The amount of technical assistance funds allotted to salinity control in the Colorado River Basin is related to the amount ASCS allots for cost sharing in this program. Our experience has been that it costs 13 to 14 percent of the total installation cost of improved irrigation practices for technical assistance to plan, supervise, installation, and provide needed followup. If ASCS provides $4 million of ACP cost-share funds, this will finance approximately $5.3 million of work at a 75 percent cost-share rate. The total technical assistance cost for this amount would be $720,000. ASCS reimburses SCS for technical assistance in the amount of 5 percent of the cost-share amount. For $4 million, this would be $200,000. Therefore, for this example, SCS would need to allot $516,000 of its Conservation Operations Technical Assistance to provide the needed service. Mr. LEWIS. What are the long-term needs for this activity? Mr. BERG. Studies have been completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with EPA and the Water and Power Resources Services under USDI that deal with the overall salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin. Without corrective action, it is projected that salinity levels in the lower Colorado River will increase from 879 milligrams per liter-the 1972 level-to about 1,150 milligrams per liter in the year 2000 as the Upper Basin States develop their compact apportioned water. These studies have also shown that the Upper Basin contributes 72 percent of the salt load, and of this, 37 percent is contributed by irrigation. USDA is studying the irrigation salt source units to determine the irrigation improvements needed to reduce the salinity contributions. The units that appear most cost effective are being studied first. I will provide a table for the record that indicates the status and longrange funding needs of each unit, as estimated by the Soil Conservation Service. It shows planning needs peaking in fiscal year 1982 at $0.6 million, technical assistance in fiscal year 1987 at $7.2 million, cost sharing in fiscal year 1987 at $40 million, and education and research in fiscal year 1984 at $1.0 million. These estimates reflect certain assumptions regarding cost-share rates, necessary practices, and the most desirable rate of installation. There are, of course, a wide range of alternatives. [The information follows:] USDA SCHEDULE & COST ESTIMATE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE II 9/16/80 Totel 1/Other potential studies not scheduled are: Roaring Fork, CO 6.1 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.4 4.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 7.2 7.2 6.5 4.5 4.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 Mr. LEWIS. Last year a group of Congressmen sent a letter to USDA calling for a separate line item in the Conservation Operations Budget for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities. How was this responded to and what are the merits of doing this? Mr. BERG. The response to the request was sent on November 26, 1980. The Department proposed to provide information in the budget_materials on the proposed level of funding for Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Activities rather than establish a specific budget line item for these activities. This approach provides the information Congress needs to have when considering funding levels. It also avoids the specific management and accounting requirements that a specific budget line item entails. COLORADO RIVER PROGRAM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION Mr. LEWIS. We understand that broad planning is performed under River Basin Surveys and Investigations. What is the status of these reports and are they being used? Mr. BERG. Three broad-based reports have been completed using planning funds from River Basin Surveys and Investigations. These reports include a recommended or selected plan which is the basis for all USDA salinity control activities in the units covered by the reports. Existing reports cover the Uintah Basin in Utah, Grand Valley in Colorado, and Big Sandy in Wyoming. Additional reports are underway for the Virgin River in Nevada and Lower Gunnison and McElmo in Colorado. Mr. LEWIS. What cooperation and coordination occurs within USDA and with the Department of the Interior and EPA? Is overlap and duplication avoided? Mr. BERG. Cooperation and coordination in this program with USDA and with the Department of the Interior and EPA is exceptionally good. ASCS, SCS, and SEA activities are closely coordinated within USDA in the National Office, at the state office level, and at the field office level. Also, there is a close working relationship with the Water and Power Resources Service and EPA at the appropriate levels. For example, there has been established a Colorado River Interagency Salinity Control Committee composed of representatives from all agencies involved that meets at least three times per year to coordinate activities and assure that we are all working toward a common goal. Duplication is avoided. Mr. LEWIS. Is sufficient cost sharing available for implementation of needed measures? Mr. BERG. Completed unit-level studies envision an implementation period of 10 years and a 75 percent federal cost share rate. Under these assumptions, our studies indicate that an average of $15 million per year is needed to install needed improvements. In fiscal year 1980, approximately $3.5 million was available for cost sharing in the Uintah Basin and Grand Valley units. Also ACP limitations on the amount of cost sharing a participant can earn in one year or during the life of his contract is too restrictive for this program, because of the expensive nature of needed irrigation improvements. Mr. LEWIS. What is the current rate of program implementation? Mr. BERG. USDA reports project, for each irrigation source unit, implementation over a 10-year period to meet long-range salinity reduction objectives. Implementation is underway in two units. At current funding levels, this work would take 37.5 years to complete and would not allow for implementation in the remaining four to six units. Mr. Lewis. Who benefits from implementation of this program? Mr. BERG. The Federal Government benefits by maintaining an acceptable quality of water for delivery to Mexico and avoiding a future confrontation on this issue. Downstream water users in California and Arizona receive major benefits from improved water quality. The Upper Basin States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada benefit by being able to meet water quality standards and continue to develop their compact apportioned waters from the Colorado River. Business and residents in the local area benefit from a more efficient and stable irrigated agricultural operation. Individual farmers on whose land the practices are being installed benefit by receiving an incentive to improve their irrigation system and thereby increase the efficiency of producing agricultural products. Mr. LEWIS. Can we be assured that the practices being installed will be properly maintained and operated in a manner to produce the planned salinity control benefits? Mr. BERG. SCS will implement a system of followup technical assistance that will monitor the adequacy of operation and maintenance of the work installed under this program. Individual operators are going to need followup assistance after their practice is installed to effectively use the new measures. Also, when a farm changes ownership, or operators, the new operator will need assistance. If a participant refuses to operate and maintain a system as planned, the ASCS has procedures whereby the federal cost-share dollars can be recovered. We will also be measuring actual salt load reductions achieved upon full implementation of the selected on-farm and associated lateral improvement plan. Salt load reductions are currently projected at 230,000 tons per year for the Grand Valley Unit and 77,000 tons per year for the Uintah basin. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Mr. WHITTEN. How much technical assistance did SCS provide to ACP during fiscal year 1980 and what were you reimbursed for that assistance? Mr. BERG. The SCS provided a total of 1,031 staff-years of technical assistance to the ACP program during fiscal year 1980 at a total cost of $25.4 million. We were actually reimbursed for $9.2 million covering 418 staff-years. Mr. WHITTEN. If you have the information available, I would like to put in the record a list, by state, of the practices that followed your planning last year. Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, we could work with ASCS and the Department and look at our own records and reports and come up with a pretty good story for the past year. [The information follows:] CONSERVATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS All the state by state information for fiscal year 1980 has not been finalized. However, we do have a summary of information for SCS accomplishments in fiscal 77-802 0-81-45 year 1980 that was published in our monthly magazine-Soil and Water Conservation News-that we will include in the record. It shows that SCS provided 2,248,763 planning and application services to 983,833 different participants. Of the participants assisted, 427,123 applied one or more conservation practices. Approximately 34 percent of these applied practices involved ACP cost sharing through ASCS. Utilizing fiscal year 1979 SCS and ACP data, we have included a table in the record showing the total number of SCS participants applying a practice, by State, and the number of ACP participants involved. The relationships between States and the relationship of ACP participants assisted by SCS to the total number of individuals assisted by SCS will be quite similar for fiscal year 1980. These figures are for individuals and groups assisted by SCS; they do not include the assistance provided to units of government and the other areas of assistance noted in the SCS fiscal year 1980 summary report discussed above. [The information follows:] |