;OVERNMENT

Storage

/oe/o

BANKS LAKE RECREATION 

:tr03

HEARING

KSU LIBRARIES 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

OF THEO

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

r- 0 

Ln -UNITED STATES SENATE

ru

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

0

0- ON

rg

S. 2310

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

TO DETERMINE THAT CERTAIN COSTS OF OPERATING AND

MAINTAINING BANKS LAKE ON THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ARE NONREIMBURSABLE

AUGUST 30, 1905

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

53-119 WASHINGTON : 19G5
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

LEE METCALF, Montana

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

MILWARD L. SIMPSON, Wyoming

PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona

JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director

STEW ART FRENCH, Chief Counael

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

0
CONTENTS

Page

S. 2310 1

Department of Interior report 2

STATEMENTS

Foley, Hon. Thomas S., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State

of Washington 5

Jackson, Hon. Henry M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington 3

Stamm, Gilbert G., Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation;

accompanied by Roy Boyd, Bureau of Reclamation; and Frank Potter,

Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior 5

BANKS LAKE RECREATION

MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in room 3112,

Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Anderson, Burdick, and Jordan of Idaho.

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart French, chief

counsel; and Crocker Price, assistant minority counsel.

Senator ANDERSON. The subcommittee will please be in order.

This is a public hearing, held pursuant to notice, by the Irrigation

and Reclamation Subcommittee of the Senate Interior Committee,

on S. 2310, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine that certain costs of operating and maintaining Banks Lake on

the Columbia Basin project for recreational purposes are nonreimbursable.

S. 2310 is sponsored by the distinguished chairman of the Interior

Committee, Senator Jackson, for himself and his colleague from the

State of Washington, Senator Magnuson. Without objection, I will

direct that the text of the proposed legislation, together with the

reports of the executive agencies concerned, be made a part of the

record at this point.

(The information referred to follows:)

[S. 2310, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine that certain costs of operating and maintaining Banks Lake on the Columbia Basin project for recreational purposes are nonreimbursable

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That pending additional development of the

Columbia Basin project, Washington, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized,

when estimated added benefits will at least equal added costs, to operate and

maintain Banks Lake of said project for recreational purposes consistent with

authorized project functions, valid contracts, and within limits of pump and

canal capacities, and that any increased operation and maintenance costs for

filling of Banks Lake and for maintaining water levels for the benefit of recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting, as determined by the Secretary

of the Interior shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable: Provided, That the

provisions of this Act shall not extend beyond the end of the sixth calendar year

following the date of enactment.

1
2 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This responds to your request for the views of this

Department on S. 2310, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine that certain costs of operating and maintaining Banks Lake on the Columbia Basin project for recreational purposes are nonreimbursable.

We recommend enactment of the bill.

S. 2310 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, pending completion

of the Columbia Basin project, to operate and maintain Banks Lake of that

project for recreation purposes as well as presently authorized project purposes

for a period of not to exceed 6 years. The bill would impose certain qualifications on operation for recreation purposes; these are that the estimated additional benefits from that purpose shall at least equal the added costs attributable

to it, and that operation will be consistent with other authorized project functions, valid contracts and within limits of pump and canal capacities. The increased operation and maintenance costs incurred in filling the reservoirs and

maintaining water levels for recreation, including fishing and hunting, are made

nonreimbursable and nonreturnable by the bill.

Banks Lake is an equalizing reservoir of the Columbia Basin project. It

stands at a higher elevation than Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake behind Grand

Coulee Dam and is filled by pumping from the main stream reservoir. As Banks

Lake is now operated for irrigation alone, the water level fluctuates rather widely,

particularly during the summer season. This is undesirable from the standpoint

of recreation use. Stabilization of water levels at Banks Lake would enhance

values for most recreation users of the area but would be especially beneficial

for the more effective utilization of existing and planned facilities at Coulee City

adjacent to Dry Falls Dam.

A study by the Bureau of Reclamation of the project water supplies of the

Columbia River indicates that in 3 or 4 of the next 6 years operating conditions

will permit some additional pumping to reduce reservoir fluctuations. During

the remaining 2 or 3 years recreational interests would need to adjust to fluctuating

water levels by planning on the use of floating docks, longer boat ramps and other

features which would create the greatest possible recreational benefits under such

conditions.

Under the provisions of S. 2310 we would expect that added pumping costs

in the 3 or 4 years when such operations would be feasible would average about

$21,000 per year. In these years the added recreation benefits derived from

maintaining the reservoir at a fixed level would range from $21,000 to $60,000

annually.

The proposed plan contemplates that a pumping plant, presently operated

by the Federal Government only for irrigation purposes, will be operated more

frequently to serve an additional purpose: recreation. This can be done only

for a few years—until more extensive development of the Columbia River system

renders it impractical. During this short period it will be almost impossible to

predict, with any certainty, the extent to which the project can be operated at

any given time for the recreation purposes already described. This unpredictability would, in turn, make it virtually impossible for any non-Federal agency

interested in the recreation potential of the project to attempt to recover the

costs of its operations from user fees or other methods of self-help financing. The

Federal Government is the only agency which has a broad enough base to pick

up these expenses on those fortuitous occasions when the project can be operated

for recreation purposes.

We do not anticipate that the treatment which we recommend here is of a

recurring type. The action which we recommend on this bill is consistent with

the position taken earlier by the Department on a similar bill, S. 2493 in the

88th Congress.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., August 26, 1965.

KENNETH HOLUM,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Senator ANDERSON. Banks Lake is an equalizing reservoir of the

Columbia Basin project at Grand Coulee Dam. It is at a higher

elevation than Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake behind the dam and it is

filled by pumping from the mainstream reservoir. Presently it is

used entirely for irrigation purposes, and these uses cause wide

fluctuations in the level of Banks Lake. Such fluctuations interfere

very substantially with recreational uses.

S. 2310 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to alter the

pumping schedule into Banks Lake, when conditions permit, to reduce

these fluctuations, and the additional costs associated with this

operation would be nonreimbursable.

The amounts involved are small—probably about $21,000 a year

would be incurred in perhaps 4 out of 7 years. This unpredictability

as to both time and cost makes it virtually impossible for any nonFederal agency interested in the recreation potential to attempt to

recover the costs of the additional pumping from user fees or other

methods of self-help financing.

Thus, the development and operation of the recreation potential

at Banks Lake is a clear exception to the guidelines for local cost

sharing we worked out on S. 1229, which became Public Law 89-72.

Before bringing these brief opening remarks to a close, it should be

noted that S. 2310 is a successor bill to S. 2493 of the 88th Congress,

which also was sponsored by Senators Jackson and Magnuson.

S. 2493, however, included the Potholes Reservoir in its provisions.

Potholes has been dropped in S. 2310.

Last year's bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1964, but died in the

House Interior Committee.

I am glad indeed to have the distinguished chairman of the Committee, Senator Jackson, with us this morning to explain in detail the

need for the bill.

Senator Jackson.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I regret that because of the fact

that I am chairing a meeting of the Subcommittee on National

Security and International Operations, at which Mr. William McChesney Martin is appearing as the witness, I will not be able to stay

through this hearing.

The Banks Lake proposal was gone into last year and the bill was

reported and passed by the Senate. Frankly, I think the bill sets forth

a reasonable interim arrangement. The authorization only runs for

6 years. Estimates of the costs involved, which would be nonreimbursable, approximate $21,000 a year for 4 out of 7 years. That is

the estimate.

At the time it was authorized, as you know, Grand Coulee was not

authorized in the regular way. Grand Coulee came in as a part of an

allocation of funds by President Roosevelt under the Public Works

Administration. He simply allocated, I think it was, $50 or $60

million to get it started. But if it had been authorized on the basis

in which we are currently authorizing projects, the authority provided

in S. 2310 would have been included as a part of the multiple-purpose

development.
4 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

I do believe the Bureau of Reclamation should be given this authority so that they can better regulate Banks Lake, which, as the chairman will recall, is the lake that runs some 27 miles above Coulee. It

is in the old basin of the river. It is a great recreational area. The

problem has been that, without any coordination, the water level

drops tremendously and, of course, makes fishing, boating, and other

recreational activities utterly impracticable.

It is a small sum of money that is involved here. The bill also

contains a cutoff date since this is only an interim measure.

Senator Magnuson and I have a statement which I will ask to be

inserted in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON, FOR HIMSELF AND SENATOR MAGNUSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this statement

in support of S. 2310, a bill cosponsored by my colleague Senator Magnuson and

myself. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine

that certain costs of operating and maintaining Banks Lake on the Columbia

Basin project for recreational purposes are nonreimbursable.

This bill is similar to S. 2493 which the full committee and the Senate approved

in the last Congress. This is strictly an interim measure and covers only a

6-year period. The bill is designed to meet a current problem and is not intended

to affect or prejudice the study now underway by the Department of the Interior

of the recreation and fish and wildlife aspects of the Columbia Basin project.

The purpose of the bill is simple: it is to permit the Federal Government to

bear the costs of pumping to stabilize the water level for recreational activities

in Banks Lake. The annual costs will be approximately $21,000, and it is estimated that pumping would be feasible only in 4 out of the next 7 years. During

the other 3 years it is expected from past studies that limited water supplies

would preclude extra pumping costs for added recreational benefits.

The subcommittee is fully aware, as I am, that operating and maintenance

costs of Federal projects are normally reimbursable and should be borne by

non-Federal interests. This is the pattern which the Congress has just recently

approved in the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. In this specific case.

however, I wish to call to the attention of the subcommittee the judgment of

the Bureau of the Budget, which has advised me that, "we consider the facilities

in question, namely, the pumps, to be physically inseparable from the Federal

project for operational purposes, subject, of course, to appropriate existing

contracts with irrigators * * * we would not expect non-Federal interests to

bear operation and maintenance costs of such physically inseparable project

works as contemplated in S. 2310."

The subcommittee can easily appreciate that fluctuations in the water level

of Banks Lake can be quite disruptive of recreational activities. Fluctuations

in Banks Lake range usually between 8 and 14 feet. The lake is used by residents

from all parts of Washington State for a great variety of such activities. Recreation is already an important resource of Grant County. Strong support for

the bill has been expressed by the local chambers of commerce. I understand

from them that when Banks Lake is at its full level, the water comes up into the

city park, built at a cost of $50,000, all of which was local money. A small drop

in the water level leaves several feet of beach uncovered and a large drop in the

lake level creates a swampy condition for several hundred feet. During these times

the lake is simply inaccessible through the city park facilities. A sharp drop in

tourist use of docking and camping facilities, and in tourist expenditures, understandably occurs.

In view of the very small cost involved and the uniqueness of the situation,

I would hope that the Congress would approve S. 2310 as an interim measure

to assist non-Federal interests and recreationists.
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 5

• Senator JACKSON. Congressman Foley has a statement, also. He

is tied up over in the House where Mr. Goldwater is testifying on the

central Arizona project. I ask that Mr. Foley's statement in support

of S. 2310 be included in the record at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS S. FOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for me to testify before this distinguished

subcommittee. This morning, I would like to present my comments on S. 2310,

which has been introduced by Senator Jackson and Senator Magnuson.

This bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior to operate and maintain

Banks Lake in eastern Washington for recreation purposes as well as presently

authorized uses.

Banks Lake serves as the equalizing reservoir for the Columbia Basin project.

It has been maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation primarily for irrigation

purposes.

Nevertheless, this lake is considered one of the finest fishing lakes in the State.

It has attracted thousands of sportsmen from throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Banks Lake has the potential of becoming one of the most popular recreational

lakes in the State but the fluctuation of the water level has prevented the full

development of its recreation possibilities.

There is no question that stabilization of the water level at this lake would

greatly enhance the recreational values.

The Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that during 3 or 4 of the next 6 years,

operating conditions will permit additional pumping to reduce the changes in the

level of the reservoir. The recreation benefits of such pumping is expected to

equal or exceed the annual costs of the added pumping.

The bill provides for stabilization of the lake level for recreation for a period

of several years to provide time for adjusting the recreational developments to

the lake level fluctuations that will be necessary with more extensive development

of the Columbia River system.

I urge the favorable action by the subcommittee.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Stamm, from the Bureau of Reclamation, will be the next witness.

We have had a statement from Senator Jackson, the committee

chairman, and a written statement from Congressman Foley.

We will be glad to have your testimony at this time, Mr. Stamm.

STATEMENT OF GILBERT G. STAMM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ROY BOYD,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; AND FRANK POTTER, OFFICE OF

THE SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Mr. STAMM. Thank you, sir.

We are pleased to appear here this morning.

Senator ANDERSON. Would you identify yourself for the record?

Mr. STAMM. I am G. G. Stamm, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau

of Reclamation. On my left is Mr. Roy Boyd, Bureau of Reclamation; and Mr. Frank Potter, of the Solicitor's Office.

S. 2310 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, for a period

of 6 years, to determine that certain costs of operating and maintaining Banks Lake for recreation purposes are nonreimbursable.

Qualifications imposed by the bill are that the estimated additional

53-119-65 2
6 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

recreational benefits shall, at least, equal the added costs and that

the operation shall be consistent with authorized project functions,

valid contracts, and within limits of pump and canal capacities. This

bill is intended as an interim arrangement pending more complete

development of the Columbia Basin project and possible future legislation authorizing reallocation of project costs to recognize recreation

as a project function.

A study of the Columbia Basin project, reflecting all features

and functions of the existing project and the proposed extensions,

is underway. It is expected that the completed study will demonstrate the justification for including recreation and fish and wildlife

enhancement as project purposes, and will also provide a basis for

allocation of project costs among all functions to be served.

Most of you are familiar with the details of the Columbia Basin

project. To save the committee's time, there is attached to my

statement a reprint from our project data book which describes the

project features, reviews the early history, authorization, construction, project purposes, and benefits, and includes a small map showing

the location of Banks Lake and other project features. This attachment, incidentally, is somewhat out of date. On page 7 we have

brought several of the tables up to date, showing information on

irrigation development and power operation.

PRESENT CONDITIONS

Banks Lake has an active storage capacity of about 700,000 acrefeet. Water from Roosevelt Lake is pumped into Banks Lake

through an average pump lift of approximately 300 feet. In the

interest of keeping irrigation operation and maintenance costs as low

as possible, pumping into Banks Lake is done when low value secondary

energy is available for pumping and when water levels in Roosevelt

Lake are high. Releases from Banks Lake are made as needed for

project irrigation. Thus, Banks Lake serves as a necessary equalizing

or reregulating reservoir. During the next 6 years, approximately

2% million acre-feet of water will be pumped into Banks Lake annually.

This quantity of water is 3% times the active storage capacity of the

reservoir.

As a normal operation, irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake

begin in late March and the reservoir recedes until pumping begins.

Pumping to Banks Lake begins about mid-April, but it is at a reduced

rate because of limited available secondary power (power requirements are coordinated with Bonneville Power Administration), or low

water level in Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, or both. It usually is

not until sometime in May that the pumping rate exceeds the withdrawal rate. Then, with the pumping rate in excess of irrigation

demands, the reservoir level rises from a water level sometimes as

low as elevation 1,552 feet, to a maximum elevation of about 1,570

feet at the end of September.

After pumping to Banks Lake is discontinued (again correlated

with other power requirements), the reservoir level gradually declines,

because of irrigation withdrawals, until the end of the irrigation

season. The reservoir level then remains nearly constant at about

1,565 feet elevation during the nonirrigation season.
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 7

The increased use of Banks Lake for recreation in recent years has

led to repeated requests from representatives of recreational Interests

for the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce, or to eliminate entirely, the

water level fluctuations that occur at Banks Lake. Compliance with

such requests would add materially to the operating costs of the

project.

The additional costs would depend upon the extent that the reservoir operations were modified. Studies indicate that such added

costs could range from an annual figure of $21,000 to limit fluctuations

to about 5 feet (when water supply conditions would permit) to

annual costs exceeding $5 million, if we were to undertake the very

unrealistic approach of allowing practically no reservoir level

fluctuations.

The estimated cost of $5 million is based upon the assumption that

a bloc of firm power would have to be reserved to permit pumping

at any and all times in sufficient quantity to equal concomitant

releases. This would result in removing from the power market

a bloc of project generating capacity having an annual value of over

$5 million.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you know what the actual cost is going to

be? You say from $21,000 to $5 million. That is quite a range.

Is it a question of $1, $2, or $4 million?

Mr. STAMM. We would propose that we would only do this in

years—and I come to this a little later in my statement—when the

benefits exceed the costs. We are estimating an annual cost of about

$21,000. I will come to that later.

Senator ANDERSON. Tell us whether the costs will be $21,000 or

$3 million, when you come to it. There is a difference between them.

Mr. STAMM. If estimated costs are expected to be in excess of the

benefits in any particular year, we would not operate for recreational

benefits.

Senator ANDERSON. Is there any thing in the bill that would hold

you to that?

Mr. STAMM. The language of the bill states that—

The Secretary is authorized, when estimated added benefits will at least equal

added costs, to operate and maintain Banks Lake for recreational purposes.

The bill provides that the benefits must at least equal the cost.

Senator ANDERSON. Let me go back to what is distressing me about

it

In Oklahoma we have one small lake that has more fish and wildlife

benefits than all the upper Colorado River storage projects. They

can put up to $100 million a year into fish and wildlife projects—well,

not that much, perhaps. But you can go to extravagant lengths on

fish and wildlife.

Does that mean that if the benefits were $5 million for recreation,

you could expend that sum of money?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir. The average annual benefit over the 6-year

period covered by the legislation would average about $60,000 a

year, and we are estimating 

Senator ANDERSON. If we are dealing with $60,000 a year, that is

one thing. If we are dealing with $600,000 a year, that is something

else; and $5 million a year is something else again.

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; I agree.
8 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Senator ANDERSON. I hope your testimony nails it down to something specific.

Mr. STAMM. If the remainder of the statement is not sufficiently

specific, I will be glad to add to it, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Very well. I wanted to be sure this was made

clear as you went along.

MT. STAMM. Surely.

Actually, the pump lift relative to the water level in Franklin D.

Roosevelt Lake and the size of the project canal capacities, which

were designed on the assumption that storage regulation would be

available in Banks Lake, would in many years prevent, or at least

severely limit, complete stabilization of the reservoir level. However, we believe that possibly 50 percent of the time, or more, operating

conditions would permit an adjusted pumping schedule to reduce

reservoir fluctuations. However, in doing so, pumping costs would

be greater.

Under the present project authorization such operating costs are

reimbursable by the water users. We do not believe it is proper or

consistent with longstanding policy to include such costs in the

Government's water charges to the irrigation districts. The allocation of a firm block of project power to pump solely for recreation

purposes, as has been suggested by some, is not consistent with the

authorized functions of the project.

The financing of added pumping costs by local recreational organizations would be difficult to justify during the next 6 years, because

of the uncertainty now of predicting the years in which governing

criteria would permit operation to obtain benefits at least equal to

costs. The extent of lake level stabilization that could be accomplished would have a direct effect on the amount of income which

could be derived from admittance or use charges levied against those

using the recreational facilities.

BENEFITS FROM MODIFIED OPERATIONS

Studies indicate that during the next 6-year period there will

probably be 3 or 4 years when operating conditions (water supply,

power requirements, and canal capacities) will be such that it would

be justified to modify reservoir operations to benefit recreation,

provided the added costs were not chargeable to irrigators.

During these years, the reduction of reservoir fluctuations would

provide added recreational benefits estimated to average $60,000.

The average added annual operating costs for this purpose are estimated at $21,000, with an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.86 to 1.

In years when conditions would not permit pumping for recreation,

because of interference with commitments for power production and

delivery of water for irrigation, little or no added costs for recreation

would be incurred.

As I mentioned earlier, a comprehensive study of operations and

multiple benefits of the entire Columbia Basin project is now underway. Among other things, this investigation will evaluate the costs

and benefits of providing larger, assured water supplies to accomplish

fish and wildlife and recreation purposes at various facilities over the

project, including Banks Lake.
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 9

Enactment of S. 2310 will create opportunities for increased recreation at Banks Lake during the interim period required for study and

consideration of long-range legislation.

Among the expected enlargements and modification of the project

that affect long-term operations are the third powerplant at Grand

Coulee Dam, the upstream reservoirs in Canada as permitted under

the Columbia River compact of 1965, and the ultimate extension of

irrigation facilities to serve over 1 million acres. Presently served

lands total less than one-half million acres.

We believe that enactment of S. 2310 would provide a practical and

financially sound basis on which to operate Banks Lake during the

interim period while the long-range studies and adjustments are

proceeding.

Senator ANDERSON. To go back to the last paragraph at the bottom

of page 5, you expect enlargements and modifications of the project,

et cetera, and you mention the third powerplant at Grand Coulee

Dam. How does that relate to the project?

Mr. STAMM. Our policy has been, and the design of the project to

date including Banks Lake has been, that we would propose to use

low-value, off-peak power for pumping. And the pumping rate currently for pumping power is one-half mill, for example.

Senator ANDERSON. Would it be lower?

Mr. STAMM. No, it would not be lower.

Senator ANDERSON. Then how does it affect this project?

Mr. STAMM. Because irrigation water is pumped from Roosevelt

Lake to Banks Lake, and the elevation of the water in Roosevelt

Lake has a significant effect upon the cost of the pumping to Banks

Lake. As the Roosevelt Lake water level goes down, the pumping

cost goes up substantially because of added pumping lift required of

the pumps.

Senator ANDERSON. Will the construction of a third powerplant at

Grand Coulee Dam have anything to do with the level at Roosevelt?

Mr. STAMM. The construction of the third powerplant and additional storage facilities in Canada for regulation of the stream flow

will have an effect upon the lake level of Lake Roosevelt at various

times during the year. The supplemental power contracts that will

result from the marketing of the power from the third powerplant

will have an effect, also, upon the seasonal generation of power and

the seasonal elevations of Lake Roosevelt.

We attempt to pump when the pump lift is at a minimum, and

always when offpeak power is available.

Senator ANDERSON. Offpeak power is not available, is it, most of

the year?

Mr. STAMM. It is not available 100 percent of the time.

Senator ANDERSON. I wouldn't think SO. It would be firm, if it

was available 100 percent of the time.

Mr. STAMM. That is right. So we withhold pumping in the early

spring until the level of Lake Roosevelt comes up somewhat, and then

we limit pumping to periods when offpeak power is available. If we

were to reserve a block of power to permit us to pump at all times,

or any time, then we would have to withdraw from our contractors

a block of firm power.

Senator ANDERSON. They built a little flood control dam in my

State and everybody liked it so well they wanted to get a motorboat
10 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

and go to work on it right away. The Bureau of Reclamation said,

"No, it must be drained." And it was. There was a big outcry

about it.

Suppose you have recreational facilities up there and the level of

Lake Roosevelt stays down. Wouldn't you get pressure to build it

up for recreational activities?

Mr. STAMM. That is exactly what has given rise to this legislation.

The lake level drops down. It is usually at its lowest point about

the first of May and the highest point late in September. It is

actually open for fishing on a year-round basis.

Senator ANDERSON. How does this bill affect that?

Mr. STAMM. This bill would permit us to do additional pumping,

which would cost more money, in order to stabilize the lake level for

the benefit of recreation, and would make the additional cost of that

operation nonreimbursable over the next 6 years.

Senator ANDERSON. That is what I was trying to get at. In order

to do this job, you have to pump when you ordinarily wouldn't pump,

and the Federal Government pays that toll for the sake of the

recreationists.

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. We would start pumping earlier and we

would pump more steadily.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you charge the recreationists anything

for that?

Mr. STAMM. During the effective period of this bill, the added

cost would be all nonreimbursable.

Senator ANDERSON. So you don't charge the recreationsists anything for it?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. All you do is provide some extra recreation.

That is all this bill is intended to do?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. It seems like a strange proposal.

Senator BURDICK. Who pays the $60,000 a year? Is it based on the

power account?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir; we estimate that this cost will average $21,000

a year.

Senator BURDICK. You said $60,000 in the statement.

Mr. STAMM. We say that the benefits will average $60,000. But the

cost will average $21,000.

Senator BURDICK. But the cost can equal the benefits, you said.

Mr. STAMM. The bill says they cannot exceed the benefits in any

year.

Senator BURDICK. SO it would be, 60,000, then, on an average?

Mr. STAMM. In any year, the costs cannot exceed the benefits. We

are saying over the 6-year period we estimate that the benefits would

average $60,000, the cost would average $21,000. So we have a

benefit-cost ratio of 2.8 to 1.

Senator BURDICK. Therefore, the pumping could come up to $60,000

a year?

Mr. STAMM. Well, it 

Senator ANDERSON. It could cost a million dollars a year, couldn't

it?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a suggested amendment.

I am apprehensive about this wide range of $21,000 to $5 million.
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 11

Why can't we say "Pending additional development of the Columbia

Basin project, Washington, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized,

when estimated added benefits will at least equal added costs, to operate and maintain Banks Lake of said project for recreational purposes,

at a cost not to exceed $21,000 per year, consistent with authorized

project functions."

Senator ANDERSON. That would spoil it, wouldn't it?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir; not necessarily.

Senator ANDERSON. You would want to pay more.

Mr. STAMM. No; the $21,000 is fine. I would suggest that you slip

in the word "average"—"average cost of $21,000". One year it

might be $25,000 and the next year $15,000.

Senator JORDAN. Or $5 million?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir; you couldn't have a $5-million Sear and average out at $21,000.

Senator ANDERSON. Tell me how you can anticipate what the

average will be in advance. They say the average fire loss of the

United States is so many millions per year, including 1966, 1967,

1968, 1969, and 1970. You have to know in advance, and you can't

tell that, can you?

Mr. STAMM. No; we cannot tell that precisely. That is why we

say 3 or 4 of the next 6 years it will be advantageous to operate for

recreation. We think in 2 or 3 years it will not be advantageous.

We can only base our estimate on past history and experience.

The pumping plant ultimately will include 12 pumps. Only 6

are installed now. The irrigation demand goes up every year. As

a matter of fact, from 1958 to 1964, the acreage irrigated increased

almost 100,000 acres. So the withdrawal goes up each year, as the

irrigation demand goes up. We have less ability to stabilize the

lake level as the imgation demand goes up.

After 6 years, we could accomplish very little by manipulating

the pumping schedule within the offpeak power limitation.

Senator ANDERSON. What will happen then?

Mr. STAMM. Then, it will fluctuate and there will be nothing we

can do about it, unless at that time we have installed additional pumps.

Senator ANDERSON. The recreation service will just die at that

time?

Mr. STAMM. We are making a study, as I indicated, of the total

picture.

Senator ANDERSON. I know, but in this particular picture.

Mr. STAMM. No; in this particular picture, I can't tell you precisely

now. It might be that during the 6-year period we would obtain

authority to install, say, three more pumps. We are going to have

12 ultimately. We have 6 now. Suppose we install additional pumps,

which then gives us added capacity to pump at a more rapid rate,

and we could use the additional pumping capacity to level off the lake.

Senator ANDERSON. The pumps aren't free; are they?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir. But to serve the million-acre project, we

must have 12 pumps eventually. We put them in in stages, because

there was no point in putting in the 12 initially.

Senator ANDERSON. You are referring to the whole Columbia River

project now, when you are talking about 1 million acres?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir.

Senator BURDICK. The project will pay for the pumps?
12 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Mr. STAMM. Yes. The cost of the pumps that are there now are

totally reimbursable. And the operation and maintenance costs to

date are 100-percent reimbursable.

Senator JORDAN. Will it be the purpose of the Department, Mr.

Stamm, to go back and open up all of these old reclamation projects

that were authorized at a time when recreation was not considered

one of the benefits, and to superimpose new recreation benefits on

the cost structure and the payout? Well, there wouldn't be any

payout on it, because this is intended to be nonreimbursable. But

aren't you starting something here now that will cause a flood of

bills in here? I know several of the projects in my own State that

carry no recreational benefits with them whatsoever, and we can

certainly conjure up some very handsome programs.

Mr. STAMM. Senator Jordan, as you know, the cost-sharing recreation bill has just passed this session of the Congress, so recently that

we haven't had a chance to review our old projects under the authority

of that act. But we do propose to take a look at all the existing

projects under the authority of that act. That act permits us to

investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain certain facilities

for recreational purposes, provided we find somebody who is willing—

some non-Federal agency that is willing to pick up the tab for all

of the operating and maintenance costs.

Senator ANDERSON. Is there any Federal agency or non-Federal

agency willing to pick up this tab at Banks Lake?

Mr. STAMM. Not for this 6-year period, because of the question

you raised. We are unable to predict now which years will have the

recreational benefit. Because of the uncertainty of knowing which

out of the next 6 years we can accomplish this benefit within the

formula, nobody can build up a business and charge fees and depend

upon the regulation that would be necessary to yield the return to

make the payment.

Senator ANDERSON. Doesn't that also apply to the subsequent period, when you are going beyond the 6 years? Is there any assurance

beyond the 6 years? What happens then?

Mr. STAMM. Beyond the 6 years, there is nothing we could do unless

there were additional authorities made available to us, including

funds.

Senator ANDERSON. These are charged to the Basin account, are

they?

Mr. STAMM. There is no Basin account for the Columbia.

Senator ANDERSON. Where do you get the money? Do you get it

from the Federal Treasury?

Mr. STAMM. If this bill is enacted, the appropriations to operate

for this purpose would be included in our annual request for appropriations. But this portion of the money appropriated would be

accounted for on a nonreimbursable basis.

Senator ANDERSON. That is another way of answering the question.

Does it come from the Federal Treasury?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; it does.

Senator BURDICK. It doesn't come from any of the funds from the

power revenues?

Mr. STAMM. NO, Sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Are you prepared to recommend this same

program around the country?
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 13

Mr. STAMM. No, sir. We think that the recreation bill that passed

this year will, in large measure, take care of all future recreational

recommendations in connection with our existing projects.

Senator ANDERSON. Then, why can't this come under it?

Mr. STAMM. The recreational bill—and I am talking about my own

interpretation of it now—talks in terms of facilities, and it says that

the operation and maintenance costs of separable facilities for recreation can be turned over to a non-Federal agency to operate and

should be paid totally by the non-Federal interests.

There are no separable facilities here. This is a pumping plant

that is needed for irrigation.

Senator ANDERSON. But there are separable costs, aren't there?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. There is a separable operating and maintenance cost.

Senator ANDERSON. Therefore, under the same ruse, this should be

turned over to some agency to pick up the tab.

Mr. STAMM. The facility we are talking about is the pumping plant.

The other facilities, such as the boat ramps and picnic areas, and so

on, have been developed by others.

Senator ANDERSON. Is this a sort of private relief bill for those

others?

Mr. STAMM. Well, they have some boat ramps that are not long

enough, and when the lake level gets down to its low point, the ramps

are not long enough to reach the water.

Senator ANDERSON. Are we trying to help the farmers out there,

or the operators of these boat ramps?

Mr. STAMM. This bill is strictly in the recreational interest. We

take care of the farmers under our existing authorizations, development and operating policies, and in so doing we keep their costs at a

minimum.

Senator ANDERSON. This doesn't develop any new recreational

facilities, but it just permits greater use of them; is that right?

Mr. STAMM. This permits a leveling out of the fluctuation for the

benefit of recreation; yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. And laying a foundation for 6 years from now to

come in and put the bite on Congress for an elaborate nonreimbursable

program for recreation. Isn't that about what you are doing here?

Mr. STAMM. The Columbia Basin project was authorized and

started, as you know, 30 years ago, or more. A pretty small portion

of the cost was allocated to flood control, nothing to recreation,

nothing to fish and wildlife. We have developed about 50 percent

of the irrigation facilities. We are proposing, as you know, a third

powerplant. In response to your question, yes, we do have in mind

sometime after the study is completed, and if it seems justified,

suggesting a reallocation of costs on the Columbia Basin project.

This proposal might suggest and recommend an allocation of costs

to fish and wildlife and recreation, not only for Banks Lake, but for

the project as a whole.

Senator BURDICK. Then you anticipate making it part of a project

cost 6 years from now?

Mr. STAMM. Presumably at that time any allocation or a part of

the allocation to fish and wildlife and recreation would be nonreimbursable, and a part of it would be chargeable to the project; yes, sir.

Senator BURDICK. Why is it not charged to the project now?
14 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Mr. STAMM. Now it is all charged to the project.

Senator BURDICK. I mean this additional power, whether $21,000

or $60,000; why could not that be charged to the project?

Mr. STAMM. We have no authority to charge it to anybody but

the farmer, and we don't think they ought to pay the cost of operating

for the benefit of the recreational interests.

Senator ANDERSON. I wish the recreationists would operate to the

benefit of the taxpayer. You are putting the bite back on him. Why

couldn't the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation operate the project?

Why couldn't the State of Washington operate the project, from the

Land and Water Conservation Fund?

Mr. STAMM. This operation, Senator Anderson, is the operation of

a pumping plant which is put there solely for irrigation. And the

pumping plant is operated in connection with the dam and powerplant.

Senator ANDERSON. I am not worried about that. The pumping

plant is there. Can't the operators of this facility or the land and

water conservation groups pay for the current, just as well as the

Federal Government can pay for it? Is there something special about

the Federal Government paying the tab?

Mr. STAMM. If we could predict what we can do for each of the

next 6 years so that some local group could base its operations accordingly, and if there were an organization there, yes, we certainly would

make every effort to contract with a local group to pick up the cost.

And we will do that in the future. But as of now, with the changing

situation each year, the lack of an organization, and the fact that this

is a power cost primarily which we cannot predict each and every

year, it is unrealistic to expect local interests to pick up the tab.

Senator ANDERSON. There will be a benefit every year that you

operate, won't there?

Mr. STAMM. No, sir. Out of the next 6 years, we estimate there

will be 2 to 3 years when our operations will be just like they would

be without this bill and there will be no benefit to recreation.

Senator ANDERSON. You won't pump at all?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir; we will pump to meet the irrigation requirements, but we will not do any added pumping for the benefit of

recreation. We will not attempt to minimize the fluctuations in 2 or

3 of the next 6 years.

Senator BURDICK. What is the range of fluctuation now? How

many feet does it vary?

Mr. STAMM. From 1,545 up to 1,570.

Senator JORDAN. Twenty-five feet?

Mr. STAMM. About 18 feet was the maximum fluctuation prior to

1964.

The 25-foot figure I just gave you was the actual fluctuation in

1964. The average fluctuation is about 15 feet.

Senator ANDERSON. Did you ever consider collecting user fees from

that area for having this recreation—entrance fees of some kind or

nature?

Mr. STAMM. We have not until now, because we have not operated

the recreation facilities.

Senator ANDERSON. Didn't you consider it and reject it?

Mr. STAMM. Sir?

Senator ANDERSON. Didn't you consider and reject the idea of

collecting an entrance fee? Didn't the Bureau of Reclamation
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 15

consider and reject the idea of collecting entrance fees or user fees for

the area, from the recreationists? Did they make a study of it?

Mr. STAMM. Do you mean under the Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act?

Senator ANDERSON. I tried to ask a question that could be answered

yes or no. Did or did not the Bureau of Reclamation have before it

a proposal to collect user fees, and reject it?

Mr. STAMM. I think I could answer that yes, for an interim period.

But remember, we didn't build any facilities here. Had we built

the facilities, it would present a little different picture. But we

have not constructed these facilities. We have entered into an

operating agreement with the State of Washington which in turn has

permitted others to build facilities. We are not collecting fees in

such cases.

Senator BURDICK. Don't you think maintaining the stable level is

a facility?

Mr. VERKLER. Or a service that is required under the act?

Mr. STAMM. Well, no, such a service is not required under any

existing act. As I say, the Recreation Act doesn't seem to fit this

situation, because the act talks in terms of separable facilities. Here

we have no federally built separable facilities. We do have a separable

operations and maintenance cost.

Senator BURDICK. It seems to me a stable level is just as important

as a boat ramp right now.

Mr. STAMM. I think you are right.

Senator ANDERSON. Especially with a 25-foot fluctuation.

Mr. STAMM. I think you are right, and I think before the expiration of this 6-year period continuation of such a service may he

considered but it would require additional legislation.

Senator BURDICK. It would certainly be worth something to

recreation.

Mr. STAMM. I think you are right.

Senator JORDAN. Maybe we should amend the Water Project

Recreation Act to permit this kind of thing. Perhaps we overlooked it.

Senator ANDERSON. When you start talking about permanent

pools for fishing and recreation, and things like that, we make a

special provision to charge some agency of the Government for it.

I just don't understand this. It seems to be done solely for the

benefit of a private concessionaire.

Doesn't it come down to that, really?

Mr. STAMM. It is for the benefit of the recreationists.

Senator ANDERSON. He gets a chance to rent the facilities. He

has a monopoly on the facilities and is benefiting, isn't he?

Mr. STAMM. He has the benefit of these facilities; yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. And when the water falls down so low he

can't reach his boat dock, he can't use it. When you build it back

up again, it is solely for his benefit, and he doesn't pay for it.

Mr. STAMM. Under the terms of this bill, the recreationist would

not pay specifically for this service, and neither is anybody else

directly. It makes the facilities more usable for a greater number

of people, with more benefit on a year-round basis.

Senator ANDERSON. And you don't have anything like this anywhere else in the country?
BANKS LAKE RECREATION

Mr. STAMM. No, sir; I wouldn't say that.

We have nothing exactly like this where the Federal Government

is picking up the tab for additional pumping costs to benefit recreation. We have many areas where a stabilized lake level is to the

advantage of recreationists, and we get hundreds of letters every

year urging us to operate at a more uniform lake level.

Senator JORDAN. Isn't it true, Mr. Stamm, that every irrigation

storage project in the United States is faced with the prospect of a

fluctuating level?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, Sir.

Senator JORDAN. That is the reason the water is stored.

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. If you are going to use it for recreation and you

demand a constant water level, those two uses are incompatible.

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. So in order to make the irrigation reservoir use

compatible with recreation, you are going to incur an additional cost,

which you want the Government to pay. Isn't that it?

Mr. STAMM. That is what the bill provides; yes, sir.

Senator BURDICK. By the way, the Garrison Reservoir is 1,842 feet

this year, the highest in history. It varies some 10 or 12 feet. Suppose somebody comes up with the idea to make that 180-mile lake

uniform. What would it cost us?

Mr. STAMM. It would probably be out of the question, but people

will ask for it, I can assure you. They have asked for it on the

Shasta and many others.

Senator ANDERSON. Why would it be out of the question? It is

the same principle. The size of the donation doesn't matter, does

it? When you start giving money away, you will keep giving it

away, won't you?

Mr. STAMM. To hold some of our lakes level would require that we

lose water for irrigation. The functions are incompatible, if operation

for recreation would take water required for power, irrigation, and

other purposes. The Banks Lake proposal doesn't take much additional water. The only additional water it takes is to offset added

evaporation from the larger lake area. The cost increase results

mostly from pumping at different seasons. It is a change in the

pumping schedule that runs up the cost.

Senator ANDERSON. I don't understand why that should be charged

against the Federal Government. It is solely for the purpose of

recreation.

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Why shouldn't the people enjoying the recreation, or having the concession for the recreation, pay the bill?

Mr. STAMM. As you know, the Federal Government, in the Water

Project Recreation Act, is providing that a substantial part of recreational costs for all future projects and for past projects will be picked

up by the Federal Government.

As a matter of fact, 100 percent of the joint costs for recreational

purposes under the new Recreation Act is nonreimbursable, and up

to 50 percent of the separable costs for specific fish and wildlife and

recreational facilities are nonreimbursable.

Senator ANDERSON. Then, why shouldn't this be handled under

the new act?
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 17

Mr. STAMM. Because the new act doesn't cover thiF item. None

of these costs are attributable to separable facilities. The facilities

themselves are fully reimbursable.

Senator JORDAN. It seems to me that the proper course would be

to amend the act to take care of the operating cost as well as the

physical cost of facilities.

Senator BURDICK. I share some of Senator Jordan's apprehensions.

here, because we have reservoirs all over the country. I know in North

Dakota they have built cottages, they have boat ramps and everything. I know they will be unhappy with the 10-foot variation. They

will be unhappy on smaller reservoirs. We may be opening up a door

to do a lot of regulation all over the country.

Mr. STAMM. Presumably, at Garrison, for any specific facilities.

that are constructed for recreational purposes, including boat ramps

and so on, those are separable facilities, and 50 percent of the cost of

such facilities would be made nonreimbursable and 50 percent would

have to be picked up by a non-Federal interest. Whoever picked up

that 50 percent of the cost of the facilities would also pay the related.

operating and maintenance cost each year.

If we can't find anybody to pick up that tab, then we reformulate

the project and leave out the facility.

Senator BURDICK. I know that is an extreme example, but I am

sure there are many other reservoirs around the country with similar

problems.

Mr. STAMM. We get hundreds of letters a year from all over theWest. As Senator Jordan points out, these functions are not fully

compatible, and you have to work between them to get a balanced usethat is of some benefit to everyone but may not please anyone, really,

100 percent. You have to try to work out a fair compromise.

Senator JORDAN. One of the apprehensions I feel, Mr. Stamm, is.

that there are more recreationists than irrigators and this reservoir,

constructed primarily for irrigation use, will have claims made against

it that the recreation use is paramount and we can't draw it down for

the purpose for which it was originally built.

Mr. STAMM. Fortunately, the Recreation Act passed by this session

of the Congress guards against this. It says we can do these things,

on existing projects, so long as we do not interfere with the primaryfunctions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Jackson, in his statement, has a

sentence or two here of interest. He says:

The subcommittee is fully aware that operating and maintenance costs of Fed—

eral projects are normally reimbursable and should be borne by non-Federal.

interests. This is the pattern which the Congress has just recently approved in

the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. In this specific case, however, I

wish to call to the attention of the subcommittee the judgment of the Bureau_

of the Budget, which has advised that, "We consider the facilities in question,

namely, the pumps, to be physically inseparable rom the Federal project for

operational purposes, subject, of course, to appropriate existing contracts with

irrigators. We would not expect non-Federal interests to bear operation andi

maintenance costs of such physically inseparable project works as contemplated

in S. 2310."

The Bureau of the Budget, apparently, has reached that position:

on this matter.

Mr. STAMM. That position, Mr. Chairman, I think is consistent

with the interpretation of the new Recreation Act, whereby the joint,
18 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

facilities are nonreimbursable and the 0. & M. costs of the joint

facilities nonreimbursable. The separable facilities are at least 50

percent reimbursable and 100 percent of the 0. & M. costs of the

separable facilities are reimbursable.

Senator ANDERSON. Don't you think it would be proper to amend

the existing act? There must be other places where you want to

do this.

Mr. STAMM. It would be nice if the existing act did cover this

situation. We are just beginning a review of our other existing

projects under the new act. It will be probably a year before we

have completed the review. We would be in a lot better position a

year from now to recommend changes in the basic legislation than

we are today.

Senator ANDERSON. IS this going to be one of the years in which

you will be pumping?

Mr. Stamm. We pump every year. All of the irrigation water 

Senator ANDERSON. I mean pumping at the higher rate? Is this

a year when you are anticipating pumping at a higher rate?

Mr. STAMM. This bill would not apply to the current year. If

you are talking about next year, we will not make that determination until about March. We will have to look at the anticipated

runoff in the Columbia watershed, the level of Lake Roosevelt,

the irrigation demands, and then we will decide whether the pumping

costs will equal the benefits. We would make that decision in about

March.

If the benefits exceed the costs, we will pump for recreation, if

this bill is enacted. If the benefits do not exceed the costs, then we

will not.

Senator ANDERSON. How do you measure the benefit?

Mr. STAMM. Roy?

Senator ANDERSON. You can tell me how to measure the costs.

Mr. BOYD. We asked the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to determine these benefits. They make studies on the expected increase

in attendance. Something, I think, that gave them a key on how

to make such studies is that they went into the records which showed

that the attendance at Banks Lake built up to a total visitor-day

attendance in 1960 of 152,000. And then it started dropping, because that is when we started using the lake more, as more land came

into irrigation development. By 1964, use had dropped about 20,000

visitor-days in total, to 131,000. They felt that if we could build

that back to what it was before these fluctuations developed, we

would have an increase in visitor days.

They gave values to the various types of recreation. The only

one that we were able to pin down in their correspondence is $1.50 a

day for each fisherman. But hunters would have another value,

and picknickers another value. We accepted their total estimpte of

$60,000 average. We have to rely upon the Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation for such estimates. They cooperated with the Fish and

Wildlife Service in making the estimates.

Senator ANDERSON. They get the $60,000 by saying that a man

spends money for shotgun shells, food, shelter, and so forth?

Mr. BOYD. That all played a part in it.

Senator ANDERSON. That is not all profit, though, is it?
BANKS LAKE RECREATION 19

Mr. STAMM. They make these studies for us, Mr. Chairman, on

all projects. And in analyzing all of the details, they come up with a

formula which they round off to $1 a day or $1.50 a day for each

visitor day. They make the estimates of the use and the value for

each visitor day, and we accept their figures, not only here but in all

of our other recreational analyses and benefits.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you ever go back and check what they

estimated 10 years ago on a certain project and see how it worked out?

Mr. STAMM. Yes, sir. And, generally speaking, their forecasts of

use, I think without exception, have been underestimated. In a

few cases we have had as many visitors on the opening day of a reservoir as they estimated for the first year. They have underestimated

the use in every case.

Senator ANDERSON. Are there additional questions?

Senator JORDAN. I am concerned not too much about this small

project: • Mr Chairman, but I am concerned about the yielding, constant yielding, to the emphasis on recreation. I believe in recreation,

too. But we have a great project here, the Grand Coulee Dam. None

of us would turn the calendar back, and certainly I wouldn't. But

in another time and place we will talk about a wild rivers bill. It

is proposed to set aside two rivers in my State with the same potential

as Grand Coulee Dam. This is just another small instance of where

we are encroaching on a reservoir that was designed primarily for

irrigation purposes.

At what point will the recreation interests override the purpose

for which the reservoir is constructed?

Senator ANDERSON. My main difficulty is the $21,000 figure used.

They can't pick out an overall figure for the top bracket.

If you put $50,000 in it in any one year, that would be a pretty

heavy charge for recreation only.

Mr. STAMM. I think if you wanted a single figure for any one year,

we would have to recommend the $60,000 figure for a given year.

I think, also, the average cost of $21,000 would be more meaningful,

however, if a limitation were put in here.

Senator ANDERSON. I know the $21,000 figure is more meaningful.

But if you had an average of $21,000 in any one year, and no more

than $60,000, you would have it pretty well tied down.

Mr. STAMM. You certainly would. That would be within the

studies we have made and the operations that we propose.

Senator ANDERSON. You had me worried with the $5 million figure.

Mr. STAMM. The reason I mentioned that is that it got into some

early correspondence and somebody wrote to the chairman, Senator

Jackson; and Senator Jackson had in turn written us and asked us

in particular to make reference to the $5 million figure and mention

how it was reached.

This was reached by withdrawing a block of firm power, which now

carries an annual rate of about $17.50 per kilowatt-year, and the

power requirement of this pumping plant is around 290,000 kilowatts. You multiply those things together, and you come up with

a little over $5 million.

I mention that solely because we had been asked to bring it up.

Senator ANDERSON. There was before us one time a proposal to

pump water back up into a reservoir and release it at certain times,

and pump at certain times, peak periods, and so forth. If you cal-
20 BANKS LAKE RECREATION

culated that at the highest possible rate, it was not a very attractive

project. It had to be done on the basis of very low rates.

Mr. STAMM. We are actually doing that in a couple of areas in the

reclamation program. You pump up at the low rate and you drop it

back down at the high rate; that is right.

Senator ANDERSON. Are there additional questions?

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the hearing was concluded.)