a few above the long term best interests

Page 2

Submitted by Viki Purdy
5926 Floating Feather
Eagle Idaho 83616

TOTAL P.01

of this country. It represents fools that call themselves environmentalists. These people know nothing about true survival with mother nature.

In closing, I must say I am one of the angriest farmer of all, because I am the wife of the best agriculture has to offer. I live with the irrigator whom you threaten without just cause and it is time you left us alone to do what we do best!

[blocks in formation]

(The attachments were placed in the hearing record files

of the Subcommittee.)

« PreviousContinue »