Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 45740-45745 [05-15575]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45740
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George H. Grotheer, Office of Single
Family Program Support Division,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)
708–0317, x 2294 (this is not a toll free
number) for copies of the proposed
forms and other available information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department is submitting the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: Housing Counseling
Program—Client Activity Reporting
System (CARS).
OMB Control Number, if Applicable:
2502–0261.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use: HUD is
seeking approval for the Client Activity
Reporting System (CARS), an automated
tool to interface with agencies’ client
management systems (CMS) to
electronically transfer required agency,
activity and client information into
HUD’s Housing Counseling System
(HCS). A CMS is an existing online tool
that housing counselors are currently
using that automates much of the
housing counseling process, including
client intake, file maintenance, financial
and credit analysis, outreach and client
notification, and reporting. CARS is the
interface system, or bridge, that links
these various CMS systems to HUD’s
housing counseling database facilitating
the sharing of data.
A large percentage of HUD-approved
housing counseling agencies already use
one of the several CMS’s that are
available through the private sector. A
proposed rule for HUD’s Housing
Counseling Program (FR–4798) would
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
require all HUD-approved counseling
agencies to utilize a CMS, but gives
them the flexibility to choose from
competing products in the market. HUD
will issue specifications, including data
and other requirements; a CMS vendor
must meet to successfully interface with
CARS.
In conjunction with CARS, included
in this proposal are proposed
modifications to the existing form HUD–
9902, the traditional performance data
collection instrument for the Program,
which will be automatically populated
by the CMS utilized by the counseling
agency and electronically submitted to
HUD via CARS. These changes are
designed to clarify instructions, capture
additional outcomes, and generally
enhance the quality of the data
collected.
Agency Form Numbers, if Applicable:
HUD–9900, HUD–9904, HUD–27300,
HUD–2880, HUD–2990, HUD–2991,
HUD–2994, HUD–96010, HUD–9902,
HUD–9908, HUD–9910.
Estimation of the Total Number of
Hours Needed To Prepare the
Information Collection Including
Number of Respondents, Frequency of
Response, and Hours of Response: The
estimated total number of hours needed
to prepare the information collection is
10,090; the number of respondents is
2,856 generating approximately 10,324
annual responses; the frequency of
response is on occasion or quarterly;
and the estimated time needed to
prepare the response varies from 5
minutes to 18 hours.
Status of the Proposed Information
Collection: This is a revision of
currently approved collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Frank L. Davis,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Housing-Deputy Federal Housing
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 05–15550 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–27–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation
Projects
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) owns, or has an interest in,
irrigation facilities located on various
Indian reservations throughout the
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
United States. We are required to
establish rates to recover the costs to
administer, operate, maintain, and
rehabilitate those facilities. We are
notifying you that we have adjusted the
irrigation assessment rates at several of
our irrigation facilities for operation and
maintenance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables
were effective on January 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
details about a particular BIA irrigation
project, please use the tables in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to
contact the regional or local office
where the project is located.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice
of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2005 (70 FR 20), to adjust
the irrigation rates at several BIA
irrigation facilities. The public and
interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written
comments during the 60-day period
prior to April 1, 2005.
Did the BIA receive any comments on
the proposed irrigation assessment rate
adjustments?
Written comments were received for
the proposed rate adjustments for the
Fort Peck Irrigation Project, Montana,
the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian
Works, Arizona and the San Carlos
Irrigation Project—Joint Works, Arizona.
What issues were of concern by the
commenters?
The commenters were concerned with
one or more of the following five issues:
(1) How funds collected from
stakeholders are expended on operation
and maintenance; (2) the impact of an
assessment rate increase on the local
agricultural economy; (3) what is
deferred maintenance and why was the
rate increased to handle the deferred
maintenance; and (4) why do the
irrigation projects need to have a reserve
fund.
For the San Carlos Irrigation Project—
Joint Works (SCIP–JW), commenters
were concerned with the following
issues: (1) What are the record keeping
practices and sharing them with water
users; (2) why doesn’t the SCIP–JW
budget reflect income from other
sources, such as, excess pumping; (3)
why doesn’t SCIP–JW charge tribal
concessions that operate at BIA project
reservoirs; (4) why doesn’t the SCIP–JW
power project pay revenues to the
irrigation project; and (5) why does
SCIP–JW have to pay for environmental
and archaeological surveys with O&M
monies.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
How does BIA respond to the concern
of how funds are expended for
operation and maintenance?
The BIA’s records for expenditures on
all of its irrigation facilities are public
records and available for review by
stakeholders or interested parties.
Stakeholders (project water users/land
owners/tribes) can review these records
during normal business hours at the
individual agency offices. Alternatively,
BIA may treat requests to review project
records as requests under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and provide
copies of such records to the requesting
party in accordance with FOIA. To
review or to obtain copies of these
records, stakeholders and interested
parties are directed to contact the BIA
representative at the specific facility
serving them using the tables in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about irrigation assessment rate
increases and related impacts on the
local agricultural economy?
All of the BIA’s irrigation projects are
important economic contributors to the
local communities they serve,
contributing millions in crop value
annually. Historically, BIA tempered
irrigation rate increases to demonstrate
sensitivity to the economic impact on
water users. This has resulted in a rate
deficiency at most of the irrigation
projects.
Over the past several years the BIA’s
irrigation program has been the subject
of several Office of Inspector General
(OIG) audits. In the most recent audit,
No. 96–I–641, March 1996, the OIG
concluded, ‘‘Operation and
maintenance revenues were insufficient
to maintain the projects, and some
projects had deteriorated to the extent
that their continued capability to deliver
water was in doubt. This occurred
because operation and maintenance
rates were not based on the full cost of
delivering water, including the costs of
systematically rehabilitating and
replacing project facilities and
equipment, and because project
personnel did not seek regular rate
increases to cover the full cost of
operation.’’ This audit recommendation
is still outstanding.
A previous OIG audit, No. 88–42,
February 1988, reached the same
conclusion. A separate audit performed
on one of BIA’s largest irrigation
projects, Wapato Indian Irrigation
Project, No. 95–I–1402, September 1995,
reinforced the general findings of the
OIG on the BIA’s irrigation program.
This pointed out a lack of response by
the BIA to the original findings of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
OIG in addressing this critical issue over
an extended period of time. The BIA
must systematically review and evaluate
irrigation assessment rates and adjust
them when necessary to reflect the full
costs to properly operate, and perform
all appropriate maintenance on, the
irrigation facility infrastructure for safe
and reliable operation. If this review
and evaluation is not accomplished, a
rate deficiency can eventually
accumulate. Overcoming rate
deficiencies can result in the BIA having
to raise irrigation assessment rates in
larger increments and over shorter time
frames than would have been otherwise
necessary.
How does BIA respond to what is
deferred maintenance and why was the
rate increased to handle the deferred
maintenance?
Deferred maintenance is maintenance
that was not performed and is delayed
for a future period due to insufficient
funds or other reasons. Historically, BIA
tempered irrigation rate increases to
demonstrate sensitivity to the economic
impact on water users. This has resulted
in a rate deficiency at most of the
irrigation projects and a cumulative
increase in deferred maintenance. The
BIA must systematically review and
evaluate irrigation assessment rates and
adjust them when necessary to reflect
the full costs to properly operate, and
perform all appropriate maintenance on,
the irrigation facility infrastructure for
safe and reliable operation. If this
review and evaluation is not
accomplished, a rate deficiency can
eventually accumulate. Overcoming rate
deficiencies can result in the BIA having
to raise irrigation assessment rates in
larger increments and over shorter time
frames than would have been otherwise
necessary.
How does BIA respond to why do the
irrigation projects need to have a
reserve fund?
Like any ‘‘fee-for-service’’ activity, the
BIA irrigation projects must maintain
revenue in a reserve fund to adequately
react to an emergency, should one arise.
As such, the Irrigation Indian Affairs
Manual requires BIA irrigation projects
to ‘‘prepare contingency plans for events
or emergencies which might interrupt
the delivery of irrigation water.’’ The
irrigation projects should maintain cash
reserves sufficient to support
anticipated events and/or emergencies
that may arise. Planning for major
repairs/rehabilitation of major structures
and planning for replacement of major
equipment (graders, backhoes, etc.) is
also required.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45741
The following comments may pertain
to other irrigation projects, but are
specific to San Carlos Irrigation
Project—Joint Works (SCIP–JW).
How does BIA respond to what are the
record keeping practices and sharing
this information with water users?
SCIP–JW has provided an itemized
accounting of income and expenditures
(by obligations) to the San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District (District)
on a monthly basis, including a verbal
report to the District at its monthly
Board meeting. SCIP–JW keeps copies of
monthly transactions, which includes
records of collections, expenses,
obligations, deobligations and cash
balances. In addition, SCIP–JW keeps
detailed payroll records. These records
are and have been available at any time
for the District to review, pursuant to
the ‘‘Books of Accounts’’ section of the
1931 Repayment Contract, or through
the Freedom of Information Act. More
recently, SCIP responded to a request by
the District to review project records as
a request for information under FOIA
and provided the District with six
binders of copies of records and
documents relating to SCIP
expenditures. In addition, SCIP
provides a variety of other documents
and records to the District during the
course of any given year, such as
monthly pump reports, monthly water
reports, daily water reports, and several
iterations of the proposed SCIP–JW
budget on an annual basis, and regular
updates of the operating budget during
the year.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about why the SCIP–JW budget does not
reflect income from other sources, such
as, excess pumping?
Projected miscellaneous income has
fluctuated due to unanticipated
reduction in overnight interest rates,
sales of land, and inability to predict
income from over pumping by water
users. Since the budgets for SCIP–JW are
prepared 2 years in advance, it is
impossible to predict the amount of
excess pumping (or if there will be any).
The practice of allowing excess
pumping by the water users generates
income to SCIP–JW, which only covers
the costs of excess pumping.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about why SCIP–JW does not charge
tribal concessions that operate at BIA
project reservoirs?
Currently, no formal concession
agreement is in place at San Carlos
Reservoir. The previous concession
agreement between the BIA and the San
Carlos Apache Tribe expired
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45742
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
approximately 5 years ago. In 1992, the
San Carlos Apache Tribe was authorized
to participate in decisions concerning
recreation and fish and wildlife
concessions at San Carlos Reservoir. See
Public Law 102–575, Title XXXVII,
section 3710(e), October 30, 1992, 106
Stat. 4600, 4750 (‘‘1992 Act’’), amending
25 U.S.C. 390. In addition, while the
Repayment Contract generally provides
that ‘‘any sums collected by or for the
benefit of the Project’’ are to be used to
pay operation and maintenance costs, it
makes no reference to concession
revenues and there is no provision,
express or implied, that requires the
Secretary or the BIA to develop such
other sources of funding.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about why the SCIP–JW power project
does not pay revenues to the irrigation
project?
Because the generators are inoperable,
there are no additional revenues in the
Power Division to subsidize power costs
for the Irrigation Division. Additionally,
there are no other Government (or
appropriated) funds to cover power for
pumping. San Carlos Irrigation and
Drainage District (District) made the
claim in San Carlos Irrigation and
Drainage District v. United States, 32
Fed. Cl. 200 (1994), that SCIP–JW could
not charge the District for power for
pumping, which ‘‘replaced’’ power,
formerly generated at Coolidge Dam.
The United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding
of the U.S. Claims Court and concluded:
‘‘We agree with the government’s
contention that providing power for
pumps is properly considered part of
the ‘‘operation’’ of the pumps. There is
no statement that free power to run the
pumps is assured in the Contract or the
Act.’’ San Carlos Irrigation and
Drainage District v. United States, 111
F.3d 1557, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The BIA provides power for SCIP–JW
pumps at the lowest possible cost using
Federal preferred-rate Parker-Davis
hydro-power, the least expensive source
of power available, consistent with the
court’s ruling. The cost of providing
power also includes transmission,
distribution, and operation and
maintenance costs attributable to power
for the pumps. To the extent that the
SCIP–JW is able to purchase federal
preference power in excess of what is
needed for SCIP–JW pumps, that power
is made available to serve the Power
Division’s customers. Any benefit to
those customers from preference power
has no effect on the cost of power for
Project pumps.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about why SCIP–JW must pay for
environmental and archaeological
surveys with O&M monies?
The environmental and archaeological
studies being conducted are valid O&M
costs.
Project name
Did the BIA receive comments on any
proposed changes other than rate
adjustments?
No.
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or
lease land within the assessable acreage
of one of our irrigation projects, or you
have a carriage agreement with one of
our irrigation projects.
Where can I get information on the
regulatory and legal citations in this
notice?
You can contact the appropriate
office(s) stated in the tables for the
irrigation project that serves you, or you
can use the Internet site for the
Government Printing Office at https://
www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes you to issue this
notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is
vested in the Secretary of the Interior by
5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14,
1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The
Secretary has in turn delegated this
authority to the Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter
8.1A, of the Department of the Interior’s
Departmental Manual.
Who can I contact for further
information?
The following tables are the regional
and project/agency contacts for our
irrigation facilities.
Project/Agency contacts
Northwest Region Contacts
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97232–4169,
Telephone: (503) 231–6702
Flathead Irrigation Project ........................................................................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project ........................................................................
Wapato Irrigation Project ..........................................................................
Ernest T. Moran, Superintendent, Flathead Agency Irrigation Division,
PO Box 40, Pablo, Montana 59855–0040, Telephone: (406) 675–
2700
Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Fort Hall Agency, PO Box 220, Fort
Hall, Idaho 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–2301
Pierce Harrison, Project, Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, PO
Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951–0220, Telephone: (509) 877–3155
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
Keith Beartusk, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office,
316 North 26th Street,
Billings, Montana 59101,
Telephone: (406) 247–7943
Blackfeet Irrigation Project .......................................................................
Crow Irrigation Project ..............................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Ross Denny, Superintendent, Ted Hall, Project Manager, Box 880,
Browning, MT 59417, Telephones: (406) 338–7544, Superintendent,
(406) 338–7519, Irrigation
Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Jim Forseth, Acting Project Engineer,
PO Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45743
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Project name
Project/Agency contacts
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ..................................................................
Judy Gray, Acting Superintendent, Grant Stafne, Acting Irrigation Manager, R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones: (406) 353–
2901, Superintendent, (406) 353–2905, Irrigation
Spike Bighorn, Superintendent, PO Box 637 Poplar, MT 59255, Huber
Wright, Acting Irrigation Manager, 602 6th Avenue North, Wolf Point,
MT 59201, Telephones: (406) 768–5312, Superintendent, (406) 653–
1752, Irrigation
George Gover, Superintendent, Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation Manager,
PO Box 158, Fort Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332–
7810, Superintendent, (307) 332–2596, Irrigation
Fort Peck Irrigation Project .......................................................................
Wind River Irrigation Project ....................................................................
Southwest Region Contacts
Larry Morrin, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office,
1001 Indian School Road,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104,
Telephone: (505) 563–3100
Pine River Irrigation Project .....................................................................
Diana Olguin, Acting Superintendent, John Formea, Irrigation Engineer,
PO Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137–0315, Telephones: (970) 563–
4511, Superintendent, (970) 563–1017, Irrigation
Western Region Contacts
Brian Bowker, Acting Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office,
PO Box 10,
Phoenix, Arizona 85001,
Telephone: (602) 379–6600
Colorado River Irrigation Project ..............................................................
Rodney McVey, Acting Superintendent, R.R. 1 Box 9–C, Parker, AZ
85344, Telephone: (928) 669–7111
Duck Valley Irrigation Project ...................................................................
Virgil Towndsen, Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone Circle, Elko, Nevada
89801, Telephone: (775) 738–0569
William Pyott, Land Operations Officer, P.O. Box 11000, Yuma, Arizona, Telephone: (520) 782–1202
Carl Christensen, Supervisory General Engineer, 13805 N. Arizona
Boulevard, Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723–6216
Joe Revak, Supervisory General Engineer, Pima Agency, Land Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ 85247, Telephone: (520) 562–3372
Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager, PO Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT
84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4341
Robert Hunter, Superintendent, 1677 Hot Springs Road, Carson City,
Nevada 89706, Telephone: (775) 887–3500
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project .....................................................................
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Works ................................................
San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian Works ..............................................
Uintah Irrigation Project ............................................................................
Walker River Irrigation Project .................................................................
What Will BIA Charge for the 2005 and
Later Irrigation Seasons?
The rate tables below show the rates
we will bill at each of our irrigation
facilities for the 2005 irrigation seasons.
An asterisk immediately following the
name of the facilities notes the irrigation
facilities where rates were adjusted.
Current
2004 rate
Project name
Rate category
Flathead Irrigation Project .................................................
Flat Hall Irrigation Project .................................................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project Minor Units .............................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project *, Michaud ...............................
Basic per acre ..................................................................
Basic per acre ..................................................................
Basic per acre ..................................................................
Basic per acre ..................................................................
Pressure per acre ............................................................
Billing Charge Per Tract ...................................................
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge)
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ................
Billing Charge Per Tract ...................................................
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge)
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ................
Billing Charge Per Tract ...................................................
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge)
‘‘A’’ farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ..........
Additional Works farm unit/land tracts over one acre—
per acre.
‘‘B’’ farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per acre ..........
Wapato Irrigation Project, Simcoe Units ...........................
Wapato Irrigation Project, Ahtanum Units ........................
Wapato Irrigation Project, Satus Unit ...............................
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Current
2005 rate
$21.45
22.00
14.00
30.00
43.50
5.00
13.00
13.00
5.00
13.00
13.00
5.00
51.00
51.00
56.00
$21.45
22.00
14.00
30.00
46.50
5.00
13.00
13.00
5.00
13.00
13.00
5.00
51.00
51.00
56.00
61.00
61.00
45744
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Project name
Current
2004 rate
Rate category
Water Rental Agreement Lands—per acre .....................
Current
2005 rate
62.00
62.00
$13.00
16.00
7.75
15.50
14.00
14.00
$13.00
16.00
7.75
15.50
17.50
14.00
$25.00
8.50
$25.00
8.50
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
Blackfeet Irrigation Project ................................................
Crow Irrigation Project ......................................................
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ..........................................
Fort Peck Irrigation Project * .............................................
Wind River Irrigation Project .............................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Indian per acre .................................................................
non-Indian per acre ..........................................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Southwest Region Rate Table
Pine River Irrigation Project ..............................................
Project name
Minimum Charge per tract ...............................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Rate category
Current
2004 rate
Current
2005 rate
Current 2006 rate
Western Region Rate Table
Colorado River Irrigation Project ........................
Duck Valley Irrigation Project .............................
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Note #1) .......
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) *
(See Note #2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) * ...
Uintah Irrigation Project * ...................................
Walker River Irrigation Project ...........................
Basic per acre up to 5.75 acrefeet.
Excess Water per acre-foot
over 5.75 acre-feet.
Basic-per acre ..........................
Basic-per acre up to 5.0 acrefeet.
Excess Water per acre-foot
over 5.0 acre-feet.
Basic-per acre ..........................
$47.00
$47.00
To Be Determined
17.00
17.00
5.30
62.00
5.30
65.00
10.50
10.50
20.00
30.00
$30.00
Basic-per acre ..........................
Basic-per acre ..........................
Minimum Bill .............................
Indian per acre .........................
non-Indian per acre ..................
56.00
11.00
10.00
7.32
15.29
77.00
11.00
25.00
7.32
15.29
To Be Determined
* Notes
irrigation facilities rates were adjusted.
Note #1—The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The irrigation rates assessed
for operation and maintenance are established by Reclamation and are provided for informational purposes only. The BIA collects the irrigation
assessments on behalf of Reclamation.
Note #2—The 2006 irrigation rate of $30 per acre is established through this notice.
Consultation and Coordination With
Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
The BIA irrigation projects are vital
components of the local agriculture
economy of the reservations on which
they are located. To fulfill its
responsibilities to the tribes, tribal
organizations, water user organizations,
and the individual water users, the BIA
communicates, coordinates, and
consults on a continuing basis with
these entities on issues of water
delivery, water availability, costs of
administration, operation, maintenance,
and rehabilitation. This is accomplished
at the individual irrigation projects by
Project, Agency, and Regional
representatives, as appropriate, in
accordance with local protocol and
procedures. This notice is one
component of the BIA’s overall
coordination and consultation process
to provide notice and request comments
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
from these entities on adjusting our
irrigation rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order
13211)
The rate adjustments will have no
adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a
shortfall in supply, price increases, and
increased use of foreign supplies)
should the proposed rate adjustments be
implemented. This is a notice for rate
adjustments at BIA owned and operated
irrigation projects, except for the Fort
Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma
Irrigation Project is owned and operated
by the Bureau of Reclamation with a
portion serving the Fort Yuma
Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a
significant regulatory action and do not
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
need to be reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rate making is not a rule for the
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because it is ‘‘a rule of particular
applicability relating to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
These rate adjustments impose no
unfunded mandates on any
governmental or private entity and are
in compliance with the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not have
significant ‘‘takings’’ implications. The
rate adjustments do not deprive the
public, state, or local governments of
rights or property.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45745
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not have
significant Federalism effects because
they pertain solely to Federal-tribal
relations and will not interfere with the
roles, rights, and responsibilities of
states.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect
the collections of information which
have been approved by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The OMB Control Number is
1076–0141 and expires April 30, 2006.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not constitute
a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed
statement is required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)).
Dated: July 29, 2005.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05–15575 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
Programs, and a draft policy of the
Office of Facilities Management and
Construction establishing standards for
‘‘high risk’’ grantees seeking
construction grants in excess of
$100,000.
Comments must be received on
or before September 30, 2005. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
scheduled dates and locations of the
meetings. All meetings will begin at 9
a.m. and continue until 3 p.m. (local
time) or until all meeting participants
have an opportunity to make comments.
DATES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tribal Consultation on Indian
Education Topics
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of tribal consultation
meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Office of Indian Education Programs
(OIEP), will be conducting consultation
meetings to obtain oral and written
comments on potential issues in Indian
Education Programs. The potential
issues will be set forth and described in
a tribal consultation booklet to be issued
prior to the meetings by the Office of
Indian Education Programs. The
proposed topics are: a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the
Department of the Interior and the
Department of Education regarding
education programs for BIA-funded
schools, the proposed restructuring of
the Office of Indian Education
Send or hand-deliver
written comments to Edward Parisian,
Acting Director, Office of Indian
Education Programs, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Mail Stop Room 3609–MIB,
1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Submissions by facsimile should be sent
to (202) 273–0030.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
James Martin, (202) 208–5810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meetings are a follow-up to similar
meetings conducted by BIA–OIEP since
1990. As required by 25 U.S.C. 2011(b),
the purpose of the consultation is to
provide Indian tribes, school boards,
parents, Indian organizations and other
interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on potential issues facing the
BIA on Indian education programs.
ADDRESSES:
Meeting Schedule
Date
Location
Local contact
August 29, 2005 ............................
Phoenix, AZ ..................................
Lester Hudson ..............................
August
August
August
August
August
August
Minneapolis, MN ...........................
Gallup, NM ....................................
Portland, OR .................................
Albuquerque, NM ..........................
Aberdeen, SD ...............................
Nashville, TN ................................
Terry Portra ..................................
Beatrice Woodward ......................
John Reimer .................................
Dr. Jenny Jimenez ........................
Emma Jean Blue Earth ................
Joy Martin .....................................
29,
29,
29,
30,
30,
30,
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
A consultation booklet for the
meetings is being distributed to
federally-recognized Indian tribes,
Bureau Regional and Agency Offices,
and Bureau-funded schools. The
booklets will also be available from
local contact persons at each meeting.
Public Comment Availability
Comments, including names, street
addresses, and other contact
information of respondents, will be
available for public review at the
address listed under the ADDRESSES
section during regular business hours
(7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. EST), Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Individual respondents may request
confidentiality. If you wish us to
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
withhold your name, street address, and
other contact information (such as fax or
phone number) from public review or
from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. We will honor your request to
the extent allowable by law. We will
make available for public inspection in
their entirety all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses.
Authority: This notice is published in
accordance with the authority delegated by
the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
by 209 DM 8.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Phone numbers
(520) 361–3510
ext. 112
(612) 725–4591
(505) 786–6151
(503) 872–2743
(505) 753–1466
(701) 854–3497
(405) 605–6051
Dated: July 29, 2005.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05–15547 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 332–469]
Conditions of Competition for Certain
Oranges and Lemons in the U.S. Fresh
Market
United States International
Trade Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45740-45745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15575]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns, or has an interest
in, irrigation facilities located on various Indian reservations
throughout the United States. We are required to establish rates to
recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate
those facilities. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the
irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation facilities for
operation and maintenance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the tables
were effective on January 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project, please use the tables in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section to contact the regional or local office where the
project is located.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2005 (70 FR 20), to
adjust the irrigation rates at several BIA irrigation facilities. The
public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to submit
written comments during the 60-day period prior to April 1, 2005.
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
Written comments were received for the proposed rate adjustments
for the Fort Peck Irrigation Project, Montana, the San Carlos
Irrigation Project--Indian Works, Arizona and the San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works, Arizona.
What issues were of concern by the commenters?
The commenters were concerned with one or more of the following
five issues: (1) How funds collected from stakeholders are expended on
operation and maintenance; (2) the impact of an assessment rate
increase on the local agricultural economy; (3) what is deferred
maintenance and why was the rate increased to handle the deferred
maintenance; and (4) why do the irrigation projects need to have a
reserve fund.
For the San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works (SCIP-JW),
commenters were concerned with the following issues: (1) What are the
record keeping practices and sharing them with water users; (2) why
doesn't the SCIP-JW budget reflect income from other sources, such as,
excess pumping; (3) why doesn't SCIP-JW charge tribal concessions that
operate at BIA project reservoirs; (4) why doesn't the SCIP-JW power
project pay revenues to the irrigation project; and (5) why does SCIP-
JW have to pay for environmental and archaeological surveys with O&M
monies.
[[Page 45741]]
How does BIA respond to the concern of how funds are expended for
operation and maintenance?
The BIA's records for expenditures on all of its irrigation
facilities are public records and available for review by stakeholders
or interested parties. Stakeholders (project water users/land owners/
tribes) can review these records during normal business hours at the
individual agency offices. Alternatively, BIA may treat requests to
review project records as requests under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) and provide copies of such records to the requesting party in
accordance with FOIA. To review or to obtain copies of these records,
stakeholders and interested parties are directed to contact the BIA
representative at the specific facility serving them using the tables
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
How does BIA respond to concerns about irrigation assessment rate
increases and related impacts on the local agricultural economy?
All of the BIA's irrigation projects are important economic
contributors to the local communities they serve, contributing millions
in crop value annually. Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate
increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water
users. This has resulted in a rate deficiency at most of the irrigation
projects.
Over the past several years the BIA's irrigation program has been
the subject of several Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits. In the
most recent audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG concluded,
``Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to maintain the
projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent that their
continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This occurred
because operation and maintenance rates were not based on the full cost
of delivering water, including the costs of systematically
rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and equipment, and
because project personnel did not seek regular rate increases to cover
the full cost of operation.'' This audit recommendation is still
outstanding.
A previous OIG audit, No. 88-42, February 1988, reached the same
conclusion. A separate audit performed on one of BIA's largest
irrigation projects, Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402,
September 1995, reinforced the general findings of the OIG on the BIA's
irrigation program. This pointed out a lack of response by the BIA to
the original findings of the OIG in addressing this critical issue over
an extended period of time. The BIA must systematically review and
evaluate irrigation assessment rates and adjust them when necessary to
reflect the full costs to properly operate, and perform all appropriate
maintenance on, the irrigation facility infrastructure for safe and
reliable operation. If this review and evaluation is not accomplished,
a rate deficiency can eventually accumulate. Overcoming rate
deficiencies can result in the BIA having to raise irrigation
assessment rates in larger increments and over shorter time frames than
would have been otherwise necessary.
How does BIA respond to what is deferred maintenance and why was the
rate increased to handle the deferred maintenance?
Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed and is
delayed for a future period due to insufficient funds or other reasons.
Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate increases to demonstrate
sensitivity to the economic impact on water users. This has resulted in
a rate deficiency at most of the irrigation projects and a cumulative
increase in deferred maintenance. The BIA must systematically review
and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and adjust them when necessary
to reflect the full costs to properly operate, and perform all
appropriate maintenance on, the irrigation facility infrastructure for
safe and reliable operation. If this review and evaluation is not
accomplished, a rate deficiency can eventually accumulate. Overcoming
rate deficiencies can result in the BIA having to raise irrigation
assessment rates in larger increments and over shorter time frames than
would have been otherwise necessary.
How does BIA respond to why do the irrigation projects need to have a
reserve fund?
Like any ``fee-for-service'' activity, the BIA irrigation projects
must maintain revenue in a reserve fund to adequately react to an
emergency, should one arise. As such, the Irrigation Indian Affairs
Manual requires BIA irrigation projects to ``prepare contingency plans
for events or emergencies which might interrupt the delivery of
irrigation water.'' The irrigation projects should maintain cash
reserves sufficient to support anticipated events and/or emergencies
that may arise. Planning for major repairs/rehabilitation of major
structures and planning for replacement of major equipment (graders,
backhoes, etc.) is also required.
The following comments may pertain to other irrigation projects,
but are specific to San Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works (SCIP-
JW).
How does BIA respond to what are the record keeping practices and
sharing this information with water users?
SCIP-JW has provided an itemized accounting of income and
expenditures (by obligations) to the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage
District (District) on a monthly basis, including a verbal report to
the District at its monthly Board meeting. SCIP-JW keeps copies of
monthly transactions, which includes records of collections, expenses,
obligations, deobligations and cash balances. In addition, SCIP-JW
keeps detailed payroll records. These records are and have been
available at any time for the District to review, pursuant to the
``Books of Accounts'' section of the 1931 Repayment Contract, or
through the Freedom of Information Act. More recently, SCIP responded
to a request by the District to review project records as a request for
information under FOIA and provided the District with six binders of
copies of records and documents relating to SCIP expenditures. In
addition, SCIP provides a variety of other documents and records to the
District during the course of any given year, such as monthly pump
reports, monthly water reports, daily water reports, and several
iterations of the proposed SCIP-JW budget on an annual basis, and
regular updates of the operating budget during the year.
How does BIA respond to concerns about why the SCIP-JW budget does not
reflect income from other sources, such as, excess pumping?
Projected miscellaneous income has fluctuated due to unanticipated
reduction in overnight interest rates, sales of land, and inability to
predict income from over pumping by water users. Since the budgets for
SCIP-JW are prepared 2 years in advance, it is impossible to predict
the amount of excess pumping (or if there will be any). The practice of
allowing excess pumping by the water users generates income to SCIP-JW,
which only covers the costs of excess pumping.
How does BIA respond to concerns about why SCIP-JW does not charge
tribal concessions that operate at BIA project reservoirs?
Currently, no formal concession agreement is in place at San Carlos
Reservoir. The previous concession agreement between the BIA and the
San Carlos Apache Tribe expired
[[Page 45742]]
approximately 5 years ago. In 1992, the San Carlos Apache Tribe was
authorized to participate in decisions concerning recreation and fish
and wildlife concessions at San Carlos Reservoir. See Public Law 102-
575, Title XXXVII, section 3710(e), October 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4600,
4750 (``1992 Act''), amending 25 U.S.C. 390. In addition, while the
Repayment Contract generally provides that ``any sums collected by or
for the benefit of the Project'' are to be used to pay operation and
maintenance costs, it makes no reference to concession revenues and
there is no provision, express or implied, that requires the Secretary
or the BIA to develop such other sources of funding.
How does BIA respond to concerns about why the SCIP-JW power project
does not pay revenues to the irrigation project?
Because the generators are inoperable, there are no additional
revenues in the Power Division to subsidize power costs for the
Irrigation Division. Additionally, there are no other Government (or
appropriated) funds to cover power for pumping. San Carlos Irrigation
and Drainage District (District) made the claim in San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 200
(1994), that SCIP-JW could not charge the District for power for
pumping, which ``replaced'' power, formerly generated at Coolidge Dam.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the
holding of the U.S. Claims Court and concluded: ``We agree with the
government's contention that providing power for pumps is properly
considered part of the ``operation'' of the pumps. There is no
statement that free power to run the pumps is assured in the Contract
or the Act.'' San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District v. United
States, 111 F.3d 1557, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The BIA provides power for SCIP-JW pumps at the lowest possible
cost using Federal preferred-rate Parker-Davis hydro-power, the least
expensive source of power available, consistent with the court's
ruling. The cost of providing power also includes transmission,
distribution, and operation and maintenance costs attributable to power
for the pumps. To the extent that the SCIP-JW is able to purchase
federal preference power in excess of what is needed for SCIP-JW pumps,
that power is made available to serve the Power Division's customers.
Any benefit to those customers from preference power has no effect on
the cost of power for Project pumps.
How does BIA respond to concerns about why SCIP-JW must pay for
environmental and archaeological surveys with O&M monies?
The environmental and archaeological studies being conducted are
valid O&M costs.
Did the BIA receive comments on any proposed changes other than rate
adjustments?
No.
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the
assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects, or you have a
carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in
this notice?
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for
the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet
site for the Government Printing Office at https://www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes you to issue this notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of
the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat.
583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority
to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter
8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
Who can I contact for further information?
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts
for our irrigation facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Project/Agency contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Contacts
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97232-4169,
Telephone: (503) 231-6702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project............ Ernest T. Moran,
Superintendent, Flathead
Agency Irrigation Division, PO
Box 40, Pablo, Montana 59855-
0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700
Fort Hall Irrigation Project........... Eric J. LaPointe,
Superintendent, Fort Hall
Agency, PO Box 220, Fort Hall,
Idaho 83203-0220, Telephone:
(208) 238-2301
Wapato Irrigation Project.............. Pierce Harrison, Project,
Administrator, Wapato
Irrigation Project, PO Box
220, Wapato, WA 98951-0220,
Telephone: (509) 877-3155
----------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
Keith Beartusk, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office,
316 North 26th Street,
Billings, Montana 59101,
Telephone: (406) 247-7943
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project........... Ross Denny, Superintendent, Ted
Hall, Project Manager, Box
880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent, (406) 338-
7519, Irrigation
Crow Irrigation Project................ Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent,
Jim Forseth, Acting Project
Engineer, PO Box 69, Crow
Agency, MT 59022, Telephones:
(406) 638-2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638-
2863, Irrigation
[[Page 45743]]
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project........ Judy Gray, Acting
Superintendent, Grant Stafne,
Acting Irrigation Manager,
R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT
59526, Telephones: (406) 353-
2901, Superintendent, (406)
353-2905, Irrigation
Fort Peck Irrigation Project........... Spike Bighorn, Superintendent,
PO Box 637 Poplar, MT 59255,
Huber Wright, Acting
Irrigation Manager, 602 6th
Avenue North, Wolf Point, MT
59201, Telephones: (406) 768-
5312, Superintendent, (406)
653-1752, Irrigation
Wind River Irrigation Project.......... George Gover, Superintendent,
Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation
Manager, PO Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514,
Telephones: (307) 332-7810,
Superintendent, (307) 332-
2596, Irrigation
----------------------------------------
Southwest Region Contacts
Larry Morrin, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office,
1001 Indian School Road,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104,
Telephone: (505) 563-3100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project.......... Diana Olguin, Acting
Superintendent, John Formea,
Irrigation Engineer, PO Box
315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-
1017, Irrigation
----------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
Brian Bowker, Acting Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office,
PO Box 10,
Phoenix, Arizona 85001,
Telephone: (602) 379-6600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project...... Rodney McVey, Acting
Superintendent, R.R. 1 Box 9-
C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669-7111
----------------------------------------
Duck Valley Irrigation Project......... Virgil Towndsen,
Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone
Circle, Elko, Nevada 89801,
Telephone: (775) 738-0569
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project........... William Pyott, Land Operations
Officer, P.O. Box 11000, Yuma,
Arizona, Telephone: (520) 782-
1202
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Carl Christensen, Supervisory
Works. General Engineer, 13805 N.
Arizona Boulevard, Coolidge,
AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723-
6216
San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Works. Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-
3372
Uintah Irrigation Project.............. Lynn Hansen, Irrigation
Manager, PO Box 130, Fort
Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone:
(435) 722-4341
Walker River Irrigation Project........ Robert Hunter, Superintendent,
1677 Hot Springs Road, Carson
City, Nevada 89706, Telephone:
(775) 887-3500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Will BIA Charge for the 2005 and Later Irrigation Seasons?
The rate tables below show the rates we will bill at each of our
irrigation facilities for the 2005 irrigation seasons. An asterisk
immediately following the name of the facilities notes the irrigation
facilities where rates were adjusted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Current
Project name Rate category 2004 rate 2005 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project................... Basic per acre........................ $21.45 $21.45
Flat Hall Irrigation Project.................. Basic per acre........................ 22.00 22.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project Minor Units...... Basic per acre........................ 14.00 14.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project *, Michaud....... Basic per acre........................ 30.00 30.00
Pressure per acre..................... 43.50 46.50
Wapato Irrigation Project, Simcoe Units....... Billing Charge Per Tract.............. 5.00 5.00
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre 13.00 13.00
(minimum charge).
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre-- 13.00 13.00
per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project, Ahtanum Units...... Billing Charge Per Tract.............. 5.00 5.00
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre 13.00 13.00
(minimum charge).
Farm unit/land tracts over one acre-- 13.00 13.00
per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project, Satus Unit......... Billing Charge Per Tract.............. 5.00 5.00
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre 51.00 51.00
(minimum charge).
``A'' farm unit/land tracts over one 51.00 51.00
acre--per acre.
Additional Works farm unit/land tracts 56.00 56.00
over one acre--per acre.
``B'' farm unit/land tracts over one 61.00 61.00
acre--per acre.
[[Page 45744]]
Water Rental Agreement Lands--per acre 62.00 62.00
-----------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project.................. Basic-per acre........................ $13.00 $13.00
Crow Irrigation Project....................... Basic-per acre........................ 16.00 16.00
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project............... Indian per acre....................... 7.75 7.75
non-Indian per acre................... 15.50 15.50
Fort Peck Irrigation Project *................ Basic-per acre........................ 14.00 17.50
Wind River Irrigation Project................. Basic-per acre........................ 14.00 14.00
-----------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project................. Minimum Charge per tract.............. $25.00 $25.00
Basic-per acre........................ 8.50 8.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Current
Project name Rate category 2004 rate 2005 rate Current 2006 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project... Basic per acre up to $47.00 $47.00 To Be Determined
5.75 acre-feet.
Excess Water per acre- 17.00 17.00 .......................
foot over 5.75 acre-
feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project...... Basic-per acre......... 5.30 5.30 .......................
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Basic-per acre up to 62.00 65.00 .......................
Note 1). 5.0 acre-feet.
Excess Water per acre- 10.50 10.50 .......................
foot over 5.0 acre-
feet.
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Basic-per acre......... 20.00 30.00 $30.00
Works) * (See Note 2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre......... 56.00 77.00 To Be Determined
(Indian Works) *.
Uintah Irrigation Project *......... Basic-per acre......... 11.00 11.00 .......................
Minimum Bill........... 10.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Project..... Indian per acre........ 7.32 7.32 .......................
non-Indian per acre.... 15.29 15.29 .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation facilities rates were adjusted.
Note 1--The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation). The irrigation rates assessed for operation and maintenance are established by Reclamation and
are provided for informational purposes only. The BIA collects the irrigation assessments on behalf of
Reclamation.
Note 2--The 2006 irrigation rate of $30 per acre is established through this notice.
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
The BIA irrigation projects are vital components of the local
agriculture economy of the reservations on which they are located. To
fulfill its responsibilities to the tribes, tribal organizations, water
user organizations, and the individual water users, the BIA
communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with
these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, costs
of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. This is
accomplished at the individual irrigation projects by Project, Agency,
and Regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local
protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of the BIA's
overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice and
request comments from these entities on adjusting our irrigation rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases,
and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate
adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at
BIA owned and operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma
Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and
operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort
Yuma Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and
do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rate making is not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because it is ``a rule of particular applicability
relating to rates.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
These rate adjustments impose no unfunded mandates on any
governmental or private entity and are in compliance with the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant ``takings'' implications. The rate adjustments do not
deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
[[Page 45745]]
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant Federalism effects because they pertain solely to
Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights,
and responsibilities of states.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information
which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires April 30,
2006.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370(d)).
Dated: July 29, 2005.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-15575 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
