PROJECTS TURNED OVER TO WATER USERS Mr. CANNON. We would be glad if you would tell us what progress has been made since last year on turning projects over to water users for operation and maintenance. Mr. DOMINY. Mr. Chairman, as we have advised the committee in previous years, we work actively to get these projects in the hands of the irrigation district and local governing boards for operation as quickly as possible. I would like Mr. Palmer to give you a specific answer as to the transfers that were made during this last fiscal year. Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, consistent with Department policy and instructions of the Congress, the transfer of completed works to water user organizations for operation and maintenance has continued. On January 1, 1959, works were transferred to water users for operation and maintenance on the Gila project including the carriage system and distribution system of the Yuma Mesa division downstream from the afterbay of Yuma Mesa pumping plant. These works serve 19,970 acres, the transfer of which completes the turnover of works to water users in this division. On the Gila project, also, Wellton-Mohawk pumping plants Nos. 1, 2, and 3, serving the 75,000-acre WelltonMohawk division, were transferred to water users on January 1, 1959. On the Missouri River Basin project irrigation facilities serving 5,838 acres on the Sargent unit were transferred to water users on January 1, 1959. Scheduled for transfer on May 31, 1959, is the Twitchell Dam and Reservoir (239,000 acre-feet) on the Santa Maria project, and on May 1, 1959, the Putah South Canal (33.3 miles) on the Solano project. Additional facilities scheduled for transfer to water users of units of the Missouri River Basin project on January 1, 1960, include irrigation facilities on the Sargent unit serving 13,740 acres; 2.9 miles of canals and 43.2 miles of laterals serving 16,821 acres on the Frenchman-Cambridge division; 73.9 miles of canals and 80.8 miles of laterals serving 23,171 acres on the Bostwick division; and 46.1 miles of canals and 36.9 miles of laterals serving 11,500 acres on the Smoky Hill and Solomon division (Kirwin Irrigation District). On the Mancos project, works scheduled for transfer on January 1, 1960, include Jackson Gulch Dam and Reservoir (10,000 acre-feet) including the inlet and outlet canals. On Shoshone project, irrigation facilities serving the Heart Mountain division (25,837 acres) are also scheduled for transfer to water users on January 1, 1960. For the Ventura River project the works scheduled for transfer to water users on January 1, 1960, include irrigation and storage facilities serving 13,200 acres of agricultural land and works furnishing municipal and industrial water to the city of Ventura, Calif. Efforts are continuing to make other transfers as soon as circumstances permit and necessary arrangements are made with water user organizations. Mr. CANNON. Summing up the whole matter, would you say your progress has been satisfactory in this respect? Mr. PALMER. Very definitely so. We are working as Mr. Dominy commented, to follow the instructions of the Congress. Mr. CANNON. You encountered no particular difficulties? Mr. PALMER. Of those projects that could be transferred we are encountering difficulty only on one division of the Yuma project, and that will require legislation, transfer here being opposed by the Indians at the reservation division. Mr. CANNON. You expect that to be resolved? Mr. PALMER. There was a bill before the last session of the last Congress, which was never reported out of committee and we are still encountering some difficulty on the part of the Indians. We believe we have resolved the majority of the problems associated with effecting transfer to where the Indians would not oppose legislation if such legislation is again introduced. Mr. DOMINY. This division of the project is the only one not operated on advance-of-funds arrangement. It requires annual appropriations for the operation and maintenance costs. CONSOLIDATION OF PROJECTS OFFICES Mr. CANNON. I notice, Mr. Commissioner, that there seems to be a slightly different approach here. You consolidated certain projects for purposes of the budget. What is your purpose there? Mr. DOMINY. Mr. Palmer has a statement covering that point. Mr. PALMER. On the two projects in question, the Yuma project office and Minidoka project office, consolidation has been achieved primarily in the interest of smooth operation and effecting operating economies. The principal savings of the consolidated project operation and maintenance office as compared to separate project offices are simply the result of (1), greater manpower efficiency; (2), greater equipment efficiency; and (3), direct savings from consolidated purchasing and warehousing. I have a statement here that I would be glad to read or put in the record. Mr. CANNON. You may include that in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) SAVINGS IN OPERATING CONSOLIDATED PROJECTS OFFICES Principal savings of a consolidated projects office as compared to separate project offices are the result of greater manpower efficiency, greater equipment efficiency, and direct savings from consolidated purchasing and warehousing. Consolidated projects offices are best adapted to areas where a number of projects, project units, or water user organizations are located in relatively close proximity, and where there are both a construction and operation and maintenance program. Under these conditions we are able to provide a smooth transition from construction to operation and maintenance on one side and from Bureau operation and maintenance to water user operation and maintenance on the other side while maintaining an experienced nucleus. Even after transfer of O. & M. to water users the Bureau has a continuing responsibility of contract administration to protect the U.S. investment. Functions in this regard include periodic review of maintenance inspections, repayment collections, master scheduling of water from supply works, etc. Under a consolidated projects office these are continuing functions of a single experienced office rather than being shifted from office to office as individual projects or units of projects are transferred to water users. Greater manpower efficiency results from the requirement for smaller total staffing, especially in general services functions and at the administrative levels, along with greater flexibility in utilization of personnel. The last item is especially important for 24-hour-per-day water dispatching, during emergency repairs, for speeded-up maintenance during short canal dryup periods, etc. With a consolidated projects staff it is possible to put a larger experienced crew on a single job without paying a premium for overtime or using inexperienced temporary employees. Also, with a consolidated projects staff it is possible for small isolated projects to have specialized talents available that are normally available only to larger projects. (Examples would be electronic engineers for cathodic protection, radio maintenance, etc., drainage engineers, etc.) Greater equipment efficiency is brought about by the need for less total capital investment especially in heavy equipment and specialized equipment not needed full time on a small project. Like manpower, total equipment can be pooled in emergencies or for concentrated effort. Savings from consolidated quantity purchasing and warehousing are obvious. Total stores required for a consolidated projects office are little, if any, greater than for a single small project. In addition to monetary savings, in areas where we have consolidated projects offices we have experienced better public relations and smoother operations through uniformity of policy and procedures among all districts. Transfer of operation and maintenance from Bureau to water users is smoother where it involves only a step-by-step reduction in a consolidated projects staff as contrasted to closing a number of small project offices. Mr. CANNON. You have effected economies? Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir; very definitely economies. We have at the same time achieved smoother operations, and provided for smoother transition from Bureau operation to water user operation, and for smoother transition from construction to operation and maintenance. It is a situation that we seek to encourage, not only in our own operations, but when works are transferred to the water users to operate and maintain. We urge them to develop boards of control for consolidated operation, which in turn entails the same efficiencies of operation that I have outlined and have covered in the statement. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES |